Oh well... guess we can't have it all. Is this another incentive to get the 12" PowerBook because, to be honest, with this upgrade I can't think of too many other reasons to shell out the extra $500 or so for one. Sure, the 12" has a better video card, but most people are going to need a lot more screen territory to make that worth it.
It looks like Apple's made choosing my next laptop a lot easier on me. I guess the only problem I'll have is telling my future iBook apart from my wife's.
As at least one other person has pointed out in this thread, political science, as the term is commonly used, is not science. Any study without a basis in verifiability through repeatability is not a science.
Welcome to Poli Sci 101, where verifiability through repeatability is a basic concept - it's why you include data sets, specific definitions for the creation of data sets, data sets large enough and well constructed enough to ensure statistical significance and substantive significance. If someone wants to challenge your argument as to why arms production leads to poverty, they can - they'll go through your data, collect their own, and confirm or verify what you've done. If your work isn't verifiable, it's a failure (and your professor will flunk you). You have to find a pattern, and others have to be able to find it as well.
Granted, not every Poli Sci paper is built on statistical analysis. Data isn't always available or quantifiable.
Can a social science be an exact science? Not exact, but reasonably close. As a professor of mine put it, "this isn't chemistry - in chemistry, there is no 'what if aliens land' variable, nor any 'sudden terrorist attack' variable in chemistry, but it exists here."
If you can't accept the hard science approach to defining science, here's a nice touchy-feeling poli-sci definition - there is no category for political science as a Nobel prize.
Of all your comments so far, this is simply the funniest. Of course, we all know that the Nobel prize is the end all, be all definition of what is and is not a science. Also, it's factually incorrect.
The Economics prize is generally reserved for the social sciences. Looking through the publications of the winners reveals countless references to studies regarding Political Economy, a large field of study in Political Science.
Herbert Simon, winner of the Economics medal in 1978, held a Ph.D in Political Science, not in economics. Economics and Political Science are intertwined, almost inseperably.
So, if science were based purely on whether or not the good folks at the Nobel prize support it as a science, then Political Science and Economics - both social sciences that are far from hard and fast like the physical sciences - are sciences.
I see you're still living under the impression that the social sciences simply cannot be sciences. Interesting, but the vast majority of thought over the past 50 years simply does not agree with you. They are not hard and fast sciences - that is not human nature, and human beings react to situations (such as a massive donation of research funding) in different ways, unlike say, Chemistry, where a specific reaction is assured and entirely verifiable at any time.
That does not mean that human reactions are completely random. For decisions such as going to war, which has happened unfortunately often, so there is a large database, a decision to go to war can be compared with economic factors (is war pushed by poor economic performance?), political factors (are leaders in danger of losing their position more or less likely to go to war?), and a wide variety of other reasons. 100% accuracy is not acheivable - for extremely obvious reasons - but the method remains the same.
Let's take the present example. An environmental study has a certain outcome. What factors - outside of the data studied - could affect this outcome? Gather data on environmental studies that may have a political impact over the last ten years, and look at outside influences - funding, for example. Is there a correlation between groups that fund the research and results favorable to those groups in the studies? Obviously, very specific definitions for funding, favorable results, etc. would need to be drawn up. It's a legitimate question, quantifiable and reproducable if properly carried out. Does it prove a specific report as false? No. Could it prove a pattern of groups funding research studies that have favorable results for their group? Absolutely.
However, I see no reason to place the scientists on a higher level than the politicians. Politicans are not the only ones who "play politics" with science. Scientists from all disciplines have been known to push their own agendas. Certainly, you can disprove their data, but examining their funding source would be a useful tool to keep them honest as well. Let's face it - there are groups out there that want an agenda pushed one way or the other and could care less about the science behind it.
I say examine them both, keep them both honest and on level footing. We've all agreed that politicians shouldn't be held above reproach for issues related to financing because they cannot always be trusted. Although there are certainly ways to disprove a scientist's study, the impact of its release on the public can be powerful.
How many people still believe that 10% of the population is homosexual (closer estimates put it around 2%-3%, if memory serves)? How many history teachers in high school are teaching that Thomas Jefferson was proven by DNA evidence to be the father of Sally Hemmings' son (the original report is certainly under suspicion, not to mention the timing of its release - one of several men could have been the father)?
The populace - rightly or wrongly - will take a report and often assume it is correct. In a way, that could be just as dangerous as trusting whatever comes out of the mouth of a politician.
We know Barton's bias, but we don't know any that the scientists may have. That's the problem. I don't think it's much to ask for a level playing field.
Hello, welcome to the argument. Maybe you've missed the last few posts and were too busy attacking me for being a religious fanatic because you were simply unaware of the other uses of the word "faith" which, as far as I know, are common in normal English usage. But I digress.
Please locate and cite precisely where I stated that the scientific method could not be used to verify the research. Obviously, if their research was conducted properly, it should be reproducable and confirmed or refuted based upon that.
As noted, environmental studies of this type - which affect multi-billion dollar corporations, environmental treaties, and countless other pacts, will have a political influence.
I am a Political Science student. When I plan on citing or using any report or paper, the first questions I ask myself are - Who prepared this? Why? What could their personal bias have been? Who provided funding (if it's a large enough project)? Obviously, other matters are of great importance as well - was it Peer Reviewed, what is the author's standing, was a proper model constructed, etc. When I prepare a paper that summarizes or promotes a policy, it is important that I understand where my data comes from. I will give less trust to any paper or report that comes from a less reliable source. Granted, they're still interesting - studying the perspectives of others is certainly part of the discipline - but not what I would use to prop up my argument.
Guess what - you can expect politicians to do the same thing. Before they accept data as "gospel truth" (do forgive me for using another one of those religious words), they want to know who it came from, why they wrote it, and what their influences may have been.
Is the source reliable? A (relatively) unbiased group funded the research? They'll work with it then.
