Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus

[Billy Rojas]

Centroids:

Not sure why this was called to my attention. Basically I agree with the video

but also think that its message is so obviously true that discussion isn't 
necessary.

Sort of like a discussion of whether the British were defeated at Yorktown.

There is nothing to argue about.


This said, it is useful to compare creationists with social constructionists.

Both operate on the basis of "post truth" outlooks, or, better, post 
objectivity outlooks.

I have no use either for social constructionist or creationists  ("creationists"

as the world is usually understood, anyway, since it seems to me that creation

is "guided" in some sense and because there also seems to be purpose,

in fact, the teleology of nature is easy enough to argue for because

of its explanatory power, something woefully lacking in any kind

of random chance interpretation of the universe).


Philosophically, how can anyone defend either social constructionism

of naive creationism?


Creationism  has not been the focus of any of our discussions in the past

even though it has come up a scarce few times, in each instance in a

peripheral sense, and we always passed on to something else  -quickly.

Meanwhile I don't recall anyone here making any kind of case for

social constructionism.  It doesn't interest anyone, least of all myself.

It is prima facie false   -and meaningless.


Not that I haven't run across the homosexual version of this dubious theory

in my research into same-sex sexuality; in that field it pops up

on a regular basis, especially on the part of feminist homosexuals

and "hard left" homosexuals  -the kinds of persons who take

John Boswell seriously.  But the arguments are so transparently

full of crap that I seldom spend any time refuting them.

That would be like arguing with a headstong 3 year old,

which would be a total waste of time.


Anyway, not exactly a secret, I am a true blue Saint-Simonian

and the foundation of Saint-Simonian philsophy is

empirical science.  I'd say that we are far past the simplistic

sciences of ca 1800 AD but this still is, nonetheless,

to discuss science, hence evidence, inductive logic,

truth  tests, questioning of one's hypotheses, and so forth.

Or think of it as akin to medicine; there are results

that can be observed and that often can be measured.

The effort almost always is productive and useful.


This does not mean closing the door on genuine mysteries.

What a mistake that would be. But it does say that some mysteries

of the past ceased to be mysterious decades ago, or even centuries ago.



Billy



PS

I wonder what Ernie's take on the video is.



---



From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Centroids 
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 5:32 PM
To: Centroids Discussions
Subject: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's 
Studies as Virus

For Billy. :-)

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Stephen D. Williams" >
Date: March 5, 2018 at 10:21:48 PST
To: f...@xent.com
Subject: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's Studies 
as Virus
Reply-To: Friends of Rohit Khare >

This ties together and coherently refutes a wide range of anti-science ideas 
and people.  Quite the hairy mess.

There are plenty of good terms to learn from this like: science-shy students 
(because of cultural association, etc.). Science wars.  I suppose that's always 
been a thing, in waves. Quite a thing that it's such a thing still, apparently 
stronger than ever with people who are serious about theories.  Even if the 
theories aren't really serious.


The whole video is good, but this is at the paper proposing a strategy for a 
"Women's Studies as Virus" approach:

https://youtu.be/bxdBRKmPhe4?t=24m43s


I'm all for general inclusiveness and equality, but this is deep into territory 
that is begging for good and persistent mocking. It's fine to not be into 
science, but attacking science with pseudoscience in all these ways is 
unacceptable.  Not that there's any real worry about science, but there are 
various negative impacts and the occasional (I hope) dumb decision, in politics 
and elsewhere.  It's going to take more than Niel to constantly refute all of 
this to avoid a nasty infection.


