Re: malaria in Africa
Doug Pensinger wrote: But McCain has been quoted as saying he wouldn't mind if we stayed there for another hundred years and talks about surrender as if there was someone to surrender to. We keep hearing Viet Nam analogies about what might happen if we leave precipitously (though other Viet Nam analogies that are more accurate are dismissed), but there's no NVA in Iraq. Iran? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On 19/02/2008, at 3:44 AM, Dan M wrote: Which misleading comments were those? IIRC, I was told by Charlie that DDT was stopped because it lost its effectiveness. In some areas, that is true, and DDT was replaced with pyrethroids. Resistance to DDT and dieldrin and concern over their environmental impact led to the introduction of other, more expensive insecticides. From the WHO site. The data from South Africa clearly showed that isn't true ...in South Africa, where general spraying was not done to the extent that it was in India. The article you linked to says this: but the World Health Organization refuses to recommend DDT spraying. That's flat out wrong: We must take a position based on the science and the data, said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programme. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.” That quote's from 2006. Facts exist though, 1) Hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, die each year from Malaria About a million. 2) House spraying with DDT has a recent, multi-year record of reducing these deaths _significantly_ in South Africa True. 3) It is so much cheaper than other techniques. Pyrethroid costs have dropped, and the cost difference is not as significant these days as it used to be (especially as some other chemicals can be used in lower dosage). But granted, it's among the cheapest methods. 4) There are multiple websites that attest to the EU's veiled threats against the use of DDT in Africa http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=92 http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19127 http://www.cbgnetwork.org/1180.html While the EU fully acknowledges the urgent need to control malaria in Uganda, we are concerned about the impact the use of DDT might have on the country's exports of food products to the EU, the European Commission's Uganda delegation said last year. Yes, they said that. And they're right to be concerned. Evidence must be produced that indoor spraying is being done in a controlled way, and constant monitoring must be done to ensure that levels of DDT do not increase in the wider environment. Some other facts: DDT is an irritant to insects, and increases their activity in the short term. DDT is not fast-acting, and this increased activity causes more bites in the short term from bed bugs (also disease vectors...). DDT resistance in insects confers selective advantage *even when DDT is removed*, according to recent research ( http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2005/july/ddtinsects.htm ). So DDT resistance will continue to spread, whether we use it or not. Let me ask a question I'm guessing you and Charlie find meaningless. Why would I find it meaningless? Please tell me how that sentence is not incredibly patronising. If millions are dying from malaria, and there is a cheap treatment that has been proven, in the last few years, as well as in the past to cut that death rate enormouslyas the international funding to prevent that disease doesn't pour most of the money into the most effective technique, doesn't that indicate that there is something that is considered more important than saving those people's lives? The EU will, of course, do what it wishes right or wrong. Its up to people to make the right case, and with the WHO's backing for targeted indoor spraying including DDT where it is still efficacious, it's up in the air. There's private funding for spraying programs too. As I have said, I support impregnated bed nets (and have done since I was convinced of their efficacy in 1992). I support very strictly monitored spraying indoors in the right dwelling types in areas where there is no resistance, and I have also said that before. But I continue to have reservations about DDT's long-term effectiveness, and the effects higher up the food chain are well documented, despite the recent media downplaying of it and the recent backlash against the DDT reclassification thanks to Silent Spring and Rachel Carson (who, incidentally, *SUPPORTED CONTROLLED INDOOR SPRAYING*). But you're so busy banging on about it you can't even tell when people (well, me) agree with you, and what bits they agree with. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On Feb 18, 2008 6:20 PM, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But one issue where we do actually _know_ what the right thing to do is, is trade. Free trade is the right policy. And McCain is right on that (as, sadly, both Democrats, repudiating one of the greatest achievements of the Clinton Administration, are wrong). If I can't trust someone to get the right answer in an area _where we actually know what the right answer is_, I don't see how I can trust them to get it right on the issues where it's a lot harder. Could you explain further? Our views on Obama and McCain are fairly similar, but switched around. I wouldn't be too unhappy to see either one as President, but I'd prefer Obama. Nick Me: There aren't many issues in the social sciences where there is virtually complete professional consensus. I'm not sure if there are any except this one, but there is one. That one is free trade. There is absolutely no doubt that free trade is good for both countries. If two countries trade freely with each other _they will both be better off_. No qualifications, no restrictions. There are a tiny handful of