Bartering food in the way you describe it, yes the child can understand ... but the problem is the one you already mentioned earlier - abstracting the value of goods/items to being represented by paper money that causes the difficulty I think. If I can get over THAT hurdle I then have a chance to discuss the ramifications of printing more money.
Still to a child why not print 1 million dollars more - it's not going to change the economy is it? The quantity is too small. What would printing 1 millions dollars and giving it to poor people really do to the economy? I don't know, but it could make say 10 poor people in Africa have a good life. This is how the child sees it.
I may check out the book you referred to, my one concern with it is that it may be more relevant to US citizens than UK.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Concept of Relative Value
I've been thinking a lot about the essence of economics. Sure, we can get buried really quickly in all sorts of minutia. What I'm thinking about are the essential core principles. And when I think about it, economics is all about the concept of relative value. By that I mean the value of one thing compared to another -- and that value changes over time, and it differs from person to person.
I recall when I was a kid in the school cafeteria. Without realizing what they were doing, the kids would engage in a spirited exchange market trading food items. From my experience, a dill pickle had very little value; a cupcake quite a bit. And then all sorts of interesting things would happen: if I was competing with someone else to acquire a cupcake in trade, no matter how many dill pickles I might have to trade, the sheer quantity of my dill pickles would never trump another kid's apple pie. So value is not a simple mathematical model. 100 pickles or 1000 pickles -- it makes no difference because pickles weren't valued relative to the cupcake. However, I might be able to trade a pickle for a bunch of carrot sticks. And it might be a 1-for-1 trade. So it's not like pickles have no value. It's all relative.
I was fortunate to not have much of a sweet tooth, so if I had a piece of cake or a cookie or whatever, I'd happily trade it away and get a lot more food in return. Others were so smitten by the sweets they'd trade their whole lunch for a Hostess coconut snowball cake. On the relatively rare occasion I'd buy a hot lunch (normally I brought a bagged lunch), I'd quickly establish interest in trading for my dessert, which I didn't really care for. I once traded my small piece of chocolate cake for someone else's lasagna and vegetables. Essentially their whole lunch. I was happy, they were happy. I was nourished. Them? Well, that wasn't my concern.
Note: and here's where the concept of currency (money) comes into play. As I said before, paper money (in particular) has no inherent value. Money serves as a proxy of actual value. I value my $1 bill because of what I can buy with that $1 bill. And that is based on trust that others will honor that $1 bill as an exchangeable representation of value. To trade my dill pickle for a cupcake using money requires an agreement on how many pickles per dollar, and then what fraction of a cupcake for a dollar. Once done, the dollar is nothing but a proxy, a representation of the relative value of the pickle vs. the cupcake.
It's a fascinating topic ... it really is. The dynamics are endless.
There's a "basic economics" text book written by Thomas Sowell that I've read really good things about. It's on Amazon here. I'm not saying you should get it ... but if you're thinking about delving into the topic some, it might be a good place to start.
I recall when I was a kid in the school cafeteria. Without realizing what they were doing, the kids would engage in a spirited exchange market trading food items. From my experience, a dill pickle had very little value; a cupcake quite a bit. And then all sorts of interesting things would happen: if I was competing with someone else to acquire a cupcake in trade, no matter how many dill pickles I might have to trade, the sheer quantity of my dill pickles would never trump another kid's apple pie. So value is not a simple mathematical model. 100 pickles or 1000 pickles -- it makes no difference because pickles weren't valued relative to the cupcake. However, I might be able to trade a pickle for a bunch of carrot sticks. And it might be a 1-for-1 trade. So it's not like pickles have no value. It's all relative.
I was fortunate to not have much of a sweet tooth, so if I had a piece of cake or a cookie or whatever, I'd happily trade it away and get a lot more food in return. Others were so smitten by the sweets they'd trade their whole lunch for a Hostess coconut snowball cake. On the relatively rare occasion I'd buy a hot lunch (normally I brought a bagged lunch), I'd quickly establish interest in trading for my dessert, which I didn't really care for. I once traded my small piece of chocolate cake for someone else's lasagna and vegetables. Essentially their whole lunch. I was happy, they were happy. I was nourished. Them? Well, that wasn't my concern.
Note: and here's where the concept of currency (money) comes into play. As I said before, paper money (in particular) has no inherent value. Money serves as a proxy of actual value. I value my $1 bill because of what I can buy with that $1 bill. And that is based on trust that others will honor that $1 bill as an exchangeable representation of value. To trade my dill pickle for a cupcake using money requires an agreement on how many pickles per dollar, and then what fraction of a cupcake for a dollar. Once done, the dollar is nothing but a proxy, a representation of the relative value of the pickle vs. the cupcake.
It's a fascinating topic ... it really is. The dynamics are endless.
There's a "basic economics" text book written by Thomas Sowell that I've read really good things about. It's on Amazon here. I'm not saying you should get it ... but if you're thinking about delving into the topic some, it might be a good place to start.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Teaching Economics
Ain't easy. There are some intuitive things that one either "gets" or does not. Your daughter does not yet "get" the concept of supply and demand. Well, she does, I think ... deep inside, but it's not yet taken hold in a tangible thought pattern. Does she do any trading with her friends at all -- in whatever currency little girls use -- CD's, doll clothes, whatever? If so, perhaps you can bridge the gap by tapping into her current understanding of "value" based on her own experiences. Paper money is just paper to her ... she probably doesn't understand that it's a mere representation of value, but not itself valuable. That itself is a slippery concept. Hence the question, "Why not print more?"
* * *
Does that mean they are not accountable to anyone? Here in the UK their are "watchdog" bodies that regulate the activities of politicians - do you not have something like that in the USA?
There are all sorts of independent watchdog groups. But ultimately it comes down to the Congress being accountable to itself, with a nod to the Supreme Court which has supremacy in matters of interpretation of the Constitution.
Years ago, back when the Clintons first assumed the office, there was a big row over Hillary Clinton's nationalization of the health care system here. She proposed a massive bureaucratic structure. It was "good for America" she said. But apparently not good enough for Congress, who made she they were exempted from it. The whole thing collapsed under its own weight, thankfully. We need certain reforms; we don't need that.
* * *
Blair seems happy to make millions for himself, his wife too. So clearly they are capitalists.
I'm not sure I see the connection between Blair's stifling imposition of government into the lives of the public, and their exploitation of their office to line their own pockets, with "capitalism." It sounds more like the classic Soviet model to me. :-)
* * *
The one factor that might make a manned mission worthwhile is the imagination of children that such a mission captures. Once sparked this can lead the children to grow up wanting to go into science, which is a benefit to everyone.
In principle I might agree. But I think that's a gamble. For one, the kids may not have their imaginations sparked. They're a jaded lot nowadays, as I'm sure you're aware. Two, that is based on the assumption of success, isn't it? What happens if the whole thing falls apart, either due to technical problems, or lack of sustained interest, or some catastrophic event?
