Reading comprehension requires an understanding of the context, not just the immediate text. Why don't you read the thread from the beginning?
At the outset, Attila attacked the study as lacking merit, claiming the conclusion was a tautology: Free marketers don't like government intervention. And if that was what the study had actually said, that would have been the end of it. However, the actual finding was that free marketers tend to reject AGW theory. So Attila's assertion about the study is only correct if there is some imperative connection between "government intervention is bad" and "the science must be wrong". dkleinsc called him out on this hidden assumption. It was a proper objection.
To cover his error, Attila (with you abetting) is denying that his post implies a connection between the science being right or wrong and whether the solutions are good or bad. But if his post is about the study's finding (about AGW rejection), then his denial cannot stand; therefore he is implicitly denying that his post had anything to do with the study's finding. Unfortunately for him, the post is still there -- go back and read it.
Incidentally, I don't find you illogical because I disagree with you. I disagree with you because I find you illogical. If you'd like to revise your reasoning to fix the logical errors, then we can talk more productively. But I'd be very surprised if you did that. It would force you to reverse some of your preconceived notions.
There's a good chance it passed through a keyhole on an earlier pass near Jupiter, and hence struck the planet this time around. I would suspect a keyhole for Earth collision would be much smaller than one for a Jupiter collision. I'm not familiar with the math involved, but I would expect comets and asteroids to strike Jupiter relatively often; Earth, not so frequently.
As both dkleinsc and I demonstrated above, he has (perhaps subconsciously) equated "I don't like the proposed solutions" with "the science must be wrong". Otherwise, how could he jump from the study's finding that free marketers don't accept AGW theory to his own statement (at the start of this thread) that the study found that free marketers don't like government intervention?
And actually he is being inconsistent here (not for the first time), because if he is not "convinced that it requires government intervention", then why is he concerned that acknowledging AGW theory requires government intervention?
Er, no, what he was saying is that *your* post didn't address the post that *you* were responding to. Which is true. So, what is there in your reply that he is obligated to respond to?
I don't have a problem with the logic if somebody concludes that 3 follows from 2, and 4 follows from 3. There are underlying premises (values) that could lead to those conclusions.
I also don't have a problem with the logic if somebody concludes that 3 doesn't follow from 2, and 4 doesn't follow from 3. There are underlying premises (values) that could lead to those conclusions. (In this case, the values don't coincide with mine, but that isn't a logical issue nor is it a scientific one.)
Contesting 1 and/or 2 on a scientific basis is certainly a rational possibility, if you have enough evidence to counter the existing science. So far I haven't seen any evidence sufficient to do that, so this is a hard road.
However, there is definitely a logical problem with saying that it follows from the rejection of 4 (because the policy changes are against the arguer's values) that 1 and or 2 must be false. Yet I see this argument made, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly, but often enough to raise serious doubts in my mind about our educational system.
Study: People who believe in free markets tend to reject AGW theory.
You: The study is worthless because it is already obvious that people who believe in free markets don't want a state-run economy.
dkleinsc: The study does not say that. The only way you get from what the study says to what you say is if you assume that accepting AGW theory requires accepting a state-run economy. (This is a valid criticism of your non sequitur, by the way.)
You: But the only solutions proposed require massive government intervention.
dkleinsc: Since the study only says that free-marketers reject AGW theory, and the truth of AGW theory is independent of proposed solutions (or whether or not any solution is implemented), you must believe in a syllogism that leads to concluding that the theory is wrong, and here is an analogous syllogism that shows the absurdity of that syllogism.
You: No, that's not my syllogism at all. My syllogism is this: (phony premise, irrelevant premise, illogical conclusion)
Me: Your syllogism is illogical. And your conclusion has nothing to do with the subtext of your original rhetorical statement, which is what dkleinsc was refuting.
You (incredulous): Obviously you never thought about a matter for which I have no evidence. Logic doesn't work here so I'm just going to repeat it as pure conjecture in the hope that that works. And I'm going to ignore the fact that it has nothing to do with my original hidden premise, that any scientific theory that presents a problem that I don't know how to solve without massive intervention must be wrong.