complicating issues (strategic trade theory, for example) but they are, to first approximation, irrelevant. Trade can certainly have poor distributive effects. But making up for them will cost less - almost always vastly less - than the benefits from the free trade. I can't imagine any competent economist disagreeing with anything I've written there. There are particular special circumstances in which the earlier statements might not be true, but they are relatively rare and far less important than the general principle. Beyond that, free trade has positive distribution effects across all people - that is, it may increase inequality within states, but it decreases inequality between states, and inequality between states is vastly larger than that within (most) states. That is not _certain_, but it is, I would say, highly probable. Free trade has positive effects for the US's national standing. Hillary Clinton, in declaring her opposition to the few free trade agreements President Bush has negotiated, has hit on the one policy that might actually make our international standing _worse_. That is, again, less certain than the previous statement, but it's _still_ highly likely. Finally, I believe it is likely (not highly likely, but likely) that free trade policies prevent war. Why do some people oppose free trade? Many of the gains from trade are distributed, while the losses are concentrated. So unions oppose trade agreements (almost always incredibly foolishly - even if the agreements weren't passed, the larger economic forces are much more important) because their workers may suffer even though the nation as a whole will benefit. Note, btw, that unions almost always _oppose_ retraining programs that might help those same hurt workers, because such programs would move those people out of the unionized industry and weaken the union even as it hurts its members. This is a classic principal-agent problem, and if you think it's right-wing to say that, tell it to Robert Reich, who first pointed it out to me. Others are, quite simply, wrong. But unless you're a member of one of those wounded industries, you should be in favor of free trade. And even if you are, you should acknowledge that by doing so you're putting your personal welfare over the general good. Now, some people don't like this - they argue that the economists have it wrong, for example. I guess that might be true, although there is no finding in social science in which I have more confidence than the principle of comparative advantage. But anyone who chooses to say that I never want to hear ever criticize a Creationist or an Intelligent Designer ever, ever again. Because both are doing exactly the same thing - rejecting evidence and science in favor of faith. Do it if you must, but don't claim you're part of the reality-based community or anything like it. Gautam Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
Gautam wrote: That being said...Dan is right, I'm a big McCain supporter. snip I respect and admire McCain as well, but... Beyond personal qualities: McCain is the one person I'm sure will make torture illegal, which is, to me, a matter of national honor and thus absolutely non-negotiable. I would have agreed with you a week or so ago, but he recently voted against a measure that would have put the same restrictions on extra measures that the Army has. As a result, Bush will have a much easier time axing the bill. I think he will handle Iraq responsibly (Hillary's pledge to start removing troops in 60 days is, to me, the perfect example of everything that's wrong with her as a candidate, and a good start at what would be wrong with her as President). The war has been mishandled horrendously, but extricating ourselves from it is something that must be done carefully, to put it mildly. But McCain has been quoted as saying he wouldn't mind if we stayed there for another hundred years and talks about surrender as if there was someone to surrender to. We keep hearing Viet Nam analogies about what might happen if we leave precipitously (though other Viet Nam analogies that are more accurate are dismissed), but there's no NVA in Iraq. Our enemy there, Al Qaeda, wasn't even there before we invaded, there aren't all that many of them there now and there's a good chance that they won't be there after we leave because there are plenty of Iraqis that hate them as much or more than we do. So a picture of Americans being plucked off of an embassy roof in Iraq is a felicitous one. Will there be civil war between Suni and Shiite? Their differences have been exacerbated by the Al Qaeda attacks, but there's been a backlash against Al Qaeda that probably has as much to do with the reduction in violence over the last year as the escalation does. I have a feeling that they'll do just fine without us babysitting them. It occurs to me that the _worst_ thing that could happen to Al Qaeda is if we got the hell out now. This war has 1) given them world wide publicity and increased their stature in the Middle East 2) given them an opportunity to kill more Americans than they ever could have hoped for 3) forced _us_ to restrict the freedoms of our people and to compromise our principals 4) goaded us into committing atrocities 5) cost us hundreds of billions of dollars (much of which has been an absolute waste) and probably contributed to our economic woes and 5) has been the best recruiting tool they could have hoped for. I see absolutely no upside to having gone there in the first place or to stay any longer than necessary to get our people out safely. You can imagine that I felt vindicated when Alan Greenspan said that the war was largely about oil On economic issues - he surely doesn't know them as well as I would wish. But, look, there are lots of policy issues where we don't really know what the