Is the source unreliable or questionable? Was the research tainted by any particular individual? Did the money come from a group that may have wanted the research to go one way or the other? If this is the case, then more evidence will need to be collected, more points of view, etc. (or, even if it is the case, if that's the agenda they want to push then they'll push it and use the data unless someone else challenges it... such is politics)
The "scientific method" which you refer to varies between disciplines. A political scientist will approach a report like this - which could have a political influence - with speculation. They'll want to know the data above. It's important to their method. Odds are, a Poli Sci major isn't going to have a great grasp of the actual science (if you will) behind climate control issues. What will they look at? Results of the study, issues that could lead to a bias, verification and/or refutation of findings, etc. That's the political science method. We can't get in and challenge the actual findings (we don't know how to), but we do want to see where they came from and why. You can't quantify "bias" (well, unless you're specifically studying bias, but that's another story), but it must be considered while preparing a report.
Expect a politician to act the same way.
One of my favorite professors is actually an environmental policy specialist, and this is precisely how he approaches these reports. Leave it to the "real" (if you will) scientists to figure out whether something is verifiable or not, we're interested in background data, studying the groups that push agendas, etc. Groups have certainly used leverage with research money to skew results in the past, and it doesn't matter if it's disproved 10 years from now (yes, I know not all research takes that long, it's just an example...), after the legislation's in place, it matters now, and one measure is the credibility of those who backed the research.
In Mr. Barton's case, I somehow doubt that he would care one way or the other. His own bias on the situation seems clear, and as noted, those providing his funding have made t
Don't try to bring politics into science, there's too much of that in the world aleady.
Whoa there, buddy. I'm a political science major. It's far too late for that;-)
I'm not arguing that any alleged bias can be quantified. I'm just saying that it's reasonable to ask for them to show the source of their funding, as that could have an effect on the results. Their inability/lack of desire to respond to the question raises doubt in my mind.
As pointed out by another poster, we demand that politicians publish lists of all of their sources of funding so we can determine "who they're working for", if you will (huge over generalization, I realize). I think it's reasonable to ask these scientists the same thing. Could they have skewed their data to reflect the desire of a sponsor? It's certainly been done before, I doubt there's any disagreement to that.
I place a lower level of trust on data that comes from studies funded by groups who have a vested interest in the outcome one way or another, yes. I believe that to only be reasonable.
So, here's their solution - reveal who funded it. Is it a group with leanings that would encourage skewed data, or not? I understand the principles of peer editing quite well. I fully understand and support the idea of independently going after their data sets - I think any reasonable person wouldn't have a problem with confirming the data. But, I also think that it is reasonable to examine who funded this research and why. Were they trying to prove a point? Is there a motive for data to be cooked one way or another? Obviously, duplicating research is the only way to be sure that problems occurred in the data, but when considering any paper it's a good idea to know who's bank rolling it and what their agenda may or may not be.
Think through the implications of what you are saying. If all researchers had to open up their entire financial history to prove that their "personal life" was not "funded" by some organization with a bias, then few would do so.
Furthermore, as I have said repeatedly in this thread, EVERYONE is biased. Money is just one such bias. Faith, blind or otherwise, is another source that you won't find in anyone's finances. The scientific method is designed to deal with all forms of bias. You got a methodology that is better? Then lets hear it. Put up or shut up.
Blah, blah, blah.
Money can potentially create a bias. Good. You agree. Congratulations. You get a cookie.
So, here's a grand idea - state where the funding came from for the research. Do not attempt to hide where research funding came from. Be open about it. I'm not saying a tedious breakdown of spending and income should come with each report (I hate accounting as much as the next man...).
I am thinking of the implications of what I am saying, and pardon me if I would like to take additional variables (to use the term loosely) into account when analyzing data. Variables that you yourself admit can create a bias.
Call me crazy, but I do consider variables that can cause a bias in research to be important. Information regarding that data should be included in the report. You consider money to be a variable (still using the term loosely) that can cause bias in research. Why not account for that variable? Just state who and where the money came from.
As far as the "faith" issue, I would like to point out that it was you who jumped from the use of the term "faith" to religious fundamentalism on my part. You were certainly not alone in that. The term faith applies well outside of the religious sphere. However, presumptiously, you chose to interpret my use of the word "faith" (in this case, yes, blind faith - you do have a belief in something you cannot see, the unimportance of the financial records). I would encourage you to purchase a thesaurus and perhaps consider using it before jumping to conclusions.
I certainly believe it's fair to call the research into question, and part of that is determining possible bias in the research that could be the result of funding sources. Full disclosure on their part is reasonable to make their research more credible.
You'll just need an Apple designed humidifier (the iFer), some custom Apple water (iWat), borrow some clothes from Steve Jobs summer collection and you're good to go.
Or, if you're going for a more exotic tropical location, you could impale your PC in the middle of the room, use your powerbook to create a fire, and dance around its smoldering ashes as you chant vows of loyalty to the Apple gods.
Other options involve volleyballs, and are slightly less pleasent. Could work if your roommate is already named Wilson, though.
My apartment could use a new heater. The old powerbook could only keep one room warm. An upgrade will probably warm the whole place...
And, yes, I love Powerbooks, so back off already;)
12" iBooks don't have DVD burner ("super drive") option. 12" PowerBooks do. For those of us that need a DVD burner and portability (and with the amount of photos I take with my camera, I do, since I shoot RAW), a Powerbook's the only option. I have a feeling that's about to change with these upgrades, though.
You keep framing the issue in terms of faith. In doing that, you give away your true nature as a religious nut case because those are the kind of people who are so wrapped in faith that they can't conceive of any other way to view of the world.
From dictionary.com:
Faith 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Hate to burst your bubble, but that word... I do not think it means what you think it means. You seem to have a problem with this whole dictionary thing. The personal attack really was quite fun, though.
But digging into a researcher's financial records is not confirmation of jack shit, digging into his research records and repeating his results is.
I am not arguing that the scientific method is useless or irrelevant. If you had read my original post, you'd notice that I praised it.
I don't know quite how to refer to your argument - naïve, perhaps? Essentially, your argument is that the scientists' research is infaliable and unquestionable becaue, after all, they used the scientific method to reach a result. I disagree.