I agree with the research into asteroid deflection. Now that stirs the imagination!
* * *
When I was a kid, aged 11-14 or so, I used to make little Airfix models of planes, you know glue them together, paint them, hang them from the ceiling etc. I must have made 75-100 planes in my time. The Concorde is probably the most iconic of passenger jets I think. And the Spitfire is the most beautiful plane I ever saw, still is.
I had a few of those things, but not many. I recall having a P-38 Lightning and a P-51 Mustang, as well as the gorgeous Spitfire. I agree wholeheartedly that the design of the Spitfire was classic. And yes, the Concorde was definitely an iconic figure for our age group. I saw that fly over Raleigh, NC back in the mid-80's. Pretty much the whole city stopped work to go outside and watch it go over. :-)
* * *
Does that mean they are not accountable to anyone? Here in the UK their are "watchdog" bodies that regulate the activities of politicians - do you not have something like that in the USA?
There are all sorts of independent watchdog groups. But ultimately it comes down to the Congress being accountable to itself, with a nod to the Supreme Court which has supremacy in matters of interpretation of the Constitution.
Years ago, back when the Clintons first assumed the office, there was a big row over Hillary Clinton's nationalization of the health care system here. She proposed a massive bureaucratic structure. It was "good for America" she said. But apparently not good enough for Congress, who made she they were exempted from it. The whole thing collapsed under its own weight, thankfully. We need certain reforms; we don't need that.
* * *
Blair seems happy to make millions for himself, his wife too. So clearly they are capitalists.
I'm not sure I see the connection between Blair's stifling imposition of government into the lives of the public, and their exploitation of their office to line their own pockets, with "capitalism." It sounds more like the classic Soviet model to me. :-)
* * *
The one factor that might make a manned mission worthwhile is the imagination of children that such a mission captures. Once sparked this can lead the children to grow up wanting to go into science, which is a benefit to everyone.
In principle I might agree. But I think that's a gamble. For one, the kids may not have their imaginations sparked. They're a jaded lot nowadays, as I'm sure you're aware. Two, that is based on the assumption of success, isn't it? What happens if the whole thing falls apart, either due to technical problems, or lack of sustained interest, or some catastrophic event?
I agree with the research into asteroid deflection. Now that stirs the imagination!
* * *
When I was a kid, aged 11-14 or so, I used to make little Airfix models of planes, you know glue them together, paint them, hang them from the ceiling etc. I must have made 75-100 planes in my time. The Concorde is probably the most iconic of passenger jets I think. And the Spitfire is the most beautiful plane I ever saw, still is.
I had a few of those things, but not many. I recall having a P-38 Lightning and a P-51 Mustang, as well as the gorgeous Spitfire. I agree wholeheartedly that the design of the Spitfire was classic. And yes, the Concorde was definitely an iconic figure for our age group. I saw that fly over Raleigh, NC back in the mid-80's. Pretty much the whole city stopped work to go outside and watch it go over. :-)
Supermarine
When I think of "capitalism," a better phrase for it would be "resource allocation based on free market mechanics." Contrast that with "resource allocation based on the decisions of a ruling elite,"
I am woefully ignorant of this area of human endeavour. My daugher asked me yesterday why can't we just print a ton of money and send it to the poor people in Africa so they could buy houses, cookers and showers ?! (sic)
I told her about rampant inflation in pre-2nd World War Germany and even showed her some pictures from Google Images of ladies shopping with full barrow loads of bank notes and burning them in their fires because that was a cheaper way of keeping warm than buying wood.
So she asked me the same question again.
Then I started on about "supply and demand" and that people only wanted things that were hard to come by and if you printed more money it would just make people want it less.
She asked me to explain it to her in a way that she could understand. And I couldn't. I completely failed in this, I can explain mathematics and science to her in a way that she understands, she says "I wish our lessons were like that!" but I cannot explain basic economics to her. Which means a couple of things at least 1) I do not understand basic economics and 2) It's almost impossible to teach something you have been unable to create any enthusiam within yourself for and possibly ... 3) the best teachers have a passion for whatever is they are teaching; from this passion comes the desire to articulate the subject in a way that the recipient can "get".
On well I must try harder, I have a responsibility to educate my daughter to the best of my abilities whilst she is here with me.
Here in America our illustrious Congress has exempted themselves from darn near every law they impose upon us.
Does that mean they are not accountable to anyone? Here in the UK their are "watchdog" bodies that regulate the activities of politicians - do you not have something like that in the USA?
The UK Blair government has made it their business to stick their noses in lots of places that aren't welcome, every street corner seems to have a camera watching (ala 1984) and The Courts interfere in family life where they are not welcome - with the blessing of the government. Blair seems happy to make millions for himself, his wife too. So clearly they are capitalists. I'm not sure if they want to exempt themselves from any laws though.
+++
Manned Mission to Mars? Not sure. I think I'd rather see the money spent on an observation/defence program to scan the skies for the wormwood and work out ways to deflect it. I agree with robotic missions to the planets for sure, I don't think you're way off base. The one factor that might make a manned mission worthwhile is the imagination of children that such a mission captures. Once sparked this can lead the children to grow up wanting to go into science, which is a benefit to everyone.
+++
Yes the 747 is iconic. I think I read somewhere that it was first designed to haul goods rather than people. The new airbus will get lots of use in China and India as those economies come on line and Japan of course. One day the Chinese economy may even be bigger than that of the US. It's funny, K said to me about a month ago "How come everything is made in China?" Hehe.
When I was a kid, aged 11-14 or so, I used to make little Airfix models of planes, you know glue them together, paint them, hang them from the ceiling etc. I must have made 75-100 planes in my time. The Concorde is probably the most iconic of passenger jets I think. And the Spitfire is the most beautiful plane I ever saw, still is.
I am woefully ignorant of this area of human endeavour. My daugher asked me yesterday why can't we just print a ton of money and send it to the poor people in Africa so they could buy houses, cookers and showers ?! (sic)
I told her about rampant inflation in pre-2nd World War Germany and even showed her some pictures from Google Images of ladies shopping with full barrow loads of bank notes and burning them in their fires because that was a cheaper way of keeping warm than buying wood.
So she asked me the same question again.
Then I started on about "supply and demand" and that people only wanted things that were hard to come by and if you printed more money it would just make people want it less.
She asked me to explain it to her in a way that she could understand. And I couldn't. I completely failed in this, I can explain mathematics and science to her in a way that she understands, she says "I wish our lessons were like that!" but I cannot explain basic economics to her. Which means a couple of things at least 1) I do not understand basic economics and 2) It's almost impossible to teach something you have been unable to create any enthusiam within yourself for and possibly ... 3) the best teachers have a passion for whatever is they are teaching; from this passion comes the desire to articulate the subject in a way that the recipient can "get".
