Careful, a similar argument was once used (and occasionally still is) to claim that communism with its central planning was superior economically because the competition of capitalism involved wasteful duplication of effort. The claim proved a bit flawed when put to the test.
Good point, however, I'd say that FOSS promote more competition, because it removes barriers of entry for competitors. May the best project win!
For one, because he was never under oath.
Second, he never exactly lied, they merely "selectively observed" some facts, and "selectively neglected" others.
The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life... if we don't have any moral regard for the spirit of the law, then we could end up with leaders like in Myanmar or Zimbabwe. No amount of clever words can save you from amorality.
The conspiracy theories are interesting, but house-of-cardish.
Perhaps, among the short-term profiteers, there are those in the "know" in the industry, who realize that demand has already outstripped supply, and supply is going to forever decrease. Furthermore, oil is energy, and is fundamental, and may be the straw the breaks the camels back on the perpetual-growth-myth the is the core of our economic system.
Regardless, the situation is highly unpredictable, and the stakes are huge. The market has predicted the price of oil as correctly has possible.
The belief that human greed in the world can be defeated by replacing corporations with other structures is fallacious.
Mmm... I doubt anybody thinks that removing corporations will solve the problem of greed. Rather, corporations are a *structure* that creates a moral free zone - which makes successful people with a wide range of moral compasses.
That greed is not purely correlated with corporate success is an interesting point. (I mean that there are plenty of business men with excellent moral compasses.) I think people get into business more because of a psychology of comparing themselves to others than of pure greed. Businessmen want to "succeed" against their peers.
I think the main point about corporations is permitting some legal way that we can hold corporate behaviour to the some sort of ethical standards that don't make about half the population puke.
An oath does nothing if the person giving the oath has no morals to begin with.
Morality can be cultivated, and when this happens, it's a source of true happiness for that person. That's why religion is so pervasive and powerful in our society. Those who don't understand that are called "lost souls" in Islam (AFAIK).
I'm sure that there's something true there that could be studied by science.
You cannot take the hippocratic oath and do an abortion or euthanasia, it's out of the question.
Sometimes killing someone is "doing no harm", and hiding behind rigid ideas *is* harmful. Sometimes and abortion *is* the right thing to do. There is always a question - which involves engaging ones morale compass, and necessitates a cultivation of insight into who you are, and what life is.
A follower of the hippocratic oath does not perform acts of euthanasia or abortion, and that's because the oath places life above any sense of wisdom or reason. For that reason alone it is wrong.
As Socrates said "I only know my own ignorance" - but the Oracle of Delphi said that he was the wisest of all. It is only an act of ignorance (and arrogance) that says that something is always in one particular way. Intelligence and wisdom must *always* be applied to *every* situation.
Basically the problem is that today's scientists feel totalitarian
Basically the problem is that even as off today, too many people subscribe to black and white thinking, and fail to engage their own intelligence. There - fixed that for you.
I'm always amazed to hear Europeans try and compare Europe to the United States. Do you have any idea of the scale of the United States? Mass transit simply isn't an option for a vast majority of this country. Most Americans (particularly those in rural areas) have to commute to work, to buy groceries, etc, etc.
Europe is in the same ballpark as the USA, both in terms of land area and population. The difference is that European town planning and industry isn't 100% based around the idea of cheap fuel, and long commutes.
The "suburbs" idea started in the USA, and is based around car culture. That well may end up being a terrible mis-allocation of resources.
Nice way to stereotype but at least half of this country doesn't have ANYTHING within a mile of where they live. Where I grew up it was a four mile drive into town.
Hint: town planning. If it's genuinely a country/farm like dwelling, then there's plenty of that around the world too - yet they seem to manage with higher fuel prices.
Face it, USA citizens use far more energy per capita then the rest of the developed world. The problem isn't because of land area or population - but cultural factors.
What I want to know is, what sort of quirks and tricks I am going to have to get used to in the Canadian job market?
Been there done that. The most frustrating thing was resumes. Australian resumes are different, and HR drones in Canada don't even bother looking at them. When you get here, get local help with your resume, so it looks and smells just like everybody else's.
