Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is hard to know exactly when it became acceptable for U.S. politicians to be antiscience. For some two centuries science was a preeminent force in American politics, and scientific innovation has been the leading driver of U.S. economic growth since World War II. Kids in the 1960s gathered in school cafeterias to watch moon launches and landings on televisions wheeled in on carts. Breakthroughs in the 1970s and 1980s sparked the computer revolution and a new information economy. Advances in biology, based on evolutionary theory, created the biotech industry. New research in genetics is poised to transform the understanding of disease and the practice of medicine, agriculture and other fields.

The Founding Fathers were science enthusiasts. Thomas Jefferson, a lawyer and scientist, built the primary justification for the nation's independence on the thinking of Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon and John Locke—the creators of physics, inductive reasoning and empiricism. He called them his “trinity of three greatest men.” If anyone can discover the truth by using reason and science, Jefferson reasoned, then no one is naturally closer to the truth than anyone else. Consequently, those in positions of authority do not have the right to impose their beliefs on other people. The people themselves retain this inalienable right. Based on this foundation of science—of knowledge gained by systematic study and testing instead of by the assertions of ideology—the argument for a new, democratic form of government was self-evident.

Yet despite its history and today's unprecedented riches from science, the U.S. has begun to slip off of its science foundation. Indeed, in this election cycle, some 236 years after Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, several major party contenders for political office took positions that can only be described as “antiscience”: against evolution, human-induced climate change, vaccines, stem cell research, and more. A former Republican governor even warned that his own political party was in danger of becoming “the antiscience party.”

Such positions could typically be dismissed as nothing more than election-year posturing except that they reflect an anti-intellectual conformity that is gaining strength in the U.S. at precisely the moment that most of the important opportunities for economic growth, and serious threats to the well-being of the nation, require a better grasp of scientific issues. By turning public opinion away from the antiauthoritarian principles of the nation's founders, the new science denialism is creating an existential crisis like few the country has faced before.

In late 2007 growing concern over this trend led six of us to try to do something about it. Physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, science writer and film director Matthew Chapman (who is Charles Darwin's great–great-grandson), science philosopher Austin Dacey, science writer Chris Mooney, marine biologist Sheril Kirshenbaum and I decided to push for a presidential science debate. We put up a Web site and began reaching out to scientists and engineers. Within weeks 38,000 had signed on, including the heads of several large corporations, a few members of Congress from both parties, dozens of Nobel laureates, many of the nation's leading universities and almost every major science organization. Although presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain both declined a debate on scientific issues, they provided written answers to the 14 questions we asked, which were read by millions of voters.[quote]

READ MORE (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy)

[Trainwreck2100]

Tldr

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Tldr

That's too bad because it's extraordinarily well written and the second half of it is an analysis of survey responses about science POLICY issues that both candidates responded to.

Postmodernism and it's root cause is perhaps beyond your scope though.

[DarrinS]

http://i.imgur.com/IcWzr.gif

[boutons_deux]

"For some two centuries science was a preeminent force in American politics"

but not in the uneducated, mostly rural populace. anti-intellectualism is an old American story, from a book 50 years ago:

http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-in-American-Life-ebook/dp/B006LSVB1M/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

Bible-thumpers pushing the Bible as science, as inerrantly, literally true, and the unquestionable Word of God, has dumbed down millions of Christians. Corporations and their products responsible for pollution of air, land, water, animals, humans also contribute to confusion and outright ignorance because it would hurt their wealth if they had to stop polluting.

[baseline bum]

Neil deGrasse Tyson has an incredible presentation on intelligent design that touches on a lot of the same things that article does, and makes some worrying comparisons of our nation's evangelical turn to that of the Muslims back around 1200 or so that destroyed their societies and turned them into the backwater shitholes they are now.

Ti3mtDC2fQo

His closing segment on stupid design is hilarious too.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://i.imgur.com/IcWzr.gif

Coming from a Luddite 'engineer' cannot say that i am surprised.

[Agloco]

Neil deGrasse Tyson has an incredible presentation on intelligent design that touches on a lot of the same things that article does, and makes some worrying comparisons of our nation's evangelical turn to that of the Muslims back around 1200 or so that destroyed their societies and turned them into the backwater shitholes they are now.

Ti3mtDC2fQo

His closing segment on stupid design is hilarious too.

Good stuff :tu

[Clipper Nation]

http://i.imgur.com/IcWzr.gif

When I saw "U.S. Democracy" in the title I had the same reaction, tbh... it's a REPUBLIC, people....

[Spurminator]

We are nurturing hostility towards education and intelligence in order to make people feel okay about their stupidity so they will vote for the right party in election years or donate to the right religious causes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When I saw "U.S. Democracy" in the title I had the same reaction, tbh... it's a REPUBLIC, people....

That's just semantics. Representative democracy whatevs. That point of the article was that the principles of rationalism, empiricism and inductive reason from the likes of Locke and Bacon on which the founders relied for the basis of government have been rejected in favor of convenient ideology.

[velik_m]

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

[Winehole23]

if only the electorate were compliant to the consensus of legitimate science, technocratic/bureaucratic control of everyday life would be so much easier.

[MannyIsGod]

if only the electorate were compliant to the consensus of legitimate science, technocratic/bureaucratic control of everyday life would be so much easier.

Thats what you got from this? OK.

[Winehole23]

I don't see the existential threat to democracy, just scientists pissed off at being marginalized politically.

[Winehole23]

do you see it, Manny? what's the threat to our form of government?

[boutons_deux]

I don't see the existential threat to democracy, just scientists pissed off at being marginalized politically.

When the demos is replaced by the ploutos, democracy fails to exist, becomes a plutocracy, of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the (http://www.google.com/search?q=of+the+people+by+the+people+for+the+peopl e&hl=en&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS478US478&prmd=imvnsu&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=PsV-UJn2OYrm8gSU6oG4BQ&ved=0CDcQqAI) wealthy, which is what the US has become.

If Gecko/Ryan win on the propaganda paid for the 1%, the plutocracy's dominance will be strengthened.

[Winehole23]

which has what to do with the supposed threat of unscientific thinking?

[boutons_deux]

an anti-scientific stance (in USA) is very probably tied to other bullshit, ignorant thinking, like "market is sacred and always right" and "business is highest human" achievement, and "financial wealth means personal value, virtue" and of course "The Bible is word for word literally correct and scientific". The 1% has suckered the "Christians" and uneducated to their side, which is the side of plutocracy over democracy.

[MannyIsGod]

do you see it, Manny? what's the threat to our form of government?


Governor Romney's path to endorsement exemplifies the problem. “I don't speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world is getting warmer,” Romney told voters in June 2011 at a town hall meeting after announcing his candidacy. “I can't prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer, and number two, I believe that humans contribute to that.” Four days later radio commentator Rush Limbaugh blasted Romney on his show, saying, “Bye-bye nomination. Bye-bye nomination, another one down. We're in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax! And we still have presidential candidates who want to buy into it.

When scientific denial is a cornerstone of achieving a presidential nomination I most certainly see it. The threat is that we ignore valid scientific concerns for reasons of political convenience which then have serious consequences for our nation. It doesn't have to be climate change but that is one of the most obvious examples right now.

[Winehole23]

Of course. Republicans and entrenched wealth have the whole world dancing at the end of a string. As you often point out, Enlightenment stands no chance against evil manipulators and their all too willing dupes.

[MannyIsGod]

The article is absolutely full of examples of politicians arguing for piss poor policy decisions based on atrocious science. I would say that is an absolute threat. Sure, maybe scientists are pissed off that the facts are being ignored. You seem to frame that as a bad thing. Why?

[Winehole23]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

When scientific denial is a cornerstone of achieving a presidential nomination I most certainly see it. The threat is that we ignore valid scientific concerns for reasons of political convenience which then have serious consequences for our nation. It doesn't have to be climate change but that is one of the most obvious examples right now.that's a threat to the environment and possibly to lots and lots of people, but I don't see how that's a threat to democracy or our form of government.

[Winehole23]

democracies making bad or very short sighted decisions based on ignorance or ideology isn't anything new. more a feature than an exception, tbh.

[MannyIsGod]

that's a threat to the environment and possibly to lots and lots of people, but I don't see how that's a threat to democracy or our form of government.

Do you feel that our democracy is threatened at all currently?

[Winehole23]

valid scientific viewpoints are no more valid or deserving in the political arena than any other viewpoint. you do know what democracy means, right?

[Winehole23]

Do you feel that our democracy is threatened at all currently?by antiscientific attitudes? no.

[Winehole23]

by oligarchy and regulatory capture, yes.

[MannyIsGod]

by oligarchy and regulatory capture, yes.

What type of environment do you feel is conducive to this happening?

[Winehole23]

I don't have a theory of it. I just see it happening.

[Winehole23]

do you have a theory of it?

[MannyIsGod]

I believe its the same type of environment where science is dismissed out of hand by many people in the society. I'm no sociologist, but I definitely believe that a more educated and curious society is generally less inclined to go the authoritative route.

Basically, I feel you're arguing against the premises in the article even though I feel it aligns fairly well with many of the things you have posted. It simply looks at it from a different perspective.