On well I must try harder, I have a responsibility to educate my daughter to the best of my abilities whilst she is here with me.
Here in America our illustrious Congress has exempted themselves from darn near every law they impose upon us.
Does that mean they are not accountable to anyone? Here in the UK their are "watchdog" bodies that regulate the activities of politicians - do you not have something like that in the USA?
The UK Blair government has made it their business to stick their noses in lots of places that aren't welcome, every street corner seems to have a camera watching (ala 1984) and The Courts interfere in family life where they are not welcome - with the blessing of the government. Blair seems happy to make millions for himself, his wife too. So clearly they are capitalists. I'm not sure if they want to exempt themselves from any laws though.
+++
Manned Mission to Mars? Not sure. I think I'd rather see the money spent on an observation/defence program to scan the skies for the wormwood and work out ways to deflect it. I agree with robotic missions to the planets for sure, I don't think you're way off base. The one factor that might make a manned mission worthwhile is the imagination of children that such a mission captures. Once sparked this can lead the children to grow up wanting to go into science, which is a benefit to everyone.
+++
Yes the 747 is iconic. I think I read somewhere that it was first designed to haul goods rather than people. The new airbus will get lots of use in China and India as those economies come on line and Japan of course. One day the Chinese economy may even be bigger than that of the US. It's funny, K said to me about a month ago "How come everything is made in China?" Hehe.
When I was a kid, aged 11-14 or so, I used to make little Airfix models of planes, you know glue them together, paint them, hang them from the ceiling etc. I must have made 75-100 planes in my time. The Concorde is probably the most iconic of passenger jets I think. And the Spitfire is the most beautiful plane I ever saw, still is.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Airbus A380
Is there a big enough market for this to pay back on the investment?
I recall a lecture way back in college -- in my transportation classes -- and we were talking about the prospects of a super-jumbo plane ... bigger than the 747 which defined big back then. The professor expressed skepticism ... his point was that the bigger the plane, the more effort it took to collect the "payload." Meaning ... except for high-volume trunk routes, getting 500+ people together to go somewhere ain't easy.
Boeing is betting their corporation on the opposite model -- smaller planes that can more efficiently spirit fewer people to lots of different locations. I guess the objectives of their design was much better fuel efficiency per passenger mile delivered.
Did you know that the 747 was originally designed to be a freight carrier? The notion of carrying people was an afterthought. The bubble cockpit was so the nose could hinge up and expose the main tube of the plane to cargo loading.
Is there any more iconic plane profile in all the world than the 747?
Mission to Mars?
There's been some talk here in the States about the role and mission of NASA. Some feel the agency needs a new mission ... a bold one ... a manned trip to Mars.
I completely disagree. I don't believe the public really cares all that much for such a mission. Nobody really believes we'll establish a "colony" there, any more than we've been successful establishing a viable orbiting space station. Going there would just be an exercise in saying we did it, but little more.
Second, I think most people view the trials and troubles of this earth and think, "We don't need to spend the time and money on that. We have more important things to worry about already."
Finally, I think in the back of most people's minds is the notion of a spacecraft with astronauts in it being disabled far out in space with no chance for rescue. It's one thing for a shuttle to blow up -- that's a death everyone can grasp. But simply drifting off into nothingness would leave an odd and disturbing chill in people's minds. They sense that now, I think. Plus, the feeling of utter helplessness would leave quite a scar. All the more reason, I think, that a mission to Mars is just talk.
Unmanned probes and such? Cool ... the more the merrier.
Thoughts? Am I just way off base here?
I completely disagree. I don't believe the public really cares all that much for such a mission. Nobody really believes we'll establish a "colony" there, any more than we've been successful establishing a viable orbiting space station. Going there would just be an exercise in saying we did it, but little more.
Second, I think most people view the trials and troubles of this earth and think, "We don't need to spend the time and money on that. We have more important things to worry about already."
Finally, I think in the back of most people's minds is the notion of a spacecraft with astronauts in it being disabled far out in space with no chance for rescue. It's one thing for a shuttle to blow up -- that's a death everyone can grasp. But simply drifting off into nothingness would leave an odd and disturbing chill in people's minds. They sense that now, I think. Plus, the feeling of utter helplessness would leave quite a scar. All the more reason, I think, that a mission to Mars is just talk.
Unmanned probes and such? Cool ... the more the merrier.
Thoughts? Am I just way off base here?
Chatting Up
Uh oh ... that's embarrassing. I used the phrase rather unconsciously. I had you in mind as I typed it, and I knew you had a phrase in that neighborhood ... chatting, chatting with, chatting up.
I wonder if my subconscious is trying to tell me something? :-)
I wonder if my subconscious is trying to tell me something? :-)
Capitalism
I am surprised to see you call it a socialist ideal though ("imposed socialism"), this is normally the capitalist way - exploiting your advantages over your fellow is more a "right wing" than "left wing" activity in my opinion, but I could be wrong.
I had a big long post -- full of my own hot air -- and upon reflection it was stupid. So I deleted it.
When I think of "capitalism," a better phrase for it would be "resource allocation based on free market mechanics." Contrast that with "resource allocation based on the decisions of a ruling elite," which is what I would characterize "socialism" as. Neither is perfect, but I believe history has shown that free market mechanics produce greater wealth than controlled mechanics.
The thing about free market economies is that sometimes there are painful periods of transition. Right now the market does not value low-skilled assembly workers. Hence there are a lot of people in the U.S. (and probably the UK) who previously held assembly line work who no longer do. We have nobody to blame but ourselves -- we, the consumers, allocated resources freely. We took our money to Wal-Mart.
I also believe that a free market economy can be subject to abuse. So I agree with some degree of regulation. But I think the defining difference is this: free market proponents start from a position of no regulation and grudgingly move to some regulation; socialist proponents start from a position of complete regulation and grudgingly move to some free market practices.
I have expressed my disdain for the ruling elite because they are utter hypocrites. They violate the "treat others" rule in near everything they do. Notice how I did not say "socialists" there ... I said "ruling elite." Here in America our illustrious Congress has exempted themselves from darn near every law they impose upon us. The difference between them and a socialist regime such as the Soviet Union had was that every two years we can do something about it. In 2006 this country did just that.
I had a big long post -- full of my own hot air -- and upon reflection it was stupid. So I deleted it.
When I think of "capitalism," a better phrase for it would be "resource allocation based on free market mechanics." Contrast that with "resource allocation based on the decisions of a ruling elite," which is what I would characterize "socialism" as. Neither is perfect, but I believe history has shown that free market mechanics produce greater wealth than controlled mechanics.
The thing about free market economies is that sometimes there are painful periods of transition. Right now the market does not value low-skilled assembly workers. Hence there are a lot of people in the U.S. (and probably the UK) who previously held assembly line work who no longer do. We have nobody to blame but ourselves -- we, the consumers, allocated resources freely. We took our money to Wal-Mart.