right thing to do is. I don't _know_ what the right thing to do in Iraq is. I have some ideas, but I'm really not sure, and I don't trust anyone who is. But one issue where we do actually _know_ what the right thing to do is, is trade. Free trade is the right policy. And McCain is right on that (as, sadly, both Democrats, repudiating one of the greatest achievements of the Clinton Administration, are wrong). If I can't trust someone to get the right answer in an area _where we actually know what the right answer is_, I don't see how I can trust them to get it right on the issues where it's a lot harder. You have to take into account that the Dems are still campaigning to their base in the primaries. The only objection I have with free trade is if a trading partner violates reasonable human rights and ecological standards and isn't held accountable. Anyways, all of that being said - I think Obama is fantastic. I don't think he's quite ready, but he is something special. The best political talent of his generation, surely, and the best speaker I've ever seen, bar none. Amazing. I don't see how you can look at him, know that, right now, a man who _in his own lifetime_ would not have been able to use buses and waterfountains in half this country, and know that he's the person most likely to be the next President and not be enormously proud of this country. I think the searching for the Messiah aspects of his candidacy are quite troubling, but he is the incarnation of the American Dream, and I would be proud to have either as my President. On another occasion I might not object to strenuously to a McCain presidency, but I feel that the party responsible for the train wreck that is the Bush administration needs to be thrown out on its ear. I would wholeheartedly support an Obama candidacy, but I worry about his safety and the Bradly effect. Hopefully the enthusiasm he generates and the intense fatigue with the Bush administration will overcome the
malaria in Africa
Charlie Bell stated: ...and diversionary. It's a debating technique known in some circles as the Gish Gallop, and it's very frustrating for people who pride themselves on being concise. The purpose of my argument was never to be diversionary, but to explore some of the details of another's argument. I can accept, though, that it can be very frustrating to folks who don't write and do numbers fast in their spare time. So, let me give you a very concise argument: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. 2) This technique has been demonstrated in South Africa and shown on this list to be very effective. 3) I therefore conclude that the The EU is more worried about the political power of Green parties than children in Zambia dying. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On 2/18/08, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, let me give you a very concise argument: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. Do you have a source? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On 2/18/08, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, let me give you a very concise argument: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. Do you have a source? Yes, I gave it. Surely you can see why that is a very poor source. If you want more research, I can do it within the next week. But after being chastised by Charlie for going on and on and onI did an experimentI quoted a source I have known to be a good one and posted. You really thought that posting hearsay from your daughter was a good way of validating an argument that you have made misleading comments about many times in the past? And I'm not sure what your experiment was exactly. To see whether people are still offended by unsubstantiated accusations? I know you're not Charlie, and may reasonably want more information before making a decisionbut I hope you see my dilemma here. Not really. If you didn't have a verifyable source for your allegation, why didn't you wait until you did? What has it got to do with your verbose posting style which Charlie criticised you for? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
Dan M wrote: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. 2) This technique has been demonstrated in South Africa and shown on this list to be very effective. 3) I therefore conclude that the The EU is more worried about the political power of Green parties than children in Zambia dying. It's interesting to notice that the EU in Brazil is generally seen as a benign force, while the USA is seen as an evil force. However, this is gradually changing, as the EU usually puts arbitrary embargoes on brazilian exports. Some time ago, I read an essay that tried to predict an EU-islamic (evil) alliance with the purpose of destroying the USA, and urging Brazil to take USA's (good) side. The rude fact is that almost every country (including mine) worries only about itself, and fsck the rest of the world. Children are collateral damage in global politics. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: malaria in Africa
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Lewis Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 8:53 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: malaria in Africa On 2/18/08, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, let me give you a very concise argument: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. Do you have a source? Yes, I gave it. My daughter Neli has worked for the IMF in Zambia, has a number of connections with NGOs and the government. If you want me to do research on it, I've found documentation for other countries...but the Zambia thing hasn't hit the net yet. My guess is that it wasn't a loud pronouncementbut Zambia is a rather small country and Neli has worked for years in African development and support both in the States (with African lobbying groups) and well as with the IMF. If you want more research, I can do it within the next week. But after being chastised by Charlie for going on and on and onI did an experimentI quoted a source I have known to be a good one and posted. I know you're not Charlie, and may reasonably want more information before making a decisionbut I hope you see my dilemma here. But, if you wantgive me a week or two to check out why she is certain and what other info is out there and I'll post again. Actually, I was just trying to fit in after getting some criticism (accepting that my techniques may have a downside). Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: malaria in Africa