Ironically, the intellectual tools currently being used by the political right to such harmful effect originated on the academic left. In the 1960s and 1970s a philosophical movement called postmodernism developed among humanities professors displeased at being deposed by science, which they regarded as right-leaning. Postmodernism adopted ideas from cultural anthropology (http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=anthropology) and relativity (http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=relativity) theory to argue that truth is relative and subject to the assumptions and prejudices of the observer. Science is just one of many ways of knowing, they argued, neither more nor less valid than others, like those of Aborigines, Native Americans or women. Furthermore, they defined science as the way of knowing among Western white men and a tool of cultural oppression. This argument resonated with many feminists and civil-rights activists and became widely adopted, leading to the “political correctness” justifiably hated by Rush Limbaugh and the “mental masturbation” lampooned by Woody Allen.Acceptance of this relativistic worldview undermines democracy and leads not to tolerance but to authoritarianism. John Locke, one of Jefferson's “trinity of three greatest men,” showed why almost three centuries ago. Locke watched the arguing factions of Protestantism, each claiming to be the one true religion, and asked: How do we know something to be true? What is the basis of knowledge? In 1689 he defined what knowledge is and how it is grounded in observations of the physical world in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Any claim that fails this test is “but faith, or opinion, but not knowledge.” It was this idea—that the world is knowable and that objective, empirical knowledge is the most equitable basis for public policy—that stood as Jefferson's foundational argument for democracy.
By falsely equating knowledge with opinion, postmodernists and antiscience conservatives alike collapse our thinking back to a pre-Enlightenment era, leaving no common basis for public policy. Public discourse is reduced to endless warring opinions, none seen as more valid than another. Policy is determined by the loudest voices, reducing us to a world in which might makes right—the classic definition of authoritarianism.
Postmodernism infiltrated a generation of American education programs, as Allan Bloom first pointed out in The Closing of the American Mind. It also infected journalism, where the phrase “there is no such thing as objectivity” is often repeated like a mantra.
Reporters who agree with this statement will not dig to get to the truth and will tend to simply present “both sides” of contentious issues, especially if they cannot judge the validity of scientific evidence. This kind of false balance becomes a problem when one side is based on knowledge and the other is merely an opinion, as often occurs when policy problems intersect with science. If the press corps does not strive to report objective reality, for which scientific evidence is our only reliable guide, the ship of democracy is set adrift from its moorings in the well-informed voter and becomes vulnerable once again to the tyranny that Jefferson feared.

[MannyIsGod]

I've never read that John Locke essay but it seems like something I should read.

[MannyIsGod]

By falsely equating knowledge with opinion, postmodernists and antiscience conservatives alike collapse our thinking back to a pre-Enlightenment era, leaving no common basis for public policy. Public discourse is reduced to endless warring opinions, none seen as more valid than another. Policy is determined by the loudest voices, reducing us to a world in which might makes right—the classic definition of authoritarianism.

[Winehole23]

I believe its the same type of environment where science is dismissed out of hand by many people in the society. I'm no sociologist, but I definitely believe that a more educated and curious society is generally less inclined to go the authoritative route.I can feel the rhetorical pull of that belief, but I'd love to see the evidence for it.

[MannyIsGod]

Thats fair and I'm not sure I can provide it. I don't have any offhand and the article makes the argument but it doesn't say this happened in X society in this manner and thats how it turned out.

[Winehole23]

By falsely equating knowledge with opinion, postmodernists and antiscience conservatives alike collapse our thinking back to a pre-Enlightenment era, leaving no common basis for public policy. Public discourse is reduced to endless warring opinions, none seen as more valid than another. Policy is determined by the loudest voices, reducing us to a world in which might makes right—the classic definition of authoritarianism.the idea that the Enlightenment is unideological or anti-ideological is itself an ideology and a great temptation to power. remember the USSR?

[MannyIsGod]

Sure but that (and China for that matter) are environments where debate is/was non existent. I'm not saying we should elect a great leader who follows science but I get your point. I believe the authors of the article are arguing more for a debate grounded in reality as opposed to one where arguments with no basis in reality are treated as equally valid.

[Winehole23]

so then, public debates, a la Jurgen Habermas, ought essentially to resemble graduate school seminars?

[Winehole23]

in essence, you're suggesting it's a fault not to bow to the accepted scientific consensus or to fail to embrace its modes of enquiry. within scientific institutions this is clearly true. but why it should be true for politics?

[MannyIsGod]

because scientific consensus is based on factual knowledge. Are you advocating ignoring such knowledge?

[dbestpro]

The world was flat, then they found out the world was round. Through the holographic theory they say everything is flat, again. Science, since the beginning, has always thought they have it right to the point that they become political.

A true scientist would prove something to a point of high probability and then work to disprove their theory. Otherwise, ego and the skew of philosophy will always interfere with their ability to find the truth.

[Winehole23]

because scientific consensus is based on factual knowledge. Are you advocating ignoring such knowledge?not at all, but people are free to ignore it in favor of whatever they perceive their real interests to be.

do you think scientific consensus ought to legislate what views are permissible in politics?

[Winehole23]

essentially, you seem to be demanding that consensus science be allowed to define facts and valid viewpoints for politics. I think that is a dangerous ideology, antithetical to freedom and worth opposing in principle.

[MannyIsGod]

Why are you making a leap from discussing what is prefered to whether or not it should be mandated by legislation? People are absolutely to ignore the facts but that doesnt mean I have to like it. It also doesnt mean I want to legislate what views are permissibale.

[Winehole23]

freedom includes the freedom to be a dumbass according to your definition of it. one person, one vote, regardless of the scientific validity of one's viewpoint or putative facts.

[Winehole23]

you're pissed that your (scientific) viewpoint isn't privileged over others. which is understandable, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with people who disagree or a political system that fails to conform to it.

[Winehole23]

after all, as pointed out upstream, science gets things wrong, too.

[Winehole23]

Why are you making a leap from discussing what is prefered to whether or not it should be mandated by legislation?I wasn't. I was using the word legislate philosophically, not in the technical public sense. Substitute "determine" if you like.

[MannyIsGod]

freedom includes the freedom to be a dumbass according to your definition of it. one person, one vote, regardless of the scientific validity of one's viewpoint or putative facts.

This is the 2nd time you've built up this strawman and torn it down. Can you point to the place where a view contrary to this has been advocated? I nor the article ever denied its a right to do things in less than optimum manner but rather that it is not the optimal course.


you're pissed that your (scientific) viewpoint isn't privileged over others. which is understandable, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with people who disagree or a political system that fails to conform to it.

Actually, there is absolutely something wrong with a political system that discounts facts and instead goes with lies or ideas that simply aren't true. This isn't to say that every decision in a political system can be made with absolute knowledge on what the outcomes of any decision will be but when a system rewards someone who discards known fact is absolutely broken. You're welcome to disagree on this front but I would personally welcome an explanation on why.


after all, as pointed out upstream, science gets things wrong, too.

Sure, but if you can point me to a system of understanding that has advanced human knowledge anywhere near the scientific method I am very interested. Science need not be perfect in order to be the best method of expanding human knowledge available.

[Winehole23]

so, science should get to be in charge of politics, too?

[MannyIsGod]

The same ideas behind the scientific method should be in charge of the decision making process in the political process. The idea that you observe and then make decisions based on observations instead of decisions made by ignoring reality isn't exactly a radical one.

When someone is building a bridge they are welcome to ignore the reality of what gravity means for the bridge design but I don't think the outcome is going to be a very good one.

[Winehole23]

I don't really see how that follows.

" A political system that discounts facts and instead goes with lies and goofy implausibilities" looks normal to me, however odious or repellent to the conscience it is. I'm not sure it's been much improved by debunking, truth squadding or fact checking of any kind. Maybe even the reverse. Bullshit and counter-bullshit, propaganda and counter-propaganda, proliferate, crowding everything else out.

[Winehole23]

The same ideas behind the scientific method should be in charge of the decision making process in the political process. The idea that you observe and then make decisions based on observations instead of decisions made by ignoring reality isn't exactly a radical one.

When someone is building a bridge they are welcome to ignore the reality of what gravity means for the bridge design but I don't think the outcome is going to be a very good one.the laws of physics work for legislation, diplomacy and war? how lucky for all of us, and how fortunate indeed for doctors of physics.

[Winehole23]

start using the scientific method? are our representatives to be citizen scientists from now on, quantifying the efficiency of their own political actions and justifying their political theories before august, doctoral bodies composed exclusively of properly credentialled peers?

I can't wait. Gonna be hilarious.

[clambake]

hucksterism sells better than science.

[Winehole23]

lot of things do, tbh.

[clambake]

fear works, too

[Winehole23]

science isn't completely unhucksterish itself. Manny keeps trying to characterize me as anti-knowledge and pro-ignorance.

[Shastafarian]

hucksterism sells better than science.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQOqPaJH9APUCFkhj080Yzj_9_6XhP57 vMNfPCEJ4HE4DD_4IKZ

[clambake]

science isn't completely unhucksterish itself. Manny keeps trying to characterize me as anti-knowledge and pro-ignorance.

i don't think so. manny's got a dream about americans that will never be reached.

[Winehole23]

when really, all I object to is the arrogance of science to settle human affairs. I think there's enough of that already and that even more should be resisted.

[clambake]

when really, all I object to is the arrogance of science to settle human affairs. I think there's enough of that already and that even more should be resisted.

i'll bite. such as......

[MannyIsGod]

the laws of physics work for legislation, diplomacy and war? how lucky for all of us, and how fortunate indeed for doctors of physics.

The laws of physics apply in those areas when appropriate. What do you think the repurcussions would be if governments ignored the effects of nuclear weapons? I am not saying they are applicable everywhere but ignoring them where they do apply is not wise. You disagree?

[MannyIsGod]

start using the scientific method? are our representatives to be citizen scientists from now on, quantifying the efficiency of their own political actions and justifying their political theories before august, doctoral bodies composed exclusively of properly credentialled peers?

I can't wait. Gonna be hilarious.

This is such a ridiculous statement. What is the scientific method? You basically take observed data and incorporate it into your decision making process. The scientific method has nothing to do with doctoral bodies. You're using a completely different definition of science than I or the article authors are. You're basically taking science to mean academia which is not the idea that was discussed in the article. Let me quote from the OP again:


Acceptance of this relativistic worldview undermines democracy and leads not to tolerance but to authoritarianism. John Locke, one of Jefferson's “trinity of three greatest men,” showed why almost three centuries ago. Locke watched the arguing factions of Protestantism, each claiming to be the one true religion, and asked: How do we know something to be true? What is the basis of knowledge? In 1689 he defined what knowledge is and how it is grounded in observations of the physical world in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Any claim that fails this test is “but faith, or opinion, but not knowledge.” It was this idea—that the world is knowable and that objective, empirical knowledge is the most equitable basis for public policy—that stood as Jefferson's foundational argument for democracy.

