|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am talking about what would happen if science lost its weight due to f%#%ing obvious things up, growing dogmatic or such. The opposing world view is, frankly, not pretty.
Sissyl, you have stated that you have no interest in building a factual case for your position. You have determined that AGW is wrong based on your feelings.
You ARE the opposing world view.
This is a worry I hold about scientific study as a whole. Most of the time, repeat studies are not done. Errors spread.
Nonsense. Utter unbelievable nonsense.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard the expression 'publish or perish'? If so... how exactly do you suppose that the scientists of the world ALL manage to publish completely new and unique research with every single paper?
Name any given detail about AGW and I'll find you at least half a dozen studies on the matter. This world in which science is done once and never repeated bears less resemblance to our own than Narnia.
Except that you DON"T observe the size of the earth. You measure it, and you measure it indirectly. In doing so you rely on any number of "theories" depending on your method
Stick in the ground relies on very specific relative motions
Astronomical measurements require that the bodies you measure from be where you think they are, and that demons aren't screwing with your glass lenses.
And modern measurements are based around the speed of light and radio waves.
Saying that you know the size of the earth requires you to go through as much if not more "theory" than many theories themselves.
I do not see how this contradicts the point that Facts are observations while Theories are explanations for those observations. If anything, it opens the -very interesting but tangential to the matter- topic of Induction vs Deduction, something I think we debated about in that old thread about the Philosophy of Science or one of the religios topics.
A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.
Note that the very same Wikipedia article you are referencing goes on about the point that "Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments" and "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts".
Yes, the viruses really the cause of the disease, so its a fact.
No, it is just a very, very well established and properly backed theory. The facts that support it have been verified repeatedly, making the theory stronger.
And at some point this simply isn't so.
So at some point the Scientific Method is no longer valid? Which point is this?
What practical effect does the theoretical nature of viruses and bacteria being a cause of disease have? Is there any functional difference at all between it being a theory and it being a fact in practice? Would anything be done differently?
The problem here is that you are implying the theories can somehow become facts. However, that is the same as saying that experiments can become results. It is a false dychotomy because there is no hierarchical relation between the two; facts are not "more true" that theories, nor are theories "disputable facts". Facts are facts, theories are theories. One is an observable phenomenon, the other is a predictive explanation of that phenomenon.
Facts do not say "Since this rock fell, that other rock will fall"; facts say "This rock fell". Theories do not say "This rock fell"; theories say "Since all these rocks fell, that other rock will also fall".
A Hypothesis is an untested Theory; there is a hyerarchical relation between the two. A Law is the derivative of a series of Facts; there is also a hyerarchical relation between the two (though not so much in terms of which one is "more true", but rather which one is more universal). Facts verify theories; theories explain and predict facts. Facts do not explain nor predict other facts.
He is not.
He's saying exactly what i said he's saying.
From what I managed to read about the book, the guy knows his way around Evolution, but seems to be quite self-contradicting and informal when it comes to speaking about theories and facts. On one hand, he says that "a theory is a well-thought group of propositions meant to explain facts about the real world" (p. 15) and that "For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be testable and make verifiable predictions" (p. 15). So far so good.
However, then goes to say "A theory becomes a fact (or "truth") when so much evidence has accumulated in its favor -and there is no decisive evidence against it- that virtually all reasonable people will accept it" (p. 16).
So, according to Coyne, theories predict amd explain facts. However, they somehow become facts themselves. So if theories are facts, facts are theories too? How can facts predict or explain other facts?
Furthermore, proposing that at some point theories no longer need to be tested and verified just because "all reasonable people will accept it" is not only fallacious but also assigns a quality of absolute to a theory, which is self-contradicting with his own statements of widely accepted theories having been debunked in precense of new information. So Einstein was unreasonable for not accepting the widely accepted theory of Newtonian Gravitation?
The introduction to science links you're posting really aren't a slam dunk you can rely on. Its simply not how things work.
Why are they invalid?
There is an actual earth. It does have an actual size. Science can measure it
There are actual connections between things. Science can find them.
Yes. We agree. That doesn't mean theories and facts are the same thing.
I don't see the impossibility of being sure that you're right unless you have a good reason not to be.
That would mean "You can't prove God isn't real, thus He is real" is an acceptable argument. And I am quite sure you don't think it is a reasonable argument.
