Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
* Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > * What would be the current GDP and median per capta US at the > growth rate that Republican administrations achieved historically? > Presume they were the only administration in power since 1948 (or > whatever is the base year) and that they succeeded economically as > well as they did. > > * What would be the current GDP and median per capta US at the > growth rate that Democratic administrations achieved historically? > Presume they were the only administration in power since 1948 (or > whatever is the base year) and that they succeeded economically as > well as they did. Dan Minette responded by saying that from 1920 to 2000, if we exclude the first two years of a party having the presidency, in terms of per capita GDP: Republicans: approx $16,500 Actual: $36,000 Democrats: $127,000 The difference is 770% between Republicans and Democrats. This tells us, roughly speaking, the difference between Republicans and Democrats long term `traditions' or `schools of thought' regarding economic management. The difference is huge. Earlier I said that a difference of less than 10% from the current (i.e., per capta median income under Republicans of $32,400 and under Democrats of $39,600; i.e., a nearly 20% difference between Republicans and Democrats) would be suggestive evidence that JDG's hypothesis is correct. His hypothesis is ... the political party with the Presidency would probably be somewhere just above sunspot activity ... Clearly, it is wrong. Even with a difference of 50% from the current (i.e., per capta median income under Republicans of $18,000 and under Democrats of $54,000), JDG's hypothesis is wrong. Put another way, Dan is right when he suggests that the economic policy of an administration is meaningful. Also, this result negates Maru Dubshinki's issue, which that Because the economy would run in cycles irregardless of which party is in power, and voters would react accordingly ... Presumably, over an 80 year time period, economic cycles would get out of sync with political cycles, which come every four years *exactly*. So Dubshinki's notion bites the dust, too. Erik Reuter's point does come into play. But I am puzzled by his restatement of it on 4 May 2005: Unfortunately, the overall market is only growing at 6% a year and now that the company has monopolized the market and implemented most of the cost savings and efficiency improvements possible, earnings only grow at 6% a year. The investors who extrapolated the 30% per year forward take a bath. Doh! We are not talking about filling up a market niche, we are talking about creating many new niches. Or do you think that the economy really is zero sum, and that it is impossible to increase it by much? Erik, are you suggesting that median per capta income cannot ever grow to be 3.5 times higher than it is now? That an income of rich, but not terribly rich people is simply out of reach of the majority? If so, what limits the economy? (It cannot be energy, since I know from personal experience that Democrats have advocated alternatives for 30 years. It cannot be traffic jams, since I also know from personal experience that Democrats have advocated alternatives for 30 years. (Energy impacts manufacturing, housing size, commute distance, and all that, so none of those can be limits.) JDG and I agreed that this is `painting with an awfully broad brush'. But as I said, the exercise does have the advantage of looking over generations of time, so short term variations are removed. You do not have to wonder whether income could be $127,000 per person. You could simply wonder whether is could be $60,000 per person rather than the $36,000 per person as it is in actuality. So my next question is which elements of the long term `traditions' or `schools of thought' regarding economic management did the Republicans got wrong and which did the Democrats got right? -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
On 5/5/05, Robert J. Chassell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > You do not have to wonder whether income could be $127,000 per person. > You could simply wonder whether is could be $60,000 per person rather > than the $36,000 per person as it is in actuality. > > So my next question is which elements of the long term `traditions' or > `schools of thought' regarding economic management did the Republicans > got wrong and which did the Democrats got right? I have been of the opinion that the GOP long term has thought that representing the elite class and the large business class is best for the economy. Every economic policy and the reasons they articulate for those policies reach back to that. They had not appreciated we are a mass economy that produces goods for the great mass of people. Policies that promote low wages because of a perceived benefit for business is like muzzling the oxen that provide the benefits. The workers purchases are a major driver of the economy. This seems much more meaningful than the standard and frequent conservative response of "We don't know why the stock market and the economy do worse under GOP leadership. It's a coincidence." -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
* Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Erik Reuter's point does come into play. But I am puzzled by his > restatement of it on 4 May 2005: > > Unfortunately, the overall market is only growing at 6% a year and > now that the company has monopolized the market and implemented > most of the cost savings and efficiency improvements possible, > earnings only grow at 6% a year. The investors who extrapolated > the 30% per year forward take a bath. Doh! > > We are not talking about filling up a market niche, we are talking > about creating many new niches. Please pay attention to what I wrote. The point is that it is foolish to take a portion of a historical record and extrapolate that portion over an extended period unless you have evidence that the portion of the historical record you are extrapolating can be sustained for an extended period of time. As I wrote, there are a great number of examples where this is not