Believe it or not, human beings have natural biases and *shock* may use or twist scientific data to support their bias. In addition to that, people may even be *shock* tempted to report different findings because a sponsor strongly encourages them to. Things have happened like this in the business/pharmaceuticals (sp? eh, too lazy) world frequently, and I wouldn't put it past groups on either side of the aisle to do it either.
Certainly, their research should be looked at, but it is a fair question to ask if their research or personal life was funded by the "Screw Capitalism and Switch to Solar Power Now!" NGO, as that could certainly bring the report into question.
Would you trust a survey/statistical study using the scientific method done about guns which was funded by the NRA (yes, I realize there are significant differences between the types of data being discussed, but work with me)? How about a survey on the effects of whaling paid for by PETA? Or, dare I say, a survey on global warming performed by Shell oil/Exxon that showed there was no environmental problem posed by fossil fuels?
I'm not challenging the data - although it's certainly reasonable to expect it to be independently confirmed, and I don't think you'd have a problem with that at all. I'm not here to challenge the scientific method. I'm arguing that, in the real world, people just might be a bit biased and that bias can leak out onto their work. If the scientists received funding from groups that could have significantly influenced the results, I believe it's fair to call into question the research. Obviously, that's not the last straw - it should be confirmed through repeated tests and the data should be independently analyzed, but it is pure naïvety to simply argue that their results could not have possibly been influenced by financial backers.
So, you would put all of your faith in a method, and say, "well, they're scientists, what ever they say HAS to be true! They use the scientific method!"
Sorry, but I'm simply not buying it. The politician discussed has a legitimate question about the scientists and those who exert influence over them.
Where's the crime in confirming the research? Where's the problem? Or should we simply place all blind faith in scientists because they use a method, and assume that they would never try to use it to push a personal agenda?
Additionally, and this is key here - scientists, by definition, work via the scientific method and thus bogus conclusions will be challenged and repudiated.
Politicians, by definition work by demagoguery and hot air and thus bogus claims will often go unchallenged and even supported by specious argument and distraction.
Care to provide some "scientific" evidence of that definition?
You seem to have a lot of trust in the scientific method. Don't get me wrong - it's well placed trust, by all means - but what this gentleman would like to figure out is if anyone is influencing the results and cooking the books. It's a reasonable question, one that should have been asked to many scientists through the years but people simply sat back and accepted what they said as fact. The legality of his request, etc, is not my area of expertise personally, so I won't get into it.
Is it possible the politician in question has campaign financers that would like to see this sort of thing challenged? Sure. Is his point of view biased? Probably. Name me one person who isn't biased. Very rarely does someone research a topic with no interest or no preconceptions of it. The politician's bias does not refute the viability of the question.
This just reminds me of a poli sci class I had a while back. It was a research methods class, and the professor spent 30 minutes shredding to pieces the article that claimed up to 100,000 civilians had died as a result of US actions in Iraq. Upon really reading the article, from the point of view of someone who knew how research should have been done, the paper was really quite laughable and hopelessly flawed. However, the results of that paper are still quoted as "gospel truth" by many. I don't think it's wrong to challenge data in this or almost any other case.
Now, just go hunt up that "definition" for us and post that whenever you get the chance.
Note: I apologize, but this post will not contain paranoid, inflamatory political rhetoric. Mods, you may now move on or mod me as flamebait/troll/redundant now.
Let's seriously take a look at other riot control options.
Assuming a riot is an activity that we want to stop to protect lives and property of law abiding citizens (and it generally is, ask the good people of Seattle or LA), it is in the public interest to put a stop to this activity without killing the participants. Presently, options are as follows:
Baton/Shield - Places both rioter and police officer at high risk. Capable of inflicting much more damage than is necessary and can possibly be inflict a mortal wound. Requires a large amount of riot police to be effective, and a large amount of medical personnel on site later to clean up.
Tear Gas - extremely problematic. Places rioters, bystanders, police, and everyone at risk. A friend of mine who was a rather high ranking police officer was put into a crowd to observe it and report on problems. The crowd around him quickly became unruly and tear gas was called in (not his choice, but it's a risk you take). A very young, inexperienced officer fired, striking his partner in the crowd in the leg. Luckily, it ricochetted off of the pavement before it hit him, otherwise it could have broken his shin. The canisters are a danger, but the gas is even worse. Wind carries the gas back at the police, towards innocent bystanders, or wherever it will. Using too much gas on accident can cause severe respritory problems. Any asthmatics in the area will be affected very strongly. The gas can be sucked into nearby buildings by air conditioning systems. Most LEOs aren't a big fan of using it in riot situations except when they have to.
Concussion Grenades - risk of ear damage, those too close to the explosion could get burned, the weapon could propel shrapnel. Not a great option.
"Pepperballs" - Basically, paintballs filled with pepper spray. The effective range is fairly short, which means officers must get in fairly close. The risk of shooting what are basically paintballs at people with no eye protection should be painfully obvious.
Rubber Bullets/Bean Bags - Truly "less lethal", but not entirely. Not the preferred option at all because they can kill and will do a great amount of damage to soft flesh. They also pose a great risk to the eyes of rioters. From a tactical standpoint, there's also the question of what to do when you run out. A single rubber baton or bean bag (generally fired from a shot gun) will stop one person. That's it. Assuming you've got a load of 8 rounds in your shotgun and 75% accuracy you can stop 6 people at the most. After that, it's going to take a while to reload, and you run the risk of putting in a non-riot round on accident that will kill a target rather than stun it (the problem when you're using the same gun for two things).
Foam guns - not fast enough, not effective against large groups, very short range. Places Police officer in unacceptable risk.
Water Cannons - Not gonna fly in the US. They are tied to the race riots/demonstrations of the 60's and 70's and any use of them would be seen as inherently racist and demeaning. They also pose a risk to eyes.
The microwave weapon - which poses less risk to eyes, can be used at a distance, doesn't put innocent bystanders at risk, and doesn't run a high risk of causing severe damage to the user or the one it is used upon, should be looking pretty good right about now.
