At 04:59 AM 12/7/2002 -0500, mcandreb wrote:
Hi Harry, I'm still anxiously awaiting your tenured vs adjunct essay. In the mean time let's continue our sharing of ideas. I will respond in upper case. > Brian, > > You seem to be mixing apples and oranges, along a few bananas.
MY WIFE
DOES THIS ALL THE TIME AND CREATES WONDERFUL FRUIT SALADS. SCIENCE STARTED TO DO THIS AS WELL AWHILE BACK EG. BIOCHEMISTRY, BIOPHYSICS ETC.
IT OPENS UP NEW POSSIBILITIES!
Stay with your wife's salad. You are on surer ground.
> I was discussing the IPCC web site. This purports to be the last word > in the science of Global Warming. If you doubt Global Warming, a GW > advocate will send you to this site to enjoy revealed truth - which is why > there is not a mention of uncertainty. > > It is essentially propaganda, which is fine. But propaganda is not > part of scientific method. A web site without a mention of doubt is not >to be thought of as a scientific source.
YOU STATE YOUR IDEAS ABOUT DESIRE, FREE MARKET WITHOUT AN HINT OF DOUBT OR UNCERTAINY; DOES THAT MEAN YOUR SOURCES AREN'T SCIENTIFIC? YOU PONTIFICATE YOUR DOGMA AS IF YOU WERE INFALLIBLE. PERHAPS YOU ARE SIMPLY CHANTING YOUR CREED GIVEN TO YOU BY YOUR SAVIOUR HENRY GEORGE.I hope, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that you will eventually stay with the discussion, rather than attacking me. You are not too good at the ad hominem, though you try.
I placed the economic assumptions on the table where they can be gnawed at - and they were. As they are assumptions about all of mankind, they must be certain, or they aren't of much use.
The IPCC claims to be a scientific organization and this is stressed on its web site. Yet, there is no doubt shown about its overwhelming global "scientific" conclusions. And they are good - heck, you appear to have swallowed it.
The free market is simply a market without restrictions on production and movement. It's natural for humans to trade. It's unnatural for restrictions to be placed on trade by corporations and governments. But, of cause they do it for their own advantage.
Do you think otherwise?
That's all.
>
> So, you ask about my certainty with regard to human nature.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.HAVE I MADE MY MEANING MORE
CLEAR?. I've pointed out that the Classical
> Science of
> Political Economy begins with two assumptions of human behavior. I
> also
> pointed out what they are in clear and unambiguous language.
>
> These are either useful or not. If they useful and appear sensibly
> accurate
> then use them. If they are not - don't. All one need do is come up
> with the
> "exceptions to the rule" and the assumptions can be thrown into the
> discard.
>
> An "exception to a rule" means that it isn't a rule. I hope that
> either
> Popper or Kuhn said as much.YOU KNOW POPPER DID OR AT LEAST YOU ARE
AWARE OF HIS FAMOUS 'FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE'BECAUSE YOU USED IT
RECENTLY TO MAKE A POINT.
>
> I also have pointed out that it is natural for humans to trade. The
> evidence for this is extraordinary placing the assertion beyond doubt.
>
> The attitude toward trade by people on the left is close to being
> funny. It's on all fours with the old nobility who would condemn
someone for being "in trade". Maybe Kipling was correct - Karen and Lady Sneerwell may be sisters under the skin.
>
> You ask "What if you bumped into one human being who never traded but
> only
> SHARED?"
>
> What if I didn't?
THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO REFUSE TO SEE
Wow! Is that yours?
Hypotheses are an important part of scientific method. Hypotheticals are not - though they can be fun.> Shall we discuss people or hypotheticals? (I'm sure you know the root > meaning of the concept.)I KNOW PEOPLE WHO ONLY GIVE WITHOUT OUT ANY EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING. AND BY THE WAY 'HYPOTHETICALS' (SAME ROOT AS HYPOTHESIS) ARE CENTRAL TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD YOU BELIEVE IN.