the case. I gave some examples. > Or do you think that the economy > really is zero sum, and that it is impossible to increase it by much? Don't be absurd. Any fool can see the economy is positive sum. It has been growing about 3% real per year averaged over the past 200 hundred years. > Erik, are you suggesting that median per capta income cannot ever grow > to be 3.5 times higher than it is now? No, of course not. I don't see why this is so difficult. You are suggesting that the economy can grow at 5.1% real per year over an extended period of time if the Democrats were in power for an extended period of time. This idea is hardly supported by the data you are using -- you are extrapolating far in excess of the historical data. In fact, if you can find a single economist who thinks that a developed economy can grow at a real 5.1% per year for 70 years, I would be very surprised. > If so, what limits the economy? I don't know of a limit on the total GDP, but the growth of GDP is considered to have a limit by virtually all economists. If productivity grows at 2% per year and working population grows at 1% per year (and hours worked per person is constant), then GDP grows at 3% per year. What causes productivity growth? Capital deepening (i.e., more machines per worker, better equipment, etc.) and more skilled (or more efficient) workers. Can the US sustain a 4.1% per year productivity growth rate and a 1% per year working population growth rate for 70 years if Democrats are continuously in power? The data cannot answer, since we don't have a historical record of 70 years of continuous Democrat rule. But it seems unlikely. No developed country in the world has ever even approached that high a rate for an extended period of time. Certainly the US hasn't at any time over the past 200 years, despite the huge advances such as invention of the railroad, telegraph, electricity, telephone, production line, automobile, airplane, robot, computer, etc. Over that time the US averaged only a bit over 3% real GDP growth rate. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 1 May 2005, at 8:31 am, Warren Ockrassa wrote: I commented before that I think atheists can be divided into two broad categories: Those who are angry at their god and so say they don't believe as an act of defiance; and those who really just can't believe. It seems to me that the angrier an atheist gets at the suggestion there might be a god, the more likely that atheist is to be in the first category. It seems to me that, if one is angered at the suggestion a god does exist, one should seek to understand why. The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question "why" is very pertinent. I've never been religious. I get annoyed about people trying to spread religious ideas because they are nonsense and nonsense annoys me. People capable of believing in gods are capable of believing any crazy nonsense and that makes them potentially dangerous to me. Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. I do like to sit with my back against a wall and a good view of what's going on when I'm in public places in case some religious nutcase is going about with a knife or gun. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly." - Randy Cohen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
On 5/5/05, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Erik Reuter's point does come into play. But I am puzzled by his > > restatement of it on 4 May 2005: > > > > Unfortunately, the overall market is only growing at 6% a year and > > now that the company has monopolized the market and implemented > > most of the cost savings and efficiency improvements possible, > > earnings only grow at 6% a year. The investors who extrapolated > > the 30% per year forward take a bath. Doh! > > > > We are not talking about filling up a market niche, we are talking > > about creating many new niches. > > Please pay attention to what I wrote. The point is that it is foolish > to take a portion of a historical record and extrapolate that portion > over an extended period unless you have evidence that the portion of the > historical record you are extrapolating can be sustained for an extended > period of time. As I wrote, there are a great number of examples where > this is not the case. I gave some examples. > > > Or do you think that the economy > > really is zero sum, and that it is impossible to increase it by much? > > Don't be absurd. Any fool can see the economy is positive sum. It has > been growing about 3% real per year averaged over the past 200 hundred > years. > > > Erik, are you suggesting that median per capta income cannot ever grow > > to be 3.5 times higher than it is now? > > No, of course not. I don't see why this is so difficult. > > You are suggesting that the economy can grow at 5.1% real per year > over an extended period of time if the Democrats were in power for an > extended period of time. This idea is hardly supported by the data you > are using -- you are extrapolating far in excess of the historical data. > > In fact, if you can find a single economist who thinks that a developed > economy can grow at a real 5.1% per year for 70 years, I would be very > surprised. > > > If so, what limits the economy? > > I don't know of a limit on the total GDP, but the growth of GDP is > considered to have a limit by virtually all economists. If productivity > grows at 2% per year and working population grows at 1% per year (and > hours worked per person is constant), then GDP grows at 3% per year. > > What causes productivity growth? Capital deepening (i.e., more machines > per worker, better equipment, etc.) and more skilled (or more efficient) > workers. > > Can the US sustain a 4.1% per year productivity growth rate and a 1% > per year working population growth rate for 70 years if Democrats are > continuously in power? The data cannot answer, since we don't have a > historical record of 70 years of continuous Democrat rule. But it seems > unlikely. No developed country in the world has ever even approached > that high a rate for an extended period of time. Certainly the US hasn't > at any time over the past 200 years, despite the huge advances such as > invention of the railroad, telegraph, electricity, telephone, production > line, automobile, airplane, robot, computer, etc. Over that time the US > averaged only a bit over 3% real GDP growth rate. > > So you are saying the poor performance under GOP leadership is a necessary breather in terms of economic growth? I wonder how long the Asian tiger record of economic growth can be continued? -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 11:20 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 1 May 2005, at 8:31 am, Warren Ockrassa wrote: The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question "why" is very pertinent. I've never been religious. I get annoyed about people trying to spread religious ideas because they are nonsense and nonsense annoys me. People capable of believing in gods are capable of believing any crazy nonsense and that makes them potentially dangerous to me. On another list there's been a discussion in the last few days about the findings of science, and particularly how many of us simply accept them without question. For example many adults know that our solar system is heliocentric and Earth is roughly spherical, but how many of them can actually explain *why* that is true? More to the point, what is the difference between accepting -- without question -- the statement "Sol lies at the center of our solar system" versus accepting -- again without question -- the statement "God lies at the center of our lives"? When you comment that "People capable of believing in gods are capable of believing any crazy nonsense", you overlook a significant point, I think, and that is that it is *human nature* to believe something we've been told, particularly if it seems to descend from authority. This is probably innate; as children we'd damn well better believe what the adults tell us, or else we might get eaten by a predator. I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. I do like to sit with my back against a wall and a good view of what's going on when I'm in public places in case some religious nutcase is going about with a knife or gun. And how often has this actually happened in your life? How many times have you actually been victimized by "some religious nutcase" with a weapon? Is this attitude significantly different from that held, for instance, by apocalyptics, who are certain the world will end any moment and they will be raptured? That is, if you sincerely think you're going to be injured or killed by a religious fanatic, how is that different from a religious person believing in "any crazy nonsense"? I will agree that religious fervor has been a significant cause of a lot of misery in the world. Only a fool unaware of history, I think, would attempt to argue to the contrary. (Or current events, of course.) However, being utterly dismissive of religion on the basis of its negative history is sort of like being utterly dismissive of the US today because at one time the nation condoned slave ownership. History is a tool from which to learn, I think, not one with which to indict those of whom we disapprove. As I see it the problem is not religion; it's undisciplined, irrational thought -- and that is as prevalent *outside* of any church as it is inside. If you want to have a productive discussion with a religious person, attack the faulty thought process rather than its results. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On Thu, 5 May 2005 14:01:00 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote > Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. Only sometimes? How about always? Although other things may lie behind anger, I tend to think that fear is always there. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 5 May 2005, at 10:01 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On another list there's been a discussion in the last few days about the findings of science, and particularly how many of us simply accept them without question. For example many adults know that our solar system is heliocentric and Earth is roughly spherical, but how many of them can actually explain *why* that is true? More to the point, what is the difference between accepting -- without question -- the statement "Sol lies at the center of our solar system" versus accepting -- again without question -- the statement "God lies at the center of our lives"? When you comment that "People capable of believing in gods are capable of believing any crazy nonsense", you overlook a significant point, I think, and that is that it is *human nature* to believe something we've been told, particularly if it seems to descend from authority. This is probably innate; as children we'd damn well better believe what the adults tell us, or else we might get eaten by a predator. I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and university, and been flung out of a few classes taught by those who couldn't stand having their authority questioned. I'm the guy who corrects the error in what the lecturer just wrote on the board. The idea that I might accept something just because somebody said so is hilarious! I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: why thinking bad
Nick Arnett wrote: >d.brin wrote >> The following, psassed on by Joe Miller. >Ouch. Stomach hurt. Laughing too hard. At the risk of being "that guy," that's an old joke, Nick. I must have had that passed to me via e-mail some 8-10 years ago. 'Course, it's still funny. :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote: I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and university, and been flung out of a few classes taught by those who couldn't stand having their authority questioned. I'm the guy who corrects the error in what the lecturer just wrote on the board. The idea that I might accept something just because somebody said so is hilarious! I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored, and listening *critically* to authorities even more so. Categorically disregarding authority is no better than categorically following them: it is equally foolish. The single greatest problem I see with categorically disregarding authority is that it seems to require one to know (practically) everything, be willing to learn (practically) everything, or suffer the consequences. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove them wrong. I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. And, naturally, anti-religious belief. "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of faith. and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. Not necessarily the only indicator, and not necessarily a reliable one. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of > faith. And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and "there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are equally statements of faith. But "there are babelfish" and "there are no babelfish" are not equally statements of faith. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