In the case of evolution, the evidence is so compelling and wide spread that you would need a deity or reasonable facsimile thereof to have faked it without us noticing.
Or just someone finding something that doesn't fit. Is it likely? I believe not, but then again I'm no biologist. The Big Bang sounded extremely absurd to every serious physicist when it was first proposed, after all. One of the argument against it? That it would need a deity or similar to explain how it all started.
And now?
Slightly lower, I think.
|
@BigNorseWolf
One of your fallicies is believing that a fact changed because the subject of a fact changed. This is false.
A fact of something fluid, references a specific point in time. The shape of the water in your glass is a fact, tilting your glass doesn't change the fact, it is a new fact, at a new point in time. Nothing you or anyone ever does will change the shape of the water in your glass before you tilted it.
1-------
The sizie of the earth is a fact, we however cannot observe this fact so we must rely on theories to estimate what we believe that fact to be.
2---------
We are super sure that viruses are one cause of disease. It is still a theory, a solid theory, but still a theory.
3-------
Einstein was correct, people believed a great many things in the past, things that were verified time and again, things that eventually were proved wrong.
Our brains are not generally capable of objective thought, we must do certain things to reduce the bias but it cannot be removed completely. Sometimes this bias is only found when new facts are discovered.
You can do a great many experiments to verify that I use the symbol "&" to mean addition, because I posted "2&2=4" but you can't discover otherwise until I later post "2&3=3." Some individuals may of thought of alternative possibilities but did they consider the possibility that ended up true? Do you even have a clue as the function I am using? No? Maybe you just haven't thought of it yet. Build some models, or idea of how you think I got those answers.
4----
There is a difference between the functional and the actual. Functionally speaking, it doesn't matter to you how gravity works, it does matter though, to defining actuality.
5-----
Skipping cause I can't see the quote being refered to, but context is more important then the actual words themselves.
6-----
Science can tell us the most likely result if we had the ability to make a direct observation. Sometimes with very good accuracy.
There is a difference between a seeing a connection and defining everything that takes part in that connection. Sometimes there is another factor that we don't know about until that factor changes and every formula we have stops working.
7------
There is a difference between being sure about something and being so absolutely positive the god herself can't change your mind.
True science finds truth by fordidding being positive, which removes the zealotry that blinds individuals and prevents them from accepting it, when they are found to be wrong.
A true scientist is pleased with new information, whether they were correct or not. This cannot be achieved if one has absolute belief in the infallibilty of themselves or others.
8-----
By current standards perhaps, but that alone doesn't make something true beyond question. Science doesn't have "true beyond question."
9-----
That was sidestepping his point, and if you couldn't see that then you need to stop having these talks on the internet until you can see what he meant, regardless of your own opinion.
The scientists made a mistake, other tests had shown that a mistake had been made. This is where removing zealotry comes into play.
10-----
See my intial ramblings, you imply that a fact has changed, but no matter what the temperature is now, the fact remains that at around 4 hours prior to this post, the temp was about 20 C degrees.
11----
You are not truly educated if you do not understand the value of philosophy.
Besides, it isn't pretending, it is keeping an open mind. People thought the sun revolved around the earth and had such an absolute belief in that concept, that they were not capable of accepting the truth when discovered. Don't fall into the same trap.
Truth is discovered by assuming that it has yet to be discovered.
Ninja'd
I do not see how this contradicts the point that Facts are observations while Theories are explanations for those observations.
The size of the earth is a fact.
The size of the earth is NOT observed. The size of the earth is inferred: That is the contradiction.
The size of the earth IS 24,901 miles is an explanation for things that are observed via other methods: The time it take radio waves to bounce back (which you are infering from the instruments, since you can't actually see the radio waves or time anything that quick accurately), or the motion of a shadow over the ground.
If anything, it opens the -very interesting but tangential to the matter- topic of Induction vs Deduction, something I think we debated about in that old thread about the Philosophy of Science or one of the religios topics.
They all blend together after a while :)
Note that the very same Wikipedia article you are referencing goes on about the point that "Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments"
Which evolution, global warming, germ theory, and gravity all have been.
and "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts".
And why is the diameter of the earth more verifiable than germ theory?
And at some point this simply isn't so.
So at some point the Scientific Method is no longer valid? Which point is this?