I found out when I complained to a friend that I got no interviews from about 15 applications. After adjusting my resume, I got an interview for almost every application I sent out.
Both resumes contained pretty much exactly the same content. So I guess the lesson is: form before content.
What about using science to understand the origins of life and the evolution of consciousness. Then there's the problem of how best to live one's life, within the structure of society - a problem that scientists generally keep at arms length. But there's a lot to say, and even more to explore - and it really doesn't have that much to do with solutions to the problems of modern physics.
I'd say that understanding the nature of life (yet to be solved), combined with a depth of understanding of the human mind (we're scratching the surface), and history of life (also scratching the surface) are questions that potentially have enormous implications.
With reference to the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria - and a vast quantity of the knowledge and history of the ancient world - Sagan offered the explanation that none of those scientists challenged a single accepted social or political aspect of their times. I think it's time for science to step up and say something about how we live our lives and structure our societies, however, the obstacles are immense.
There's more to life than getting high on uncovering mysteries
There are more mysteries than describing the natural laws of the universe
Life will always be presented with difficulties that will present all sorts of interesting engineering challenges - inconceivable things such as the colonization of the stars, or perhaps the dyson-sphere
More importantly and immediate to our situation, is the challenge of building better societies.
I appreciate Terry Pratchett's comment, however, I think it's substantially wrong. Boredom isn't invented by humans, but we do create it through a natural function of our minds.
Do you ever get bored at all? It is possible to completely do away with boredom, but one must accept the extra-ordinarily mundane aspects of life. It's interesting that the problem of boredom comes from the need to entertain oneself. So - washing dishes can be boring because you want to do something else more entertaining. Noticing the mind shoot away from the super-mundane, and then giving into the situation at hand is how boredom can be dealt a final death blow (over time).
The wonders of the universe, and the intellectual curiosity to discover what makes things go - in and of themselves will not do away with boredom. I think the reason people don't want their mind "blown" has much more to do with a sort of intellectual laziness and an attitude that it's unimportant. Furthermore, many find ideas agitating(!), and find left-brain workouts quite uncomfortable. Being comfortable with processing ideas is a hallmark of computer programmers (nerds). This doesn't mean slashdotters are necessarily more intelligent - there is more to intelligence than ideas.
I believe that science is sabotaged by willful ignorance, business/religious agendas, and a plain old "taking it for granted", that other people can take care of it.
Boredom is a whole different dimension, and quite pervasive.
I have no interest in talking anyone out of their religious beliefs.
Just want some EVIDENCE.
Okay, I *believe* in evidence. Do you consider belief in evidence a religion?
The strong emphasis is added for those who might not be hearing something really simple:
A: I'm interested in evidence for your point of view
B: I believe in evidence, and can be persuaded thus
C: Absent of any evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe in the evidence that points to anthropogenic GW, and that you're just another hard-case victim of disinformation.
There is *evidence* for a disinformation campaign, however, skeptics can get pretty hardcore. Spare me the you-too argument, unless you hold yourself to a standard of basing belief on evidence. The way to work out the truth of the matter is to look for the evidence upon which skeptics and GW advocates base their claims. I've done a lot of this, because I'm *interested* in valid arguments.
I'd hardly call that a religious belief. That's your projection. And it's plain ironic.
Perhaps you don't want to prove your skepticism, because you suspect you can't. To preserve the feeling that you are "right", someone who disagrees with you is a... fundamentalist! Go the ad hominem! What an ironic projection. For the record - you're the one who's reached for a number of fallacies to "support" your position. The emperor has no cloths, as they say.;-)
Thanks for playing, but you fail. Your position is obviously an emotional one, and discussing this with you would be about as productive as trying to discuss evolution with Ben Stein.
I mean never as in - as of April 29th 2008, there is credible evidence for GW, and there is no credible evidence on skeptic websites. I've looked so hard to find anything credible, and have since turned to skeptics themselves to try to dig up a good argument.