I also believe that a free market economy can be subject to abuse. So I agree with some degree of regulation. But I think the defining difference is this: free market proponents start from a position of no regulation and grudgingly move to some regulation; socialist proponents start from a position of complete regulation and grudgingly move to some free market practices.
I have expressed my disdain for the ruling elite because they are utter hypocrites. They violate the "treat others" rule in near everything they do. Notice how I did not say "socialists" there ... I said "ruling elite." Here in America our illustrious Congress has exempted themselves from darn near every law they impose upon us. The difference between them and a socialist regime such as the Soviet Union had was that every two years we can do something about it. In 2006 this country did just that.
Snobbery (Goldwingers not waving originally)
This estimate of the CO2 output of Mt St Helens:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html
claims approx 900 million tons, lets say a billion, or 5 to 10 times all of the Earth's volcanic CO2 contributions in one year, or 1/10th of the human production in one year.
This kind of makes sense - using basic laws of chemistry/physics (Boyle's Law) and considering just how many volcanoes there are on Earth, it's unlikely that a single volcano could outstrip the CO2 production of all of the Earth's volcanoes in a single year by thousands of times - which it would need to do to beat the efforts of humanity since we began.
+++
Mark my words -- if and when this thing takes root at the policy level, what you'll see in the fine print will be all sorts of exemptions for individuals and organizations who craft the policy.
I agree that this will happen for sure. It's back to human nature, the idea to gain a competitive advantage. I am surprised to see you call it a socialist ideal though ("imposed socialism"), this is normally the capitalist way - exploiting your advantages over your fellow is more a "right wing" than "left wing" activity in my opinion, but I could be wrong. I'm thinking along the lines that the rich only get through exploiting the less rich. I think that's how economies work anyway.
+++
My point earlier was that believing in something non-falsifiable (whatever the object or thing is) is identical to having a closed mind on the subject. I wasn't suggesting there was anything inherently bad about having a closed mind on the subject.
+++
Being inconsistent may be like breaking a promise also, "I said I would do A but then I go and do B". It's about intentions again isn't it? We can have the best will in the world to be consistent/logical and then fail to be so.
+++
The biking fraternity sounds dandy in the US, do you have lady bikers also?
I also enjoy the camaraderie of chatting up other bikers at gas stations
"Chatting up" at the gas station means a person with hopes of trying to get amorous with the other in the UK by the way ! For your example we brits would say "chatting to". Be careful, you know what those leather-clad bikers are like :)
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html
claims approx 900 million tons, lets say a billion, or 5 to 10 times all of the Earth's volcanic CO2 contributions in one year, or 1/10th of the human production in one year.
This kind of makes sense - using basic laws of chemistry/physics (Boyle's Law) and considering just how many volcanoes there are on Earth, it's unlikely that a single volcano could outstrip the CO2 production of all of the Earth's volcanoes in a single year by thousands of times - which it would need to do to beat the efforts of humanity since we began.
+++
Mark my words -- if and when this thing takes root at the policy level, what you'll see in the fine print will be all sorts of exemptions for individuals and organizations who craft the policy.
I agree that this will happen for sure. It's back to human nature, the idea to gain a competitive advantage. I am surprised to see you call it a socialist ideal though ("imposed socialism"), this is normally the capitalist way - exploiting your advantages over your fellow is more a "right wing" than "left wing" activity in my opinion, but I could be wrong. I'm thinking along the lines that the rich only get through exploiting the less rich. I think that's how economies work anyway.
+++
My point earlier was that believing in something non-falsifiable (whatever the object or thing is) is identical to having a closed mind on the subject. I wasn't suggesting there was anything inherently bad about having a closed mind on the subject.
+++
Being inconsistent may be like breaking a promise also, "I said I would do A but then I go and do B". It's about intentions again isn't it? We can have the best will in the world to be consistent/logical and then fail to be so.
+++
The biking fraternity sounds dandy in the US, do you have lady bikers also?
I also enjoy the camaraderie of chatting up other bikers at gas stations
"Chatting up" at the gas station means a person with hopes of trying to get amorous with the other in the UK by the way ! For your example we brits would say "chatting to". Be careful, you know what those leather-clad bikers are like :)
Kaboom!
Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year.
It may be that what I read was in fact a piece of misinformation ... I really don't know. But I'll say this -- I'm just a little skeptical of the information you posted. Not that it is wrong, but that it's not addressing my initial point. Volcanoes might well product 1100 million tons/year, but I'm not talking about annual production ... I'm talking about extraordinary production, created by an extraordinary event like the eruption of St. Helens (1980) or Pinatuba (1991) the expected output from the "Yellowstone Caldera" (which went off 600K years ago and is, I understand, a bit overdue ... yikes!). The articles you referenced didn't seem to say whether the annual figures accounted for extraordinary events, or were true annual output figures. If it did, I didn't see it.
* * *
I have no axe to grind either way, I'm just looking for the truth.
I'll take it one step further -- truth and reasonable policy decisions that flow from that truth. Right now I don't believe we have either. I believe with all my heart that this "climate change" thing is being used as a trojan horse for imposed socialism. Mark my words -- if and when this thing takes root at the policy level, what you'll see in the fine print will be all sorts of exemptions for individuals and organizations who craft the policy. They'll impose travel taxes on tourists to curb "unnecessary flying" but they'll exempt themselves for their "fact finding missions."
Watch also how they'll look to shift most of the burden on the United States. Kyoto already tries to do that -- China and India, two of the most polluting countries in the world and getting worse each year (I was in Beijing; I experienced first hand the awful quality of their air), were exempted. Why?
People say, "The U.S. represents 5% of the people but consumes 25% of the energy." That may be true enough. We also produce a comparable share of the world's GDP, and that is what fuels the quality of life elsewhere. You want to see death on a scale far larger than any "global warming" will produce any time soon? Hobble the U.S. economy to the tune of 20% or more (which is roughly what compliance with the strictest interpretations of Kyoto would have called for). That would drag down the rest of the world. Suddenly farmers in Africa would have nobody to sell their coffee to; no more supplemental food shipments to Africa and other poor countries; no more massive subsidization of drug and relief efforts overseas.
That's my axe to grind.
Look ... there's no question that many in the United States are ostentatious. Yes, we live a big lifestyle. I don't think I do all that much, but I'll grant many do. But I think these fools (and yes, I use that word with intent) who craft worldwide global bureaucratic policy want it both ways. They want to hobble the U.S. out of envy, yet they want to milk the U.S. wealth for all its worth. All the while, of course, while they craft exemptions from their own rules so the ruling elite can live in luxury while others carry the burden.
I truly, truly hate those people.
