If I say something like 'you have never heard a true word about management development' I broadly know what I mean. Some ass might point out this is an example of the liar's paradox (presumably if you have never heard a true word on the subject that includes mine) - but I could explain my shorthand. We might walk into the scrotty pub I occasionally frequent and order 'vodka martinis, shaken not stirred' - clearly a comment on the pub not an order. Stuff like this makes programming machines difficult - though machines are getting smarter these days.
If we wanted to argue Allan's case we could find a lot of academic support (Bill Black is the most accessible) - from biology, anthropology, economics, history and social theory. The 'voter machine' is not programmed with this material - I struggle to think of much film, television or literature based in the science I know and our kids get to university full of myths (Crusader in the west, Jihad in the middle east - etc.). The business books I'm supposed to teach from all treat capital as neutral and demand to teach corporate fraud is very limited - some students see it as a how to module. There are questions abut how to get the voting machine to process the argument and even make the argument available. On Jan 19, 10:45 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > The only way I see an honest government is strictly control in > influence of corporations and spin doctors with all of their dealings > involving government being recorded both video and audio with these > being open to public scrutiny,, not just special commissions,, Also > corporation presidents with the board of directors need to serve > prison sentences when their companies break the law,, once convicted > no longer be able to act as advisers or hold the offices of > corporations.. ending all corporations for lawyers so the can no > longer hide.. > the enforcement of corporate need to be brought into effect instead of > letting them slide. > nasty huh... > Allan > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 9:57 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > We call ourselves democracies - the classic was perhaps the DDR (East > > Germany), famous for strange athletes, Stasi and the Trabant. But > > shouldn't we expect the Doublespeak Allan? Most of us don't really > > want to be involved in politics - it's a bit like running the coffee > > fund in a school common room. Like Gabby I tend to vote Green - but > > this is really about registering my protest that the main parties are > > now scum. We could, as Andrew suggested, have a much less > > representative politics and make more decisions ourselves. In the UK > > we should already have decentralised from London and become much more > > electronic in base. It must be very easy for 'foreign powers' to > > infiltrate our main political parties and they are all stacked out > > with highly suspicious suit horses. There has long been no one for me > > to vote for. We need revolutionary ideas about the system and I don't > > mean bombs, capes, dubious mustaches and a "temporary" dictatorship of > > the proles. This is why I think radical change in our understanding > > and then technology of argument might help. You astutely note we > > don't have any real democracies - but were earlier clinging to the > > notion of voting involving argument - I'm saying that ain't 'real' > > either. > > > On 19 Jan, 07:52, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't see how you can call any government a democracy .. the USA is > >> a republic and I do not see how you can call any government when > >> leadership keep palling around with the wealth chasing the golden > >> calf. > >> Allan > > >> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 1:21 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Computing has brought about changes in maths on grounds of speed in > >> > calculation that humans can't achieve in lifetimes - patterns appear > >> > in massive iterations we simply don't have time to do. I don't have > >> > much problem with this if, say, it lets us devise flight plans to > >> > Mars. They are increasingly used to have information first, perhaps > >> > like someone using a telescope to spot which ship is coming home in > >> > order to unload what stock of goods one has while prices are still > >> > high before its goods are docked. I doubt the entire use of the > >> > technology in economics. In some areas of science we are not sure > >> > what the computers are telling us and they appear to be "thinking".I > >> > have taught many people to drive spreadsheets and databases - though > >> > few really learn to manipulate new questions into them or design > >> > useful reporting from them. > >> > Rigs hits one of the nails of democracy on the head and Andrew drives > >> > in another. Unlike Gabby I tend to view faith as a weakness. The > >> > vinegar and oil approach is probably cast as incommensurability in > >> > philosophy - though combined as salad dressing Andrew's meat is my > >> > poison. I suspect much allegedly incommensurate is merely > >> > incompatible due to definition. Chemists could no doubt produce a > >> > solution with both oil and vinegar in it. Wiles' solution to Fermat's > >> > last theorem bridges modular and elliptic equations and Sneed and > >> > Ludwig have used set theory to show compatibility between older and > >> > modern physics (scientists mostly believed this anyway). > > >> > The question is whether there is something we can apply to the sad > >> > state of democracy that keeps the egalitarianism better than our very > >> > peculiar voting systems. If we had an "argument machine" we might be > >> > able t get past Crusade/Jihad, Sunni/Shia, Catholic/Protestant, Hindi/ > >> > Muslim and so on - and get into what is common exploitation on all > >> > sides - the human aspects rigs points out - and to change to