If you are a genuine skeptic, then I challenge you to find a skeptic argument that is actually backed up by evidence. If you cannot do that, then you yourself have lost. If you examine the skeptic world, you'll know better what I mean.
As for myself, I'd love to learn a real argument that debunks anthropogenic GW.
The difference this time is that there's plenty of funding available for those who agree with the position that supports expansion of government power.
There are many ways for the government to increase it's power without resorting to highly unpopular economic measures that such as curbing carbon emissions.
Add to that - it may be possible that the scientific funding is available because GW is real and serious, and there's a lot to learn.
If GW wasn't true, then skeptic arguments would not be completely lame. The conspiracy argument is completely lame because it is never supported by facts - while the GW science *is*.
You will never find any basis to the assertions on impressive skeptic websites. Looking below the surface you'll find nothing. I've have reviewed a number of them, and the situation is appalling.
I challenge you to find a single skeptic website that has valid claims that are supported by some form of evidence. I'm quite happy to take the time to debunk any website you find - that is if you fail to see through the sophistry yourself.
I spent some time examining "skeptic" websites - and found some pretty convincing arguments - or so I thought. The problem is, that when you try to look for the proof that skeptics base their assertions on, you find nothing. zip. nada.
Further investigation reveals that a few well funded individuals (such as Steve Milloy) and a few "scientists" are creating a lot of noise, and publishing information that treads a fine line between outright lying and fraud.
Try it out for yourself. Get a skeptic website - an impressive one - and then try to find the evidence with which they base their conclusions on. If you need some help pulling apart a site, then feel free to contact me (reply to this post), and I'll give you a hand.
So does global cooling. They both happen, again and again.
Just because the earth warms and cools naturally doesn't mean that human beings can't frig with the same mechanisms, and make it warm unnaturally.
The global cooling scare of the 70s was based on a few concerned scientific papers, and a lot of imaginative reporting. The press knows a good story when they see one. There was no scientific agreement on the issue - just a few papers.
The evidence for anthropogenic warming is there for anybody to look up. I spent some time trying to find the basis for the claims on "skeptic" websites. I have not found a single sound skeptic website, which actually backs its claims up, and is not full of sh1t.
Furthermore, key websites on the skeptic side of things, are run by industry lobbyists and shills who were involved in the tobacco industry mis-information campaign.
They did have an army, did fight, and lost. I think Tibetan army was about 5000. The Dalai Lama asked his army to disband, but some continued fighting, esp. when the Chinese started pointing their artillery at monasteries.
Westerners just can't grapple with the reality that the Chinese government is still generally popular and it's people, though overly addicted to nationalism and cultural pride, are NOT ignorant slaves that your corporate media and your condescending feel-good activists like you to believe
Westerners just can't grapple with the reality that the Chinese government would participate in such embarrassing lies and historical revisionism. At least in the west we are cynical about what the establishment feeds us.
Why is that important?
When Ghandi was campaigning for independence, he and the Indian people were subject to many brutal and unfair things by the British government. So Ghandi's side of the story was heard, and eventually a peaceful rationale solution came about.
When the people in Tibet complain *peacefully*, they are confronted with the gun, and then the Chinese government attempts to resolve the situation by managing perception. It's no wonder that the peaceful demonstrations turned violet.
When you tell a lie, you must keep lying to preserve that lie. I think the chinese government has told so many lies that they don't know which direction is up. It's too bad to see so many people suffering because of a lack of straight-forward honesty.
Slashdot Mirror
Careful, a similar argument was once used (and occasionally still is) to claim that communism with its central planning was superior economically because the competition of capitalism involved wasteful duplication of effort. The claim proved a bit flawed when put to the test.
Good point, however, I'd say that FOSS promote more competition, because it removes barriers of entry for competitors. May the best project win!
"Earth First! We'll mine other planets later."
If we have the technical, mineral and energy resources to do it. Otherwise that copper's going to get real expensive one day.
So...
Demand just creates supply then doesn't it. It's just like selling smarties - we'll have ever more copper forever!
For one, because he was never under oath. Second, he never exactly lied, they merely "selectively observed" some facts, and "selectively neglected" others.