Now you really should have known that wasn't what i said.
At some point a theory is also a fact.
The problem here is that you are implying the theories can somehow become facts.
Yes. I am. Oddly enough I'm arguing for my point (since this is my point). Pointing out that its my point and my point is wrong isn't very effective because you're arguing in a circle.
So, according to Coyne, theories predict amd explain facts. However, they somehow become facts themselves. So if theories are facts, facts are theories too? How can facts predict or explain other facts?
Likewise, saying that this person agrees with me and i'm wrong when you're trying to demonstrate that i'm wrong is not effective.
Furthermore, proposing that at some point theories no longer need to be tested and verified just because "all reasonable people will accept it" is not only fallacious but also assigns a quality of absolute to a theory, which is self-contradicting with his own statements of widely accepted theories having been debunked in precense of new information. So Einstein was unreasonable for not accepting the widely accepted theory of Newtonian Gravitation?
No he wasn't, because he had some information to to go on. Until you have that information you are.
Why are {the introduction to science) invalid?
Because they're incomplete. Because they're stuck in the philosophy and ignore the reality.
There are actual connections between things. Science can find them.
Yes. We agree. That doesn't mean theories and facts are the same thing.
Baseball players and tall people aren't the same thing, but they do overlap sometimes.
That would mean "You can't prove God isn't real, thus He is real" is an acceptable argument. And I am quite sure you don't think it is a reasonable argument.
Not remotely. I don't see the connection there.
Or just someone finding something that doesn't fit.
In order to find something that didn't fit, it would have to be wrong.
For it to be wrong it would have to be faked.For it to be faked you need deity level intervention.
Is it likely? I believe not, but then again I'm no biologist. The Big Bang sounded extremely absurd to every serious physicist when it was first proposed, after all. One of the argument against it? That it would need a deity or similar to explain how it all started.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Except we didn't have evidence for anything else.
With things like higher levels of precision, that happens to theories too. Neo Darwinian synthesis (combining genetics and judging things from a gene level rather than an individual level is a refinement, not an overturning, of natural selection)
Sissyl,
I can agree with your points 2 and 4. However, scientists will refer to the p value rather than say this is true. They acknowledge this limitation. The popular press and politicians ignore it, but that's hardly the fault of the scientits.
Also, these are problems with all science. So why are you not as sceptical about, say, thermodynamics, plate techtonics, evolution or any other science? Why is it just AGW where these issues trouble you so much?As someone who is doing a lot of statistics and dissertation writing right now (marine mammal paleontology, not climate), Paul Wilson has the right interpretation. A good p value only tell you that either there is a significant chance that their is a non-zero slope (if looking at correlation) or that there is a significant chance that the population means of two variables are significantly different. It doesn't actually mean that those two variables are absolutely different.
I think the 1 in 20 might also be a bit of a simplification. A .05 p value is often used in science as a threshhold (although .01 is more common in medicine, IIRC), but we often get p values way lower than that. I had some analyses yesterday that had p values of 0.00001, which is way less than 1 in 20 chance it is correct.
I will also say that the rigor regarding science has increased substantially. A whole new field of statistics, Bayesian, is being increasingly used in studies. And modeling of data also provides a more rigor to statistics
I was only talking about the traditional limit on p for considering a correlation publishable. Of course, better p values are common and welcome. Medicine typically uses p < 0,05. And lack of statistical expertise and analysis has been a known problem for quite a while. That the scientific community is getting serious about it is vital.
LazarX, if you seriously can't do better, you need to do some basic studying.
LazarX, if you seriously can't do better, you need to do some basic studying.
Given illogical manner in which you have approached the majority of the discussion in this thread(along with your cavalier attitude to backing up your claims, and you occasional out right lies), it might be a good idea not to throw stones. Glass houses, and all that.
Outright lies? Such as?
[Throws stones at Zombieneighbours]
Oi! This isn't 28 Days Later, sod off!!
[Throws more stones until he sees Citizen X]
Hey! What are you doing here? I told you to go home!
[Throws stones at Citizen X; after running out of stones, turns to Madame Sissyl]
What's happenin', hot stuff? You wanna dance some more?
[Shimmies]
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Outright lies? Such as?
Most of what you have said about AGW has been outright lies... from someone. However, given your stated disinterest in actually examining the evidence it is entirely possible that these are not "your" lies... rather you are simply parroting the lies of others without any effort to check their accuracy or think for yourself.