It may be that what I read was in fact a piece of misinformation ... I really don't know. But I'll say this -- I'm just a little skeptical of the information you posted. Not that it is wrong, but that it's not addressing my initial point. Volcanoes might well product 1100 million tons/year, but I'm not talking about annual production ... I'm talking about extraordinary production, created by an extraordinary event like the eruption of St. Helens (1980) or Pinatuba (1991) the expected output from the "Yellowstone Caldera" (which went off 600K years ago and is, I understand, a bit overdue ... yikes!). The articles you referenced didn't seem to say whether the annual figures accounted for extraordinary events, or were true annual output figures. If it did, I didn't see it.
* * *
I have no axe to grind either way, I'm just looking for the truth.
I'll take it one step further -- truth and reasonable policy decisions that flow from that truth. Right now I don't believe we have either. I believe with all my heart that this "climate change" thing is being used as a trojan horse for imposed socialism. Mark my words -- if and when this thing takes root at the policy level, what you'll see in the fine print will be all sorts of exemptions for individuals and organizations who craft the policy. They'll impose travel taxes on tourists to curb "unnecessary flying" but they'll exempt themselves for their "fact finding missions."
Watch also how they'll look to shift most of the burden on the United States. Kyoto already tries to do that -- China and India, two of the most polluting countries in the world and getting worse each year (I was in Beijing; I experienced first hand the awful quality of their air), were exempted. Why?
People say, "The U.S. represents 5% of the people but consumes 25% of the energy." That may be true enough. We also produce a comparable share of the world's GDP, and that is what fuels the quality of life elsewhere. You want to see death on a scale far larger than any "global warming" will produce any time soon? Hobble the U.S. economy to the tune of 20% or more (which is roughly what compliance with the strictest interpretations of Kyoto would have called for). That would drag down the rest of the world. Suddenly farmers in Africa would have nobody to sell their coffee to; no more supplemental food shipments to Africa and other poor countries; no more massive subsidization of drug and relief efforts overseas.
That's my axe to grind.
Look ... there's no question that many in the United States are ostentatious. Yes, we live a big lifestyle. I don't think I do all that much, but I'll grant many do. But I think these fools (and yes, I use that word with intent) who craft worldwide global bureaucratic policy want it both ways. They want to hobble the U.S. out of envy, yet they want to milk the U.S. wealth for all its worth. All the while, of course, while they craft exemptions from their own rules so the ruling elite can live in luxury while others carry the burden.
I truly, truly hate those people.
Volcanic Discharges
Fair enough. I forget where I read this ... somewhere ... that when Mt. St. Helens erupted it spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere in one day than all of mankind did in the last 100 years. I don't know if that's strictly true, but it would not surprise me.
I don't think thats true. I wouldn't know whether to be surprised or not though, where do you get the knowledge to be not surprised from? :)
INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:
Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced
Source: http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
This appears to be backed up by the Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.
And it's pretty easy to get the human CO2 emissions estimate from a number of places.
I have no axe to grind either way, I'm just looking for the truth. Like I said, I believe that it's too early to say whether human CO2 emissions have caused the climate change we are experiencing, they may have a neglible or zero effect for all I know. But I don't think the Mt. St Helens thing is correct. I guess it could be used by others who have come to the conclusion that it's NOT human emissions causing Global Warming to write it on the web somewhere to further their agenda, whatever that might be. I still say we have to investigate all claims though.
I will respond on your other points later .. I'm off to pick up my daughter now!
I don't think thats true. I wouldn't know whether to be surprised or not though, where do you get the knowledge to be not surprised from? :)
INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:
Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced
Source: http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
This appears to be backed up by the Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.
And it's pretty easy to get the human CO2 emissions estimate from a number of places.
I have no axe to grind either way, I'm just looking for the truth. Like I said, I believe that it's too early to say whether human CO2 emissions have caused the climate change we are experiencing, they may have a neglible or zero effect for all I know. But I don't think the Mt. St Helens thing is correct. I guess it could be used by others who have come to the conclusion that it's NOT human emissions causing Global Warming to write it on the web somewhere to further their agenda, whatever that might be. I still say we have to investigate all claims though.
I will respond on your other points later .. I'm off to pick up my daughter now!
Brotherhood of Riders
Yes ... here in the United States the act of extending the left hand in a gesture of greeting is quite common. And the horizontal two fingers is one gesture; an open palm another; just the index finger extended a third. I do it all the time ... it's fun. I also enjoy the camaraderie of chatting up other bikers at gas stations. People are really eager to talk about their bikes. All it takes is a few open-ended questions from me and off they go. :-)
What's interesting about the hand thing is who does not do it ... and when. When I had my Honda Shadow V-Twin, I noticed a lot of Goldwingers wouldn't acknowledge me. Now that I have a Wing, they acknowledge me. I don't find that kind of exclusivity very attractive. Harley riders will frequently gesture, even to me on my Wing. As a class, I've found Harley riders to be quite friendly, both in gesturing and chatting at gas stations. As a class, I've found sport bike riders to be the least communicative.
While I enjoy the casual social interaction of bikers, I'm not really into the "brotherhood of bikers" thing. We just happen to be people who own motorcycles. My motorcycle does not define me, nor does our common bond of a motorcycle open up some special line of communication that wasn't there before. Convenient line of communication, yes; special, no.
* * *
Question: is believing something to be non-falsifiable synonymous with having a closed mind about that particular topic?
I think by definition nothing should be considered non-falsifiable. But, that said, I think there are things a person may choose to consider non-falsifiable simply to avoid engaging in the discussions and debates. Two examples:
* * *
Let's stick with the facts, the first being "we have altered the composition of the Earth's atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels". The debate should be around understanding what this alteration means to the Earth's climate, if anything, both now and in the future."
Fair enough. I forget where I read this ... somewhere ... that when Mt. St. Helens erupted it spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere in one day than all of mankind did in the last 100 years. I don't know if that's strictly true, but it would not surprise me.
* * *
The law of unintended consequences -- with the recent emphasis on ethanol as a replacement for fossil fuels, the profit margin on corn production has gone way up. That has resulted in two things, both not good:
What's interesting about the hand thing is who does not do it ... and when. When I had my Honda Shadow V-Twin, I noticed a lot of Goldwingers wouldn't acknowledge me. Now that I have a Wing, they acknowledge me. I don't find that kind of exclusivity very attractive. Harley riders will frequently gesture, even to me on my Wing. As a class, I've found Harley riders to be quite friendly, both in gesturing and chatting at gas stations. As a class, I've found sport bike riders to be the least communicative.
While I enjoy the casual social interaction of bikers, I'm not really into the "brotherhood of bikers" thing. We just happen to be people who own motorcycles. My motorcycle does not define me, nor does our common bond of a motorcycle open up some special line of communication that wasn't there before. Convenient line of communication, yes; special, no.
* * *
Question: is believing something to be non-falsifiable synonymous with having a closed mind about that particular topic?