This is the single most important paragraph in that entire article. It tells you exactly what they are talking about. At no point does anyone mention doctoral bodies, credentials, or citizen scientists but rather that we base our decision making process on "objective, empirical knowledge" (which begs the question why do you keep mentioning these things?).

And let me repeat, that doesn't mean every subject is one where we have a good handle on what is "objective, empirical knowledge". I realize completely that in areas such as sociology and economics our understanding of how the systems work is flawed and incomplete. That doesn't somehow give people carte blanche to make up a reality of their choosing in the subject areas where we do have such a handle on things.

What I can't wait for is whatever strawman you'll come up with next or where you'll shift the goal posts too now. Gonna be hilarious.

[MannyIsGod]

i don't think so. manny's got a dream about americans that will never be reached.

I don't expect perfection. Doesn't mean it hasn't regressed quite a bit or that we can't improve the current state of affairs.

[MannyIsGod]

when really, all I object to is the arrogance of science to settle human affairs. I think there's enough of that already and that even more should be resisted.

Yeah the arrogance of what is by far the most successful way of advancing human knowledge in existence. I asked you above to show me a method that had done more for humanity than the scientific method. I didn't see any response. But by all means, if you can tell us where its being overused I'm all ears.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the drunk didn't even bother to read the article. it was not saying that the government should be run by men of science. what it said was that the government was framed under men who approached problems like Locke, Newton and Bacon approached problems. ie inductive reasoning, empiricism, and the like.

its not that physics should be hte overlord but rather that physics should not be discarded because it contradicts with ideology. where do you think the notion of separation of church and state came from?

It's about how decisions should be made and not who makes them.

[z0sa]

If only life were so simple that our politicians could simply approach everyone of our nation's problems empirically and then call for the obvious needed solution.

[MannyIsGod]

If only life were so simple that our politicians could simply approach everyone of our nation's problems empirically and then call for the obvious needed solution.

If only our politicians wouldn't ignore reality in favor of fairy tales.

Its not about being able to make a good decision everywhere but about not discarding the opportunities when they actually are there.

[dbestpro]

It is very difficult to get pure data from which scientific conclusions are drawn. The problem quite often is the data is obtained through biased means thus providing scientists with faulty conclusions. To understand the value of the conclusion you have to even factor in the funding source of the study as that will skew your results as much as any test methodology.

In the end people will see what they want to see, much like politics only it happens more discreetly in the scientific arena.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is very difficult to get pure data from which scientific conclusions are drawn. The problem quite often is the data is obtained through biased means thus providing scientists with faulty conclusions. To understand the value of the conclusion you have to even factor in the funding source of the study as that will skew your results as much as any test methodology.

In the end people will see what they want to see, much like politics only it happens more discreetly in the scientific arena.

Biased means like what?

[dbestpro]

Most scientific studies, and in particular at the university level, are funded by grants. These grants are designed in such a way as to ask the researcher to find a way to arrive at a particular conclusion. There are very few funded studies that ask the research to follow a path of true empirical data. The observations are already established by the structure of the grant itself. The entire process leads to a biased scientific approach. It is why we can so easily have one study that says product X is bad for you while another will say it is good for you.

I have been involved in numerous grants and headed enough research projects to know that there is tremendous pressure to support preconceived notions as established within the grant, itself. Scientific peer pressure to not rock the boat and university administration pressure to keep the money flowing also supports the bias, as well.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Most scientific studies, and in particular at the university level, are funded by grants. These grants are designed in such a way as to ask the researcher to find a way to arrive at a particular conclusion. There are very few funded studies that ask the research to follow a path of true empirical data. The observations are already established by the structure of the grant itself. The entire process leads to a biased scientific approach. It is why we can so easily have one study that says product X is bad for you while another will say it is good for you.

I have been involved in numerous grants and headed enough research projects to know that there is tremendous pressure to support preconceived notions as established within the grant, itself. Scientific peer pressure to not rock the boat and university administration pressure to keep the money flowing also supports the bias, as well.

I asked for specific empirical examples of data that was biased or otherwise flawed. I did not ask for more ideological bullshit because your notion of the vast university wing conspiracy is unsubstantiated bullshit idea.

Also you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of how the process works. If madeup bullshit study X shows product Y is great its quite easy to disprove using the methodology becasue trials and experiments are required to be repeatable. That way your powers that be like the church can run their own tests and show their own empirical results.

[RandomGuy]

It is very difficult to get pure data from which scientific conclusions are drawn. The problem quite often is the data is obtained through biased means thus providing scientists with faulty conclusions. To understand the value of the conclusion you have to even factor in the funding source of the study as that will skew your results as much as any test methodology.

In the end people will see what they want to see, much like politics only it happens more discreetly in the scientific arena.

"The ball don't lie."

Experiments and observations can be, and are, studied by others with expertise, fully capable of getting data, and doing experiments of their own.

Someone using "biased" data runs the risk of someone else finding out, and proving that you fucked up or made shit up. If you want to keep doing the job of science, you can't do that. The risks are just a bit too great.

i.e.

"the ball don't lie".

QED

[boutons_deux]

"In the end people will see what they want to see,"

And if people deny that objectivity and scientific method are suspect, untrustworthy, then they make up and push their own reality, ie, Repugs/VRWC denying the science of AGW, denying that Ms of people depend on govt spending, yelling down anybody who dares question the sacredness of the free market to provide all best solutions (while the Repugs/VRWC actually detest free markets).

[dbestpro]

It always amazes me when people, who are confronted with logical information, tend to rely on insults and political correction. Whether you are ignorant of how the process works has very little to do with the fact you are democrat or republican. It also tends to be a warning sign that there can be no intellectual exchange.

Foul language in most intellectual cricles is considered the vehicle of the lesser intelligent. You may want to try and and do a little better the next time you wish to engage someone is a discussion regarding science.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I also want to expand on this a little bit. Locke was big on being able to prove your claims empirically. He was the one to formalize the notion. In the mid-19th century, Emerson came into what is now a through and through American tradition, the notion of self reliance. it's bastardized nowadays to mean that you rely on yourself in all means but if you read Self Reliance it talks about coming to conclusions and how at the end of the day you need to rely on yourself for that. He wraps it up in cosmic pulse transcendental mumbo jumbo but the message is clear: think for yourself.

Science through its requirement of being empirical and thus repeatable gives an avenue for each man to be independent. No one tells you shit because you can look for yourself to see whether or not something is true.

It's the difference between taking air samples and thermometer readings to come to a conclusion about climate and claiming that universities are all making shit up to come to a conclusion about climate.

[dbestpro]

"In the end people will see what they want to see,"

And if people deny that objectivity and scientific method are suspect, untrustworthy, then they make up and push their own reality, ie, Repugs/VRWC denying the science of AGW, denying that Ms of people depend on govt spending, yelling down anybody who dares question the sacredness of the free market to provide all best solutions (while the Repugs/VRWC actually detest free markets).

I agree that it does go both ways. The solutions for our country will always begin on where we agree.

[dbestpro]

I also want to expand on this a little bit. Locke was big on being able to prove your claims empirically. He was the one to formalize the notion. In the mid-19th century, Emerson came into what is now a through and through American tradition, the notion of self reliance. it's bastardized nowadays to mean that you rely on yourself in all means but if you read Self Reliance it talks about coming to conclusions and how at the end of the day you need to rely on yourself for that. He wraps it up in cosmic pulse transcendental mumbo jumbo but the message is clear: think for yourself.

Science through its requirement of being empirical and thus repeatable gives an avenue for each man to be independent. No one tells you shit because you can look for yourself to see whether or not something is true.

It's the difference between taking air samples and thermometer readings to come to a conclusion about climate and claiming that universities are all making shit up to come to a conclusion about climate.

I happen to agree with everything you presented in this post.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Logical? What's the original premise? What are you inducing off of?

And your proper diction whining can fuck off.

studies are funded by grants - okay

grants are made with a conclusion in mind - substantiate this bullshit

there are few studies that really ask for empirical proof - bullshit prove it. what studies?

the grants are structured such they assume certain truths already - well that is a matter of degree. more than likely you are talking about creation science not getting credence but for the most part things like oxidation, gravity, thermodynamics, etc have been fully fleshed out and don't need to be reproven each and every time. Creation science has no empirical backing so why should every study give it credence? You dont have Aquinas forcing the issue any more. Sorry.

the whole process is biased - were you stamping your foot as you said this? you say that foul language is indicative of low intelligence. Well I posit that saying stupid shit is a sign of low intelligence. this is a convenient blanket dismissal though.

[velik_m]

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that the state has decided to crack down on free education, notifying California-based startup Coursera that it is not allowed to offer its online courses to the state’s residents. Coursera, founded by Stanford computer science professors Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng, partners with top-tier universities around the world to offer certain classes online for free to anyone who wants to take them. You know, unless they happen to be from Minnesota.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/18/minnesota_bans_coursera_state_takes_bold_stand_aga inst_free_education.html

:lmao

[DMC]

I also want to expand on this a little bit. Locke was big on being able to prove your claims empirically. He was the one to formalize the notion. In the mid-19th century, Emerson came into what is now a through and through American tradition, the notion of self reliance. it's bastardized nowadays to mean that you rely on yourself in all means but if you read Self Reliance it talks about coming to conclusions and how at the end of the day you need to rely on yourself for that. He wraps it up in cosmic pulse transcendental mumbo jumbo but the message is clear: think for yourself.

Science through its requirement of being empirical and thus repeatable gives an avenue for each man to be independent. No one tells you shit because you can look for yourself to see whether or not something is true.

It's the difference between taking air samples and thermometer readings to come to a conclusion about climate and claiming that universities are all making shit up to come to a conclusion about climate.