Since you seldom actually speak your own thoughts / things you have examined enough to know what you are talking about it, is difficult to find much of 'Sissyl' at all... and thus, having yourself said nothing, there is little that you yourself could have 'lied' about. The one possibility which comes to mind is;
"I chose the example of squirrels because I talked to a biologist who told me that you simply don't get funding unless you relate the mating habits of squirrels to climate change, specifically AGW."
Of course, it is possible that you talked to a biologist who parroted a lie (and that funding claim IS, obviously, a lie) from an AGW denying propaganda broadcast (i.e. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle')... but when previously asked whether you hadn't just made the biologist up you avoided the issue.
Friedman is as near a fantasist in the field of economics as you get.
Uh, you win the internet; you have a windmill in your beard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See that is what annoys me: If a plant can survive extinction of the Dinosaurs why didn't the bloody Dinosaurs?
They did. But we call the ones that survived "birds."
Friedman is as near a fantasist in the field of economics as you get.Uh, you win the internet; you have a windmill in your beard.
You keep responding to things I said like ages ago. It's amusing. Also I have no idea what your comment is supposed to mean.
Kinda like creation science, it doesn't actually work in the real world; the speed of light hasn't slowed down for 6,000 years, and the labor theory of value is pretty much meaningless. The market really doesn't give a s+*$ how much labor went into something. Valuation doesn't reflect that. If I want to buy something, the price I'm willing to pay really doesn't have anything to do with how hard it was to make the thing. So you can't really do anything positive with his system. It doesn't hold water. It's creation science.I'm pretty certain that Marxist economics includes room for the fluctuations of supply and demand, Comrade Spanky.
I didn't get that far yet.
I've only jetissoned one of the core principles of the thing, and I got work and all.
You keep responding to things I said like ages ago. It's amusing. Also I have no idea what your comment is supposed to mean.Friedman is as near a fantasist in the field of economics as you get.Uh, you win the internet; you have a windmill in your beard.
Because it's such a ludicrous statement, I had to try to puzzle over it for a geological age. He invented s$#! that actually works, like sequential sampling for f+#*'s sake. And he's a fantasist, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're misunderstanding the core principles of the thing. You're reading it as "adding labor to something=adding value" and then further confusing value and price. Instead, the principle is more like "things that we value more require more labor". It's an All X are Y and you're reading it as All Y are X.
To wit, what commodities do you consume? Every good that is produced requires the basic L/L/C-Land, Labor and Capital. My interpretation of the core assertions of Labor Theory are that the value (utility) of goods does not vary based on the amount or quality of Land or Capital used to produce it, but the labor.
Example: Pathfinder books (since we're on the Paizo website). You need paper (raw materials or "land") and some plant in China with all the right inks (means of production or "capital") to produce it. But most of the actual value of the books isn't derived from those things, but the creativity of the writer(s), the labor. The paper and the factory have a static input on the value (not price necessarily, but value/utility/usefulness) across many different products. The quality and quantity of the labor (in man-hours, say) varies widely between product because that is what is primarily adding value to the raw materials, not the capital.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's such a ludicrous statement, I had to try to puzzle over it for a geological age. He invented s~&# that actually works, like sequential sampling for f@+@'s sake. And he's a fantasist, right?
Friedman's main contribution to Economics is voodoo economics. The idea that the government should willfully drive down the price of labor and mitigating costs for businesses because once the wealthy have a certain amount of money they won't want any more, and they'll spread it around a bit, enriching everyone's lives.
Except that, since his supply-side chicanery has been in place, the rich have gotten exorbitantly richer while the poor has gotten poorer (while their debt/income ration rises) and the middle class has, at best, stagnated.
Friedman says: When the rich get richer, we're all better off.
History says: The rich got richer, and everyone else is far worse off.
Conclusion: B@~$@~#*.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're misunderstanding the core principles of the thing. You're reading it as "adding labor to something=adding value" and then further confusing value and price. Instead, the principle is more like "things that we value more require more labor". It's an All X are Y and you're reading it as All Y are X.
To wit, what commodities do you consume? Every good that is produced requires the basic L/L/C-Land, Labor and Capital. My interpretation of the core assertions of Labor Theory are that the value (utility) of goods does not vary based on the amount or quality of Land or Capital used to produce it, but the labor.