Go ahead and complain all you want. Sure, the rioters are just "freedom fighters" out there expressing their first amendment rights by smashing stores, cars, and police stations. Personally, as someone who has been in a riot situation before (surrounded by it and trapped in my home in South America, long story) I'd like to see the police be able to put a stop to it without killing the rioters and placing themselves at risk.
If you're not a big fan of trees and moisture in general, you may like it.
Yes, I'm a Mormon, but I'm originally from the south (North Florida... basically an extension of Georgia with an Alabama twang) and I'd never been to Utah at all until I was 19, and not for any appreciable amount of time until I was 21 and was going to college. I have no blood relatives from Utah.
Here's what I can't stand about Utah - climate. Hate it. I'm from Florida and I like my oxygen soaking and mosquito infested thank you very much. I'm tired of going through a tube of Chapstick every four days and I hate having to put lotion on my hands every day or watch them crack and bleed. My wife wants to stay in Salt Lake for my career... and her skin breaks out around humidity... don't know how we're going to arrange this one.
Some portions of culture - as noted, yes, I'm a Mormon, but I'd never been to Utah before I grew up. Some portions of the population are amazingly zealous (a small town or two in Utah actually has declared itself a "UN free zone", whatever that may mean), but so long as you stay out of the geographical fringes and don't go attacking people for whatever reason, you're pretty much OK. There's a lot more anti-Mormon activity here than there was in the South (and that's saying something), which I'm not a big fan of. I've never stood outside of someone else's building to pamphlet it, blare at those who enter it with megaphones, or break up other people's wedding parties, but there's a lot of folks there that seem to like to do it to the Mormons.
As far as the state being the "reddest" in the nation, that's true, but take a look at the political affiliation of the mayor of Utah's biggest city - yup, Salt Lake's mayor is a Democrat.
Take a look at the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid. He's a Mormon, too. It would appear the democrats don't have that much of a problem with Mormons after all.
Also, should it really surprise people that a bunch of conservative minded people should vote for a (here's a shocker) conservative party? Or that people should vote for others in their peer groups? Sure, lots of Mormons get elected but guess what - the majority of the people in Utah are MORMONS. You could even look at it as a matter of probability - if you were to randomly select something from a bag and 75% of the objects in the bag were one color, which would you be most likely to select? Apply the dynamics of winner-take-all voting on there and you're bound to get more Mormons in government. You may also note that blacks are very often elected by majority black areas and Jews in majority Jewish areas. Is it really that surprising that a place with a population up to 90% Mormon in some areas would vote for a Mormon and would allow their religious beliefs to maybe come into their voting?
As far as Utah bringing down American society as we know it, I hardly think Utah's four or five electoral votes could have that effect. And the people you're largely thinking of are evangelicals - and many of those are out there burning Books of Mormon and causing the Mormons a lot of trouble.
Paranoid political theories aside, Mormons don't (or most certainly don't) discuss politics from the pulpit. No non-profit group can without risking its non-profit status. Ironically, this has been used against a lot of Anti-Mormon groups that attack Mormon candidates based on religion.
I'm actually a BYU student in Provo, the most Republican city in the most Republican state in the Union. BYU does have a large Democrats club that actually WON last year's debate against the Republican club (whooped 'em big time), and the debate was scored by a firm, straight party-line Republican professor (I know because I've talked with him about these issues privately from time to time).
However, it shouldn't be assumed that all of the professors share his views. Of the professors I know who have expressed political views, Democrats are at least even with Republicans, and there's even
"R2D2 could have had his memory erased, could be reprogrammed as an Imperial spy, ect. So until he saw the message from Leia and knew it was not a trap of some sort, he had to maintain his cover."
Or, perhaps, in some crazy attempt to make a profit, the people at droids are us made more than one of the same droid?
Sorry, just watched Meet the Parents, which I suppose does bare some resemblence to Star Wars in a sick, strange way...
Personally, I plan on running my iPod into the ground - using it until the battery just doesn't hold enough of a charge to make it worthwhile. At that point (probably about a year or two left, could be more but I use it quite often) I plan on upgrading to something better (probably an iPod Photo, which would make my life much easier while I'm on extended trips). By the time it dies, I will probably want the newer model anyways.
I personally don't want to hassle with cracking open my iPod and changing the battery. Sure, it can be done relatively cheaply, but I'm not so inclined.
I'm also aware that I can get more money for it on eBay, but I'm also aware that selling things on eBay can become a hassle. Sometimes, I don't want to deal with irate or deadbeat buyers, or the occasional PayPal "eCheck" which takes two weeks to clear (just happened to me, delayed me receiving my payment for two weeks!).
I think it's an attractive option to be able to walk into a store with your old iPod and walk out with a new one, saving a little bit of money and doing somethint to make sure that your old battery isn't going to cause any environmental problems. It's certainly not for everyone, but I think I'll do it when the time comes rather than mess around with the other options.
Well, obviously your replaceable batteries are wonderful, and I'm sure you dispose of them safely and properly every single time. No environmental damage from your MP3 player, no-siree-bob.
I'm just mad because my iPod didn't turn me black and vastly improve my dancing skills. I'm still just a fat old clumbsy white boy with no skills... talk about your false advertising.
Hey, it's been a while since we've done any manned missions beyond the earth's orbit, so this is great! Returning to the moon and maybe even going to Mars on a manned mission will be amazing opportunities!
Oh, wait, Republicans suggested it. Nevermind. It just means that Tom Delay wants to golf on the moon (hey, it's been done before) and Bush wants to drill for oil on Mars. There simply can't be any other reason for their actions...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh well... guess we can't have it all. Is this another incentive to get the 12" PowerBook because, to be honest, with this upgrade I can't think of too many other reasons to shell out the extra $500 or so for one. Sure, the 12" has a better video card, but most people are going to need a lot more screen territory to make that worth it.
It looks like Apple's made choosing my next laptop a lot easier on me. I guess the only problem I'll have is telling my future iBook apart from my wife's.
