Thanks John, you got me and my message about right I'd say. Off topic, but since Dave raised it. Since just writing my longer response to Dave ... I just checked on my blog how often I criticised Dawkins specifically - scores if not hundreds. http://www.psybertron.org/index.php?s=dawkins In fact I think the most positive thing I've ever said about him was that "anyone who was a fan of Douglas Adams can't be all bad"
To quote Dave "jeez" get a hunch :-) Ian On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:51 PM, John Carl<[email protected]> wrote: > Astute phraseology, Ian. That seems to be the consensus analysis of the > way new formulations for figuring derivatives evolved. On the one hand, the > math was complicated enough to keep out common sense thinkers, on the other > hand, the value factors in the equation were simplisticated beyond normal > recognition as well. > Over-intellectualism strikes again! > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:26 AM, david buchanan > <[email protected]>wrote: > > On top of that, I happen to be good friends with a tenured professor of >> economics who also works as an associate at Rand. We talked about the model >> of human behavior that comes out of Nash's equations and I can tell you that >> they still form the basis of economic theory in this country. > > > Yay economic theory in this country! Nothing inspires me like the loyalty > of the band playing while the titanic sinks. > > > > And if you want a "common sense" assessment, all you have to do is listen to >> what today's conservatives are saying. They're giving voice to Hayek and >> Nash's vision in the current health care debate and you can also hear it in >> the voices of the conservatives in this forum. Platt's admiration of Ayn >> Rand springs to mind. > > > Ok, I didn't know about that. Platt..?? Is this true? An amazing woman in > her own right, no doubt, but nobody worth following in any meaningful way. > What would be the point of "following" Ayn Rand? She's self-aggrandizing > enough, she certainly doesn't need any reinforcement. > > > >> To suggest that these theories are no longer operable or that it's no >> longer a problem, in my opinion, only shows that you're not paying attention >> or that you don't understand how the implications of those theories continue >> to play themselves out on a daily basis. >> I mean, dude, you are swallowing some awful, awful stuff and apparently >> don't realize how or why it's so rotten. Buy a clue, rent a hunch or >> something, will you? Jeez. > > > Well you sound a bit harsh here Dave, but that's just me filtering through > my stylebook. I sorta construed Ian's remarks as denigrating this thinking > you also condemn. And it seems to me that it has lost an awful lot of oomph > lately with the way its all played out, so I agree with him. > > However you make good points about the entrenched momentum. Once these > static latches take strong hold, they take forever to shake off. Hence > violent and wasteful revolutions throughout history. > > Over-intellectualism strikes again! > > John the overcompensating under-intellectualist > > >> >> ___________________________________________________________ >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