Example: Pathfinder books (since we're on the Paizo website). You need paper (raw materials or "land") and some plant in China with all the right inks (means of production or "capital") to produce it. But most of the actual value of the books isn't derived from those things, but the creativity of the writer(s), the labor. The paper and the factory have a static input on the value (not price necessarily, but value/utility/usefulness) across many different products. The quality and quantity of the labor (in man-hours, say) varies widely between product because that is what is primarily adding value to the raw materials, not the capital.
I'll favorite this, and respond some time;
sorry to seem snarky before; I was just kinda goofing on you maybe......
I got stuff's to do and an adequate response requires thought and craftsmanshit.
I never was good at speed chess;.....
Hey, everobaddah! I favirited my own post!!! lookit me!!!!
That whole drama still crax me up, even now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Favoriting your own post is like jerking off in public. I'm sure it makes you feel good, but iff you really must do it, don't draw attention to it. ;-P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
because once the wealthy have a certain amount of money they won't want any more
More flanks of meat for the wolves! They'll get full before the peasants run out of body parts, really!
Except that, since his supply-side chicanery has been in place, the rich have gotten exorbitantly richer while the poor has gotten poorer (while their debt/income ration rises) and the middle class has, at best, stagnated.Actually the middle class has been steadily losing ground since the '70's when the income gap between them and the upper tiers started to dramatically widen after historic lows. When not forced out of work entirely, many have been forced to take lower paying jobs, the overall share of the country's wealth controlled by the middle class has shrunk in favor of those in the upper 10 and 1 percent.
Those who are still in the middle class are working harder and doing with less, while many have dropped out of that tier entirely.
Mean while in the non-english speaking developed world, where neo-liberalism has had less sway; economic growth has largely continued, and median income has continued to rise proportionately to the top 1%.
All hail the Chicago Boys!!!
And then look at the parts of the 3rd world where the Chicago Boys held sway. And the abuses that were required to get the population to stand for the "austerity".Except that, since his supply-side chicanery has been in place, the rich have gotten exorbitantly richer while the poor has gotten poorer (while their debt/income ration rises) and the middle class has, at best, stagnated.Actually the middle class has been steadily losing ground since the '70's when the income gap between them and the upper tiers started to dramatically widen after historic lows. When not forced out of work entirely, many have been forced to take lower paying jobs, the overall share of the country's wealth controlled by the middle class has shrunk in favor of those in the upper 10 and 1 percent.
Those who are still in the middle class are working harder and doing with less, while many have dropped out of that tier entirely.
Mean while in the non-english speaking developed world, where neo-liberalism has had less sway; economic growth has largely continued, and median income has continued to rise proportionately to the top 1%.
All hail the Chicago Boys!!!
You don't have to look to countries like Chile. Thatcher did a grand job hear in the UK.
|
|
The problem here is that you are implying the theories can somehow become facts. However, that is the same as saying that experiments can become results. It is a false dychotomy because there is no hierarchical relation between the two; facts are not "more true" that theories, nor are theories "disputable facts". Facts are facts, theories are theories. One is an observable phenomenon, the other is a predictive explanation of that phenomenon.Again, like many you don't understand the modern definition of theories in this context. Theories are models that we construct to understand phenommena. While many of them, like Gravity can't be directly "proven", the mathematical model has been established through testing to have a high enough degree of reliability that it no longer has any serious question to it's utility.
Let's for the sake of arguement, that you could prove something true, to the full 100%, or even had god come down and explicitly state the truth, it would still not be a fact, because a theory is the how and why of something, a fact is the something that the theory is explaining.
A theory, not matter how true or false, explains facts. A theory might be used, might be relied on, but it is still not a fact.
A theory can't be a fact because if it was a fact then you would need a theory to tell why it was a fact.
Fact=state of being/existance. I.E. air exists.
Theory= Answers, "Why does something exist and why in that state?" I.E. tells us why the air exists.
Being true can never make a theory, a fact.
Outright lies? Such as?Most of what you have said about AGW has been outright lies... from someone. However, given your stated disinterest in actually examining the evidence it is entirely possible that these are not "your" lies... rather you are simply parroting the lies of others without any effort to check their accuracy or think for yourself.