It's not even about religion, per se. It's about laziness. People are too lazy to think for themselves. It requires research and experimentation. Instead, people want the Cliff Notes version in the form of hearsay. Even then they shun those claims that cause doubt, because doubt leads to desire to research and they are too lazy for that. So they choose the most comfortable explanation, nothing too fancy, but even if that inserts a supernatural force in a black box role, they are ok with it as their thinking doesn't even need to address that block. You cannot research God, and the taboo nature of even considering it keeps them comfortably numb about science.

They will talk about it to others like them however, they just won't discuss it with scientists.

[DMC]

It is very difficult to get pure data from which scientific conclusions are drawn. The problem quite often is the data is obtained through biased means thus providing scientists with faulty conclusions. To understand the value of the conclusion you have to even factor in the funding source of the study as that will skew your results as much as any test methodology.

In the end people will see what they want to see, much like politics only it happens more discreetly in the scientific arena.
I am not disagreeing with you, however the alternative is to allow universities to just meander in science and provide no usable results. There's always a CV in any results, even in your own testing. You still have to take the most reliable source and work from that. That doesn't mean you accept their findings, but it you can build your research upon it's premises and prove or disprove them along the way.

[Blake]

Foul language in most intellectual cricles is considered the vehicle of the lesser intelligent.

that's a fucked up stereotype

[Winehole23]

i'll bite. such as......deference shown to so called forensic science, head shrinkers and other supposedly sceintific experts in courts, for one

[Winehole23]

And let me repeat, that doesn't mean every subject is one where we have a good handle on what is "objective, empirical knowledge". I realize completely that in areas such as sociology and economics our understanding of how the systems work is flawed and incomplete. That doesn't somehow give people carte blanche to make up a reality of their choosing in the subject areas where we do have such a handle on things.people will, and do. cope with it.

[Winehole23]

Yeah the arrogance of what is by far the most successful way of advancing human knowledge in existence. I asked you above to show me a method that had done more for humanity than the scientific method. I didn't see any response.Republican government and free trade, by a country mile. Political liberalism sets the table for innovation of all kinds, including scientific innovation. Human freedom > scientific progress.

[clambake]

deference shown to so called forensic science, head shrinkers and other supposedly sceintific experts in courts, for one

well, that stage is set for the dog and pony show......to cloud procedure.

[boutons_deux]

"The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. "

http://quotes.dictionary.com/the_most_costly_of_all_follies_is_to

[Winehole23]

That doesn't somehow give people carte blanche to make up a reality of their choosing in the subject areas where we do have such a handle on things.it's your job to convince people your viewpoint deserves deference. angrily denouncing people as benighted fools and pointing smugly at the accomplishments of science ain't gonna get it done anymore, though it does seem that worked well enough for awhile, given the number of aggrieved, over-entitled scientists who believe they deserve to set the parameters of public debate.

[Winehole23]

well, that stage is set for the dog and pony show......to cloud procedure.civil commitment and criminal conviction are real; the supposedly scientific evidence taken as the basis for them often isn't

[clambake]

its just rebuttal.....to cloud procedure. lawyers often select jurors directly relating to IQ.

[Winehole23]

thanks, I'm not a lawyer. didn't catch the voir dire reference.

problem isn't just the jurors. lawyers often select experts known to be friendly to LE or the defense; some experts are professional pleaders without much of a professional practice to back it all up. then there are things like rifle marks on the bullet, which have been more or less shown to be without probative value, and things like fingerprint analysis, which can be highly subjective and prone to confirmation bias in the absence of meaningful standards (as well as oversight and review amounting to enforcement of said standards.)

[clambake]

pick the right jury and have someone plant the seed of questionable evidence gathering and handling.....whether it exists or not.

dog and pony.

[Winehole23]

yep.

[Winehole23]

civil commitment requires no jury, though. just a head shrinker, a concerned relative and a judge.

[MannyIsGod]

people will, and do. cope with it.

Wow, such an insightful response. Why even bother?

[MannyIsGod]

Republican government and free trade, by a country mile. Political liberalism sets the table for innovation of all kinds, including scientific innovation. Human freedom > scientific progress.

Providing an environment where science is able to expand knowledge does not mean science isn't what is expanding our knowledge.

[Winehole23]

therefore, I will bow to you and accede to your stipulated facts and limitations, and so should everyone else. right?

[Winehole23]

if we don't, democracy is in danger. obviously.

[MannyIsGod]

it's your job to convince people your viewpoint deserves deference. angrily denouncing people as benighted fools and pointing smugly at the accomplishments of science ain't gonna get it done anymore, though it does seem that worked well enough for awhile, given the number of aggrieved, over-entitled scientists who believe they deserve to set the parameters of public debate.

So its the fault of the communicator when people disregard facts backed by evidence? Pointing at a history of getting things done isn't going to get it done? LOL @ aggreived over entitled scientists. Your personal bias against scientists is shining through quite clearly here. I'm not sure how it developed, but apparently it is causing you to argue that scientists are over entitled (LOL!) because they're annoyed when people ignore reality. Oh, and its also their fault.

The article is arguing that the evidence and facts should set the parameters on public debate. If you don't agree with that, then you are in favor of fairy tales being the bounds of public debate. That is not me characterizing your argument. That IS your argument.

[MannyIsGod]

Very simple question: Are you in favor of ignoring mountains of evidence for political gain?

[Winehole23]

The article is arguing that the evidence and facts should set the parameters on public debate. If you don't agree with that, then you are in favor of fairy tales being the bounds of public debate. That is not me characterizing your argument. That IS your argument.that people will set the parameters of public debate according to their own perceived political interests rather than scientifically vetted facts?

yep. that's just as it should be. you wish the world were otherwise, but it isn't.

[symple19]

There is some subtle and rather hilarious trolling going on in here (LOL!)

[Winehole23]

Very simple question: Are you in favor of ignoring mountains of evidence for political gain?people are free to attach credence to whatever. you do know what freedom of conscience is, right?

[MannyIsGod]

people are free to attach credence to whatever. you do know what freedom of conscience is, right?

You did not answer my question. I asked you a very simple question. I did not ask if people were free to ignore mountains of evidence for political gain. The obvious answer to that is yes. I asked you what you were in favor of.

[Winehole23]

So its the fault of the communicator when people disregard facts backed by evidence?partly, yes. ifr you've failed to make your case, you failed to make it. blame that on the audience all you want, but you've failed just the same.

[boutons_deux]

people are free to attach credence to whatever. you do know what freedom of conscience is, right?

conscience is not license to fantasize, to fill up conscience with garbage rules, esp not in the public sphere. Along with conscience, there is an obligation to doubt conscience and correct it.

[Winehole23]

You did not answer my question. I asked you a very simple question. I did not ask if people were free to ignore mountains of evidence for political gain. The obvious answer to that is yes. I asked you what you were in favor of.I'm in favor of people deciding for themselves and not bowing reflexively to the majesty of science. Presumably that would include viewpoints cutting both ways on this question.

[clambake]

it would take a scientific breakthrough to reach someone thats wired to reject science.

[Winehole23]

conscience is not license to fantasize, to fill up conscience with garbage rules, esp not in the public sphere.why not? isn't it commonly done?

[Winehole23]

it would take a scientific breakthrough to reach someone thats wired to reject science.I'm not wired to reject science. Far from it. It's the arrogance and high-handedness of the practitioners that gets me.

[MannyIsGod]

Why can't you simply answer a very simple question instead of being so afraid of the answer that you continue to dodge it? How is analyzing the evidence bowing reflexively to anything? I didn't say anything about taking anyone's word for it. What I asked you was if you were in favor of people ignoring evidence for political gain. This is not a very simple question simply meant to boil down the argument to its simplest point and you have now avoided answering it twice.

[clambake]

I'm not wired to reject science. Far from it.

i wasn't suggesting that, at all.

[Winehole23]

What I asked you was if you were in favor of people ignoring evidence for political gain.I answered it, you just didn't like my answer. I suggested political interests can trump scientifically verifiable truth and falsity, and that's just as it should be. Not because I want it that way, but because that's the way it is.

[MannyIsGod]

It would be one thing if the article was arguing that people should listen to scientists and simply take their word for it. Then WH's argument as I see it would have merit. Of course, science goes to extensive measures to provide reasoning for everything and nothing that is advanced from a scientific endeavour is done without detailed explanations and reasoning. There is no such thing as "take my word for it" in science.

[Winehole23]

so no, I don't think politics should be rigged to produce outcomes favorable to science. Optimally, it produces outcomes favorable to real people and real political interests.

[MannyIsGod]

I answered it, you just didn't like my answer. I suggested political interests can trump scientifically verifiable truth and falsity, and that's just as it should be. Not because I want it that way, but because that's the way it is.

There's no doubt that political interests can trump the truth, WH. This is not up for debate. That it happens is not up for debate. The fact that the article is written about that very subject pretty much precludes that from being an item of contention. Why do you keep coming back to this? I'm not sure what the point of acknowledging what the initial OP was about as some end all be all point is.

What I asked was your opinion on whether or not this situation was one you were in favor of.

[MannyIsGod]

so no, I don't think politics should be rigged to produce outcomes favorable to science. Optimally, it produces outcomes favorable to real people and real political interests.

I don't even know what you mean by politics being rigged to produce outcomes favorable to science.

[Winehole23]

It would be one thing if the article was arguing that people should listen to scientists and simply take their word for it. Then WH's argument as I see it would have merit. Of course, science goes to extensive measures to provide reasoning for everything and nothing that is advanced from a scientific endeavour is done without detailed explanations and reasoning. There is no such thing as "take my word for it" in science.btw, why is science so bad at winning the public debate if it's so good at discovering knowledge and improving life?

[clambake]

he's saying that personal interests will always trump science....or anything else, for that matter.

[Winehole23]

I don't even know what you mean by politics being rigged to produce outcomes favorable to science.you think it should conform to scientifically verifiable facts. presumably, politics would have to be made to conform to that. obviously, it lacks the self-discipline to do so now.

