Jump to content
Blue Creek crews work to expand containment as hot weather looms July 27, 2015
You referred to it at least once more, four days ago, in response to me, on this thread:
I've had the impression you are a little challenged in the math department, but counting to three is not that hard and FYI, it does differ from "precisely twice."
Your statement that you are "very clear on what the book is about, without ever having read it" is almost proto-typical of today's liberal. A mind not only closed, but locked, barred, and sealed to make sure no challenging material can possibly get in.
Why would you ask me to offer you evidence, since you have already made it clear that you believe anything I say is a lie? It is pointless to offer evidence to someone who has already declared his mind closed on the subject.
Yes. The way we "talk about science" or more accurately, the way we insist science permit only one right answer - the one that suits our political needs - will seriously impair our ability to adapt to all those conditions, should they arise. It is practically career suicide today for a scientist to even quibble with the "consensus" view. Polls of the scientific community on the issue, on which the "consensus" is based, draw response rates of less than 20%. Are the other 80% failing to respond because they're just too busy or because they fear that if they are identified as "deniers" they will lose jobs, positions, grants, and collegial friendships? How many Soviet-sphere biologists and geneticists really believed in Lysenkoism? Probably not many, but the few who spoke up quickly learned their lesson. Lysenkoism was the "consensus" view for decades, and yes, it did cause famines. That's what stifling of scientific skepticism can do, and why I believe it's dangerous.
You've referenced this book several times, but I strongly suspect you've never read it. You seem to think it's an instruction manual, rather than an antidote to the kind of statistical gamesmanship you are inclined to play. Read it and learn.
Ms. Buehler's furious, ad hominem, and rambling rant in no way resembles "an argument" to which reasoned response is possible, but to the extent it could be called an argument at all, it's a fallacious one since it amounts to nothing more than an appeal to authority.
You seem disconcerted that political decisions are made by our political bodies, instead of by the fiat of some self-selected scientific elite. That political decisions relate to scientific issues does not make them exempt from Constitutional requirements.
When scientists stop debating science, they've stopped being scientists. The entire climate change argument is based on predictive models of probable future events based on past events the explanations for which require careful analysis of enormous numbers of variables, some of which probably have not even been identified. Yet the argument is presented by advocates like Ms. Beuhler with a religious fervor that is more than enough to raise the hackles of an atheist like me. I realize a scientific analysis is not to blame for its adherents, and so the whole climate change argument may be true in spite of its being advanced by clowns like Gore and John Cook of the famous "97% consensus" pseudo-study, but at this point, frankly, I'm more concerned about what this new religion is doing to science than I am about what climate change might be doing to the Earth. The latter is probably less dangerous to humankind.
Ms. Buehler sounds full of rage, but it's obvious she's not a Republican, so how can that be?
I have to wonder when Mr. McCutcheon DID find Rep. McMorris-Rodgers credible? His letter suggests there was a time that was true. His previously expressed political positions say there never was such a time.
I've enjoyed the dubious pleasure of negotiating roundabouts in Rome, Madrid and other European and South American countries as a pedestrian. Obviously, I wasn't killed, but I've been grazed a number of times, and saved myself from serious injury only by sprinting and dodging, when I would have much preferred to walk.
If you read my last sentence, I'm not arguing that roundabouts ARE more dangerous, only that it is not obvious they are safer. And unquestionably, they are more expensive to put in as a replacement for an intersection, So my point is simply, why spend the money if the safety benefits are not crystal clear? Shouldn't expenditure of public funds be based on something better than a gamble?
You're welcome, but it wasn't that hard. Certainly not hard enough to excuse NewInWW from making an effort to verify his claims.
And yes, New, I purchased and read that book (How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff, 1954), back when I was a liberal teenager. I credit the understanding I gained from it, and the ability it gave me to evaluate the claims of my fellow liberals, with helping me to recover from that addled condition (along with Thomas Sowell, S.I. Hayakawa, M. Friedman, F. Hayek, E. Hoffer, H. Arendt, and a few others).
And your previous comment, representing my position to favor the murder of the homeless, was not "purple prose"? At least I give you the dubious benefit of not realizing where your totalitarian instincts are likely to lead you.
You continually misrepresent my position to be one favoring legalizing "unfettered, unbridled" discrimination. As I continually remind you, I do NOT favor legalizing ANY discrimination by government entities, or government-created monopolies. I also do not "favor" any discrimination on irrational grounds like race, but I DO favor allowing private citizens in their private affairs, which includes their privately owned businesses, to decide whom they wish to serve and whom they don't.
If current minorities become future majorities and act according to those precepts - no public discrimination - I can guarantee you I will have no complaints. Apparently unlike you, I give current minorities credit for having the good sense not to engage in wide-spread irrational behaviors contrary to their own best interests, as long as their government doesn't encourage or compel it. For the occasional cake-baker or flower-arranger who shows me the door, I have no doubt I can find another.
Last login: Saturday, July 25, 2015
2015 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.