I think by definition nothing should be considered non-falsifiable. But, that said, I think there are things a person may choose to consider non-falsifiable simply to avoid engaging in the discussions and debates. Two examples:
- My commitment to my wife is not non-falsifiable. I am perfectly capable of violating the covenant of our marriage. A discussion of the topic would reveal such breaches in my thinking at the least; in my actions quite possibly (excepting physical contact). But that doesn't mean I relish the opportunity to discuss the topic, or dwell on things I'm doing in violation of our marriage covenant. I don't wish to explore how falsifiable my claims of commitment are. I'd rather privately focus on being true and taking my infractions to the Lord, not others.
- Questions of faith ... same logic here: probing the potential for falsification for me is a detrimental process. That's not to say that it's not worthwhile for others who have the capacity for it. But for me, it's counter-productive. So I choose to hold the Bible as inerrant, though rationally I understand that reasonable discussions of the validity of composition and content may take place.
* * *
Let's stick with the facts, the first being "we have altered the composition of the Earth's atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels". The debate should be around understanding what this alteration means to the Earth's climate, if anything, both now and in the future."
Fair enough. I forget where I read this ... somewhere ... that when Mt. St. Helens erupted it spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere in one day than all of mankind did in the last 100 years. I don't know if that's strictly true, but it would not surprise me.
* * *
The law of unintended consequences -- with the recent emphasis on ethanol as a replacement for fossil fuels, the profit margin on corn production has gone way up. That has resulted in two things, both not good:
- Corn prices have sky-rocketed, making a basic staple increasingly difficult to acquire for people of very limited means
- Much more land is going into corn production, including rain forests which are being razed to make room to grow corn for ethanol production.
Mexico
Hey I didn't realize that Tucson was so near to the border with Mexico ... and it looks like the town of Douglas is half in the USA and half in Mexico .. not quite Istanbul I know but still a surprise to me, I think there is an air force base around there somewhere. Another good long ride pal, you can see it's significant on Google Earth, of which there is an upgrade now - well I installed the Google Pack thing and an updated Google Earth appeared.
Yeah I don't go for those low-rider type bikes much either. Still, meeting folks on the road, it would seem that everywhere in the world bikers are a strong community, I often thought this may be due to them (you!) having a common enemy ie."the car". When two bikers pass in France they stick two fingers out at eachother - not the V for victory Churchill sign, but two fingers held out horizontally. Do they do that is the USA? I love that about riding in France, impossible to do in the UK as it would mean taking your hand of the accelerator, it can only happen where you drive on the "right hand side" of the road. When I first drove in France I thought "What are all these people doing?" Then I got to really like it, it's like reaching out to touch one-another. We are community beings us humans, we like to form groups, I am convinced the behaviour is innate. It's self evident how this behaviour would have had bred in a species borne of natural selection too.
+++
A while ago now I replied to a UK friend who aksed me my views on Global Warming:
"I don't know whether the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, and we have contributed a lot since the industrial revolution, is causing global warming or not. More research is necessary. The trouble with the whole global warming issue is that it's deemed to be a liberal/democrat flag waving banner, so everyone with a conservative/republican bent is just looking to say it's hogwash. In addition - everywhere it seems now - minority groups have far too much power, political correctness has gone mad, and "global warming" is lumped together with these "leftists". So the debate over global warming has come down to left vs right (as usual), with a bunch of "scientists" thrown in competing for grant money.
Let's stick with the facts, the first being "we have altered the composition of the Earth's atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels". The debate should be around understanding what this alteration means to the Earth's climate, if anything, both now and in the future."
+++
My view is, if you are a scientist then you cannot hold to the non-falsifiable concept that Global Warming is all the result of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere due to the activities of humanity. You cannot hold to the non-falsifiability of anything. You have to keep an open mind about everything.
Question: is believing something to be non-falsifiable synonymous with having a closed mind about that particular topic?
+++
And, "is being inconsistent like breaking a promise?" ...
Yeah I don't go for those low-rider type bikes much either. Still, meeting folks on the road, it would seem that everywhere in the world bikers are a strong community, I often thought this may be due to them (you!) having a common enemy ie."the car". When two bikers pass in France they stick two fingers out at eachother - not the V for victory Churchill sign, but two fingers held out horizontally. Do they do that is the USA? I love that about riding in France, impossible to do in the UK as it would mean taking your hand of the accelerator, it can only happen where you drive on the "right hand side" of the road. When I first drove in France I thought "What are all these people doing?" Then I got to really like it, it's like reaching out to touch one-another. We are community beings us humans, we like to form groups, I am convinced the behaviour is innate. It's self evident how this behaviour would have had bred in a species borne of natural selection too.
+++
A while ago now I replied to a UK friend who aksed me my views on Global Warming:
"I don't know whether the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, and we have contributed a lot since the industrial revolution, is causing global warming or not. More research is necessary. The trouble with the whole global warming issue is that it's deemed to be a liberal/democrat flag waving banner, so everyone with a conservative/republican bent is just looking to say it's hogwash. In addition - everywhere it seems now - minority groups have far too much power, political correctness has gone mad, and "global warming" is lumped together with these "leftists". So the debate over global warming has come down to left vs right (as usual), with a bunch of "scientists" thrown in competing for grant money.
Let's stick with the facts, the first being "we have altered the composition of the Earth's atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels". The debate should be around understanding what this alteration means to the Earth's climate, if anything, both now and in the future."
+++
My view is, if you are a scientist then you cannot hold to the non-falsifiable concept that Global Warming is all the result of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere due to the activities of humanity. You cannot hold to the non-falsifiability of anything. You have to keep an open mind about everything.
Question: is believing something to be non-falsifiable synonymous with having a closed mind about that particular topic?
+++
And, "is being inconsistent like breaking a promise?" ...
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Today's 400 Mile Ride
Set out this morning at about 8:30am and returned home about 4:30pm. 400 miles at a relatively leisurely pace:
Click here for a larger image.
Do you see that stretch on the right side of the picture where I turned south in New Mexico and proceeded down to Douglas? 100 miles of nothing ... beautiful scenery, but only one town to speak of. And no gas at all. Luckily I'd topped off my tank just before the start of that journey so I had sufficient to get to the other end of that. Still, it's an eye opener ... and lesson learned: never trust that gas will be there. If I'm about to set out across the wilderness, top up.
Click here for a larger image.
Do you see that stretch on the right side of the picture where I turned south in New Mexico and proceeded down to Douglas? 100 miles of nothing ... beautiful scenery, but only one town to speak of. And no gas at all. Luckily I'd topped off my tank just before the start of that journey so I had sufficient to get to the other end of that. Still, it's an eye opener ... and lesson learned: never trust that gas will be there. If I'm about to set out across the wilderness, top up.
Custom Bike
I bumped into this guy while out riding today:
Click here for a larger image.
His bike is a new "custom" bike. The outfit from which he purchased it takes standard parts from the market and bolts them into semi-custom frames. Here's a picture of just the bike:
Click here for a larger image.