[Blake]

btw, why is science so bad at winning the public debate if it's so good at discovering knowledge and improving life?

What debate?

[Winehole23]

What I asked was your opinion on whether or not this situation was one you were in favor of.Asked and answered. At least twice.

It's just as it should be. I sure don't think a bunch of scientists could invent a more suitable system of public affairs.

[Winehole23]

What debate?over what counts as a fact in public policy, for example. take anthropogenic global warming, as Manny did earlier on . . . scientists can't get their pet policy moved, so they call us a bunch of idiots and scream that democracy is in danger..

[MannyIsGod]

btw, why is science so bad at winning the public debate if it's so good at discovering knowledge and improving life?

Historically, its not bad at winning the public debate at all. Your question starts off with a flawed premise. People use scientific principles on a daily basis and pretty much every piece of equipment people use on a daily basis is has been the work of science. Chances are good that the food you consume today will have been produced with methods devloped in a scientific way. The water you drink today will have undergone processes developed by scientists. In your daily life I'd be surprised if you could go mere minutes without somehow buying into a product of science and using it.

Furthermore, science may be losing the public debate in the United States in some areas but whether its doing so overall is not something I'd concede.

[Winehole23]

fair enough. so, how is democracy endangered?

[MannyIsGod]

over what counts as a fact in public policy, for example. take anthropogenic global warming, as Manny did earlier on . . . scientists can't get their pet policy moved, so they call us a bunch of idiots and scream that democracy is in danger..

Oh see, you're making a leap here that ins't there. There's a fundamental difference between decrying a politician ignoring the facts of the issue and advocating any specific legislation. You are once again errecting a strawman. Its not about enacting legislation but rather acknowledging what the fundamental facts are.

[Winehole23]

I did read the article and found little besides emotive prose and vaporous inference to back that up.

[MannyIsGod]

fair enough. so, how is democracy endangered?

Did you read the article in the OP?

[Winehole23]

Oh see, you're making a leap here that ins't there. There's a fundamental difference between decrying a politician ignoring the facts of the issue and advocating any specific legislation. You are once again errecting a strawman. Its not about enacting legislation but rather acknowledging what the fundamental facts are.so, in the absence of mature scientific understanding -- which btw very few people possess -- we do have to take someone else's word for it, don't we?

[MannyIsGod]

If you don't think Democracy is endagered, then fine. I dont think the case was extensive in the article.


I'm pretty sure I acknowledged this earlier in the thread.


What I take issue with is the idea that its ideal for people to ignore facts. Or even OK for that matter. Simply saying "thats the way it is" is a huge cop out of that subject and frankly lazy as shit.

[Winehole23]

you think everyone should bow at your altar, but it just ain't true

[MannyIsGod]

so, in the absence of mature scientific understanding -- which btw very few people possess -- we do have to take someone else's word for it, don't we?

Absolutely not. You never just have to take a persons word for it. The evidence is there for anyone who wants to seek it out and for most things they aren't so complicated that you can't learn about them with some effort. It simply is not a valid argument that you have to take someone's word for it at any point because you don't have to.

Obviously you can choose to take someone's word for it but thats not the same as having to take someone's word for it.

[MannyIsGod]

you think everyone should bow at your altar, but it just ain't true

You keep trying to make it about arrogance when its about knowledge. When you drink that clean water that comes out of the tap who's altar are you bowing at?


How would you describe your decision making process, WH?

[Winehole23]

What I take issue with is the idea that its ideal for people to ignore facts. Or even OK for that matter.reality principle. it ain't ideal, but it's what we got to work with. it didn't ask our permission and it won't go away because some people don't like it. I can agree with some of the problems, but disagree that more science and rationalism are the obvious solutions.

[Winehole23]

You keep trying to make it about arrogance when its about knowledge. When you drink that clean water that comes out of the tap who's altar are you bowing at?


How would you describe your decision making process, WH?I love technological progress. Not hauling my own water and kindling for fire is huge. I'm grateful for that, and a lot of other things. But it doesn't follow from that that science should get to set the table for me politically.

[MannyIsGod]

In essence you have absolutely no problem accepting the results of science in pretty much every aspect of your life WH. However, when scientists are upset about the political process ignoring facts they are arrogant.

Are you arrogant when you post the articles that point out problems in the political process? What altar is that?

[Winehole23]

However, when scientists are upset about the political process ignoring facts they are arrogant.nope, but applying the scientific method to politics over a consensual political tradition built up over a couple of hundred years sure would be.

[Winehole23]

aside: in the US anti-science attitudes correlate strongly with higher levels of education.

[z0sa]

If only our politicians wouldn't ignore reality in favor of fairy tales.

Its not about being able to make a good decision everywhere but about not discarding the opportunities when they actually are there.

You're basically asking politicians to stop being human once they get into office. That's always gonna be the problem with humanity, yknow. Being human. Getting intimidated. Feeling scared or angry or slighted or abused. Emotional overall. Having pride. Dealing with constant mixtures of obstruction and pacifism. And these guys are almost always looking to garner votes and defend the honor of their party. These are the things that stop empiricism from occurring in politics consistently.

BTW, I do think our guys at Capitol Hill do approach many issues empirically. Just not all.

[Winehole23]

I don't even know what you mean by politics being rigged to produce outcomes favorable to science.you think scientific truth should win, but public policy bows to political interests instead. you think that's a problem; I think that's proper and as designed.

[Winehole23]

in politics, accountability to political constituencies > accountability to science

[Winehole23]

sometimes works that way in scientific institutions too, or so I've heard . . .

[Winehole23]

Irrationality can't be eradicated from politics, nor should it be. It can be made more rational than it is, perhaps, but I doubt that's a solution for anything.

[Winehole23]

though, it might gratify butthurt rationalists who think the rest of the world should resemble them

[Winehole23]

..and is wrong for not resembling them

[Blake]

aside: in the US anti-science attitudes correlate strongly with higher levels of education.

Huh?

[Winehole23]

I'll see if I can find the study...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

btw, why is science so bad at winning the public debate if it's so good at discovering knowledge and improving life?

Again you did not read the article.

But there are two main reasons. First, because government, military and the higher educational system most scientists have removed themselves from the public debate. This is not the early 19th century when Edison, Westinghouse and Tesla were trying to fund their projects.

Second, because the lay American is ignorant. You are more intelligent than the average bear WH but can you have an intelligent discussion about partial differential equations, harmonic analysis or thermodynamics? Perhaps you can, I do not know but if you can you should have a good idea of the inability of most Americans to function on that level. Ambassador's like Carl Sagan are important no doubt but it's hard to appeal to a person's reason when they do not have the background to be appealed to. The trend is to educate the masses less than more and they serves to widen the divide.

The above is exacerbated by a phenomenon that has been getting worse over the last 20 or so year where people turn their inferiority complexes into an excuse to dismiss out of hand. the most common example that I see of this is the 'big word' complaint. Go read a fucking book, dolt. But the undesirable socially awkward intelligent person has been stereotyped as someone you do not want to be. By extension intelligent = bad. In WW2 it became readily apparent that the truth wins wars not what you want the truth to be. Since then that understanding the efficacy of the truth has diminished in stature.

At the end of the day logic and empricism is the best way of finding an objective truth. I feel very strongly that policy should be based on the truth ie what actually happened and with the best understanding of the 'mechanics' of what causes rather than theological and wishful thinking. I don't like seeing policy like we have seen for the past thirty years hoping that the increasing temperature trends will stop or not liking abortion so you claim that rape victims have mechanisms to not get pregnant. It goes on and on and it's getting worse.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

though, it might gratify butthurt rationalists who think the rest of the world should resemble them

:lol you calling anyone butthurt after your infoeriority complex shines through from your diatribe in this thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll see if I can find the study...

Yeah you do that.

[Winehole23]

should have stipulated "among conservatives." among liberals it skews the other way:

http://www.people-press.org/2008/05/08/a-deeper-partisan-divide-over-global-warming/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Irrationality can't be eradicated from politics, nor should it be. It can be made more rational than it is, perhaps, but I doubt that's a solution for anything.

This is something I expect out of WC. Yeah basing decisions on the best predictors of future, present and past events would not be the better course of action. Who wants theings to work?:rolleyes

[Blake]

I'll see if I can find the study...

I'd be interested to know how someone who has a bachelors of science might be anti-science.

[Winehole23]

Yeah basing decisions on the best predictors of future, present and past events would not be the better course of action. politics ain't physics, and best predictors guarantee nothing. assuming we would all be better off if we had the scientific method instead of politics determining policy is an example of the arrogance and high handedness I've been talking about.

[Winehole23]

I'd be interested to know how someone who has a bachelors of science might be anti-science.posted, above

[FuzzyLumpkins]

should have stipulated "among conservatives." among liberals it skews the other way:

http://www.people-press.org/2008/05/08/a-deeper-partisan-divide-over-global-warming/

Your not very good at analyzing data.

A) you said science, this is just one very politically charged aspect of science.
B) 9 out of 10 scientist are democrat.


President Ronald Reagan argued in his 1981 inaugural address. “Government is the problem.” This antiregulatory-antiscience alliance largely defines the political parties today and helps to explain why, according to a 2009 survey, nine out of 10 scientists who identified with a major political party said they were Democrats.

Thats form the OP
C) Look at the link


In addition, college graduates are more likely than those with a high school education or less to say that human activity is causing global warming (51% college graduate vs. 43% high school or less).

[Winehole23]

Blake: google "smart idiot effect"

[Winehole23]

Your not very good at analyzing data.

A) you said science, this is just one very politically charged aspect of science.
B) 9 out of 10 scientist are democrat.



Thats form the OP
C) Look at the linkmy memory was fuzzy and my initial generalization overbroad. post #158 reflects that.