* Erik Reuter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > What causes productivity growth? Capital deepening (i.e., more > machines per worker, better equipment, etc.) and more skilled (or more > efficient) workers. From 1947 through 2004 (the years for which I have productivity data), average annualized productivity growth was 2.5% per year during Republican presidents and 2.8% per year during Democratic presidents.* Productivity data is from: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/OPHPBS/2/Max You can see a graph of productivity growth here: http://erikreuter.net/econ/ophpbs.png *I did not include years 1953, 1961, 1969, 1977, 1981, 1993, or 2001 in the calculation of average annualized productivity growth for obvious reasons. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 5/5/05, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of > > faith. > > And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and > "there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are > equally statements of faith. > > But "there are babelfish" and "there are no babelfish" are not equally > statements of faith. > > -- > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ WIthout any further data or probablities about 'babelfish', those paired statements are all equivalent. ~Maru But you didn't say they weren't undetectable! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of faith. And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and "there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are equally statements of faith. My God, Erik: we agree! Well, mostly. Actually, maybe not. Damn. The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so that they feel that they are "betting their lives" on their choice, or at least so much so that they feel it necessary to burden Brin-L with their [pro/anti]-religious proclamations. One who was arguing from his conclusion might assert that the pair of statements you posed above are statements of faith simply because he had concluded that there is no difference between God and fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns (IUPUs). With our extensive Brin-L training, we would not fall victim to that logical fallacy. We would not begin by asserting the unprovable claim that there is no difference between God and IUPUs, so we could not conclude that there is no difference between your pair of statements and mine. Damn those Greeks. Incidentally, one of my favorite resources for reminding myself about the nature of logical fallacies is at the Atheism Web: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html But "there are babelfish" and "there are no babelfish" are not equally statements of faith. Because http://babelfish.altavista.com/ certainly exists. May your own personal IUPUs bless you, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote: On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote: I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and university, and been flung out of a few classes taught by those who couldn't stand having their authority questioned. I'm the guy who corrects the error in what the lecturer just wrote on the board. The idea that I might accept something just because somebody said so is hilarious! I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored, and listening *critically* to authorities even more so. Categorically disregarding authority is no better than categorically following them: it is equally foolish. That's why one needs to figure out which authority figures actually know what they are talking about and which are authority figures because of monkey tribal nonsense. Which is why epistemology is important. I think you missed the 'just' in 'just because' in the last sentence you quoted. The single greatest problem I see with categorically disregarding authority is that it seems to require one to know (practically) everything, be willing to learn (practically) everything, or suffer the consequences. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove them wrong. That would be a very silly way of testing that claim. I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. And, naturally, anti-religious belief. "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of faith. No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. Not necessarily the only indicator, and not necessarily a reliable one. True. And? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX." - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 04:58 PM 05/05/05 -0700, Dave wrote: snip And, naturally, anti-religious belief. "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of faith. Of course, "There is no God but we regret this fact and are working to correct it." is the project statement for the friendly AI project. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so that ^ some ^ foolish -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 07:05 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of > faith. And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and "there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are equally statements of faith. But "there are babelfish" and "there are no babelfish" are not equally statements of faith. Ah, stick it in your ear . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 08:38 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, William T Goodall wrote: On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote: It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove them wrong. That would be a very silly way of testing that claim. People do silly things. People under the influence of mood- or mind-altering substances such as EtOH do many silly things. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