Me: Great. How's that cognitive dissonance working out for you?
Because skeptics are um skeptical. There are many of us who don't adopt a position of belief on this subject. Its clear the climate is changing. Its also clear there is lots we don't know about how the system works, and its not entirely clear where things are headed and its even less clear that its man made.
I am not saying it is not man made. It very well might be! I don't want to put money down that its not. I also don't want to adopt economically ruinous measures; on the possibility it is.
Skepticism isn't mere disbelief. One of the tenets of skepticism is going with the evidence once the evidence points strongly in a certain direction, instead of continually moving the goal posts. As used here, though, what people are calling "skepticism" is really just denial.
I want to let the scientists do more science. That is really not an extreme position.
No argument from me on that point. But many of those in the denial camp maintain that all of this climate science is nothing more than a bid for funding, and would love to stop the research. And I find that to be an extreme position.
Premise: Scientific consensus is that a certain problem exists, which means that we must institute a particular policy agenda.
If this is indeed a premise in your argument, it means that you accept that the consensus must drive the agenda in a certain direction. Unless you accept your own premises, you have no argument to make.
Premise: Most of those supporting the first premise have previously made other arguments that claim some other problem means that we must institute that same policy agenda.
If this is indeed a premise of your argument, I can't find any way to combine it with the first premise to reach any conclusion that isn't a non sequitur.
Conclusion: Those who are claiming that the "science is settled" are more interested in interpreting the evidence in order to promote a particular policy agenda than they are in finding out what is really happening.
Based on your original post, "Really? He had to do a study to conclude that people who believe in the free market reject attempts to replace it with a state-run economy?", I would say that that isn't your argument at all. Rather, it seems you were arguing that the study concluded in a tautology. That has nothing to do with your alternate conclusion, and nothing to do with your stated premises.
And, as I predicted, your alternate conclusion is a non sequitur as well. The premises (indiviudally, or taken together) say nothing about which of these two things the subjects of the sentence are more interested in:
* "interpreting the evidence to promote a particular policy agenda", or
* "finding out what is really happening".
Seriously, that is one of the most confused defenses of a previous post that I have ever read.
If one is "well-connected", your chances of the compensation being "fair" are much better (or even used as a windfall political payoff to private-sector cronies in some instances).
If you're not so well-connected, or a member of political opposition, your chances of "fair compensation" actually being fair are...slimmer.
Strat
Ah, a progressive suggestion if ever I've heard one!
Patents and copyrights are privileges. Ownership of tangible goods is also a privilege (you can't just claim ownership of that sack of rice in the grocery store, you know). The major difference is that one privilege emanates from the government. The other is the result of a private transaction.
So, will 2012 be remembered in history as the year we finally kissed innovation goodbye? Or at least, the year that the USA abandoned innovation to foreign countries?
The problem is when the software patent is used to protect the result -- *what* the software does -- rather than the technique or algorithm behind that result. Then others are restrained from developing better algorithms to achieve those results -- i.e., from innovating.
I agree. I arrived at a very similar theory when I lived in an apartment. Any time it looked like I might be getting close to affording a down payment on a home, my rent would go up. Just enough, it would seem, to keep me from meeting my goal within the next year. While I'm sure the increases were partly due to increasing costs, I also figured that landlords need to do this to have a captive market of renters. By being very frugal, I was finally able to escape that trap after about 4 years.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I've been using Graham's number-level rot13 for some time now.
Reading comprehension requires an understanding of the context, not just the immediate text. Why don't you read the thread from the beginning?
At the outset, Attila attacked the study as lacking merit, claiming the conclusion was a tautology: Free marketers don't like government intervention. And if that was what the study had actually said, that would have been the end of it. However, the actual finding was that free marketers tend to reject AGW theory. So Attila's assertion about the study is only correct if there is some imperative connection between "government intervention is bad" and "the science must be wrong". dkleinsc called him out on this hidden assumption. It was a proper objection.
