Ed, But when comes the point when you know you're probably right on something and then start sacrificing principles? Take man-made global warming, is it not better to quietly and constructively keep pushing the arguments and look for new technology?
The field has become infested with journalists, amateurs, liberal art dilettantes or Gore/Bono/Geldof types who think the process of science is shouting down people and character assassinating them much as they did in politics and any social issues from education to marriage to the third world to welfare to etc. etc. "You don't agree with me, then you're an idiot or evil". It won't work in science because it is factual, especially engineering science. Science shouldn't be done by statistical analysis, vox-pop or celebrity endorsement. All that happens is the opposition get more entrenched. Hence the Top Gear show I posted. It's a well known boyish dig at PCness, the liberal elite BBC and po-faceness that is why it is the BBC's number one program. I tell you too that is why there is such a sub-culture of non-PC jokes on the internet being told, in the end at several levels of the ironic, by non-bigots. Adults don't like being dictated to. Win environmental debates by giving people better technology and not bankrupting them with high fuel prices (supply and demand theory unless it's a cartel) or ranting at them then, eventually monkey will see monkey will do. (I'm just watching a comic going on about how to get kids to eat greens. Apparently you flatter them - "you use to love them when you were small", "so and so eats them") I'm convinced that some environmentalists are anti-technology, feudal medieval aristocrats with romantic notions of us (all of us) living as noble savages apart from Earl Muck of F..k in his castle. Then the empty vessels minions are on the government gravy train with no intention of delivery anything apart from reports and data on the "lesser spotted dick weed butterfly and global warming" (more data to beat the unbelievers with you see). Anyway I've posted enough. I want to read other contributions and other topics. I'll stay silent for a bit. -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 September 2008 21:40 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hidden Societal Megatrend? Remi, you need to take into account what works. If telling the truth and being objective and rational got a person elected, more politicians would have these qualities. If the people voting were educated and rational, better leaders would be elected. The present system is the result of a bad combination of these limitations. As for innovation, it has no effect on society if the person does not know how to put the idea into the system. Many people are quietly innovative in their personal lives, but make no effort to change society. You only know about those people who had the skill or wish to get noticed. Ed On Sep 20, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Remi Cornwall wrote: > Education is important but being scholarly doesn't well correlate to > being > innovative. Too many people make this mistake. > > Inventors are typically lazy and eclectic. By switching off in class > and not > doing prep they tend to half learn things and come up with their own > systems. It is a very male trait. Maybe this is why men have the > advantage > because we are so arrogant, competitive and risk takers, the > opposite of > blue stocking types. The cocksureness of the new recruit who on day > one can > see how to do something better. Most are f..k.g annoying d.cks but > the good > ones are an asset once you get over the personality. > > The very diligent tend to end up hyper-specialized and writing the > reference > books. There is probably good correlation between elder siblings, > diligence > and a more controlling type personality and the more happy-go-lucky, > rebellious younger ones. > > Also the more autistic type, or single child, non city dwelling type > tend to > be those people tinkering away, focused and disinterested with > social play > and games. > > Let's have a game of listing people: > > Edison (single child) > Tesla (driven, focused, bachelor) > Einstein (probably mild autism) > The Wright Brothers (technical knowhow) > Dirac (very intense) > But then > Feynman, Heisenberg very gregarious. (You see science doesn't only > list the > cases in its favour, you must list all the data) > > Please list more and list their attributes. > > The point being that these people don't like meetings, call a spade > a spade > (i.e. non PC, likely to get in trouble in today's climate), are > independent, > skillful, resourceful, logical, proud, against the superficial. In > short > your populist politico and the people they appeal to are the polar > opposite. > > > Using science to tell lies goes against the grain of these people. > Many > think man-made global warming is still a hypothesis. Sure take on > board its > suggestions make provision but don't call it fact. > > >