> We all have a perception of the world, so why mention it? One hopes > the > perception is close to reality (whatever that is)
NOT VERY SCIENTIFIC HARRY!! WITHOUT DEFINING REALITY HOW CAN YOU MAKE SENSE OF YOUR PERCEPTIONS?!.There's a circular suggestion. My perceptions discover reality, which is then used to make sense of my perceptions.
Certainly, my perception of trade seems accurate. > > Should we err on the side of caution with regard to global warming? > > How?
BY NOT RELEASING MILLIONS OF YEARS OF STORED CARBON DIOXIDE IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME EG. COAL, OIL,...Now I understand your use of hypothetical.
I'll try again. Our nonrenewable output of carbon is about 3 Gigatonnes. Total Carbon in the air is 750 Gt. There is massively more in the oceans (transfers each year with the atmosphere about 75 Gt). Also, massively more in the detritus and massive amounts in plant-life which is hugely advantaged by extra CO2 in the air.
Other than that, your hypothetical is definitely, well, hypothetical.
Sorry we can't use it.
Harry
> Brian wrote: > > >Harry wrote with certainty: > >'As you are aware science is never sure. There is always doubt. > >However, the web site shows no uncertainty' > > > > > > > >Hi Harry, > >Where does your certainty come from re human nature? Are all humans > >traders in your sense of the word? What if you bumped into one human > >being who never traded but only SHARED? Popper and Kuhn had much to > say > >about 'exceptions to the rule'. > >The pattern you are going to expose to me re the problem of tenure vs > >adjunct fits within a paridigm ( I'm sure you know the root meaning > of > >this concept) that shapes your perception of the world. > >Isn't this just common sense, but perhaps not yours? > > > >Take care, > >Brian > >ps if there is always doubt, shouldn't we err on the side of caution > re > >global warning and trading? > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------- > > > Ray, > > > > > > The Global Warming computers do not produce certainty at all. In > fact > > > they > > > predict things that don't happen and on occasion predict > opposites. > > > However, the most obvios evidence that this may be a scam is the > IPCC > > > web > > > site. As you are aware science is never sure. There is always > doubt. > > > However, the web site shows no uncertainty. The Environmental > > > Protection > > > Agency site does offer some uncertainties, but not on the IPCC. > > > > > > Is there global warming (you'll notice the capitals are gone)? > > > > > > Absolutely. The earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age. > Are > > > we > > > responsible? Probably not. > > > > > > Can we do anything about it if we are responsible? No. > > > > > > Carbon dioxide has been increasing throughout the last century. > Yet > > > for 35 > > > years from the early 40's to the mid-70's, there was global > cooling. > > > Enough > > > to get the climatologists worried about the prospect of an > imminent > > > Ice Age. > > > > > > Yet CO2 continued to rise during that period. Interesting? > > > > > > The troposphere is the atmospheric band above the surface and > > > extending to > > > as much as 18.5 miles up to the stratosphere. There is where > "weather" > > > forms. Satellite measurements (I think there are either 6 or 9 of > them > > > run > > > by NOAA - National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Admin.) - > confirmed > > > by the > > > 93 radiosonde balloons around the world - have shown no increase > in > > > temperature over 30 years. In fact, each decade has shown a tiny > drop. > > > > > > If Kyoto was completely followed, it would make an insignificant > > > change. > > > Yet, the cost could be very great. > > > > > > We have surface warming now - but 30 years ago we had surface > cooling. > > > Maybe it's just the weather. > > > > > > It wasn't the major problem it was blown up to - but in any event > the > > > ozone > > > hole appears to be declining now we've changed our aerosol > > > propellants. (Of > > > course, if the hole begins to get bigger again - without our help > - > > > we'll > > > be viewing with alarm again.) > > > > > > I should point out that there is not a lot of smog in LA and what > > > there is > > > collects in certain areas - fortunately not up here on the > mountain. > > > On the > > > other hand, my wife was told by her doctor not to go into the > English > > > downtowns as the air could be harmful to her emphysema. > > > > > > On a different subject, I downloaded an executable file from > Amazon > > > that > > > was supposed to let me hear a braided Chorale Director strutting > his > > > stuff. > > > > > > It didn't work. Most frustrating! > > > > > > Harry > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.416 / Virus Database: 232 - Release Date: 11/6/2002 >
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/2002
