Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7028)

Bloggingheads 09-11-2011 01:38 AM

God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 

jimM47 09-11-2011 01:42 AM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
John McWhorter and Glenn Loury each appearing twice in one week. Let this be a model for all weeks to come.

Starwatcher162536 09-11-2011 03:06 AM

Glenn; The ultimate dirty elitist?
 
Glenn kinda thinking people are stupid

Is it really that hard to delineate between an experts knowledge base and personal preferences? I happen to value* James Hansens' opinion on the implications of the limitations of monte carlo simulations and the arakawa operator regarding climate models. I don't care at all what Hansens' thinks about the proposed keystone pipeline. Why is this a problem?

*but only a little!

whburgess 09-11-2011 04:48 AM

Re: Glenn; The ultimate dirty elitist?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 225349)
Glenn kinda thinking people are stupid

Is it really that hard to delineate between an experts knowledge base and personal preferences? I happen to value* James Hansens' opinion on the implications of the limitations of monte carlo simulations and the arakawa operator regarding climate models. I don't care at all what Hansens' thinks about the proposed keystone pipeline. Why is this a problem?

*but only a little!

Because when the man says 'its game over for the climate if the keystone pipeline is built', it makes everything he says suspect.
Not because he said something that seems ridiculous; many people can get away with that without raising significant suspicion about their statements in their area of expertise.
It's when the ridiculous statement is intimately connected with their area of expertise that makes one suspicious.

whburgess 09-11-2011 07:15 AM

The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Both of these guys are the best; I'm always glad to see either one of them.

Some points I want to comment on.



In my opinion, Paul Krugman is not the problem.

Most people are not reading Paul Krugman. The people who read him are not people who can be influenced either way by his tone; his audience are thinkers who are interested in the content he has to say.

The people who are influenced by tone, and that is most people who vote, particularly people in the middle who don't have much of an ideology, are influenced by the political tone in the popular culture. They hear people such as Bill Maher, Rosie Odonald, Jeneane Geroffalo, Sean Penn, Matt Damon, Michael Moore, etc. and are alienated. There are characters on the right who do the same, but they are not as ubiquitous as people on the left in those areas where the people we are talking about happen to flip the channel to. People whose minds are up for grabs are not listening to AM radio and hearing Limbaugh; they are flipping over to HBO just in time to hear Bill Maher ranting again about how stupid Americans are to audience applause and a panel of degenerates saying weird stuff like how they'd like to hate-f*ck Michelle Bachman--to more cheers. They are flipping through channels and stopping on the entertainment news channel to listen the latest gossip on their favorite movie star just in time to hear another drug addled rock star who has been in out of rehab 17 times talking about how GWB is 'the biggest terrorist in the world'.


Arrogant experts versus ignorant masses

Glenns exposition on experts versus the masses is excellent. This depth of thinking is the reason I come to this site. I want to make a point that is a little bit beside the point Glenn was making, but I think it's still connected. The point he does make is excellent and I have no further comment on it except to say he is right on target. Except I think he is a little off when he juxtaposes the expert community against the masses. Actually, the masses respect experts and do not regard them with suspicion. The only people they regard with suspicion are those who come to them saying "I'm right, you're wrong, and I have the experts on my side".

This is why Perry doesn't say "The experts (Scientists) are wrong about this". He knows this wouldn't fly with anyone. What he says is "We have some experts on our side as well". Thats all he needs. For the other side to say "But we have more experts on our side" only makes the experts on Perry's side more interesting, perhaps underdogs even. Everyone likes underdogs, particularly if they are perceived to be subject to unfair treatment by the refs in the MSM who act as if what they have to say doesn't matter.

This dilemma is compounded when Perry and others are treated with contempt because they don't go with the 'consensus'. Americans may be stupid in some ways--but in some ways they aren't; they know those minority of scientists who aren't part of the consensus are experts as well. They figure if an expert can go against the consensus and still be an expert then surely a non-expert shouldn't feel any shame in doing so as well. To call them stupid is to call the experts on their side stupid -- and only an idiot would call an expert stupid instead of simply disagreeing with them. Particularly when the idiot calling the expert stupid is not themselves an expert.

This why those who truly take an alarmist view of climate change will NOT see people like Perry as the biggest threat to their cause. They will see people who use climate change as a political issue to paint Republicans as idiots, anti-science, etc. as the biggest threat to their cause.



Tax credits for vets in combat

I had a little difficulty understanding this one.
Preferring vets in the job queue may not be 'obviously correct' in the sense that it would be incorrect to not do it, but it is certainly 'morally defensible.'

I strongly disagree that the monetary payments and health benefits we give Vets in combat are compensation for putting their life on the line. There is no compensation for that. We pay them because they and their families need food, shelter, etc. They are not mercenaries. They are patriots fighting for their country.

We don't have to subsidize their preferential treatment in hiring in order to honor them. And if he is saying that doing so in some way denigrates their service by equating material benefit with honor, then I see his point.