The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life... if we don't have any moral regard for the spirit of the law, then we could end up with leaders like in Myanmar or Zimbabwe. No amount of clever words can save you from amorality.
The conspiracy theories are interesting, but house-of-cardish.
Perhaps, among the short-term profiteers, there are those in the "know" in the industry, who realize that demand has already outstripped supply, and supply is going to forever decrease. Furthermore, oil is energy, and is fundamental, and may be the straw the breaks the camels back on the perpetual-growth-myth the is the core of our economic system.
Regardless, the situation is highly unpredictable, and the stakes are huge. The market has predicted the price of oil as correctly has possible.
The belief that human greed in the world can be defeated by replacing corporations with other structures is fallacious.
Mmm... I doubt anybody thinks that removing corporations will solve the problem of greed. Rather, corporations are a *structure* that creates a moral free zone - which makes successful people with a wide range of moral compasses.
That greed is not purely correlated with corporate success is an interesting point. (I mean that there are plenty of business men with excellent moral compasses.) I think people get into business more because of a psychology of comparing themselves to others than of pure greed. Businessmen want to "succeed" against their peers.
I think the main point about corporations is permitting some legal way that we can hold corporate behaviour to the some sort of ethical standards that don't make about half the population puke.
An oath does nothing if the person giving the oath has no morals to begin with.
Morality can be cultivated, and when this happens, it's a source of true happiness for that person. That's why religion is so pervasive and powerful in our society. Those who don't understand that are called "lost souls" in Islam (AFAIK).
I'm sure that there's something true there that could be studied by science.
You cannot take the hippocratic oath and do an abortion or euthanasia, it's out of the question.
.
Sometimes killing someone is "doing no harm", and hiding behind rigid ideas *is* harmful. Sometimes and abortion *is* the right thing to do. There is always a question - which involves engaging ones morale compass, and necessitates a cultivation of insight into who you are, and what life is.
A follower of the hippocratic oath does not perform acts of euthanasia or abortion, and that's because the oath places life above any sense of wisdom or reason. For that reason alone it is wrong.
As Socrates said "I only know my own ignorance" - but the Oracle of Delphi said that he was the wisest of all. It is only an act of ignorance (and arrogance) that says that something is always in one particular way. Intelligence and wisdom must *always* be applied to *every* situation
Basically the problem is that today's scientists feel totalitarian
Basically the problem is that even as off today, too many people subscribe to black and white thinking, and fail to engage their own intelligence. There - fixed that for you.
I'm always amazed to hear Europeans try and compare Europe to the United States. Do you have any idea of the scale of the United States? Mass transit simply isn't an option for a vast majority of this country. Most Americans (particularly those in rural areas) have to commute to work, to buy groceries, etc, etc.
Europe is in the same ballpark as the USA, both in terms of land area and population. The difference is that European town planning and industry isn't 100% based around the idea of cheap fuel, and long commutes.
The "suburbs" idea started in the USA, and is based around car culture. That well may end up being a terrible mis-allocation of resources.
Nice way to stereotype but at least half of this country doesn't have ANYTHING within a mile of where they live. Where I grew up it was a four mile drive into town.
Hint: town planning. If it's genuinely a country/farm like dwelling, then there's plenty of that around the world too - yet they seem to manage with higher fuel prices.
Face it, USA citizens use far more energy per capita then the rest of the developed world. The problem isn't because of land area or population - but cultural factors.
What I want to know is, what sort of quirks and tricks I am going to have to get used to in the Canadian job market?
Been there done that. The most frustrating thing was resumes. Australian resumes are different, and HR drones in Canada don't even bother looking at them. When you get here, get local help with your resume, so it looks and smells just like everybody else's.
I found out when I complained to a friend that I got no interviews from about 15 applications. After adjusting my resume, I got an interview for almost every application I sent out.
Both resumes contained pretty much exactly the same content. So I guess the lesson is: form before content.