William, WTG: The idea that I might accept something just because somebody said so is hilarious! DML: Categorically disregarding authority is no better than categorically following them: it is equally foolish. WTG: I think you missed the 'just' in 'just because' in the last sentence you quoted. Also, you were making a statement about yourself, which I took as a general statement. I sit corrected. DML: It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove them wrong. WTG: That would be a very silly way of testing that claim. It was intended to be, but putting one's hand in a fire is a pretty silly way of testing the real badness of "hot," as well. Sure, you were only two, but suppose your two-year-old epistemologist was exposed to firearms, and not merely fire? WTG: It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. DML: And, naturally, anti-religious belief. "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of faith. WTG: No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Do you have evidence of the non-existence of God, or do you merely conflate the lack of evidence of the existence of God with evidence of God's non-existence? I know that I ask questions by way of making an argument, but this time, I really want to know what you consider to be the hard evidence of the non-existence of God. WTG: I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. DML: Not necessarily the only indicator, and not necessarily a reliable one. WTG: True. And? Your statement lacks the force it might have had. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so that ^ some ^ foolish Another argument from conclusion. Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. Or, you are including yourself among some foolish people. You wouldn't be the first person on this list to self-identify as a Fool. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 6 May 2005, at 3:19 am, Dave Land wrote: WTG: No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Do you have evidence of the non-existence of God, or do you merely conflate the lack of evidence of the existence of God with evidence of God's non-existence? I know that I ask questions by way of making an argument, but this time, I really want to know what you consider to be the hard evidence of the non-existence of God. Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Overwhelming lack of evidence for something is overwhelming evidence against it. The claim is that there is a god, omniscient, omnipotent, created the universe and so on. A remarkable claim. And after thousands of years not one shred of evidence or plausible argument to support the idea. Case closed. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up." - John Carmack ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: > > >>The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so > >>that > > > >^ some ^ foolish > > Another argument from conclusion. > > Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you > wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. > > Or, you are including yourself among some foolish people. You wouldn't > be the first person on this list to self-identify as a Fool. Think, Dave. I know it is hard with your infection, but try! Or just pay attention, since William already explained a couple times. One more time: it is foolish religious people that are the concern, not the existence or non-existence of some god. Do you accuse psychiatrists who want their patients to stop talking to invisible pink unicorns of being worried about the existence of said unicorns? If so, you are in worse shape than I thought... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Psalm 14:1 (53:1), was Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 09:44 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: > > >>The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so > >>that > > > >^ some ^ foolish > > Another argument from conclusion. > > Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you > wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. > > Or, you are including yourself among some foolish people. You wouldn't > be the first person on this list to self-identify as a Fool. Think, Dave. I know it is hard with your infection, but try! Or just pay attention, since William already explained a couple times. Repetition does not establish veracity. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Psalm 14:1 (53:1), was Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
* Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Repetition does not establish veracity. You have repeatedly established what your thoughts are worth, Ronn. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
At 10:16 AM 5/5/2005 -0400, Bob Chassell wrote: >His hypothesis is > >... the political party with the Presidency would probably be >somewhere just above sunspot activity ... > >Clearly, it is wrong. I think it is clearly nothing of the sort. The very premise of the analysis is too badly flawed to be at all usefull. And again, I note that there is no theoretical model to support the proposed conclusions. >Put another way, Dan is right when he suggests that the economic >policy of an administration is meaningful. I don't think that I disagreed that the economic policy of a Presidency is meaningful. >Presumably, over an 80 year time period, economic cycles would get out >of sync with political cycles, which come every four years *exactly*. False. The Presidency does not change Party every four years. The political cycle is thus irregular. Moreover, since 1953 there have been nine recessions. Yours and Dan's analysis would ascribe 8 of those recessions to Republican Presidencies. Unless you and Dan have some brilliant economic theory as to why Republicans tend to cause recessions and Democrats tend to produce uninterrupted economic growth regardless of the business cycle, your analysis is deeply flawed. On the other hand, if you believe that recessions are inevitable in the long run, then some sort of corrective is needed for the analysis. >If so, what limits the economy? Economic growth is determined in part by population. I presume that you really mean per capita economic growth, which is primarily determined by the savings rate and productivity. For purposes of the current discussion, you can approximate long run per capita economic growth as the growth in productivity. In the long run, it is difficult to imagine how growth rates under Democratic Presidencies could outstrip productivity growth. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 10:13 PM Subject: Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical > Unless you and Dan have some brilliant economic theory as to why > Republicans tend to cause recessions and Democrats tend to produce > uninterrupted economic growth regardless of the business cycle, your > analysis is deeply flawed. This is one area where we differ. I believe that data come first, theory comes second. Data need not fit the theory, but the theory needs to fit the data. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
At 10:24 PM 5/5/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: >> Unless you and Dan have some brilliant economic theory as to why >> Republicans tend to cause recessions and Democrats tend to produce >> uninterrupted economic growth regardless of the business cycle, your >> analysis is deeply flawed. > >This is one area where we differ. I believe that data come first, theory >comes second. In Economics, the prevalence of spurious correlations makes that a dangerous paradigm.I won't say that no serious Economists follow that paradigm, but "data mining" is broadly looked upon with skepticism in Economics. One reason for this is that Economics relies heavily upon time-series data, and any two non-stationary time series will tend towards correlation over time. To give an example from another case of mixing Economics and Presidential Politics, there is a Economics professor - I believe at Yale - out there, who on a bit of lark constructed an Economic model that predicts the outcome of the two-way US Presidential race based upon economic factors. By all the usual statistical tests, this model is very robust.And yet, every four years that same model is spectacularly wrong.And so, after each Presidential election the model is tweaked to account for the latest observation - all to no avail. Every four years the model's future predictions are invariably wrong. So, to return to the original point, the data says that 8 out of 9 recession have occurred under Republican Presidencies. Do you believe that this is inherently significant? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so that ^ some ^ foolish Another argument from conclusion. Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. Or, you are including yourself among some foolish people. You wouldn't be the first person on this list to self-identify as a Fool. Think, Dave. I know it is hard with your infection, but try! Or just pay attention, since William already explained a couple times. Thanks for reminding me: the other pathetic logical fallacy that you frequently engage in is ad hominem attacks. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote: and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. This suggests infallibility. I think you've missed what I was driving at, which is that *all* people are susceptible to flawed thinking; a good self-correcting process for thinking is certainly helpful, but using atheism as a litmus test to determine whether any given individual is less prone to believe other fanciful notions is itself, to me, flawed thinking, or a belief in nonsense. As an oblique corollary, Newton was one hell of a fine rational thinker. His treatises on physics and optics are very good examples of that. However, he also attempted to use that fine rational mind of his to try to prove Biblical claims. Erik might suggest that Newton was addled, and maybe he was in the religious arena. Gregor Mendel, even tough he was a monk, did some seriously groundbreaking work in genetics. His pea-plant charts are virtually cliche in science classrooms in the US, a little like the eye charts in optician's offices that read E FP TOZ LPED... This suggests that even though he might have been addled in some ways, he was an incisive thinker in others. The corollary is this. While one could argue that atheists are being fine rational thinkers in the arena of religion, there's pretty strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that they (we) can also be addled in ways not apparent to them (us). -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 6:38 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote: I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored, and listening *critically* to authorities even more so. Categorically disregarding authority is no better than categorically following them: it is equally foolish. That's why one needs to figure out which authority figures actually know what they are talking about and which are authority figures because of monkey tribal nonsense. Which is why epistemology is important. I think you missed the 'just' in 'just because' in the last sentence you quoted. Yes; deductive thinking is important. It's very valuable. And it's not being inculcated properly, I think; students accepting the fact of evolution by rote are no more capable of thinking clearly (a priori) than other students accepting that the six-day creation was the way it "really" happened. (I know my phrasing here shows my bias. While I can argue for the contrary regarding matters of faith, I cannot in seriousness present evolution as anything but fact or creation as anything but fantasy.) I'm not personally trying to question your decision about nonexistence of deity. I'm just suggesting that not believing is not necessarily any different -- or any better, at its core -- than believing. There has to be something behind the declaration, something that approximates self-correcting ideation. [me re acceptance