[rjv]

At the end of the day logic and empricism is the best way of finding an objective truth

isn't this, in itself, a metaphysical assertion ?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

politics ain't physics, and best predictors guarantee nothing. assuming we would all be better off if we had the scientific method instead of politics determining policy is an example of the arrogance and high handedness I've been talking about.

:lol Yeah but reality is.

So you are proposing to not take the best bet because of an inferiority complex. You can check the work but you want to run off of intuition. You are a irrational romantic poetry boy.

[Winehole23]

I remembered the study slightly before I checked to read it. You got me dead to rights there.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Over broad? How about specifically wrong.

[Winehole23]

So you are proposing to not take the best bet because of an inferiority complex.... You are a irrational romantic poetry boy.Maybe. I deny that what you say is knowable in advance. Science doesn't know the best bets for policy, because there is no science of politics. Like everyone else, science gets a policy recommendation.

But sometimes, it dreams of taking over. . .

[FuzzyLumpkins]

isn't this, in itself, a metaphysical assertion ?

Sure but at the point you are talking everybody is. It's what Hume was getting at. There can really be no true objective truth because everyone's sense are independent and different. There can be no certainty. At that point though I can question whether or not you exist or if WH is really a person etc.

I choose not to go that path because quite frankly it leads to despair. I accept that you, he and I exist. I accept that you can observe the same world that I do and that through said observations we can come to a consensus. Perhaps it is the proverbial invisible cosmic monkey banging out the rhythm of the universe but if you can experience it and it can be repeated such that other's can experience it then I define that as objective truth.

[Winehole23]

Over broad? How about specifically wrong. sure, man. I said my memory was fuzzy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Maybe. I deny that what you say is knowable in advance. Science doesn't know the best bets for policy, because there is no science of politics. Like everyone else, science gets a policy recommendation.

But sometimes, it dreams of taking over. . .

You are personifying it and being a romantic idiot. Science is not an independent consciousness. What individuals in science in the last 200 years have dreamed of taking over? I can think of a whole slew of romantics and ideologues that have.

Robespierre and Hitler come to mind.

And again it's not science. It's empiricism and inductive logic. You are fearmongering an institution.

[Winehole23]

btw, I was correct as to conservatives at high levels of education.

[Winehole23]

You are personifying it and being a romantic idiot. Science is not an independent consciousness. What individuals in science in the last 200 years have dreamed of taking over? I can think of a whole slew of romantics and ideologues that have.

Robespierre and Hitler come to mind.yeah, I'm just like those guys

[DMC]

Maybe. I deny that what you say is knowable in advance. Science doesn't know the best bets for policy, because there is no science of politics. Like everyone else, science gets a policy recommendation.

But sometimes, it dreams of taking over. . .
Science is a field of study. It's like saying geography or math dreams of taking over.

[Winehole23]

can't you just hate me for being me, Fuzzy? I don't see why Hitler and Robespierre need to get dragged into this at all.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

yeah, I'm just like those guys

I never said you were but the point is that romantics and ideologues are the ones that become the worst of the worst. You said science tries to take over. Who is this technocrat not in fiction?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

can't you just hate me for being me, Fuzzy? I don't see why Hitler and Robespierre need to get dragged into this at all.

For fucks sake dude, now you are personalizing that? I don't hate you. I feel the need to defend myself from you but I don't hate you. I don't know you well enough nor have you done anything to me to merit that. The reason I brought those two into it was because you said science tries to take over. I honestly don't know of any technocrats but i do know of romantics and ideologues ie irrational leaders that have become the absolute worst tyrants of history.

[Blake]

Blake: google "smart idiot effect"

Sounds like many staunch, formally educated conservatives and christians I've come across.

They stick to their tribe no matter what logic or fact might be laying in right in front of them.

[MannyIsGod]

Irrationality can't be eradicated from politics, nor should it be. It can be made more rational than it is, perhaps, but I doubt that's a solution for anything.

An argument in favor of irrationality is pretty astounding.

[Winehole23]

Science is a field of study. It's like saying geography or math dreams of taking over.it was in response to a developed theme in this thread: having the scientific method determine policy. Manny brought the idea up, and Fuzzy fuzzily extended it. I was responding to that, and one can't very deny bodies and boards of concerned/occupationally related scientists produce a fair number of detailed policy recommendations...

[Winehole23]

An argument in favor of irrationality is pretty astounding.in favor of its existence? I think not.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't understand the argument of a policy decision based on "science's" position. Science is a method of gathering information and analyzing it. It has no policy position. This discussion - as I've been having it and as I understood it from the OP anyway - was not one about specific policy decisions but rather the debate on the information involved on getting to a policy decision.

If we continue with the AGW example, climate science in and of itself has no position on global warming other than it is occurring and it is in large part due to GHG emissions from human burning of fossil fuels. There is a gigantic amount of evidence that shows this to be true to a high degree of probability. That is the end of the science. Any policy decision based on that information is dependent on value judgements based on those represented by the governments involved and what they feel is a desirable outcome.

Where the problem arises that is addressed in the OP is when politicians deny the existence of man made global warming through various fallacies (ie its not warming at all, CO2 isn't causing it, etc etc). These are simply flat out false and they are simply lies used to advance policy positions. You don't have to lift a damn finger to change AGW if society feels its not necessary Science doesn't have a damn thing to say about the values you use to make policy decisions.

So, with that out of the way maybe now we can now stop the strawmen regarding "science's" positions.

[LnGrrrR]

politics ain't physics, and best predictors guarantee nothing. assuming we would all be better off if we had the scientific method instead of politics determining policy is an example of the arrogance and high handedness I've been talking about.

Best predictors may guarantee nothing, but they should often be used as a signpost. For example, just because the sun rose every day of your existence doesn't necessarily guarantee it will tomorrow... for instance, maybe the sun will blow up tonight. But the likelihood is quite small.

In the same sense, we should use common sense and scientific data to help guide policy. Look at the Drug War. People are being jailed at ever higher rates, the drug trade hasn't gone down, etc etc. Given this data, one would think that we should modify our approach to illegal preventing drug usage. To throw out all the data in favor of an irrational policy seems counter-productive.

[Winehole23]

whatever is not reducible to rationality, is not therefore dishonorable nor even disreputable.

[LnGrrrR]

WH, I know that occasionally smart folks get together, declare a consensus and assume it as the end-all be-all when it might very well not be. (Let's say they are all wrong about global warming for instance, and man has had nothing to do with it.)

To use an example of one area where scientists are wrong, and try to extrapolate that to the idea that we shouldn't bother using science at all or that it's on an equal footing as irrational politics, is wrong itself.

[LnGrrrR]

whatever is not reducible to rationality, is not therefore dishonorable nor even disreputable.

Not quite sure what you mean by that statement. Could you expound a bit?

[MannyIsGod]

it was in response to a developed theme in this thread: having the scientific method determine policy. Manny brought the idea up, and Fuzzy fuzzily extended it. I was responding to that, and one can't very deny bodies and boards of concerned/occupationally related scientists produce a fair number of detailed policy recommendations...

Nope, that is an absolute theme of your creation. I advocated:


The same ideas behind the scientific method should be in charge of the decision making process in the political process.

and I've gone further into detail into what is behind the scientific method and how that factors into the decisions you make. You take the data, and you make decisions based off of that data. I've stated that there are several places where you don't have perfect data which in turn leads to imperfect decision making process.

You however have straight up advocated in irrationality being a part of the decision making process which is straight up mind boggling to me.

[MannyIsGod]

in favor of its existence? I think not.

What are the exact benefits of irrationality?

[MannyIsGod]

it was in response to a developed theme in this thread: having the scientific method determine policy. Manny brought the idea up, and Fuzzy fuzzily extended it. I was responding to that, and one can't very deny bodies and boards of concerned/occupationally related scientists produce a fair number of detailed policy recommendations...

Also the recommendations of scientific bodies may be backed by scientific evidence but ultimately are a value judgement that is not scientific. If a board of doctors recommends that all newborns be vaccinated against a deadly childhood diseases it is backed by data showing the vaccine is effective but ultimately is a recommendation based on the unscientific value of human life.

[Winehole23]

To throw out all the data in favor of an irrational policy seems counter-productive.yet that's exactly what we've been doing for 30 years. the data, admittedly, is of more recent vintage but the results were perceptible well before the official registration of the results. it was accessible to reason well before the peer reviewed studies confirmed it, that we were doing the wrong thing. that we still are.

[rjv]

Sure but at the point you are talking everybody is. It's what Hume was getting at. There can really be no true objective truth because everyone's sense are independent and different. There can be no certainty. At that point though I can question whether or not you exist or if WH is really a person etc.

I choose not to go that path because quite frankly it leads to despair. I accept that you, he and I exist. I accept that you can observe the same world that I do and that through said observations we can come to a consensus. Perhaps it is the proverbial invisible cosmic monkey banging out the rhythm of the universe but if you can experience it and it can be repeated such that other's can experience it then I define that as objective truth.

so if it one's experience (as in certain posters here) that all blacks are 'thugs and such' and others can verify that experience this turns what would be mere tautology into objective truth ?

[MannyIsGod]

whatever is not reducible to rationality, is not therefore dishonorable nor even disreputable.

Nope. This argument is that irrational behavior and decision making is by definition suboptimal but that doesn't make it dishonorable. Thats all your creation there.

[MannyIsGod]

yet that's exactly what we've been doing for 30 years. the data, admittedly, is of more recent vintage but the results were perceptible well before the official registration of the results. it was accessible to reason well before the peer reviewed studies confirmed it, that we were doing the wrong thing. that we still are.

Which is the exact type of thing the OP is arguing against so it begs to question why are you defending the status quo?

[LnGrrrR]

so if it one's experience (as in certain posters here) that all blacks are 'thugs and such' and others can verify that experience this turns what would be mere tautology into objective truth ?

