I am glad my dogs are trained to a potty board the advantage of small dogs.. am no longer used to freezing weather
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > My earlier post has been diverted to outer space, it seems. > > That loneliness may be a cover, you know. > > Saul Bellow was a rascal. > > The speed of information leads to surprise and a protean miss, often. > I look for patterns in history/culture and try to keep two columns- > pro and con with hope for the margins. The top tiers of government are > usually the culprits rather than their off-spring- and it's true of > tribes as well as complicated systems- the buck really does stop- even > in suitcases of cash and packets of Viagra. > > My "dog" would need diapers- we're at -30 wind chill factor. > > On Jan 21, 6:10 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> Of course, I don't expect anything tangled-up with government and >> academic bureaucracy to produce much practical. The gist was once >> that we should aim for praxis, a form of rational action. For some >> the guide was marxism, but most of us grew up with a form of Keynesian >> guide - the economics of full employment and FDR's never completed >> second Bill of Rights. More recently we have reverted to the control >> fraud of banksters and neo-classical economics. I was never much >> interested in the 'grand theory' - as a cop I was more interested in >> what people were hiding and lying about, as scientist the grand was >> excluded as rigorously as possible a the laboratory door and as a >> university teacher I was more interested in developing resourceful >> humans than daft, religious managerial theories. As a kid, my elder >> brother and sister always claimed I changed the goalposts in argument >> and as I grew up I discovered this was what argument was generally >> about - the goalposts changing name to root metaphor and paradigm. >> Experts in argument are bought like lawyers and have about the same >> ethics. When Socrates gestures at the Sophists claiming 'I know >> nothing, but even this is to know more than they' he is just being the >> smartest guy in the room. >> We say 'jaw-jaw' is better than 'war-war' - but there is no crucial >> experiment to decide in 'jaw-jaw'. The problem with argument is that >> it needs arbitration if human beings are involved in it and the seeds >> of its own destruction are laid in most people having no training in >> how it is constructed. If you get some training in this you can be >> bought like a lawyer as a mouthpiece. Machine knowledge bases and >> reasoning capacity potentially offer a democratisation of argument >> expertise, manufacturing capability, medicine, finance and much more - >> evidence-based practice for all. In practice, doing management >> information systems, one soon learns those currently in the know want >> to keep things that way. I believe the professions are currently >> preventing this as surely as those smashing machines in the industrial >> revolution. I believe this is the central issue of the moment - and >> my reasons concern the dream I have of the precipice of disgusting >> war,the dullness of politics, religion and literature. Economic >> growth is nearly all uninteresting - FlopBook and so on - and rarely >> about the growth of capital I would value. Would we could dream up >> something else - and why we cannot when 2% of labour can provide our >> food. I miss any sense of collective dreaming and find only the >> loneliness more 'primitive' people I've met would comment on in the >> first blush of their experience amongst us. >> >> On Jan 21, 9:18 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Those who have contributed to the thread have shown me there isn't >> > much general awareness of the 'technology'. There are already >> > intelligent systems like Watson (IBM) doing a fair job on embodied >> > expert knowledge (medical in this case). The general idea is in this >> > from New Scientist: >> >> > In your wildest dreams, could you imagine a government that builds its >> > policies on carefully gathered scientific evidence? One that publishes >> > the rationale behind its decisions, complete with data, analysis and >> > supporting arguments? Well, dream no longer: that's where the UK is >> > heading. >> >> > It has been a long time coming, according to Chris Wormald, permanent >> > secretary at the Department for Education. The civil service is not >> > short of clever people, he points out, and there is no lack of desire >> > to use evidence properly. More than 20 years as a serving politician >> > has convinced him that they are as keen as anyone to create effective >> > policies. "I've never met a minister who didn't want to know what >> > worked," he says. What has changed now is that informed policy-making >> > is at last becoming a practical possibility. >> >> > That is largely thanks to the abundance of accessible data and the >> > ease with which new, relevant data can be created. This has supported >> > a desire to move away from hunch-based politics. >> >> > Last week, for instance, Rebecca Endean, chief scientific advisor and >> > director of analytical services at the Ministry of Justice, announced >> > that the UK government is planning to open up its data for analysis by >> > academics, accelerating the potential for use in policy planning. >> >> > At the same meeting, hosted by innovation-promoting charity NESTA, >> > Wormald announced a plan to create teaching schools based on the model >> > of teaching hospitals. In education, he said, the biggest single >> > problem is a culture that often relies on anecdotal