It is amazing that people watch this kind of thing for reasons other than 
comedy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jLs-1GpwQM  Dr Prof Alex Jones Explains 
Advanced Physics


Stephen

--
Stephen D. Williams s...@lig.net 
stephendwilli...@gmail.com LinkedIn: 
http://sdw.st/in
V:650-450-UNIX (8649) V:866.SDW.UNIX V:703.371.9362 F:703.995.0407
AIM:sdw Skype:StephenDWilliams Yahoo:sdwlignet Resume: http://sdw.st/gres
Personal: http://sdw.st 

[RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus

[Centroids]

For Billy. :-)

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Stephen D. Williams" 
> Date: March 5, 2018 at 10:21:48 PST
> To: f...@xent.com
> Subject: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social Construct?, Women's Studies 
> as Virus
> Reply-To: Friends of Rohit Khare 
> 
> This ties together and coherently refutes a wide range of anti-science ideas 
> and people.  Quite the hairy mess.
> 
> There are plenty of good terms to learn from this like: science-shy students 
> (because of cultural association, etc.). Science wars.  I suppose that's 
> always been a thing, in waves. Quite a thing that it's such a thing still, 
> apparently stronger than ever with people who are serious about theories.  
> Even if the theories aren't really serious.
> 
> 
> The whole video is good, but this is at the paper proposing a strategy for a 
> "Women's Studies as Virus" approach:
> 
> https://youtu.be/bxdBRKmPhe4?t=24m43s
> 
> 
> I'm all for general inclusiveness and equality, but this is deep into 
> territory that is begging for good and persistent mocking. It's fine to not 
> be into science, but attacking science with pseudoscience in all these ways 
> is unacceptable.  Not that there's any real worry about science, but there 
> are various negative impacts and the occasional (I hope) dumb decision, in 
> politics and elsewhere.  It's going to take more than Niel to constantly 
> refute all of this to avoid a nasty infection.
> 
> 
> It is amazing that people watch this kind of thing for reasons other than 
> comedy:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jLs-1GpwQM  Dr Prof Alex Jones Explains 
> Advanced Physics
> 
> 
> Stephen
> 
> -- 
> Stephen D. Williams s...@lig.net stephendwilli...@gmail.com LinkedIn: 
> http://sdw.st/in
> V:650-450-UNIX (8649) V:866.SDW.UNIX V:703.371.9362 F:703.995.0407
> AIM:sdw Skype:StephenDWilliams Yahoo:sdwlignet Resume: http://sdw.st/gres
> Personal: http://sdw.st facebook.com/sdwlig twitter.com/scienteer
> 
> ___
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RC] AI vs Lawyers: The Ultimate Showdown | LawGeex

[Centroids]

The perhaps the real lesson is we need “white boxes” rather “black boxes.”  
Human or machine, what matters for society is transparency and accountability.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 28, 2018, at 19:22, Chris Hahn  wrote:
> 
> ... of course, the lawyers.  My point, there is a human frailty built into 
> each form of legal service.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Centroids
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 3:41 PM
> To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [RC] AI vs Lawyers: The Ultimate Showdown | LawGeex
> 
> And the lawyer system is only as moral as...?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Feb 27, 2018, at 16:04, Chris Hahn  wrote:
>> 
>> That's insane.  I guess I am rooting for the humans.  The AI system is only 
>> as moral as the programmers.
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com 
>> [mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Centroids
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:03 AM
>> To: Centroids Discussions 
>> Subject: [RC] AI vs Lawyers: The Ultimate Showdown | LawGeex
>> 
>> Wow. I’m not sure whom I should be rooting for. Or against...
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.lawgeex.com/AIvsLawyer/
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> -- 
>> -- 
>> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
>> 
>> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
>> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
>> 
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> -- 
>> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
>> 
>> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
>> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
>> 
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
> 
> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
> 
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
> 
> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
> 
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Re: [ RC ] The Case for Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

[Centroids]