If you were to tweak that statement to read, "All colored people are inferior to white people", it's likely many in the South a century and a half ago would've considered this objective truth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

it was in response to a developed theme in this thread: having the scientific method determine policy. Manny brought the idea up, and Fuzzy fuzzily extended it. I was responding to that, and one can't very deny bodies and boards of concerned/occupationally related scientists produce a fair number of detailed policy recommendations...

Could you please post the quotes of this supposed narrative?

I recall saying that the scientific method was not the issue here. I said it was logical thought and empirical proof ie at least attempting to determine an objective truth.

Going to war and basing notions like what is now referred to as the Bush policy on things like God or against and axis of evil is deplorable. Irrational thought is not inherently 'bad' but there is a difference between risky personal atruism and making policy decisions where people's lives are at stake. I think that deserves our best shot and not flying by one's pants.

[Winehole23]

Also the recommendations of scientific bodies may be backed by scientific evidence but ultimately are a value judgement that is not scientific. humans run it. they do some human like things.

If a board of doctors recommends that all newborns be vaccinated against a deadly childhood diseases it is backed by data showing the vaccine is effective but ultimately is a recommendation based on the unscientific value of human life.admirable, if true. I can picture it.

is there any angle in unscientific preoccupations like caring about other people? you seemed to doubt it a moment ago.

[LnGrrrR]

http://i.imgur.com/IcWzr.gif

:lol :tu

The Regular Show is quite amusing.

[Winehole23]

making policy decisions where people's lives are at stake. I think that deserves our best shot and not flying by one's pants.this thread, whole different story. learn to read. your ecstatic raptures of denunciation keep getting in the way.

[MannyIsGod]

humans run it. they do some human like things.
admirable, if true. I can picture it.

is there any angle in unscientific preoccupations like caring about other people? you seemed to doubt it a moment ago.

Can you rephrase? I'm not understanding you.

[Winehole23]

Which is the exact type of thing the OP is arguing against so it begs to question why are you defending the status quo?what status quo did I defend?

[MannyIsGod]

What are the exact benefits of irrationality?

Also I'm quite interested in the answer to this.

[MannyIsGod]

what status quo did I defend?

The status quo of not making decisions based on observations in reality. Your dismissal of being concerned with the state of the decision making process because it has always been that way. Your support of irrational decision making.

[Winehole23]

the whole human, irrational, quivering political hairball? I think not.

parts I like, others not so much.

[Winehole23]

The status quo of not making decisions based on observations in reality. Your dismissal of being concerned with the state of the decision making process because it has always been that way. Your support of irrational decision making.Absolutely. There be plenty of religious folks in the world. They ain't wrong for it; freedom includes the right to choose it.

[LnGrrrR]

WH,some hypotheticals for you: if given the choice between two politicians, and one used sets of statistics to back up his policies, and the other just said, "Trust me, this will work because God told me it would, even though the science disagrees", which do you think would present the more compelling argument?

Would you be fine if the general population decided to side with the 2nd due to their shared belief in God?

[MannyIsGod]

Why do you keep bringing up freedom? Have we not established that the freedom to be irrational is not an issue of contention? Yet you continue to go back there. Why exactly?


Do you think religion in the decision making process of politics is a good thing? It seems to me the founders of this country thought it was a bad thing. It seems they understood that that method of irrational thinking was best not brought into the decision making process.

[Winehole23]

plenty else about our culture is irrational, desirable and fairly wholesome. you want me to start naming things, Manny?

[LnGrrrR]

Absolutely. There be plenty of religious folks in the world. They ain't wrong for it; freedom includes the right to choose it.

When they use their religiosity to vote, instead of their brains, I would argue that they're wrong for it. People can vote for whatever reason they choose to of course; but I'd say a vote for someone based on policies rather than, say, what color shirt they're wearing, is a more proper usage of their vote.

[MannyIsGod]

I believe I asked what you felt the benefits of irrational decision making were. I don't believe I asked you for examples of irrational thinking in our culture as if I was complaining about its inclusion in the political process I do not deny its existence. However, as you have pointed out (and I have not contested) we are free to do as we wish so if you'd like to continue avoiding questions and instead answering questions not posed you are free to do so if you'd like.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so if it one's experience (as in certain posters here) that all blacks are 'thugs and such' and others can verify that experience this turns what would be mere tautology into objective truth ?

Again, I accept that you exist and that your observations if you are not trying to deceive me are valid. If I accept that then you take all the data points. And I mean all the data points without bias except for deception or misperception.

I personally do not think that a limited experience can make broad claims. The most I would be willing to say was that some black people are thugs. WC et al do not hold the same standard.

However if every person on the planet who had experienced black people said that they were thugs --I would use better terms than that although psychology is pretty damn soft as it is-- then I would be comfortable agreeing with that. Again, I accept I am not the only one with a valid observation. And how this bears out is proof. Your making a hypothetical that does not match with reality. There is truth behind the incidences of violent crime within the black populations relative to total population however there is no truth in the statement about 'all.'

OTOH, if you have everyone claiming that human cells go through a process of mitosis meiosis before cell division then I would feel comfortable applying that universality. That doesn't make it tautological but i would say that the notion of consensus is pretty damn democratic.

[Winehole23]

Why do you keep bringing up freedom? Have we not established that the freedom to be irrational is not an issue of contention? Yet you continue to go back there. Why exactly?


Do you think religion in the decision making process of politics is a good thing? It seems to me the founders of this country thought it was a bad thing. It seems they understood that that method of irrational thinking was best not brought into the decision making process.on the whole, I agree with you, but I respect those who think otherwise. that's a real position too -- for damn sure the founders didn't recommend it.

[Winehole23]

When they use their religiosity to vote, instead of their brains, I would argue that they're wrong for it. People can vote for whatever reason they choose to of course; but I'd say a vote for someone based on policies rather than, say, what color shirt they're wearing, is a more proper usage of their vote.it's for you to say how somebody else should vote?

:lol:toast

[LnGrrrR]

Why do you respect them? Do you have a reason for respecting them, or do you just do so? Is your reason for respecting their irrationality an irrationality on your part? :)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

this thread, whole different story. learn to read. your ecstatic raptures of denunciation keep getting in the way.

I read just fine. You are claiming that irrational behavior has a place in policy decisions and I do denounce that. Further your romantic characterizations are lame. Your culturally conditioned notions of religiosity projected onto me are unfounded and generally lame. Try to think outside of your box.

[MannyIsGod]

on the whole, I agree with you, but I respect those who think otherwise. that's a real position too -- for damn sure the founders didn't recommend it.

I do not give someone respect for making a decision based on religion. That doesn't mean I think they are terrible people or anything but assigning more respect to a person based on irrational thinking doesn't make much sense to me. Anyone is free to do as they wish of course, but I have seen decision making by religious proxy lead down some fairly disastrous roads.

[rjv]

Again, I accept that you exist and that your observations if you are not trying to deceive me are valid. If I accept that then you take all the data points. And I mean all the data points without bias except for deception or misperception.

I personally do not think that a limited experience can make broad claims. The most I would be willing to say was that some black people are thugs. WC et al do not hold the same standard.

However if every person on the planet who had experienced black people said that they were thugs --I would use better terms than that although psychology is pretty damn soft as it is-- then I would be comfortable agreeing with that. Again, I accept I am not the only one with a valid observation. And how this bears out is proof. Your making a hypothetical that does not match with reality. There is truth behind the incidences of violent crime within the black populations relative to total population however there is no truth in the statement about 'all.'

OTOH, if you have everyone claiming that human cells go through a process of mitosis meiosis before cell division then I would feel comfortable applying that universality. That doesn't make it tautological but i would say that the notion of consensus is pretty damn democratic.

it sounds like you are a proponent of instrumentalism then, as was milton friedman. and on the latter, well...

[LnGrrrR]

it's for you to say how somebody else should vote?

:lol:toast

Sure, why not? I have the freedom to think that a vote based off actual policies is better than a vote based off irrationality. Do you argue that our country would be as well off if we just determined the President by the likability of the two candidate's warbrobe on election day, or perhaps whichever candidate memorized the most Star Wars quotes, or something equally irrational?

[MannyIsGod]

it's for you to say how somebody else should vote?

:lol:toast

I'm pretty sure thats what we do on the daily in here or anytime you try convince anyone of an argument of any sort. If there was a constitutional amendment up for legalizing slavery would you not feel it was ok to say that it should be voted down?

[Winehole23]

I believe I asked what you felt the benefits of irrational decision making were. I don't believe I asked you for examples of irrational thinking in our culture as if I was complaining about its inclusion in the political process I do not deny its existence. However, as you have pointed out (and I have not contested) we are free to do as we wish so if you'd like to continue avoiding questions and instead answering questions not posed you are free to do so if you'd like.I said the benefits probably weren't calculable. That's a real take. Everyone has to decide for him/herself if the supposed benefits are there and worth the trouble.

My case, definitely. Bass guitar and bike riding have improved my life immeasurably.

[Winehole23]

I'm pretty sure thats what we do on the daily in here or anytime you try convince anyone of an argument of any sort. If there was a constitutional amendment up for legalizing slavery would you not feel it was ok to say that it should be voted down?perhaps you mistake me: I'm pro-bitching.

[LnGrrrR]

Is playing bass guitar and bike riding irrational? :)

[MannyIsGod]

I said the benefits probably weren't calculable. That's a real take. Everyone has to decide for him/herself if the supposed benefits are there and worth the trouble.

My case, definitely. Bass guitar and bike riding have improved my life immeasurably.

If you think that choosing to play guitar and ride a bike are examples of irrational decision making then I believe you're using the word irrational incorrectly. But I may be misunderstanding your point here.

[Winehole23]

Try to think outside of your box.you should try to crawl back inside. you're all over the place.

[Winehole23]

If you think that choosing to play guitar and ride a bike are examples of irrational decision making then I believe you're using the word irrational incorrectly. But I may be misunderstanding your point here.my attachment to these activities -- as previously to soccer and miniature golf, for example -- has been not so much rationally motivated, as thoroughly enjoyable to me. rationality figures in heavy when I'm on my bike, but not so much before and after.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not sure why spending time doing something you enjoy is something you consider an irrational decision.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

it sounds like you are a proponent of instrumentalism then, as was milton friedman. and on the latter, well...