To cover his error, Attila (with you abetting) is denying that his post implies a connection between the science being right or wrong and whether the solutions are good or bad. But if his post is about the study's finding (about AGW rejection), then his denial cannot stand; therefore he is implicitly denying that his post had anything to do with the study's finding. Unfortunately for him, the post is still there -- go back and read it.
Incidentally, I don't find you illogical because I disagree with you. I disagree with you because I find you illogical. If you'd like to revise your reasoning to fix the logical errors, then we can talk more productively. But I'd be very surprised if you did that. It would force you to reverse some of your preconceived notions.
There's a good chance it passed through a keyhole on an earlier pass near Jupiter, and hence struck the planet this time around. I would suspect a keyhole for Earth collision would be much smaller than one for a Jupiter collision. I'm not familiar with the math involved, but I would expect comets and asteroids to strike Jupiter relatively often; Earth, not so frequently.
Somehow I'm picturing HTC, Apple, and Samsung in a 3-way shootout. Hmm, I wonder which one will end up arguing with a chair 40+ years from now?
My world is already *much* bigger than yours, if the *only* presentations of AGW you have seen go that way. And I enjoy it very much, thank you!
Wow...I just love your post. Well said!
As both dkleinsc and I demonstrated above, he has (perhaps subconsciously) equated "I don't like the proposed solutions" with "the science must be wrong". Otherwise, how could he jump from the study's finding that free marketers don't accept AGW theory to his own statement (at the start of this thread) that the study found that free marketers don't like government intervention?
And actually he is being inconsistent here (not for the first time), because if he is not "convinced that it requires government intervention", then why is he concerned that acknowledging AGW theory requires government intervention?
Er, no, what he was saying is that *your* post didn't address the post that *you* were responding to. Which is true. So, what is there in your reply that he is obligated to respond to?
I don't have a problem with the logic if somebody concludes that 3 follows from 2, and 4 follows from 3. There are underlying premises (values) that could lead to those conclusions.
I also don't have a problem with the logic if somebody concludes that 3 doesn't follow from 2, and 4 doesn't follow from 3. There are underlying premises (values) that could lead to those conclusions. (In this case, the values don't coincide with mine, but that isn't a logical issue nor is it a scientific one.)
Contesting 1 and/or 2 on a scientific basis is certainly a rational possibility, if you have enough evidence to counter the existing science. So far I haven't seen any evidence sufficient to do that, so this is a hard road.
However, there is definitely a logical problem with saying that it follows from the rejection of 4 (because the policy changes are against the arguer's values) that 1 and or 2 must be false. Yet I see this argument made, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly, but often enough to raise serious doubts in my mind about our educational system.
Let's recap, shall we?
Study: People who believe in free markets tend to reject AGW theory.
You: The study is worthless because it is already obvious that people who believe in free markets don't want a state-run economy.
dkleinsc: The study does not say that. The only way you get from what the study says to what you say is if you assume that accepting AGW theory requires accepting a state-run economy. (This is a valid criticism of your non sequitur, by the way.)
You: But the only solutions proposed require massive government intervention.
dkleinsc: Since the study only says that free-marketers reject AGW theory, and the truth of AGW theory is independent of proposed solutions (or whether or not any solution is implemented), you must believe in a syllogism that leads to concluding that the theory is wrong, and here is an analogous syllogism that shows the absurdity of that syllogism.
You: No, that's not my syllogism at all. My syllogism is this: (phony premise, irrelevant premise, illogical conclusion)
Me: Your syllogism is illogical. And your conclusion has nothing to do with the subtext of your original rhetorical statement, which is what dkleinsc was refuting.
You (incredulous): Obviously you never thought about a matter for which I have no evidence. Logic doesn't work here so I'm just going to repeat it as pure conjecture in the hope that that works. And I'm going to ignore the fact that it has nothing to do with my original hidden premise, that any scientific theory that presents a problem that I don't know how to solve without massive intervention must be wrong.
Me: Great. How's that cognitive dissonance working out for you?