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Lewis Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 9:48 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: malaria in Africa On 2/18/08, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, let me give you a very concise argument: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. Do you have a source? Yes, I gave it. Surely you can see why that is a very poor source. If you want more research, I can do it within the next week. But after being chastised by Charlie for going on and on and onI did an experimentI quoted a source I have known to be a good one and posted. You really thought that posting hearsay from your daughter was a good way of validating an argument that you have made misleading comments about many times in the past? Which misleading comments were those? IIRC, I was told by Charlie that DDT was stopped because it lost its effectiveness. The data from South Africa clearly showed that isn't trueI know data patternsand the pattern for that is an initial drop in the disease followed by a rise as DDT resistant mosquitoes become a larger part of the population. The data screams that DDT worksbut I am tearing my hair out trying to explain data patterns. Your are right, this evidence is not admissible in a court of law. And, I'm sure similar data on Uganda: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100901 255.html is meaningless to you, well because they didn't actually say the folks of Uganda couldn't use DDTits just a coincidence that they couldn't sell to Europe if they could because of a non-existent health risk. I'm guessing that, no matter what data I provide, how long I work at providing it, there is no possible way you will not regard my arguments on DDT as bogus. Facts exist though, 1) Hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, die each year from Malaria 2) House spraying with DDT has a recent, multi-year record of reducing these deaths _significantly_ in South Africa 3) It is so much cheaper than other techniques. 4) There are multiple websites that attest to the EU's veiled threats against the use of DDT in Africa http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=92 http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19127 http://www.cbgnetwork.org/1180.html While the EU fully acknowledges the urgent need to control malaria in Uganda, we are concerned about the impact the use of DDT might have on the country's exports of food products to the EU, the European Commission's Uganda delegation said last year. I presume you argue that this is not a threat at all, because it is not explicitly stated as a threat. I a court of law, I bet you'd win. But, I do not think courts of law are really a good measure of facts or truth. Do you argue that diplomats do not couch threats in terms like these? I guess what bothers me is the overwhelming burden of proof I see when I argue against what is PC and the virtual lack of proof needed for arguing what is PC. If I try to provide the proof, I'm verbose and engaged in bad faith discussing. If not, I'm just reporting hear-say. Let me ask a question I'm guessing you and Charlie find meaningless. If millions are dying from malaria, and there is a cheap treatment that has been proven, in the last few years, as well as in the past to cut that death rate enormouslyas the international funding to prevent that disease doesn't pour most of the money into the most effective technique, doesn't that indicate that there is something that is considered more important than saving those people's lives? My guess is that you will require the type of evidence that would convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On 2/18/08, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really thought that posting hearsay from your daughter was a good way of validating an argument that you have made misleading comments about many times in the past? Which misleading comments were those? IIRC, I was told by Charlie that DDT was stopped because it lost its effectiveness. The data from South Africa clearly showed that isn't trueI know data patternsand the pattern for that is an initial drop in the disease followed by a rise as DDT resistant mosquitoes become a larger part of the population. The data screams that DDT worksbut I am tearing my hair out trying to explain data patterns. The claim started off as being that DDT was banned worldwide due to pressure from environmentalists and that this lead to millions of deaths in Africa. This claim has now collapsed to something that sounds like EU aid to fight malaria may sometimes be contingent on conditions that are too onerous for poor countries. If that. From one of the articles you link to below: Nothing will happen, at least on the official side, if they decide to use DDT in strict compliance with the Stockholm Convention on chemicals, the EU's trade representative to Uganda said recently. Your are right, this evidence is not admissible in a court of law. And, I'm sure similar data on Uganda: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100901 