philosoraptor: "In many ways, I'm basically a libertarian who happens to have been born without an undying faith in the free market."
Theresa Nielsen Hayden:
I frequently see denunciations from writers who say an editor can't possibly judge their novel from three chapters and an outline. Sure we can, even if the chapters are short and the first one's atypical. In many cases, three pages are enough. You don't have to drink the entire carton of milk in order to tell that it's gone bad.Calpundit:
Google is an intellectual amplifier: it makes smart people smarter, but it also makes dumb people dumber, since a naive Google search can easily lead you to information that's actually less useful than knowing nothing.Burke:
Being addicted to mediation and fairness, to exploration of complexity, is actually pretty exhausting. You get a lot of [fecal material] from everyone in all directions, and very little thanks for it.(Also, Nader's birthday cake)
...It would be liberating to stop bothering to instruct, cajole, plead, work with, mediate and persuade, to worry about nothing but one's own blazing righteousness and care little for the consequences or the results. That's rather like voting for Nader.
ogmb in BDL comments:
"Is democracy possible?"
Yes if you believe in the drunken bicyclist theory of elected leaders which states that democracies are not inherently better at picking qualified leaders than oligarchic systems, they're just quicker to replace them with someone who will yank the handlebar around so that the bike veers over to the other side. And if you ever rode a bicycle drunk you know that this makes all the difference.
Update on the post below: I wuz wrong, or political pressure was subsequently applied*: the study's authors say calm down - "both the Emeryville futurologists and Pentagon officials stress the report's scary-sounding projections are highly improbable and extremely unlikely..."
(* It does sound like the latter - "uncertain and quite possibly small" becoming "highly improbable"
MSNBC reported 'This report suggests that because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change - although uncertain and quite possibly small - should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern,' they wrote...")
My question - when speculating on the likelihood of a given occurrence, why don't people go out on a limb and guesstimate just how likely they DO think it is, and with what confidence? Then after a while they'd have accumulated a track record and you'd be able to know how much weight to put on what they say.
And, if they won't volunteer to go there, why can't the press badger them into it?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.