Since you seldom actually speak your own thoughts / things you have examined enough to know what you are talking about it, is difficult to find much of 'Sissyl' at all... and thus, having yourself said nothing, there is little that you yourself could have 'lied' about. The one possibility which comes to mind is;
"I chose the example of squirrels because I talked to a biologist who told me that you simply don't get funding unless you relate the mating habits of squirrels to climate change, specifically AGW."
Of course, it is possible that you talked to a biologist who parroted a lie (and that funding claim IS, obviously, a lie) from an AGW denying propaganda broadcast (i.e. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle')... but when previously asked whether you hadn't just made the biologist up you avoided the issue.
What can I say? If that's so, I am not perfect. I will have to go make myself a trap-filled tomb worthy of my shame-ridden demise. Woe betide me.
I have not knowingly lied to you, or anyone else, in this discussion. I have not made things up. I have been extremely open on what I think and the reasons for my views. If you still can't find the Sissyl in this, no words exist that would help you do so. I am sorry you can't accept my misgivings, but drowning you in links would only get me "All that is taken from denier sites". If I show you people critical of NGOs, you'd say "Those sites took money from Big Oil". If I showed you a site where someone really wants us to ban everything technological, including fire, you'd say "But that's just a crackpot". If I showed you a problematic text in the climate treaties, you'd say "it doesn't actually mean anything, treaty texts are like that, all bells and whistles and no substance".
Sorry. There is no truth or agreement to be had that way. When I tell you the above, I am sadly enough speaking from experience. You have not accepted ANYTHING I did present, nor did any of you other Believers, nor would you.
So, I throw you back the ball. What kind of "evidence" would you accept?
Because it's such a ludicrous statement, I had to try to puzzle over it for a geological age. He invented s~&# that actually works, like sequential sampling for f@+@'s sake. And he's a fantasist, right?Friedman's main contribution to Economics is voodoo economics. The idea that the government should willfully drive down the price of labor and mitigating costs for businesses because once the wealthy have a certain amount of money they won't want any more, and they'll spread it around a bit, enriching everyone's lives.
Except that, since his supply-side chicanery has been in place, the rich have gotten exorbitantly richer while the poor has gotten poorer (while their debt/income ration rises) and the middle class has, at best, stagnated.
Friedman says: When the rich get richer, we're all better off.
History says: The rich got richer, and everyone else is far worse off.
Conclusion: B~%@~$+@.
Many economists have stated that Reagan's policies were an important part of bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, and followed by an even longer 1990s expansion that began under George H.W. Bush in 1991.[25][26] This economic expansion continued through the Clinton administration with unemployment rates steadily decreasing throughout his presidency (7.3% at the start of his presidency and 4.2% at the culmination, with the lowest rate reaching 3.9% in 2000).[27] During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars),[28] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, but with peaks of around 10.8% in 1983.[27][29] A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan's administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.[30] The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988, which was achieved by applying high interest rates by the Federal Reserve (peaked at 20% in June 1981).[31] The latter contributed to a relatively brief recession in 1982: unemployment rose to 9.7% and GDP fell by 1.9%. In 1988, the United States ranked first in the world in the Economist Intelligence Unit "quality of life index" and third in the Economic Freedom of the World Index.[32]
Yeah. Total failure.
Friedman's a kook.
further,
Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman agreed the tax cuts would reduce tax revenues and result in intolerable deficits, though he supported them as a means to restrain federal spending.[44] Friedman characterized the reduced government tax revenue as "cutting their allowance".
Outright lies? Such as?Most of what you have said about AGW has been outright lies... from someone. However, given your stated disinterest in actually examining the evidence it is entirely possible that these are not "your" lies... rather you are simply parroting the lies of others without any effort to check their accuracy or think for yourself.
Since you seldom actually speak your own thoughts / things you have examined enough to know what you are talking about it, is difficult to find much of 'Sissyl' at all... and thus, having yourself said nothing, there is little that you yourself could have 'lied' about. The one possibility which comes to mind is;
"I chose the example of squirrels because I talked to a biologist who told me that you simply don't get funding unless you relate the mating habits of squirrels to climate change, specifically AGW."
Of course, it is possible that you talked to a biologist who parroted a lie (and that funding claim IS, obviously, a lie) from an AGW denying propaganda broadcast (i.e. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle')... but when previously asked whether you hadn't just made the biologist up you avoided the issue.