255.html is meaningless to you, well because they didn't actually say the folks of Uganda couldn't use DDTits just a coincidence that they couldn't sell to Europe if they could because of a non-existent health risk. Here is another article from the Post, although this time it is from an expert in the field rather than an op-ed writer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400130.html It concludes: Overselling a chemical's capacity to solve a problem can do irretrievable harm not only by raising false hopes but by delaying the use of more effective long-term methods. So let's drop the hyperbole and overblown rhetoric -- it's not what Africa needs. What's needed is a recognition of the problem's complexity and a willingness to use every available weapon to fight disease in an informed and rational way. I'm guessing that, no matter what data I provide, how long I work at providing it, there is no possible way you will not regard my arguments on DDT as bogus. Facts exist though, 1) Hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, die each year from Malaria 2) House spraying with DDT has a recent, multi-year record of reducing these deaths _significantly_ in South Africa 3) It is so much cheaper than other techniques. 4) There are multiple websites that attest to the EU's veiled threats against the use of DDT in Africa http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=92 http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19127 http://www.cbgnetwork.org/1180.html These websites always seem to boil down to Africa Fighting Malaria, the American Enterprise Institute or some other organisation that is paid to lie. Unlike the majority of people making these claims you do actually care about people in Africa at risk of malaria. However you have allied yourself with a smear campaign with no other goal but to discredit environmentalists. The EU is not some sort of magical utopia, like all states (or quasi-states) it sometimes acts in its own best interests. However the fact remains that DDT is not banned, it continues to be used to fight malaria and Western countries continue to fund the fight against malaria in Africa. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On 19/02/2008, at 1:47 AM, Dan M wrote: Charlie Bell stated: ...and diversionary. It's a debating technique known in some circles as the Gish Gallop, and it's very frustrating for people who pride themselves on being concise. The purpose of my argument was never to be diversionary, but to explore some of the details of another's argument. I can accept, though, that it can be very frustrating to folks who don't write and do numbers fast in their spare time. Heh. It's very frustrating to people who don't have spare time, and it's very frustrating to people who are trying to sort out one point to be totally smothered. You're not exploring details, you're just drowning people in volume, and switching or adding topics. It's very poor in debate, and it's just plain rude in a conversation. But after 10 years, I'm pretty sure you're not going to change. Oh look - change of topic: So, let me give you a very concise argument: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. 2) This technique has been demonstrated in South Africa and shown on this list to be very effective. 3) I therefore conclude that the The EU is more worried about the political power of Green parties than children in Zambia dying. To which I may or may not have time to reply later. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: malaria in Africa
Charlie said: Oh look - change of topic: Muahahahahhahahaahaaa!!! Regards Curtis Can't pull the wool over this one's eyes Maru :P ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
Charlie Bell wrote: Heh. It's very frustrating to people who don't have spare time, and it's very frustrating to people who are trying to sort out one point to be totally smothered. You're not exploring details, you're just drowning people in volume, and switching or adding topics. It's very poor in debate, and it's just plain rude in a conversation. But after 10 years, I'm pretty sure you're not going to change. I replied: Look, Charlie, Dan is fantastically good at researching and analyzing data. There's something frankly perverse in the idea that such an ability (one that puts him in the tiny handful of the very best I've ever met at such things) is something that he should _not_ use on the list. He's not smothering you with data, he's doing data analysis. There are basically two ways to construct a logical argument. You can be inductive (reasoning from concrete details into general findings) or deductive (reasoning from general theories into concrete hypotheses). Dan is very good at both, but when he's reasoning from evidence he's engaging in superb inductive reasoning. Quite often it's good enough that it's basically a model of how to construct an argument, one I would use enthusiastically if I were teaching a class on the subject. If he's not allowed to use data to support an argument, exactly how is he supposed to try to persuade someone? I find inductive reasoning in politics to usually be vastly superior to deductive reasoning, because it is empirical and because our theories of politics are insufficiently well-grounded to value them over countervening information. Empiricism requires data. If you're not as good at it as he is (no shame - I'm not either) I would think reading and debating with him would be a great opportunity to _get better at it_. If he challenges your opinions using data it might be worthwhile once in a while to consider whether your opinions should change, instead of believing that he has bad motives. What you call changing topics is usually, for example, use of an enormously valuable technique - drawing out