*Sheriff pulls over car, saunters up and taps on window*
"Well, well boy, what have we here. Is that a Pringles can you got down there, or are you just happy to see me?"
As at least one other person has pointed out in this thread, political science, as the term is commonly used, is not science. Any study without a basis in verifiability through repeatability is not a science.
Welcome to Poli Sci 101, where verifiability through repeatability is a basic concept - it's why you include data sets, specific definitions for the creation of data sets, data sets large enough and well constructed enough to ensure statistical significance and substantive significance. If someone wants to challenge your argument as to why arms production leads to poverty, they can - they'll go through your data, collect their own, and confirm or verify what you've done. If your work isn't verifiable, it's a failure (and your professor will flunk you). You have to find a pattern, and others have to be able to find it as well.
Granted, not every Poli Sci paper is built on statistical analysis. Data isn't always available or quantifiable.
Can a social science be an exact science? Not exact, but reasonably close. As a professor of mine put it, "this isn't chemistry - in chemistry, there is no 'what if aliens land' variable, nor any 'sudden terrorist attack' variable in chemistry, but it exists here."
If you can't accept the hard science approach to defining science, here's a nice touchy-feeling poli-sci definition - there is no category for political science as a Nobel prize.
Of all your comments so far, this is simply the funniest. Of course, we all know that the Nobel prize is the end all, be all definition of what is and is not a science. Also, it's factually incorrect.
The Economics prize is generally reserved for the social sciences. Looking through the publications of the winners reveals countless references to studies regarding Political Economy, a large field of study in Political Science.
Herbert Simon, winner of the Economics medal in 1978, held a Ph.D in Political Science, not in economics. Economics and Political Science are intertwined, almost inseperably.
So, if science were based purely on whether or not the good folks at the Nobel prize support it as a science, then Political Science and Economics - both social sciences that are far from hard and fast like the physical sciences - are sciences.
I see you're still living under the impression that the social sciences simply cannot be sciences. Interesting, but the vast majority of thought over the past 50 years simply does not agree with you. They are not hard and fast sciences - that is not human nature, and human beings react to situations (such as a massive donation of research funding) in different ways, unlike say, Chemistry, where a specific reaction is assured and entirely verifiable at any time.
That does not mean that human reactions are completely random. For decisions such as going to war, which has happened unfortunately often, so there is a large database, a decision to go to war can be compared with economic factors (is war pushed by poor economic performance?), political factors (are leaders in danger of losing their position more or less likely to go to war?), and a wide variety of other reasons. 100% accuracy is not acheivable - for extremely obvious reasons - but the method remains the same.
Let's take the present example. An environmental study has a certain outcome. What factors - outside of the data studied - could affect this outcome? Gather data on environmental studies that may have a political impact over the last ten years, and look at outside influences - funding, for example. Is there a correlation between groups that fund the research and results favorable to those groups in the studies? Obviously, very specific definitions for funding, favorable results, etc. would need to be drawn up. It's a legitimate question, quantifiable and reproducable if properly carried out. Does it prove a specific report as false? No. Could it prove a pattern of groups funding research studies that have favorable results for their group? Absolutely.
Point taken and appreciated.
However, I see no reason to place the scientists on a higher level than the politicians. Politicans are not the only ones who "play politics" with science. Scientists from all disciplines have been known to push their own agendas. Certainly, you can disprove their data, but examining their funding source would be a useful tool to keep them honest as well. Let's face it - there are groups out there that want an agenda pushed one way or the other and could care less about the science behind it.
I say examine them both, keep them both honest and on level footing. We've all agreed that politicians shouldn't be held above reproach for issues related to financing because they cannot always be trusted. Although there are certainly ways to disprove a scientist's study, the impact of its release on the public can be powerful.
How many people still believe that 10% of the population is homosexual (closer estimates put it around 2%-3%, if memory serves)? How many history teachers in high school are teaching that Thomas Jefferson was proven by DNA evidence to be the father of Sally Hemmings' son (the original report is certainly under suspicion, not to mention the timing of its release - one of several men could have been the father)?
The populace - rightly or wrongly - will take a report and often assume it is correct. In a way, that could be just as dangerous as trusting whatever comes out of the mouth of a politician.
We know Barton's bias, but we don't know any that the scientists may have. That's the problem. I don't think it's much to ask for a level playing field.
Hello, welcome to the argument. Maybe you've missed the last few posts and were too busy attacking me for being a religious fanatic because you were simply unaware of the other uses of the word "faith" which, as far as I know, are common in normal English usage. But I digress.
... such is politics)
Please locate and cite precisely where I stated that the scientific method could not be used to verify the research. Obviously, if their research was conducted properly, it should be reproducable and confirmed or refuted based upon that.
As noted, environmental studies of this type - which affect multi-billion dollar corporations, environmental treaties, and countless other pacts, will have a political influence.
I am a Political Science student. When I plan on citing or using any report or paper, the first questions I ask myself are - Who prepared this? Why? What could their personal bias have been? Who provided funding (if it's a large enough project)? Obviously, other matters are of great importance as well - was it Peer Reviewed, what is the author's standing, was a proper model constructed, etc. When I prepare a paper that summarizes or promotes a policy, it is important that I understand where my data comes from. I will give less trust to any paper or report that comes from a less reliable source. Granted, they're still interesting - studying the perspectives of others is certainly part of the discipline - but not what I would use to prop up my argument.
Guess what - you can expect politicians to do the same thing. Before they accept data as "gospel truth" (do forgive me for using another one of those religious words), they want to know who it came from, why they wrote it, and what their influences may have been.
Is the source reliable? A (relatively) unbiased group funded the research? They'll work with it then.