What can I say? If that's so, I am not perfect. I will have to go make myself a trap-filled tomb worthy of my shame-ridden demise. Woe betide me.
I have not knowingly lied to you, or anyone else, in this discussion. I have not made things up. I have been extremely open on what I think and the reasons for my views. If you still can't find the Sissyl in this, no words exist that would help you do so. I am sorry you can't accept my misgivings, but drowning you in links would only get me "All that is taken from denier sites". If I show you people critical of NGOs, you'd say "Those sites took money from Big Oil". If I showed you a site where someone really wants us to ban everything technological, including fire, you'd say "But that's just a crackpot". If I showed you a problematic text in the...
I'm kinda leery of global warming too. It sounds good, but I think there's more to it.
I remember the left freaking out in this country over nuclear power back in the day, and we're way behind France and the rest of the free world in that now because of it. I can't get behind their latest environmental catastrophe because of that history.
It could be true; IDK.
Favoriting your own post is like jerking off in public. I'm sure it makes you feel good, but iff you really must do it, don't draw attention to it. ;-P
Actually, you're more like Hitler than it's like jerking off in public.
Heh. I found an explanation of why evolution doesn't flout the second law of thermodynamics after all. Interesting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I throw you back the ball. What kind of "evidence" would you accept?
You have not provided any evidence at all. You refuse to provide evidence. Rather, you make claims... we say that those claims are false... you refuse to substantiate them.
That isn't 'evidence'. Evidence is where you are able to cite an actual basis for your claims. You have repeatedly been challenged to do so and refused every time. And no, saying 'these other people over here make the same claims I do' is NOT evidence unless THEY back up their claims.
Do you really not understand how this works? You may recall that I have said that even 'skeptic' scientists accept that AGW is real and currently happening? That is a claim. When I followed it up by citing Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke, et cetera as people who are some of the most prominent skeptic scientists and have said that AGW is real that was evidence to support my claim. Now, you could challenge whether those people really said such things, but then I would respond with links to their own websites, youtube videos, op eds, et cetera where they actually do so. I can support my case. Your refusal to do so means that you don't HAVE a case... just accusations you like to make, but cannot substantiate.
So pick a topic. You have made all manner of outrageous claims of climatologist malfeasance, total corruption of the scientific process, poor and/or faked evidence for AGW... pick ONE that you think you can defend and show to actually be true. Or contest one of the statements made by others... show me a scientist who DOES deny that AGW is real. Should be the easiest thing in the world to do... if they actually existed.
Favoriting your own post is like jerking off in public. I'm sure it makes you feel good, but iff you really must do it, don't draw attention to it. ;-PActually, you're more like Hitler than it's like jerking off in public.
And once again, Godwin is proven right
bunch of stuff clearly lazily clipped from a wiki article
None of which disagrees with my assertions. Friedman said let the rich get richer and everyone will reap the rewards. The rich got richer and hoarded all their riches, and in fact the middle class and poor have gotten worse. CONCLUSION: FAILURE.
As I have had many occasion to say, my grounding in economic theory is slight, but I have read a couple of books. And one of the things that intrigues me, and picks at the corner of my brain, is the crisis of the seventies.
As far as I can tell, at that time, the United States had the most full-blown Keynesian package that it has ever had. The Kennedyesque whizz kids had been priming the pumps of countercyclical spending for about a decade; the unions had won a higher living standard for the working class than has ever been achieved in this country; the welfare-state package, which had been written in the '30s in ways to sneakily bypass the black population, was expanded to include (for a couple of years anyway), the urban poor.
And the results, from a capitalist perspective, were a disaster. Stagflation. Recession. Plant closures and job losses. This, combined with a surge of labor militancy in the late sixties and early seventies (the mood of the Civil Rights and anti-war movement finally trickled down to the rank-and-file of labor, as witnessed, for example, in a rash of wildcat coal strikes) and the emergence of Germany and Japan as serious economic rivals again, led to a resurgence of Friedmanesque economics (there was an awesome quote from Samuel Huntingdon at the time saying that the problem with America was "too much democracy," by which he meant too many combative unions).