the logical implications of stated beliefs into a different domain and seeing if they still make sense. If they don't, they probably don't make sense in the first domain _either_. How do you try to persuade people to change their minds? And in particular, how do you do it without using data? For example, in this discussion I have _not once_ seen anyone actually engage with the argument or the data. There are dismissals any point of view differing from the priors as bought and paid for (I've always wanted to ask people who believe that - if you think everyone's opinion is for sale, doesn't that really say something about yours?). I've seen cites to irrelevant arguments (DDT is nasty - well, no shit. It's an insecticide. Is it as nasty as malaria? Is it as nasty as the chemicals that might be used instead of it?). And I've seen no concern whatsoever with the people involved - like his daughter. Dan is a real scientist, and I'm at least a social scientist, so we're both trained to ask a simple question in any argument - what is the obtainable information that would cause you change your belief? If you can't come up with an answer, haven't you just said that you're not persuadable at all? And if you _can_, why do you reject as ill-intentioned (and what would his motives be, exactly, for having ill-intent?) efforts by a very bright and talented person to bring such information to bear? Gautam Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On Feb 18, 2008 1:41 PM, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Empiricism requires data. If you're not as good at it as he is (no shame - I'm not either) I would think reading and debating with him would be a great opportunity to _get better at it_. If he challenges your opinions using data it might be worthwhile once in a while to consider whether your opinions should change, instead of believing that he has bad motives. What you call changing topics is usually, for example, use of an enormously valuable technique - drawing out the logical implications of stated beliefs into a different domain and seeing if they still make sense. If they don't, they probably don't make sense in the first domain _either_. How do you try to persuade people to change their minds? And in particular, how do you do it without using data? In my work, which like Dan's, involves analysis of billions of bits of data, I constantly am in mind of the famous Mark Twain line, If I had more time, I'd have written you a shorter letter. I suspect that the three of us have produced reports for very busy people who would not be happy if we drowned them in data smog. I used to do a fair bit of consulting for top management technology and media companies. Any report I wrote for the guys at the very top had to be no longer than a half page. My newsletter was $500 a year for 12 pages once a month; more and I would have had unhappy subscribers. When I've spoken at conferences, my experience is that the more senior the attendees, the less time anybody gets to talk. I've also never forgotten something from Bill Dunn, founder of Dow Jones News Retrieval, the first successful on-line investment data source. He said (at our UCLA Roundtable in Multimedia) that DJNR succeeded as others failed because he realized that when people have access to lots of data, points of view becomes more valuable. His competitors made more data available and lost. Indeed, I am put off by lengthy arguments unless there's some extremely compelling reason for them. When I offer then, they are usually the result of not taking the time to choose the strongest arguments and summarize. At worst, they are control techniques to dominate the discussion. I've been guilty of the spectrum of reasons. Brevity really is a virtue, wouldn't you agree? In fact, I suspect that one of Wal-Mart's great efficiencies is the brevity of its data. The company is celebrated for its data warehousing; I'm certain (because that's a big part of what I do) that their success in that realm implies that somebody in the company is very good at boiling all of the operations data into something like a half-page. I am glad to see you posting. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
Hi Gautam, how are you? I hope you'll stay with us for a while. I'd especially be interested in your perspective on the Presidential contest which continues to be one of the most interesting in my lifetime. What do you think of McCain? I know your buddy George Will has expressed reservations. You're back in the Boston area, eh? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
Original Message: - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:48:48 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: malaria in Africa Hi Gautam, how are you? I hope you'll stay with us for a while. I'd especially be interested in your perspective on the Presidential contest which continues to be one of the most interesting in my lifetime. What do you think of McCain? $50 says he's a McCain supporter. :-) Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
Dan wrote: $50 says he's a McCain supporter. :-) Now that wouldn't be a fair bet, would it? Are you sure he doesn't want to rewrite the constitution so its in God's standards? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