experience rather >> > than systematically reported data from practitioners, as happens in >> > medicine. "We want to move teacher training and research and practice >> > much more onto the health model," Wormald said. >> >> > Test, learn, adapt >> >> > In June last year the Cabinet Office published a paper called "Test, >> > Learn, Adapt: Developing public policy with randomised controlled >> > trials". One of its authors, the doctor and campaigning health >> > journalist Ben Goldacre, has also been working with the Department of >> > Education to compile a comparison of education and health research >> > practices, to be published in the BMJ. >> >> > In education, the evidence-based revolution has already begun. A >> > charity called the Education Endowment Foundation is spending £1.4 >> > million on a randomised controlled trial of reading programmes in 50 >> > British schools. >> >> > There are reservations though. The Ministry of Justice is more >> > circumspect about the role of such trials. Where it has carried out >> > randomised controlled trials, they often failed to change policy, or >> > even irked politicians with conclusions that were obvious. "It is not >> > a panacea," Endean says. >> >> > Power of prediction >> >> > The biggest need is perhaps foresight. Ministers often need instant >> > answers, and sometimes the data are simply not available. Bang goes >> > any hope of evidence-based policy. >> >> > "The timescales of policy-making and evidence-gathering don't match," >> > says Paul Wiles, a criminologist at the University of Oxford and a >> > former chief scientific adviser to the Home Office. Wiles believes >> > that to get round this we need to predict the issues that the >> > government is likely to face over the next decade. "We can probably >> > come up with 90 per cent of them now," he says. >> >> > Crucial to the process will be convincing the public about the value >> > and use of data, so that everyone is on-board. This is not going to be >> > easy. When the government launched its Administrative Data Taskforce, >> > which set out to look at data in all departments and opening it up so >> > that it could be used for evidence-based policy, it attracted minimal >> > media interest. >> >> > The taskforce's remit includes finding ways to increase trust in data >> > security. Then there is the problem of whether different departments >> > are legally allowed to exchange data. There are other practical >> > issues: many departments format data in incompatible ways. "At the >> > moment it's incredibly difficult," says Jonathan Breckon, manager of >> > the Alliance for Useful Evidence, a collaboration between NESTA and >> > the Economic and Social Research Council. >> >> > Hearts, minds and funding >> >> > There are economic issues. Most of the predictable areas where data >> > and evidence would be useful span different departments, and funding >> > for research that involves multiple government departments is near- >> > impossible to come by at the moment. "Only counter-terrorism gets >> > cross-departmental funding," Wiles says. >> >> > And those at the frontline of all this may also need convincing. Some >> > teachers have already expressed reservations. There may be problems >> > with parents not wanting their children to take part in education >> > trials. For instance, in a control group they will feel left out of >> > innovation; in the experimental arm they will worry that the old ways >> > were better. What's more, teachers may be tempted to halt a trial >> > early if they feel it is not helping students. >> >> > Nevertheless, the government is working with NESTA and a range of >> > backers to create a set of institutions dedicated to gathering >> > evidence that will impact on public policy. One example is the Early >> > Intervention Foundation, which helps local government evaluate schemes >> > that help preschool learning amongst children who would otherwise >> > enter standard education at a disadvantage. >> >> > There will be announcements of more initiatives in the next few weeks, >> > says Geoff Mulgan, NESTA's chief executive . "We're hoping this year >> > the UK will jump a step ahead of every other country in the world in >> > having a set of institutions dedicated to generating evidence and >> > helping it to be used in day-to-day decisions." >> >> > My own view is that intelligent systems could affect politics and our >> > attitudes towards work and wealth distribution. It could even be the >> > machines will give us rationality we are incapable of. >> >> > On 21 Jan, 08:59, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > I don't agree with that now Don - though I once did. 'Grand >> > > democratic socialism' never appealed much to me and in reality the >> > > nearest to examples we have of it are in the West anyway. What I've >> > > lost is any faith in the financial system and the politics of the >> > > vote. I was in Bucharest in the late 80's with a Saul Bellow book >> > > describing an academic finding the same corruption there as in his >> > > home Chicago. Never liked Bellow much - but thought his description >> > > of people who had read the great literature wandering around in the >> > > freezing moral climate of the Soviet Block rang true for me - and what >> > > bothers me is I feel the same in our system. I've eaten well on the >> > > academic drivel Don and once believed it had some point beyond >> >> ... >> >> read more »- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > -- > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. Of course I talk to myself, Sometimes I need expert advice.. --