And it sounds like you are a practitioner of Aristotle's categorizations. I reject your box. I do not reject rational frameworks nor do I believe that empiricism cannot be used to prove their existence. Quite the contrary and we have had this discussion before.

[Winehole23]

Sure, why not? I have the freedom to think that a vote based off actual policies is better than a vote based off irrationality. Do you argue that our country would be as well off if we just determined the President by the likability of the two candidate's warbrobe on election day, or perhaps whichever candidate memorized the most Star Wars quotes, or something equally irrational?absolutely!

[Winehole23]

Is playing bass guitar and bike riding irrational? :)the bass playing, definitely. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Perhaps I was wrong and WH really is trolling here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you should try to crawl back inside. you're all over the place.

And youre trolling, hypocrite. say something meaningful and I will respond likewise otherwise i will just return to ridicule.

[Winehole23]

I'm not sure why spending time doing something you enjoy is something you consider an irrational decision.the elation and feelings of physical enjoyment are not perceptibly rational to me

[Winehole23]

i will just return to ridicule.what a surprise

:sleep

[Winehole23]

Perhaps I was wrong and WH really is trolling here.did I fail to respond to something again, allegedly? I'm still here if you think I left something hanging.

[rjv]

And it sounds like you are a practitioner of Aristotle's categorizations. I reject your box. I do not reject rational frameworks nor do I believe that empiricism cannot be used to prove their existence. Quite the contrary and we have had this discussion before.

forgive me, if the tone of your responses seem to bear a strong resemblance to that of a pragmatists postion on objective truths. by the way i suppose the irony of the bolded sentence fails to hit you here but more to the point, the article you posted was one that posits science as a champion of democracy because scientists are capable of some platonic version of rationalization that trumps all other disciplines (perhaps that of poets in your case). but the author conveniently failed to point out that scientists are capable of the same hubris that politicians are capable of. to a certain degree, science has created some of the technology that places the earth in peril (and it is also science that can perhaps save it). rationalization has been used in politics and that is why i brought up friedman, who tried to make economics a hard science. if you believe his economic theories have been ratified by results i suppose that would depend on what end of the political spectrum you reside in. politicians, for all we know, may be less deaf to science as the author suggests. it may just be that, like scientists can, they fall victim to greed and unethical practices.

[Winehole23]

life happens and reason tidies up the room afterwards. everything one does is rationalizable after the fact, but the experience isn't as a matter of course. seldom is it strictly reasonable at its origins either. leap in the dark is way more common than reason acknowledges.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what a surprise

:sleep

I note that you discount the premise of the post. It's not lost that you turned flippant once people asked you to define your romanticized irrationality. It is also not lost on me that you trolled my thread hard. You are trying to be provocative and that is indeed boring.

[Winehole23]

lol people. royal we, much? :lol

[Winehole23]

Why do you respect them? Do you have a reason for respecting them, or do you just do so? Is your reason for respecting their irrationality an irrationality on your part? :)is it reasonable or unreasonable to be courteous to one's political adversaries? good question. is this even up for conversation? who does this?

[Winehole23]

Not quite sure what you mean by that statement. Could you expound a bit?It's ok to have non-scientific viewpoints. Some people act like it ain't.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

forgive me, if the tone of your responses seem to bear a strong resemblance to that of a pragmatists postion on objective truths. by the way i suppose the irony of the bolded sentence fails to hit you here but more to the point, the article you posted was one that posits science as a champion of democracy because scientists are capable of some platonic version of rationalization that trumps all other disciplines (perhaps that of poets in your case). but the author conveniently failed to point out that scientists are capable of the same hubris that politicians are capable of. to a certain degree, science has created some of the technology that places the earth in peril (and it is also science that can perhaps save it). rationalization has been used in politics and that is why i brought up friedman, who tried to make economics a hard science. if you believe his economic theories have been ratified by results i suppose that would depend on what end of the political spectrum you reside in. politicians, for all we know, may be less deaf to science as the author suggests. it may just be that, like scientists can, they fall victim to greed and unethical practices.

Irony? What categories? All I hear from you are categories: pragmatists, instramentalists etc. My bashing of WH as a poet goes farther back in a manner you clearly have not witnessed. There is a running diatribe between he and I and he seems to find great joy in continuing it thus his trolling this thread.

I don't create mythical actors in though experiments and then try to insert that for the truth. Perhaps you do not understand the relevance of that and empiricism but its not a hard conclusion to draw.

If a scientist does resort to hubris then the principles the author espouses gives anyone equal footing to demonstrate that objectively. That is the point, empiricism and inductive reason gives a common thread between people to draw conclusions. Additionally, I do not doubt that some politicians are intentionally misleading those they represent, but i believe logic and observation can provide a foil to that. What is disconcerting as the author points out is that said politicians are doing what they can to eliminate the foil. That is doubly insidious in my view. Lead someone astray and gouge out their eyes.

Further i get the distinct impression that you did not read the article. It talks about inductive logic and empiricism as a decision calculus not in technocrats rule the world or that technology will save the day. It champions coming logical conclusions based on what you can actually sense.

On a final note, political bias in determining Milton's success is besides the point. You can measure how well predictions correlate with actual outcomes and base your decisions on that. You can quantify it. OTOH, rejecting it out of hand or accepting it as gospel is needless and unwarranted. there is no basis to do so yet you seem comfortable fitting everyone into those boxes as well. Friedman had no way to have enough data points to really come with a realistic construct. This enters into the entire issue of wholistic and reductionist viewpoints and you have apparently missed that boat with your packaging of me as well.

I do suppose that if you want to box me you could call me a determinist. I am very interested to see how neuroscience and behavioral science progress so I am not a determinist with conviction. I just don't like economists and psychologists overarching thought experiments trying to get there.

[Winehole23]

following my previous: religion comes in for deserved and undeserved abuse here. with a regularity.

this forum ain't friendly to believers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol people. royal we, much? :lol

Manny and I. Two individuals plural thus the term fits. You really are trying hard today. Good day or bad day, WH?

[Winehole23]

you speak for Manny. how chivalrous.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LnGrrrR too. You act like I am the only one that's been saying 'wtf irrational policymaking is desirable?' Your attempt to isolate me is noted however.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you speak for Manny. how chivalrous.

No but i do think that i understand what he has said.

[Winehole23]

Your attempt to isolate me is noted however.Psst: fait accompli, long before LnGrrrR turned on you.

[Winehole23]

(forum newcomers will find out soon enough on their own)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure, why not? I have the freedom to think that a vote based off actual policies is better than a vote based off irrationality. Do you argue that our country would be as well off if we just determined the President by the likability of the two candidate's warbrobe on election day, or perhaps whichever candidate memorized the most Star Wars quotes, or something equally irrational?


Psst: fait accompli, long before LnGrrrR turned on you.

Ahh at least you are transparent to your motivations. i was unaware that Lng had a take on me one way or another but that is besides the point. He agrees that irrational decisionmaking is not desirable regardless of his feelings about me.

Your little narrative here is great. Your creating a story in your head of my ostracization and demise. I do bring out the best in you it seems.

[Winehole23]

Your creating a story in your head of my ostracization and demise.you did it first. now you're feeding the meme.

[Winehole23]

lagniappe: http://thatsmathematics.com/blog/archives/102

[rjv]

Irony? What categories? All I hear from you are categories: pragmatists, instramentalists etc. My bashing of WH as a poet goes farther back in a manner you clearly have not witnessed. There is a running diatribe between he and I and he seems to find great joy in continuing it thus his trolling this thread.

I don't create mythical actors in though experiments and then try to insert that for the truth. Perhaps you do not understand the relevance of that and empiricism but its not a hard conclusion to draw.

If a scientist does resort to hubris then the principles the author espouses gives anyone equal footing to demonstrate that objectively. That is the point, empiricism and inductive reason gives a common thread between people to draw conclusions. Additionally, I do not doubt that some politicians are intentionally misleading those they represent, but i believe logic and observation can provide a foil to that. What is disconcerting as the author points out is that said politicians are doing what they can to eliminate the foil. That is doubly insidious in my view. Lead someone astray and gouge out their eyes.

Further i get the distinct impression that you did not read the article. It talks about inductive logic and empiricism as a decision calculus not in technocrats rule the world or that technology will save the day. It champions coming logical conclusions based on what you can actually sense.

On a final note, political bias in determining Milton's success is besides the point. You can measure how well predictions correlate with actual outcomes and base your decisions on that. You can quantify it. OTOH, rejecting it out of hand or accepting it as gospel is needless and unwarranted. there is no basis to do so yet you seem comfortable fitting everyone into those boxes as well. Friedman had no way to have enough data points to really come with a realistic construct. This enters into the entire issue of wholistic and reductionist viewpoints and you have apparently missed that boat with your packaging of me as well.

I do suppose that if you want to box me you could call me a determinist. I am very interested to see how neuroscience and behavioral science progress so I am not a determinist with conviction. I just don't like economists and psychologists overarching thought experiments trying to get there.

actually, from where i sit, you seem to enjoy the back and forth with WH with equal vigor. but you are correct, i have not seen enough of that to really know or care for that matter.

i beg to differ on the matter of being able to hold hubris in check. i can tell you from personal experience that there are plenty of arrogant, exremely arrogant, R&D scientists who create a cloud over research in general (falsified results, resistance to new paradigms-as in the difficulty research in neural plasticity once faced). human and cultural posits have to be taken into account (as kuhn or even quine would say). politicians in the US are trying to eliminate the foil as a whole but they often have scientists assisting them in this (e.g. scientists in the energy industry)

and it is not you that i am trying to box in, but how is that bolded comment not the very essence of pragmatism?

[symple19]

This thread fucking delivers :lmao

+10000