Doug wrote: Hi Gautam, how are you? I hope you'll stay with us for a while. I'd especially be interested in your perspective on the Presidential contest which continues to be one of the most interesting in my lifetime. What do you think of McCain? I know your buddy George Will has expressed reservations. You're back in the Boston area, eh? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Hi Doug. I am indeed - I've been here for 3.5 years now. I have huge disagreements with McCain. I think McCain-Feingold has been a disaster (as some of you may recall, I can at least claim that I thought that _before_ it was passed). There are several other issues. That being said...Dan is right, I'm a big McCain supporter. He's actually the first Presidential candidate that I've ever given money to (and I gave it to him before NH when everyone still thought he had no chance). I don't know if he'll be a great President. I don't even know, really, if he'd be a good one. But there's no doubt in my mind he's a great man (as David Brooks wrote in his column). He's the only politician in America I can think of who really would rather be right than President. John Dickerson wrote an article in Slate comparing Obama and McCain (and I like Obama a lot too) pointing out that Obama says he's going to tell you hard truths in his speech - and then never does. McCain sometimes doesn't do anything else. He began town hall meetings in NH in a Republican primary by saying Global warming is a big problem and we have to do something about it. He attacked the ethanol subsisy in Iowa. He (correctly) said that the old manufacturing jobs in Michigan weren't coming back. There simply isn't another politician who does things like that. I don't know what it would be like to have a President that committed to saying the truth and doing what's right for the country, but I'd really like to find out. When he won (I think) the NH primary, I put a link to this clip from the West Wing on my Facebook page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAXz6j4Yj9M. It seemed appropriate, somehow. Beyond personal qualities: McCain is the one person I'm sure will make torture illegal, which is, to me, a matter of national honor and thus absolutely non-negotiable. I think he will handle Iraq responsibly (Hillary's pledge to start removing troops in 60 days is, to me, the perfect example of everything that's wrong with her as a candidate, and a good start at what would be wrong with her as President). The war has been mishandled horrendously, but extricating ourselves from it is something that must be done carefully, to put it mildly. On economic issues - he surely doesn't know them as well as I would wish. But, look, there are lots of policy issues where we don't really know what the right thing to do is. I don't _know_ what the right thing to do in Iraq is. I have some ideas, but I'm really not sure, and I don't trust anyone who is. But one issue where we do actually _know_ what the right thing to do is, is trade. Free trade is the right policy. And McCain is right on that (as, sadly, both Democrats, repudiating one of the greatest achievements of the Clinton Administration, are wrong). If I can't trust someone to get the right answer in an area _where we actually know what the right answer is_, I don't see how I can trust them to get it right on the issues where it's a lot harder. Anyways, all of that being said - I think Obama is fantastic. I don't think he's quite ready, but he is something special. The best political talent of his generation, surely, and the best speaker I've ever seen, bar none. Amazing. I don't see how you can look at him, know that, right now, a man who _in his own lifetime_ would not have been able to use buses and waterfountains in half this country, and know that he's the person most likely to be the next President and not be enormously proud of this country. I think the searching for the Messiah aspects of his candidacy are quite troubling, but he is the incarnation of the American Dream, and I would be proud to have either as my President. Gautam Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On Feb 18, 2008 6:20 PM, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But one issue where we do actually _know_ what the right thing to do is, is trade. Free trade is the right policy. And McCain is right on that (as, sadly, both Democrats, repudiating one of the greatest achievements of the Clinton Administration, are wrong). If I can't trust someone to get the right answer in an area _where we actually know what the right answer is_, I don't see how I can trust them to get it right on the issues where it's a lot harder. Could you explain further? Our views on Obama and McCain are fairly similar, but switched around. I wouldn't be too unhappy to see either one as President, but I'd prefer Obama. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On 19/02/2008, at 8:41 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: I replied: Look, Charlie, Dan is fantastically good at researching and analyzing data. Yes, he can be. There's something frankly perverse in the idea that such an ability (one that puts him in the tiny handful of the very best I've ever met at such things) is something that he should _not_ use on the list. No, all I'm saying is that using it all the time, even in what start as relatively light chats, is very difficult for other people. Either people don't have the time to respond, or whatever they were focussed on gets lost in the glare. Yes, it's a very powerful tool, but its power would be more appreciated if it weren't used in every thread. And having seen the way Dan uses it all the time, I'm afraid I simply can't accept that he doesn't know that he's simply drowning most people. The relevant expression is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Discussion techniques should be modulated to the tone of the discussion, and replying with the same huge volume to each response makes it impossible to have a discussion - it either turns into painful point- by-point rebuttal or large chunks simply go unreplied to. It's also, as you're well aware, to use precisely the same data to arrive at very different conclusions depending on framing. So sometimes it doesn't matter how well an argument is supported. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