Marketing in general has standards
To quote a senior marketing researcher from the biggest player in the US:
Is teaching kids to be better naggers ethical? Well I don't know about that, but if we push more product then we've done our job
What about using science to understand the origins of life and the evolution of consciousness. Then there's the problem of how best to live one's life, within the structure of society - a problem that scientists generally keep at arms length. But there's a lot to say, and even more to explore - and it really doesn't have that much to do with solutions to the problems of modern physics.
I'd say that understanding the nature of life (yet to be solved), combined with a depth of understanding of the human mind (we're scratching the surface), and history of life (also scratching the surface) are questions that potentially have enormous implications.
With reference to the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria - and a vast quantity of the knowledge and history of the ancient world - Sagan offered the explanation that none of those scientists challenged a single accepted social or political aspect of their times. I think it's time for science to step up and say something about how we live our lives and structure our societies, however, the obstacles are immense.
- There's more to life than getting high on uncovering mysteries
- There are more mysteries than describing the natural laws of the universe
Life will always be presented with difficulties that will present all sorts of interesting engineering challenges - inconceivable things such as the colonization of the stars, or perhaps the dyson-sphereMore importantly and immediate to our situation, is the challenge of building better societies.
I appreciate Terry Pratchett's comment, however, I think it's substantially wrong. Boredom isn't invented by humans, but we do create it through a natural function of our minds.
Do you ever get bored at all? It is possible to completely do away with boredom, but one must accept the extra-ordinarily mundane aspects of life. It's interesting that the problem of boredom comes from the need to entertain oneself. So - washing dishes can be boring because you want to do something else more entertaining. Noticing the mind shoot away from the super-mundane, and then giving into the situation at hand is how boredom can be dealt a final death blow (over time).
The wonders of the universe, and the intellectual curiosity to discover what makes things go - in and of themselves will not do away with boredom. I think the reason people don't want their mind "blown" has much more to do with a sort of intellectual laziness and an attitude that it's unimportant. Furthermore, many find ideas agitating(!), and find left-brain workouts quite uncomfortable. Being comfortable with processing ideas is a hallmark of computer programmers (nerds). This doesn't mean slashdotters are necessarily more intelligent - there is more to intelligence than ideas.
I believe that science is sabotaged by willful ignorance, business/religious agendas, and a plain old "taking it for granted", that other people can take care of it.
Boredom is a whole different dimension, and quite pervasive.
Do you expect to convert people to your religion by being snotty?
On the contrary, I just enjoy the moral high-ground. Hehehe
I still live in hope that I'll meet a skeptic who doesn't have their head in their rectum. Unfortunately I still haven't found that "black swan".
I have no interest in talking anyone out of their religious beliefs.
Just want some EVIDENCE.
Okay, I *believe* in evidence. Do you consider belief in evidence a religion?
The strong emphasis is added for those who might not be hearing something really simple:
A: I'm interested in evidence for your point of view
B: I believe in evidence, and can be persuaded thus
C: Absent of any evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe in the evidence that points to anthropogenic GW, and that you're just another hard-case victim of disinformation.
There is *evidence* for a disinformation campaign, however, skeptics can get pretty hardcore. Spare me the you-too argument, unless you hold yourself to a standard of basing belief on evidence. The way to work out the truth of the matter is to look for the evidence upon which skeptics and GW advocates base their claims. I've done a lot of this, because I'm *interested* in valid arguments.
I'd hardly call that a religious belief. That's your projection. And it's plain ironic.
I'm not the one engaging in personal attacks - so who is bent out of shape =)
I'm not the one engaging in fallicious reasoning - so who is arguing with emotion?
- A: p => q therefore q => p, p = natural warming, q it's currently warming
- B: making personal attacks, while totally ignoring the content of the persons argument
I'm really not stuck in some kind of orthodoxy. Just looking for at least one skeptic who can advance a reasonable argument.I see no evidence as of yet that you can advance a reasonable argument.
The emperor has no cloths, as they say.
Exactly. Try to work it out in therapy, sunshine.
I'll try my luck with someone more, ah... rational about the situation.