of authority] I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. And, naturally, anti-religious belief. "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of faith. No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's not a valid statement without a lot of qualifiers; for instance you don't describe here what sort of god you're talking about. If a believer is a Deist, he might assert that the only role his god had was in the initial creation of the universe, perhaps twiddling the laws a bit in such a way that life could exist (a kind of anthropic principled god). If that Deist than went on to say that, after getting things going, that god has been totally hands-off, the results we see today would not in any way be affected; that is, that entity's presence would not be reflected in anything e see around us now. No fingerprints, no shadows, no hairs left behind at the crime scene. Therefore denial of that god's existence might be as much a statement of faith as asserting that such a god exists. Now Occam would probably disagree, but we have to start balancing elegances here a little. The universe's physics do seem to be slanted pro-life, as it were (contrarily, that's not surprising, because if they weren't slanted that way we couldn't be here); and of course we can't meaningfully speak of anything that happened before the universe we inhabit now came into existence. What we have, really, is something that is not testable or falsifiable, which precisely places a Deist's claim in the realm of faith. Thus it's meaningless to assert there's evidence either way, ultimately. What I see when I look around is a cosmos that suggests there is no deific entity currently pulling any strings anywhere. Thus the idea of an involved, omnipresent, -scient and -potent god is not one I can accept. But if we put on the table the suggestion that a hands-off entity got everything started and has since been watching things play out -- well, while I find the idea unlikely, ultimately I can't disprove it. It was this uncertainty that kept me an agnostic for quite some time, FWIW. So, depending on how you define your gods, denial of their existence can reasonably (I think) be seen as an expression of faith. A Pauline's involved god or a six-day clay shaper doesn't strike me as being remotely possible, and I don't think that statement is one of faith; however, the Deist idea is not one I can simply dismiss as readily. There, I'll freely concede, I am expressing a faith rather than a proximate certainty. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 7:41 PM, William T Goodall wrote: Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Overwhelming lack of evidence for something is overwhelming evidence against it. That's a fair premise, I think. The claim is that there is a god, omniscient, omnipotent, created the universe and so on. A remarkable claim. Not the least because I didn't see anyone putting forth that claim in this thread; you're arguing against an idea no one's actually proposed in this discussion. Your straw god is easy to knock down but is not the focus of this flurry of electrons, I think. And after thousands of years not one shred of evidence or plausible argument to support the idea. Case closed. For the personally involved god idea, sure. Unless, of course, that god was something more like a universal scientist, possibly something akin to Sawyer's entity in _Calculating God_ -- one who got involved only in the most extreme moments, and even then indirectly, acting as a force of nature a la Job's whirlwind. That, you could argue, is a sophistry, and I'd likely agree. I'm presenting it here partly to be the Devil's advocate and partly to point out that not all conundrums necessarily have binary resolutions. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 7:23 PM, Dave Land wrote: Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. You know, atheists getting pissed off about others' faith seems classically sysiphian. There are about 220 million of us opposed to the rest of the world. Like it or not we live in a world of faith; the best approach is probably not to get angry about that. It's a little like being furious at gravity for existing. And it really is insupportably arrogant to presume that the simple fact of atheism is sufficient to suggest a given individual is clear-minded, thinking rationally or proof against crackpottery. Unfortunately another hallmark of arrogance is being unable to concede being wrong, so I don't expect anyone who disagrees with that statement to suddenly change tune. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
>From William T Goodall > > On 6 May 2005, at 3:19 am, Dave Land wrote: > > >> WTG: No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational > >> claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith > >> made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. > >> > > > > Do you have evidence of the non-existence of God, or do you merely > > conflate the lack of evidence of the existence of God with evidence > > of God's non-existence? I know that I ask questions by way of > > making an argument, but this time, I really want to know what you > > consider to be the hard evidence of the non-existence of God. > > > > > > Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Overwhelming > lack of evidence for something is overwhelming evidence against it. > > The claim is that there is a god, omniscient, omnipotent, created the > universe and so on. A remarkable claim. And after thousands of years > not one shred of evidence or plausible argument to support the idea. > Case closed. > Isn't it part of the God design specs that you can't prove its existence? It has to be a faith thing, not a proof thing. You may call that a slight of hand, but if I was on the design team, I would call it intelligent design. So, God is outside the normal bounds of proof, I guess that's part of the point of being/having a God. Those of a scientific bent may claim that's not fair, equally, those who have faith (And I am not amongst that number) would say that it is in fact crucial and very germane to the whole God caper. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