Is the source unreliable or questionable? Was the research tainted by any particular individual? Did the money come from a group that may have wanted the research to go one way or the other? If this is the case, then more evidence will need to be collected, more points of view, etc. (or, even if it is the case, if that's the agenda they want to push then they'll push it and use the data unless someone else challenges it
The "scientific method" which you refer to varies between disciplines. A political scientist will approach a report like this - which could have a political influence - with speculation. They'll want to know the data above. It's important to their method. Odds are, a Poli Sci major isn't going to have a great grasp of the actual science (if you will) behind climate control issues. What will they look at? Results of the study, issues that could lead to a bias, verification and/or refutation of findings, etc. That's the political science method. We can't get in and challenge the actual findings (we don't know how to), but we do want to see where they came from and why. You can't quantify "bias" (well, unless you're specifically studying bias, but that's another story), but it must be considered while preparing a report.
Expect a politician to act the same way.
One of my favorite professors is actually an environmental policy specialist, and this is precisely how he approaches these reports. Leave it to the "real" (if you will) scientists to figure out whether something is verifiable or not, we're interested in background data, studying the groups that push agendas, etc. Groups have certainly used leverage with research money to skew results in the past, and it doesn't matter if it's disproved 10 years from now (yes, I know not all research takes that long, it's just an example...), after the legislation's in place, it matters now, and one measure is the credibility of those who backed the research.
In Mr. Barton's case, I somehow doubt that he would care one way or the other. His own bias on the situation seems clear, and as noted, those providing his funding have made t
Don't try to bring politics into science, there's too much of that in the world aleady.
Whoa there, buddy. I'm a political science major. It's far too late for that ;-)
I'm not arguing that any alleged bias can be quantified. I'm just saying that it's reasonable to ask for them to show the source of their funding, as that could have an effect on the results. Their inability/lack of desire to respond to the question raises doubt in my mind.
As pointed out by another poster, we demand that politicians publish lists of all of their sources of funding so we can determine "who they're working for", if you will (huge over generalization, I realize). I think it's reasonable to ask these scientists the same thing. Could they have skewed their data to reflect the desire of a sponsor? It's certainly been done before, I doubt there's any disagreement to that.
I place a lower level of trust on data that comes from studies funded by groups who have a vested interest in the outcome one way or another, yes. I believe that to only be reasonable.
So, here's their solution - reveal who funded it. Is it a group with leanings that would encourage skewed data, or not? I understand the principles of peer editing quite well. I fully understand and support the idea of independently going after their data sets - I think any reasonable person wouldn't have a problem with confirming the data. But, I also think that it is reasonable to examine who funded this research and why. Were they trying to prove a point? Is there a motive for data to be cooked one way or another? Obviously, duplicating research is the only way to be sure that problems occurred in the data, but when considering any paper it's a good idea to know who's bank rolling it and what their agenda may or may not be.
Think through the implications of what you are saying. If all researchers had to open up their entire financial history to prove that their "personal life" was not "funded" by some organization with a bias, then few would do so.
Furthermore, as I have said repeatedly in this thread, EVERYONE is biased. Money is just one such bias. Faith, blind or otherwise, is another source that you won't find in anyone's finances. The scientific method is designed to deal with all forms of bias. You got a methodology that is better? Then lets hear it. Put up or shut up.
Blah, blah, blah.
Money can potentially create a bias. Good. You agree. Congratulations. You get a cookie.
So, here's a grand idea - state where the funding came from for the research. Do not attempt to hide where research funding came from. Be open about it. I'm not saying a tedious breakdown of spending and income should come with each report (I hate accounting as much as the next man...).
I am thinking of the implications of what I am saying, and pardon me if I would like to take additional variables (to use the term loosely) into account when analyzing data. Variables that you yourself admit can create a bias.
Call me crazy, but I do consider variables that can cause a bias in research to be important. Information regarding that data should be included in the report. You consider money to be a variable (still using the term loosely) that can cause bias in research. Why not account for that variable? Just state who and where the money came from.
As far as the "faith" issue, I would like to point out that it was you who jumped from the use of the term "faith" to religious fundamentalism on my part. You were certainly not alone in that. The term faith applies well outside of the religious sphere. However, presumptiously, you chose to interpret my use of the word "faith" (in this case, yes, blind faith - you do have a belief in something you cannot see, the unimportance of the financial records). I would encourage you to purchase a thesaurus and perhaps consider using it before jumping to conclusions.
I certainly believe it's fair to call the research into question, and part of that is determining possible bias in the research that could be the result of funding sources. Full disclosure on their part is reasonable to make their research more credible.
You'll just need an Apple designed humidifier (the iFer), some custom Apple water (iWat), borrow some clothes from Steve Jobs summer collection and you're good to go.
Or, if you're going for a more exotic tropical location, you could impale your PC in the middle of the room, use your powerbook to create a fire, and dance around its smoldering ashes as you chant vows of loyalty to the Apple gods.
Other options involve volleyballs, and are slightly less pleasent. Could work if your roommate is already named Wilson, though.
My apartment could use a new heater. The old powerbook could only keep one room warm. An upgrade will probably warm the whole place... And, yes, I love Powerbooks, so back off already ;)
12" iBooks don't have DVD burner ("super drive") option. 12" PowerBooks do. For those of us that need a DVD burner and portability (and with the amount of photos I take with my camera, I do, since I shoot RAW), a Powerbook's the only option. I have a feeling that's about to change with these upgrades, though.
You keep framing the issue in terms of faith. In doing that, you give away your true nature as a religious nut case because those are the kind of people who are so wrapped in faith that they can't conceive of any other way to view of the world.
From dictionary.com:
Faith 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Hate to burst your bubble, but that word... I do not think it means what you think it means. You seem to have a problem with this whole dictionary thing. The personal attack really was quite fun, though.
But digging into a researcher's financial records is not confirmation of jack shit, digging into his research records and repeating his results is.
I am not arguing that the scientific method is useless or irrelevant. If you had read my original post, you'd notice that I praised it.
I don't know quite how to refer to your argument - naïve, perhaps? Essentially, your argument is that the scientists' research is infaliable and unquestionable becaue, after all, they used the scientific method to reach a result. I disagree.
Believe it or not, human beings have natural biases and *shock* may use or twist scientific data to support their bias. In addition to that, people may even be *shock* tempted to report different findings because a sponsor strongly encourages them to. Things have happened like this in the business/pharmaceuticals (sp? eh, too lazy) world frequently, and I wouldn't put it past groups on either side of the aisle to do it either.
