On 25 Jul 2010 at 18:07, Krimel wrote: [Platt] As if scientists and teachers aren't biased like everyone else and don't seek to denigrate other points of view, mostly disproved behind closed doors but out there for all to see in the dispute about global warming. As for Fox News, liberals are deathly afraid of its fair and balanced approach.
[Krimel] The fact the people of any persuasion argue in favor of what they believe is hardly an indictment. But FOX News? Please they don't even pretend to be "fair and balanced." [Platt] No indictment. Just necessary balance to your implication that that academics are just a fine bunch of people whose supposed single-minded pursuit of knowledge overcomes all human foibles. You'll find more debate on Fox News than on any other channel. That's why it beats the competition hands down. [Platt] Maybe they should instead of, let's say, the sacrifices needed to become a military commander able to rescue countries like France from authoritarian occupation. [Krimel] This comment makes no sense whatever. Not even in the context I snipped. WTF? [Platt] You talked about the alleged sacrifice necessary to become a scholar. I offered balance by making a comparison to the sacrifices of military people You said France was a wonderful "family values" place to live. I offered balance by pointing out it wouldn't be except for the sacrifices of our military who liberated France from Nazi occupation. TTF. > [Platt] > You mean science is skeptical of and constantly questions their assumptions > of determinism, reductionism, materialism, and emergentism? I'd love to see > some evidence. > > [Krimel] > Pick up a copy of "Science" or "Nature" or any such journal. [Platt] Can't produce any evidence, eh? OK, I understand. [Krimel] No Barnes and Noble or Borders near you. Got a library in your neighborhood. I mean I get they you are comfortable ensconced in your fantasy world of misconception but why are you even bothering with this? [Platt] Not one little bit of evidence, Krimel? How about something on the net you can cite as evidence? ? Nothing there we can all see together? > [Krimel] > The ways that people characterize this process are legion. Subject/object > is just one of them. Some in say the theology department might hold for > example that thoughts are reflections of the mind of God. [Platt] The source of SOM is not the issue. I guess you would claim the source is the brain. Whatever the source, the process is the same -- subjects observing objects, a.k.a., I think, therefore I am. [Krimel] That doesn't even make sense in Cartesian terms. The cogito does not produce the mind body problem that is derived from Descartes elaborations on the one toehold of certainty he could find. How you can equate a supernatural theistic world view with SOM is entirely a mystery. [Platt] I think (subject), therefore I am (objective state of being). Get it? The real mystery is how you think I equated a supernatural theistic world view with SOM. [Platt] An example of a corporation that pursues knowledge "for its own sake" is Bell Labs whose "pursuit" has been rewarded with seven Nobel Prizes in Physics. I certainly don't knock the contributions of the academy in the physical sciences. But in the liberal arts they have little to contribute of value. [Krimel] Bell Labs and Xerox PARC are two good examples of research conducted in the private sector but they were hardly pure research the work there was targeted at specific problems. That's fine because just as pure research can have practical consequences, practical research can contribute to higher understandings. Shannon and Mandelbrot, working out of Bell and IBM labs actually did produce ideas that have transformed the world beyond SOM in ways that you are totally clueless about. [Platt] Well, why don't you clue us in to whatever they did "beyond SOM? I'm not familiar with Shannon but I know Mandelbrot funished us all with some pretty patterns. Is there a clue about a "world beyond SOM" there somewhere? > [Krimel] > Actually I suspect that if the government insisted on retaining the right > to income from the discoveries it has financed, taxation would be a thing of > the past. Satellite communication is an example, it is simply would not > exist at all without government funding for research and development. I > remember with the original Telstar satellite was launched and the money it > was suppose to generate was to be put back into funding public > broadcasting. > But the technology was instead turned over to private enterprise for free. > Like the discoveries of basic medical research this is nothing but > corporate welfare. > [Platt] Paid for by corporate and other taxpayer dollars. The government doesn't finance anything. We do. [Krimel] I hate to have to continue to remind you of this but we ARE the government. [Platt] Without taxing the production of the private sector the government couldn't finance a lollipop much less waste billions of dollars on a super collider, for just one example. To offer balance I remind you that government is legalized force. [Platt] That's a cold-blooded SOM scientist talking. The same logic applies when the elderly are denied medical care because the money would be better used to care for the more numerous young. [Krimel] You are the one who consistently measure political virtue in terms of body counts. Your second sentence is simply inintelligible. [Platt] I constantly do what? Please cite example of my use of "body counts." The second sentence is all about the government treating individuals as faceless, nameless bodies, leaving the individual little choice. > [Krimel] > I'm with Don Henley on this one: > "They call it paradise. I don't know why. > You call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye." > > Paradise is right here right now. If you aren't happy right here right now > it seem unlikely to me that you are going to be transformed into a happy > person in some other time in some other place. It has nothing to do with > technology or the lack of it. > > [Platt} You disagree with Pirsig's observation? I assume you do. [Krimel] I am not talking to Pirsig. He doesn't take my calls. But I do disagree with you. [Platt] He doesn't take my calls either. But, I assume you can read the passage I quoted from him. Do you agree with what he wrote or not? Easy question. [Platt] You also disagree with with Pirsig's support of capitalism? I assume you do. [Krimel] I do not agree that Pirsig is the brain dead conservative you paint his to be. [Platt] I'll ignore the false accusation. No question that he leans left. But, do you agree with him that the free enterprise system is superior to socialism by being more open to the influence of DQ? Or to go a bit further, what's your take on DQ? [Platt] Without profits there would be no technology. Humanity would still be in caves. [Krimel] For the vast majority of its history mankind thrived without profits. Profits and interest were considered immoral in the middle ages because they disrupted the equilibrium of population to food supply. [Platt] If there wasn't any surplus from productive labor, how did all those knights and priests survive? [Krimel] The Inca in the late 1400's commanded the third largest empire in human history and did so without writing or money. [Platt] Ditto the above for those Inca elites. 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/md/archives.html