This kind of bike really isn't my cup of tea, but this guy seemed right proud of his baby.
Click here for a larger image.
His bike is a new "custom" bike. The outfit from which he purchased it takes standard parts from the market and bolts them into semi-custom frames. Here's a picture of just the bike:
Click here for a larger image.
This kind of bike really isn't my cup of tea, but this guy seemed right proud of his baby.
A Priori
There is no point arguing with someone who believes that The Bible is a priori non-falsifiable.
That's true of anything. If someone has decided to believe something is non-falsifiable, then no amount of logical argumentation will make a difference.
Incidentally, this is where the "science" of climate change has come. Quotes like "the matter is settled ... it is now merely a question of what we do about it" float around like confetti. Of course the science is not at all settled:
That's true of anything. If someone has decided to believe something is non-falsifiable, then no amount of logical argumentation will make a difference.
Incidentally, this is where the "science" of climate change has come. Quotes like "the matter is settled ... it is now merely a question of what we do about it" float around like confetti. Of course the science is not at all settled:
- That the earth has warmed over the last century may be true enough.
- Whether the change is anything abnormal within the context of normal historical cycles is almost never discussed
- Whether the change is in fact due to human activity is a wide open question, despite "scientists" hoping desperately to make it a settled matter.
- Whether any proposed method of correction will actually do anything is an even more wide open question.
Absolutely True
And of course one may argue with the premise ... but if the discussion revolves around the validity of the premise rather than a mere refutation of the conclusion ... well, then it's a more interesting discussion.
Exactly. That's the problem I have with philosophical logic. There is nothing inherently "logical" about a fear response to danger, unless you define the axiom in the way that you did "If danger then fear, and if danger is the case then fear is the case". But that only applies to organisms that feel fear. It's a logical statement for organisms that feel fear, but an illogical statement for organsims that do not/cannot feel fear.
Logical does not necessarily equate to pure efficiency, does it?
I don't believe so.
1 + 1 = 2 is an axiom that applies to both organisms that feel and do not feel fear.
The speed of light in vacuo is a constant c and this applies to both Christians and Muslims. The Theory of Special Relativity is built upon this observation of constancy of c in vacuo.
What are the better premesis to build a logical house of cards upon? I would suggest those that apply in the majority of cases.
+++
Or "scientists" who cherry pick their data to support their agenda? Or global warming activists who fly a private jet to some function? Or a chess grandmaster who argues that a game is a draw when a third option -- me shooting him through the forehead -- is available?
The first example is being consistent to their internal set of values, the second is hypocritical, not necessarily illogical and the third, even if you kill the GM, by the rules of chess, the game is either won or drawn.
+++
There is no point arguing with someone who believes that The Bible is a priori non-falsifiable. You will always get to this .. fill in the blanks as you see fit.
(a) At first, this is difficult to understand, ....... (b) the contradiction exists in our understanding, not in the Bible, (c) the solution is simple; all you need to do is accept what the Bible says.
(a) is a patronzing ... "You are right and smart to be confused, but alas not smart enough ..
(b) You have failed to understand, but I'll say "our" not "your" understanding to make it look less harsh
(c) A little bit more patronizing (You mean you didn't get this simple solution??) Also don't be a doubting Thomas, be warned! You may be punished
These people can be as inconsistent, illogical and irrational as they wish. I believe that most of these people are not evil (>99%). I believe they do so out of love (of the Godhead) - and they don't really believe that love is subject to the logical. They may be correct, they may be misguided, life is short so be happy. (This goes to my previous post of "what if life wasn't short"? Then I might have to take up more of an issue with such folks). Unfortunately I think there have been a few throughout history using Religion for control purposes, it's a crying shame.
As you once reminded me, it depends on whether you really seek the truth or seek shelter, it would be good if we could find both together. Lennon said it:
Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Money for dope
Money for rope
Im sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mamas little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now
Ive had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Its money for dope
Money for rope
Ah, Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Exactly. That's the problem I have with philosophical logic. There is nothing inherently "logical" about a fear response to danger, unless you define the axiom in the way that you did "If danger then fear, and if danger is the case then fear is the case". But that only applies to organisms that feel fear. It's a logical statement for organisms that feel fear, but an illogical statement for organsims that do not/cannot feel fear.
Logical does not necessarily equate to pure efficiency, does it?
I don't believe so.
1 + 1 = 2 is an axiom that applies to both organisms that feel and do not feel fear.
The speed of light in vacuo is a constant c and this applies to both Christians and Muslims. The Theory of Special Relativity is built upon this observation of constancy of c in vacuo.
What are the better premesis to build a logical house of cards upon? I would suggest those that apply in the majority of cases.
+++
Or "scientists" who cherry pick their data to support their agenda? Or global warming activists who fly a private jet to some function? Or a chess grandmaster who argues that a game is a draw when a third option -- me shooting him through the forehead -- is available?
The first example is being consistent to their internal set of values, the second is hypocritical, not necessarily illogical and the third, even if you kill the GM, by the rules of chess, the game is either won or drawn.
+++
There is no point arguing with someone who believes that The Bible is a priori non-falsifiable. You will always get to this .. fill in the blanks as you see fit.
(a) At first, this is difficult to understand, ....... (b) the contradiction exists in our understanding, not in the Bible, (c) the solution is simple; all you need to do is accept what the Bible says.
(a) is a patronzing ... "You are right and smart to be confused, but alas not smart enough ..
(b) You have failed to understand, but I'll say "our" not "your" understanding to make it look less harsh
(c) A little bit more patronizing (You mean you didn't get this simple solution??) Also don't be a doubting Thomas, be warned! You may be punished
These people can be as inconsistent, illogical and irrational as they wish. I believe that most of these people are not evil (>99%). I believe they do so out of love (of the Godhead) - and they don't really believe that love is subject to the logical. They may be correct, they may be misguided, life is short so be happy. (This goes to my previous post of "what if life wasn't short"? Then I might have to take up more of an issue with such folks). Unfortunately I think there have been a few throughout history using Religion for control purposes, it's a crying shame.
As you once reminded me, it depends on whether you really seek the truth or seek shelter, it would be good if we could find both together. Lennon said it:
Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Money for dope
Money for rope
Im sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mamas little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now
Ive had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Its money for dope
Money for rope
Ah, Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Practical vs. Logical
Surely if you are going to die anyway wouldn't it be logical to use any method, however remote it's likelihood of succeeding, to save the crew?
Ah, I think I see. Spock's use of "logical" throughout that series is really more akin to some notion of what's practical, or efficient, rather than based on axiomatic construction. Spock's aversion to emotions was said to be because it was "illogical." Axiomatically there's nothing illogical about it at all:
Logical does not necessarily equate to pure efficiency, does it?
Oh in that case do you want innerant Bible believers to recognize the inconsistencies in The Bible? Would you like Lewis to give option (c) ie. to recognize that an inconsistency with his "force you down an alley of only two given options (a) and (b)" might exist?