Certainly, their research should be looked at, but it is a fair question to ask if their research or personal life was funded by the "Screw Capitalism and Switch to Solar Power Now!" NGO, as that could certainly bring the report into question.
Would you trust a survey/statistical study using the scientific method done about guns which was funded by the NRA (yes, I realize there are significant differences between the types of data being discussed, but work with me)? How about a survey on the effects of whaling paid for by PETA? Or, dare I say, a survey on global warming performed by Shell oil/Exxon that showed there was no environmental problem posed by fossil fuels?
I'm not challenging the data - although it's certainly reasonable to expect it to be independently confirmed, and I don't think you'd have a problem with that at all. I'm not here to challenge the scientific method. I'm arguing that, in the real world, people just might be a bit biased and that bias can leak out onto their work. If the scientists received funding from groups that could have significantly influenced the results, I believe it's fair to call into question the research. Obviously, that's not the last straw - it should be confirmed through repeated tests and the data should be independently analyzed, but it is pure naïvety to simply argue that their results could not have possibly been influenced by financial backers.
So, you would put all of your faith in a method, and say, "well, they're scientists, what ever they say HAS to be true! They use the scientific method!" Sorry, but I'm simply not buying it. The politician discussed has a legitimate question about the scientists and those who exert influence over them. Where's the crime in confirming the research? Where's the problem? Or should we simply place all blind faith in scientists because they use a method, and assume that they would never try to use it to push a personal agenda?
Additionally, and this is key here - scientists, by definition, work via the scientific method and thus bogus conclusions will be challenged and repudiated.
Politicians, by definition work by demagoguery and hot air and thus bogus claims will often go unchallenged and even supported by specious argument and distraction.
Care to provide some "scientific" evidence of that definition?
You seem to have a lot of trust in the scientific method. Don't get me wrong - it's well placed trust, by all means - but what this gentleman would like to figure out is if anyone is influencing the results and cooking the books. It's a reasonable question, one that should have been asked to many scientists through the years but people simply sat back and accepted what they said as fact. The legality of his request, etc, is not my area of expertise personally, so I won't get into it.
Is it possible the politician in question has campaign financers that would like to see this sort of thing challenged? Sure. Is his point of view biased? Probably. Name me one person who isn't biased. Very rarely does someone research a topic with no interest or no preconceptions of it. The politician's bias does not refute the viability of the question.
This just reminds me of a poli sci class I had a while back. It was a research methods class, and the professor spent 30 minutes shredding to pieces the article that claimed up to 100,000 civilians had died as a result of US actions in Iraq. Upon really reading the article, from the point of view of someone who knew how research should have been done, the paper was really quite laughable and hopelessly flawed. However, the results of that paper are still quoted as "gospel truth" by many. I don't think it's wrong to challenge data in this or almost any other case.
Now, just go hunt up that "definition" for us and post that whenever you get the chance.
Note: I apologize, but this post will not contain paranoid, inflamatory political rhetoric. Mods, you may now move on or mod me as flamebait/troll/redundant now.
Let's seriously take a look at other riot control options.
Assuming a riot is an activity that we want to stop to protect lives and property of law abiding citizens (and it generally is, ask the good people of Seattle or LA), it is in the public interest to put a stop to this activity without killing the participants. Presently, options are as follows:
Baton/Shield - Places both rioter and police officer at high risk. Capable of inflicting much more damage than is necessary and can possibly be inflict a mortal wound. Requires a large amount of riot police to be effective, and a large amount of medical personnel on site later to clean up.
Tear Gas - extremely problematic. Places rioters, bystanders, police, and everyone at risk. A friend of mine who was a rather high ranking police officer was put into a crowd to observe it and report on problems. The crowd around him quickly became unruly and tear gas was called in (not his choice, but it's a risk you take). A very young, inexperienced officer fired, striking his partner in the crowd in the leg. Luckily, it ricochetted off of the pavement before it hit him, otherwise it could have broken his shin. The canisters are a danger, but the gas is even worse. Wind carries the gas back at the police, towards innocent bystanders, or wherever it will. Using too much gas on accident can cause severe respritory problems. Any asthmatics in the area will be affected very strongly. The gas can be sucked into nearby buildings by air conditioning systems. Most LEOs aren't a big fan of using it in riot situations except when they have to.
Concussion Grenades - risk of ear damage, those too close to the explosion could get burned, the weapon could propel shrapnel. Not a great option.
"Pepperballs" - Basically, paintballs filled with pepper spray. The effective range is fairly short, which means officers must get in fairly close. The risk of shooting what are basically paintballs at people with no eye protection should be painfully obvious.
Rubber Bullets/Bean Bags - Truly "less lethal", but not entirely. Not the preferred option at all because they can kill and will do a great amount of damage to soft flesh. They also pose a great risk to the eyes of rioters. From a tactical standpoint, there's also the question of what to do when you run out. A single rubber baton or bean bag (generally fired from a shot gun) will stop one person. That's it. Assuming you've got a load of 8 rounds in your shotgun and 75% accuracy you can stop 6 people at the most. After that, it's going to take a while to reload, and you run the risk of putting in a non-riot round on accident that will kill a target rather than stun it (the problem when you're using the same gun for two things).
Foam guns - not fast enough, not effective against large groups, very short range. Places Police officer in unacceptable risk.
Water Cannons - Not gonna fly in the US. They are tied to the race riots/demonstrations of the 60's and 70's and any use of them would be seen as inherently racist and demeaning. They also pose a risk to eyes.
The microwave weapon - which poses less risk to eyes, can be used at a distance, doesn't put innocent bystanders at risk, and doesn't run a high risk of causing severe damage to the user or the one it is used upon, should be looking pretty good right about now.
Go ahead and complain all you want. Sure, the rioters are just "freedom fighters" out there expressing their first amendment rights by smashing stores, cars, and police stations. Personally, as someone who has been in a riot situation before (surrounded by it and trapped in my home in South America, long story) I'd like to see the police be able to put a stop to it without killing the rioters and placing themselves at risk.