So, spearheaded by Reagan, but with the compliance of the Democrats (Ted Kennedy and the deregulation of trucking, I'm looking at you, you dead fat f+&~face, finally succeeding where your war pig brothers failed and sticking it to the Teamsters!!), the USA started the process of dismantling the welfare-state, deregulatuion, busting the unions, and outsourcing jobs. Which, of course, as Comrade Spanky put it, led to economic growth because, obviously, the profits double when you cut the workforce in half.
The capitalists won't invest their money in factories and jobs unless there's a chance for accumulating profits--which is why they are sitting on something like a trillion dollars (a liquidity trap, I believe it's called(?))(edit: I guess it's not called a liquidity trap, but someone out there knows what I mean) in their bank accounts doing nothing.
So, personally, while I would prefer to live in a full-blown Keynesian welfare state than, say, a shock-treated Chicagoan free market, I am unconvinced that Keynsianism can overcome the cycle of boom and bust or the crises of overproduction that result from capitalism.
But, as I said, this is just stuff I've been working out on my own with a limited understanding of economic theory. I could be wrong...but I doubt it.
Smash capitalism!
For international proletarian socialist revolution!
Vive le Galt!
|
|
The Kennedyesque whizz kids had been priming the pumps of countercyclical spending for about a decade; the unions had won a higher living standard for the working class than has ever been achieved in this country; the welfare-state package, which had been written in the '30s in ways to sneakily bypass the black population, was expanded to include (for a couple of years anyway), the urban poor.
Hrrrrmmm... you realize that most of that has nothing at all to do with Keynesianism, right?
So, personally, while I would prefer to live in a full-blown Keynesian welfare state...
Keynesianism and a 'welfare state' are two different things. Yes, they were largely enacted at the same time (1930s) in the U.S., but they are not inherently related. I suppose you could say that the Keynesian finding that wage and/or benefit cuts during a recession is self-destructive supports the existence of welfare, but Keynesianism also argues for cuts to government spending during growth periods.
I am unconvinced that Keynsianism can overcome the cycle of boom and bust or the crises of overproduction that result from capitalism.
Despite the fact that it did so for the entire period during which Keynesian economic policies were followed?
Stagflation was taken as evidence that 'Keynes was wrong' (after 40 years of being continually proved right), but in reality it had nothing to do with U.S. market cycles and everything to do with the global energy crisis at the time. Keynesianism works fine, but by the 1970s events in the GLOBAL economy were becoming just as important as sound fiscal policy on the national level. The dismantling of Keynesianism (along with much of what little 'welfare state' ever existed) in the U.S. since the 1970s has given us a return to the regular boom and bust cycle of the bad old days.
Hrrrrmmm... you realize that most of that has nothing at all to do with Keynesianism, right?
Obviously, no, I don't, or otherwise I wouldn't have wasted 20 minutes writing that, now would I?
So, anyway, yeah, my grounding in economic theory is slight.
Comrade Spanky has been kind enough to send me some links on the labor theory of value and Adam Smith and Ricardo which prompted me to decide that I'm going to have to teach myself economics this year, but I did want to link this:
Listen Keynesians, It’s the System! Response to Palley
I don't pretend to understand everything it says, and I am also not going to say that it's the last word on anything, and I am also not going to say it substantiates everything I wrote above, but I did want to link it to show that I'm not making this up wholesale.
Oh yeah, before I forget:
|
|
Anklebiter, the bedrock of Keynesian economics is really quite simple; When the economy is in recession you need to get money into the hands of lots of people who otherwise don't have enough (thru welfare, jobs programs, low income tax cuts, et cetera) so that they will spend it on basic necessities, thereby stimulating activity throughout the entire economy from the bottom up. When the economy is doing well you instead need to cut government spending, reduce the national debt, and tighten regulations to prevent bubbles and place the government in a strong position to be able to counteract any recessionary forces via increased spending.
Keynesianism inherently holds that economic activity is driven primarily by the masses. The 'Chicago school' of economic thought often promotes the opposite view, that a small population of very wealthy 'job creators' drive the economy through their beneficent spending on projects they deem worthy. I prefer to call this economic theory by its original name, Feudalism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that much I do understand, Citizen Dunkerson, although I wouldn't go so far as labelling the Chicago Boys feudalists. I think "free-market capitalist" covers what you're saying quite ably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's plenty of overlap between the two; I give discounts on DiceCo{tm} products to those who pledge me their fealty.