Or "scientists" who cherry pick their data to support their agenda? Or global warming activists who fly a private jet to some function? Or a chess grandmaster who argues that a game is a draw when a third option -- me shooting him through the forehead -- is available?
I would love Bible inerrancy advocates to recognize the difficulties in the Bible. I do not believe it necessarily valid to label them inconsistencies ... if by inconsistency one really means falsehood. This website has a whole section on "difficulties" (see navigation bar on left, about one screen down). I'm nearly certain you won't be satisfied with the answers given. But I think it's a good example of someone at least acknowledging that certain passages are not blindingly obvious.
Ah, I think I see. Spock's use of "logical" throughout that series is really more akin to some notion of what's practical, or efficient, rather than based on axiomatic construction. Spock's aversion to emotions was said to be because it was "illogical." Axiomatically there's nothing illogical about it at all:
- Premise: A situation that threatens death triggers a fear response
- Condition: I am in a situation that threatens death
- Conclusion: Therefore, my reaction is a fear response
Logical does not necessarily equate to pure efficiency, does it?
Oh in that case do you want innerant Bible believers to recognize the inconsistencies in The Bible? Would you like Lewis to give option (c) ie. to recognize that an inconsistency with his "force you down an alley of only two given options (a) and (b)" might exist?
Or "scientists" who cherry pick their data to support their agenda? Or global warming activists who fly a private jet to some function? Or a chess grandmaster who argues that a game is a draw when a third option -- me shooting him through the forehead -- is available?
I would love Bible inerrancy advocates to recognize the difficulties in the Bible. I do not believe it necessarily valid to label them inconsistencies ... if by inconsistency one really means falsehood. This website has a whole section on "difficulties" (see navigation bar on left, about one screen down). I'm nearly certain you won't be satisfied with the answers given. But I think it's a good example of someone at least acknowledging that certain passages are not blindingly obvious.
Inconsistency
Help me understand what you're meaning by philosophical logic. Better yet, give me an example of Spock's use of it.
Most of the things Spock said fall into this category.
In "Shore Leave" Spock said "On my planet 'to rest' is to rest, to cease using energy. To me it is quite illogical to run up and down on green grass using energy instead of saving it."
Is the axiom that this philosophical logic based upon (to rest = cease to use energy) open to interpretation with regards to vacationing? You betcha! It's not like an AND gate or a XOR operation, which are based on axioms that are not open to interpretation.
One other that comes to mind is that episode where they were escaping off some planet and Spock had to burn off in a flare the last of the shuttle craft fuel in a desperate attempt to signal the Enterprise as to their location. After they had been saved Spock said "it was illogical to use the fuel in this manner due to the very low likelyhood that the Enterprise would see it" (or words to that effect), now what axiom is that based upon? Surely if you are going to die anyway wouldn't it be logical to use any method, however remote it's likelyhood of succeeding, to save the crew?
I guess more than anything what I want is people to employ consistency, and failing that, then at a bare minimum to recognize that inconsistency may exist.
Oh in that case do you want innerant Bible believers to recognize the inconsistencies in The Bible? Would you like Lewis to give option (c) ie. to recognize that an inconsistency with his "force you down an alley of only two given options (a) and (b)" might exist?
I'll confess I'm often inconsistent in my argumentation. It maddens me when I'm caught in it
If you answered "no" to either of the previous two questions then you've been caught in it again sir ! :) There is a third option of course, ie. decline to answer the previous two questions !
+++
Is inconsistency like breaking a promise?
Most of the things Spock said fall into this category.
In "Shore Leave" Spock said "On my planet 'to rest' is to rest, to cease using energy. To me it is quite illogical to run up and down on green grass using energy instead of saving it."
Is the axiom that this philosophical logic based upon (to rest = cease to use energy) open to interpretation with regards to vacationing? You betcha! It's not like an AND gate or a XOR operation, which are based on axioms that are not open to interpretation.
One other that comes to mind is that episode where they were escaping off some planet and Spock had to burn off in a flare the last of the shuttle craft fuel in a desperate attempt to signal the Enterprise as to their location. After they had been saved Spock said "it was illogical to use the fuel in this manner due to the very low likelyhood that the Enterprise would see it" (or words to that effect), now what axiom is that based upon? Surely if you are going to die anyway wouldn't it be logical to use any method, however remote it's likelyhood of succeeding, to save the crew?
I guess more than anything what I want is people to employ consistency, and failing that, then at a bare minimum to recognize that inconsistency may exist.
Oh in that case do you want innerant Bible believers to recognize the inconsistencies in The Bible? Would you like Lewis to give option (c) ie. to recognize that an inconsistency with his "force you down an alley of only two given options (a) and (b)" might exist?
I'll confess I'm often inconsistent in my argumentation. It maddens me when I'm caught in it
If you answered "no" to either of the previous two questions then you've been caught in it again sir ! :) There is a third option of course, ie. decline to answer the previous two questions !
+++
Is inconsistency like breaking a promise?
Friday, March 16, 2007
Argumentation and Consistency
But what is logic? Which type are we talking about here? There is formal symbolic and mathematical logic, on which modern mathematics and computers are built and then there is the woolley philosophical logic - which is what I think we are talking about here (please correct me if I am wrong).
I honestly don't know. I'm aware of the mathematical logic; less so the philosophical logic you referenced. Your comment that Mr. Spock used philosophic logic all the time threw me.
I guess more than anything what I want is people to employ consistency, and failing that, then at a bare minimum to recognize that inconsistency may exist. How much squishier can I get? But even that seems to be out of bounds. Inconsistency? Even when they're being blatant about it, they continue to flail away.
Note: I'll confess I'm often inconsistent in my argumentation. It maddens me when I'm caught in it ... I wish I was more tight with my reasoning.
We've had the discussion before about how mathematical axioms are by definition true because we assert them to be true. Whether they are or are not really doesn't matter ... for the purposes of the exercise we assume X and work from there.
Help me understand what you're meaning by philosophical logic. Better yet, give me an example of Spock's use of it.
I honestly don't know. I'm aware of the mathematical logic; less so the philosophical logic you referenced. Your comment that Mr. Spock used philosophic logic all the time threw me.
I guess more than anything what I want is people to employ consistency, and failing that, then at a bare minimum to recognize that inconsistency may exist. How much squishier can I get? But even that seems to be out of bounds. Inconsistency? Even when they're being blatant about it, they continue to flail away.
Note: I'll confess I'm often inconsistent in my argumentation. It maddens me when I'm caught in it ... I wish I was more tight with my reasoning.
We've had the discussion before about how mathematical axioms are by definition true because we assert them to be true. Whether they are or are not really doesn't matter ... for the purposes of the exercise we assume X and work from there.
Help me understand what you're meaning by philosophical logic. Better yet, give me an example of Spock's use of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)