For the record, the firefall was from Glacier Point, not Yosemite Falls.
Because skeptics are um skeptical. There are many of us who don't adopt a position of belief on this subject. Its clear the climate is changing. Its also clear there is lots we don't know about how the system works, and its not entirely clear where things are headed and its even less clear that its man made.
I am not saying it is not man made. It very well might be! I don't want to put money down that its not. I also don't want to adopt economically ruinous measures; on the possibility it is.
Skepticism isn't mere disbelief. One of the tenets of skepticism is going with the evidence once the evidence points strongly in a certain direction, instead of continually moving the goal posts. As used here, though, what people are calling "skepticism" is really just denial.
I want to let the scientists do more science. That is really not an extreme position.
No argument from me on that point. But many of those in the denial camp maintain that all of this climate science is nothing more than a bid for funding, and would love to stop the research. And I find that to be an extreme position.
Yes, because we all know the Free Market Fairy will solve all of our problems for us. And will leave a quarter underneath our pillows when it does!
My argument is:
Premise: Scientific consensus is that a certain problem exists, which means that we must institute a particular policy agenda.
If this is indeed a premise in your argument, it means that you accept that the consensus must drive the agenda in a certain direction. Unless you accept your own premises, you have no argument to make.
Premise: Most of those supporting the first premise have previously made other arguments that claim some other problem means that we must institute that same policy agenda.
If this is indeed a premise of your argument, I can't find any way to combine it with the first premise to reach any conclusion that isn't a non sequitur.
Conclusion: Those who are claiming that the "science is settled" are more interested in interpreting the evidence in order to promote a particular policy agenda than they are in finding out what is really happening.
Based on your original post, "Really? He had to do a study to conclude that people who believe in the free market reject attempts to replace it with a state-run economy?", I would say that that isn't your argument at all. Rather, it seems you were arguing that the study concluded in a tautology. That has nothing to do with your alternate conclusion, and nothing to do with your stated premises.
And, as I predicted, your alternate conclusion is a non sequitur as well. The premises (indiviudally, or taken together) say nothing about which of these two things the subjects of the sentence are more interested in:
* "interpreting the evidence to promote a particular policy agenda", or
* "finding out what is really happening".
Seriously, that is one of the most confused defenses of a previous post that I have ever read.
If one is "well-connected", your chances of the compensation being "fair" are much better (or even used as a windfall political payoff to private-sector cronies in some instances).
If you're not so well-connected, or a member of political opposition, your chances of "fair compensation" actually being fair are...slimmer.
Strat
Ah, a progressive suggestion if ever I've heard one!
Patents and copyrights are privileges. Ownership of tangible goods is also a privilege (you can't just claim ownership of that sack of rice in the grocery store, you
know). The major difference is that one privilege emanates from the government. The other is the result of a private transaction.
"We think this law is good, let us roll it out to the entire populous at once without any testing!"
The entire populous what?
So, will 2012 be remembered in history as the year we finally kissed innovation goodbye? Or at least, the year that the USA abandoned innovation to foreign countries?
Too many syllables. Try "Thus he'll Babylon".
Not true. See here:
The energy required to move the rollers can be adjusted to account for wind resistance and the vehicle's weight.
You can quibble about how accurately drag is accounted for, but you can't say that it isn't.
I guess the thirteen auto manufacturers who endorsed the measure have no clue when it comes to automotive engineering, either.
The problem is when the software patent is used to protect the result -- *what* the software does -- rather than the technique or algorithm behind that result. Then others are restrained from developing better algorithms to achieve those results -- i.e., from innovating.
I agree. I arrived at a very similar theory when I lived in an apartment. Any time it looked like I might be getting close to affording a down payment on a home, my rent would go up. Just enough, it would seem, to keep me from meeting my goal within the next year. While I'm sure the increases were partly due to increasing costs, I also figured that landlords need to do this to have a captive market of renters. By being very frugal, I was finally able to escape that trap after about 4 years.
Do Slashdot posts infringe? They have one rounded corner and 3 right angles. Is that enough differentiation?