As far as the claim that this weapon w
Sweet! It's just in time to compete with Fantastic 4 for the honor of worst movie made!
*ducks*
Oh yeah, I'm straight porteño ;-)
Buenos Aires West, November 2000-November 2002, Tidei and Villlarreal. You?
If you're not a big fan of trees and moisture in general, you may like it.
Yes, I'm a Mormon, but I'm originally from the south (North Florida... basically an extension of Georgia with an Alabama twang) and I'd never been to Utah at all until I was 19, and not for any appreciable amount of time until I was 21 and was going to college. I have no blood relatives from Utah.
Here's what I can't stand about Utah - climate. Hate it. I'm from Florida and I like my oxygen soaking and mosquito infested thank you very much. I'm tired of going through a tube of Chapstick every four days and I hate having to put lotion on my hands every day or watch them crack and bleed. My wife wants to stay in Salt Lake for my career... and her skin breaks out around humidity... don't know how we're going to arrange this one.
Some portions of culture - as noted, yes, I'm a Mormon, but I'd never been to Utah before I grew up. Some portions of the population are amazingly zealous (a small town or two in Utah actually has declared itself a "UN free zone", whatever that may mean), but so long as you stay out of the geographical fringes and don't go attacking people for whatever reason, you're pretty much OK. There's a lot more anti-Mormon activity here than there was in the South (and that's saying something), which I'm not a big fan of. I've never stood outside of someone else's building to pamphlet it, blare at those who enter it with megaphones, or break up other people's wedding parties, but there's a lot of folks there that seem to like to do it to the Mormons.
As far as the state being the "reddest" in the nation, that's true, but take a look at the political affiliation of the mayor of Utah's biggest city - yup, Salt Lake's mayor is a Democrat.
Take a look at the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid. He's a Mormon, too. It would appear the democrats don't have that much of a problem with Mormons after all.
Also, should it really surprise people that a bunch of conservative minded people should vote for a (here's a shocker) conservative party? Or that people should vote for others in their peer groups? Sure, lots of Mormons get elected but guess what - the majority of the people in Utah are MORMONS. You could even look at it as a matter of probability - if you were to randomly select something from a bag and 75% of the objects in the bag were one color, which would you be most likely to select? Apply the dynamics of winner-take-all voting on there and you're bound to get more Mormons in government. You may also note that blacks are very often elected by majority black areas and Jews in majority Jewish areas. Is it really that surprising that a place with a population up to 90% Mormon in some areas would vote for a Mormon and would allow their religious beliefs to maybe come into their voting?
As far as Utah bringing down American society as we know it, I hardly think Utah's four or five electoral votes could have that effect. And the people you're largely thinking of are evangelicals - and many of those are out there burning Books of Mormon and causing the Mormons a lot of trouble.
Paranoid political theories aside, Mormons don't (or most certainly don't) discuss politics from the pulpit. No non-profit group can without risking its non-profit status. Ironically, this has been used against a lot of Anti-Mormon groups that attack Mormon candidates based on religion.
I'm actually a BYU student in Provo, the most Republican city in the most Republican state in the Union. BYU does have a large Democrats club that actually WON last year's debate against the Republican club (whooped 'em big time), and the debate was scored by a firm, straight party-line Republican professor (I know because I've talked with him about these issues privately from time to time).
However, it shouldn't be assumed that all of the professors share his views. Of the professors I know who have expressed political views, Democrats are at least even with Republicans, and there's even
You just ruined my weekend...
"R2D2 could have had his memory erased, could be reprogrammed as an Imperial spy, ect. So until he saw the message from Leia and knew it was not a trap of some sort, he had to maintain his cover."
Or, perhaps, in some crazy attempt to make a profit, the people at droids are us made more than one of the same droid?
Sorry, just watched Meet the Parents, which I suppose does bare some resemblence to Star Wars in a sick, strange way...
These aren't the clichés you're looking for... it's:
"In Korea, only old people use railguns. Mostly to liquify noisy young people and their dag-nabbed rap music playin' machines."
You were way off...
Just print them out and shred them! Problem solved! All of your sensitve data is safe, and the only copy of it destroyed!
That's what my grandmother (bless her soul) does everytime she needs to get rid of information. Seems to work for her...
Personally, I plan on running my iPod into the ground - using it until the battery just doesn't hold enough of a charge to make it worthwhile. At that point (probably about a year or two left, could be more but I use it quite often) I plan on upgrading to something better (probably an iPod Photo, which would make my life much easier while I'm on extended trips). By the time it dies, I will probably want the newer model anyways. I personally don't want to hassle with cracking open my iPod and changing the battery. Sure, it can be done relatively cheaply, but I'm not so inclined. I'm also aware that I can get more money for it on eBay, but I'm also aware that selling things on eBay can become a hassle. Sometimes, I don't want to deal with irate or deadbeat buyers, or the occasional PayPal "eCheck" which takes two weeks to clear (just happened to me, delayed me receiving my payment for two weeks!). I think it's an attractive option to be able to walk into a store with your old iPod and walk out with a new one, saving a little bit of money and doing somethint to make sure that your old battery isn't going to cause any environmental problems. It's certainly not for everyone, but I think I'll do it when the time comes rather than mess around with the other options.
Well, obviously your replaceable batteries are wonderful, and I'm sure you dispose of them safely and properly every single time. No environmental damage from your MP3 player, no-siree-bob.
I'm just mad because my iPod didn't turn me black and vastly improve my dancing skills. I'm still just a fat old clumbsy white boy with no skills... talk about your false advertising.
Where's my check? Huh?
Hey, it's been a while since we've done any manned missions beyond the earth's orbit, so this is great! Returning to the moon and maybe even going to Mars on a manned mission will be amazing opportunities!
Oh, wait, Republicans suggested it. Nevermind. It just means that Tom Delay wants to golf on the moon (hey, it's been done before) and Bush wants to drill for oil on Mars. There simply can't be any other reason for their actions...