the more > >> > positive ones. I may even share (something like) Gabby's > >> > 'frustration' with agnostics - though an explication of this n both > >> > sides would be long. > > >> > This is tough territory - and very unlike the spiv Blair uttering > >> > 'education, education, education' (something I first heard in East > >> > Germany) and the ease with which we are gulled by such blandishments > >> > with no thought of how we can actually create graduate jobs 50:50 and > >> > what such a society would be. We need to know more about what buttons > >> > the likes of Blair and adverts push. I suspect part of the answer > >> > would be the creation of technology to support a level playing field - > >> > but as I write this I'm fairly sure we are being warmed up for war > >> > (it's a bit like Jung's dream). > > >> > On Jan 18, 11:11 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Vinegar and oil are prime reasons I don't order salad when out - hate > >> >> them both! I agree entirely with Gabby on "political argument" and > >> >> would say in addition academic argument can be as bad and the majority > >> >> of it is. When asked most people say they vote on the economy - when > >> >> further asked what the economy is they are clueless. One of us at > >> >> least will need a steel claw to make a success of Al's lair and our > >> >> 'freedom through world domination' scheme. > > >> >> On Jan 18, 3:46 pm, andrew vecsey <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > Faith and reason, like vinegar and oil (my favorite salad dressing) > >> >> > ,go > >> >> > together and complement each other really well. Like the bible > >> >> > teaches, the > >> >> > knowledge of good and evil or technology is a double edged sword. You > >> >> > can > >> >> > not have one without the other. Like playing with matches, it is not > >> >> > recommended for children. As for teaching morals, I do not think it > >> >> > can be > >> >> > taught by teachers. Education and democracy if used morally can and > >> >> > does > >> >> > fill empty bellies.I agree with you Rigs about democracy. Democracy > >> >> > as we > >> >> > have it in all democratic countries (except Switzerland) lasts only > >> >> > for a > >> >> > day every 4 or 5 years when we elect representatives with meaningless > >> >> > promises to represent us. > > >> >> > On Friday, January 18, 2013 12:54:01 PM UTC+1, rigs wrote: > > >> >> > > Faith and Reason are like vinegar and oil. The Enlightenment has > >> >> > > brought us hence- the new Dark Ages? Technology is not a solution > >> >> > > because it can be corrupted. I have much in common with a Roman > >> >> > > matron > >> >> > > of the 4th C. as I watch/read of the new barbarians. My modern > >> >> > > conveniences are simply mechanical slaves. It does little good to > >> >> > > teach ethics/morals when other parts of our supposed united world > >> >> > > are > >> >> > > not in sync. Education/democracy will not fill an empty belly or > >> >> > > replenish wasted croplands and raw materials. Throwing money at > >> >> > > unstable countries will not rescue us or them (Egypt) nor will > >> >> > > allowing disasters to take their course win us friends (Syria). > >> >> > > Democracy has become a bloated centralized authority so the > >> >> > > political > >> >> > > differences are meaningless. The patterns of human history have > >> >> > > changed very little, unfortunately- it still remains about greed, > >> >> > > power and hubris. > > >> >> > > On Jan 17, 7:59 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > > > Kaggle is also up and running, apparently producing better than > >> >> > > > expert > >> >> > > > results from data crunching. The project, whether a Tower of > >> >> > > > Babel > >> >> > > > confronting god or not, is underway. > > >> >> > > > On Jan 18, 12:22 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > > > At last we discover the lair from which you intend to launch > >> >> > > > > 'Dr No' > >> >> > > > > plans Al! > > >> >> > > > > One can argue that democracy already uses a 'non-argument > >> >> > > > > technology' > >> >> > > > > called voting. > > >> >> > > > > In many respects Allan is right on argument being about > >> >> > > > > reinforcing an > >> >> > > > > individual's point of view. > > >> >> > > > > Studies of the Internet show the most likely reaction to facts > >> >> > > > > is > >> >> > > > > backfire as people dig in on their original position. > > >> >> > > > > Does anyone know 'where' human decision-making takes place - > >> >> > > > > much > >> >> > > > > modern testing indicates it comes before anything rational (the > >> >> > > > > social > >> >> > > > > animal thesis). Adverts are highly irrational, political bull > >> >> > > > > simplistic and often not true - FDR matched others in rhetoric > >> >> > > > > on not > >> >> > > > > letting the English fight to the last American to get elected. > >> >> > > > > Would > >> >> > > > > any of us want to claim how WW2 came about - I suspect not - > >> >> > > > > but even > >> >> > > > > what we might know is likely more factual than those who think > >> >> > > > > the > >> >> > > > > Soviets were on the other side. Universal education hasn't > >> >> > > > > helped > >> >> > > > > much on fact bases in individuals. > > >> >> > > > > One has to suspect if we could build a bulldung detector it > >> >> > > > > wouldn't > >> >> > > > > switch off until after we shot the last politician and detergent > >> >> > > > > salesman. I don't expect we can build one. Plato's suggested > >> >> > > > > technology was to train Guardians - I'd prefer something much > >> >> > > > > less > >> >> > > > > elitist and socially constructed. > > >> >> > > > > Currently, we don't even have reliable voice to text - but > >> >> > > > > statistical > >> >> > > > > engines are reliable in translation. There are many problems - > >> >> > > > > not > > ... > > read more » --