Very well said. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 4, 2018, at 14:27, Billy Rojas <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com> wrote:
> 
>  Centroids:
> The following short article was sent to me without attribution, either
> for its author or publication source.  However, the case that is made seems
> entirely valid to me.  For your information.
> 
> Billy
> 
> 
> PS
> Recommended-  
> The New Protectionism, 
> Tim Lang and Colin Hines, 1993
>  
>  
> 
> 
> When U.S. president Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs of 25 percent 
> on imported steel and 10 percent on aluminum Thursday, the world’s 
> commentariat broke out in a frenzy of condemnation. Trump was accused of 
> playing politics in a way that could “destabilize the global economy.” It was 
> said that Trump’s actions could “bring global trade growth to a halt” 
> (notwithstanding the fact that levels of global trade have already been 
> declining since 2011). His critics screamed “trade war.” Canadian and 
> European leaders immediately threatened retaliation. China didn’t, but 
> American China experts predicted that Beijing soon would.
> It is likely that few, if any, of these experts have read the two detailed 
> Commerce Department reports that prompted the tariff decision, or the Defense 
> Department memo endorsing their findings. The goal of the tariffs proposed by 
> Commerce and endorsed by the president isn’t to punish Chinese dumping or put 
> an end to free trade. It’s to ensure that the United States retains any 
> domestic steel and aluminum production at all. Like President Barack Obama’s 
> controversial auto industry bailout in 2009, these tariffs are about keeping 
> an industry for the future, not about making it profitable today.
> If China has merely expressed concern over Trump’s plans, it’s because China 
> is not really the target of the planned tariffs. China’s massive state-owned 
> steeland aluminum firms may ultimately lie behind the world’s glutted 
> markets, but Chinese products account for only a fraction of U.S. imports 
> (2.2 percent for steel and 10.6 percent for aluminum). The real problem is 
> that other countries—including allies like Canada and the European Union—have 
> responded to years of Chinese dumping by subsidizing their own industries and 
> imposing broad tariffs on Chinese steel. American antidumping measures have 
> traditionally been more narrowly focused. In a sense, Trump is only catching 
> up with what the rest of the world is doing already.
> The simple fact is that the world produces much more steel and aluminumthan 
> it needs. A global shakeout is inevitable, and every country wants to make 
> sure that its own industries are the ones that survive. The only question is: 
> who will blink first? If one country has done a lot of blinking over the last 
> twenty years, it’s the United States, as the Commerce Department report amply 
> documents. Embracing a free-market approach, being reluctant to provide 
> subsidies, applying very selective tariffs and never even thinking about 
> nationalizing its strategic industries, the United States has consistently 
> ceded market share to its statist rivals overseas. The Trump tariffs bluntly 
> but effectively draw a line under twenty years of creeping retreat.
> In its evaluation of the Commerce Department reports, the Defense Department 
> flatly concluded that “the systematic use of unfair trade practices to 
> intentionally erode our innovation and manufacturing industrial base poses a 
> risk to our national security” and agreed with the Commerce Department’s 
> conclusion “that imports of foreign steel and aluminum based on unfair 
> trading practices impair the national security.” Of the three 
> national-security responses offered by Commerce, DoD preferred the second 
> option, targeted tariffs, over the first (global tariffs) and third (global 
> quotas). But that’s a question of strategy, not principle.
> The DoD is, obviously, a military organization, not an economic one. It is 
> “concerned about the negative impact on our key allies” of a broad, uniform 
> tariff. So the DoD prefers targeted tariffs on countries that, except for 
> South Korea, are not U.S. allies. But as the DoD memo admits, targeted 
> tariffs raise complicated enforcement challenges due to the international 
> transshipment of steel and other jurisdiction-shifting exercises. The 
> Commerce report estimated that targeted tariffs would have to be at least 53 
> percent on steel and 23.6 percent on aluminum to be effective. Trump’s flat 
> tariffs of 25 percent and 10 percent would be easier to implement and harder 
> to avoid.
> A single, global tariff also sends a simple, universally understood message 
> that this time, the United States is not going to blink first. This dispute 
> is not about the World Trade Organization, playing by the rules, commitment 
> to globalization or the much-hyped international liberal order. It’s about 
> the fact that some countries