Perhaps you don't want to prove your skepticism, because you suspect you can't. To preserve the feeling that you are "right", someone who disagrees with you is a... fundamentalist! Go the ad hominem! What an ironic projection. For the record - you're the one who's reached for a number of fallacies to "support" your position. The emperor has no cloths, as they say. ;-)
Thanks for playing, but you fail. Your position is obviously an emotional one, and discussing this with you would be about as productive as trying to discuss evolution with Ben Stein.
I mean never as in - as of April 29th 2008, there is credible evidence for GW, and there is no credible evidence on skeptic websites. I've looked so hard to find anything credible, and have since turned to skeptics themselves to try to dig up a good argument.
If you are a genuine skeptic, then I challenge you to find a skeptic argument that is actually backed up by evidence. If you cannot do that, then you yourself have lost. If you examine the skeptic world, you'll know better what I mean.
As for myself, I'd love to learn a real argument that debunks anthropogenic GW.
The difference this time is that there's plenty of funding available for those who agree with the position that supports expansion of government power.
There are many ways for the government to increase it's power without resorting to highly unpopular economic measures that such as curbing carbon emissions.
Add to that - it may be possible that the scientific funding is available because GW is real and serious, and there's a lot to learn.
If GW wasn't true, then skeptic arguments would not be completely lame. The conspiracy argument is completely lame because it is never supported by facts - while the GW science *is*.
You will never find any basis to the assertions on impressive skeptic websites. Looking below the surface you'll find nothing. I've have reviewed a number of them, and the situation is appalling.
I challenge you to find a single skeptic website that has valid claims that are supported by some form of evidence. I'm quite happy to take the time to debunk any website you find - that is if you fail to see through the sophistry yourself.
I spent some time examining "skeptic" websites - and found some pretty convincing arguments - or so I thought. The problem is, that when you try to look for the proof that skeptics base their assertions on, you find nothing. zip. nada.
Further investigation reveals that a few well funded individuals (such as Steve Milloy) and a few "scientists" are creating a lot of noise, and publishing information that treads a fine line between outright lying and fraud.
Try it out for yourself. Get a skeptic website - an impressive one - and then try to find the evidence with which they base their conclusions on. If you need some help pulling apart a site, then feel free to contact me (reply to this post), and I'll give you a hand.
So does global cooling. They both happen, again and again.
Just because the earth warms and cools naturally doesn't mean that human beings can't frig with the same mechanisms, and make it warm unnaturally.
The global cooling scare of the 70s was based on a few concerned scientific papers, and a lot of imaginative reporting. The press knows a good story when they see one. There was no scientific agreement on the issue - just a few papers.
The evidence for anthropogenic warming is there for anybody to look up. I spent some time trying to find the basis for the claims on "skeptic" websites. I have not found a single sound skeptic website, which actually backs its claims up, and is not full of sh1t.
Furthermore, key websites on the skeptic side of things, are run by industry lobbyists and shills who were involved in the tobacco industry mis-information campaign.
They did have an army, did fight, and lost. I think Tibetan army was about 5000. The Dalai Lama asked his army to disband, but some continued fighting, esp. when the Chinese started pointing their artillery at monasteries.
Westerners just can't grapple with the reality that the Chinese government is still generally popular and it's people, though overly addicted to nationalism and cultural pride, are NOT ignorant slaves that your corporate media and your condescending feel-good activists like you to believe
Westerners just can't grapple with the reality that the Chinese government would participate in such embarrassing lies and historical revisionism. At least in the west we are cynical about what the establishment feeds us.
Why is that important?
When Ghandi was campaigning for independence, he and the Indian people were subject to many brutal and unfair things by the British government. So Ghandi's side of the story was heard, and eventually a peaceful rationale solution came about.
When the people in Tibet complain *peacefully*, they are confronted with the gun, and then the Chinese government attempts to resolve the situation by managing perception. It's no wonder that the peaceful demonstrations turned violet.
When you tell a lie, you must keep lying to preserve that lie. I think the chinese government has told so many lies that they don't know which direction is up. It's too bad to see so many people suffering because of a lack of straight-forward honesty.