But he seems to be saying that it is inappropriate to honor them in a way that shows them preference over those who don't serve because they've already been paid, and this just amounts to discrimination. I find that rather disagreeable.

badhatharry 09-11-2011 11:11 AM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Quoting whburgess: The people who are influenced by tone, and that is most people who vote, particularly people in the middle who don't have much of an ideology, are influenced by the political tone in the popular culture. They hear people such as Bill Maher, Rosie Odonald, Jeneane Geroffalo, Sean Penn, Matt Damon, Michael Moore, etc. and are alienated.
I Haven't listened to the diavlog yet but I would say that not everyone is alienated by the people you mention. Besides that, is alienated really the word you were looking for. I think some people are encouraged by the courage (or what they perceive to the the courage) of people like that, telling it like it is, speaking truth to power.

On the other hand I think there are people who are nauseated.

Quote:

There are characters on the right who do the same, but they are not as ubiquitous as people on the left in those areas where the people we are talking about happen to flip the channel to. People whose minds are up for grabs are not listening to AM radio and hearing Limbaugh; they are flipping over to HBO just in time to hear Bill Maher ranting again about how stupid Americans are to audience applause and a panel of degenerates saying weird stuff like how they'd like to hate-f*ck Michelle Bachman--to more cheers. They are flipping through channels and stopping on the entertainment news channel to listen the latest gossip on their favorite movie star just in time to hear another drug addled rock star who has been in out of rehab 17 times talking about how GWB is 'the biggest terrorist in the world'.
Now I'm getting really confused. Who are the viewers in this case? You seem to be talking about the undecideds and you think they are being influenced by snarky types like Maher? They come for the humor. They leave with a stomach ache.


Quote:

This is why Perry doesn't say "The experts (Scientists) are wrong about this". He knows this wouldn't fly with anyone. What he says is "We have some experts on our side as well". Thats all he needs. For the other side to say "But we have more experts on our side" only makes the experts on Perry's side more interesting, perhaps underdogs even. Everyone likes underdogs, particularly if they are perceived to be subject to unfair treatment by the refs in the MSM who act as if what they have to say doesn't matter.
Did anyone ever say the scientists are wrong? It seems the most skeptical thing folks have been saying is that the scientists haven't looked at everything before they have made their alarmist pronouncements. Perry needs to become far more versed in this. He needs to understand at a layman's level where the controversy lies.This is going to come up time and again.

Quote:

This dilemma is compounded when Perry and others are treated with contempt because they don't go with the 'consensus'. Americans may be stupid in some ways--but in some ways they aren't; they know those minority of scientists who aren't part of the consensus are experts as well. They figure if an expert can go against the consensus and still be an expert then surely a non-expert shouldn't feel any shame in doing so as well. To call them stupid is to call the experts on their side stupid -- and only an idiot would call an expert stupid instead of simply disagreeing with them. Particularly when the idiot calling the expert stupid is not themselves an expert.
I would say that there are not as few as you seem to think. Besides the terms of the argument are so vague as to be almost meaningless. There is nothing sophisticated in the questions which were posed that yielded the results of the 97% survey and yet they have been repeated and repeated as though they are written on stone tablets.

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

carkrueger 09-11-2011 02:24 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Paul Krugman Is The Problem!!!

‘An Occasion for Shame’: NY Times‘ Paul Krugman Attacks ’Fake Heroes’ Bush, Giuliani in Stunning 9/11 Blog Post

He didn't have the guts to open a comment thread on the NYT's website - he's a bully and a coward.

Florian 09-11-2011 02:39 PM

Re: Collective Madness
 
Great tirade on collective madness:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/386...1:55&out=42:59

The refusal to accept the theory of evolution and the denial of global warming could also be described as manifestations of collective madness.

rcocean 09-11-2011 03:56 PM

Evolution theory has Gaps
 
and is not contrary to belief in God or being a Christian. See for example the Catholic position on evolution. Pius XII stated:

"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."

So McWhorter's statements here puzzles me.

And if you believe the earth was created in six days and 6-10 thousand years ago, the main scientific disagreement to this is based on Geology NOT evolution. Evolution could be proven false and geology would still prove that the earth was *not* created in six days and the Earth is much older than 10,000 years.

It should be noted that Bryan -who considered himself an Evangelical - did not believe that the earth was created literally in 6 days or 10,000 years ago. And that was in the 1920s.

whburgess 09-11-2011 04:06 PM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 225367)
I Haven't listened to the diavlog yet but I would say that not everyone is alienated by the people you mention. Besides that, is alienated really the word you were looking for. I think some people are encouraged by the courage (or what they perceive to the the courage) of people like that, telling it like it is, speaking truth to power.

On the other hand I think there are people who are nauseated.

Now I'm getting really confused. Who are the viewers in this case? You seem to be talking about the undecideds and you think they are being influenced by snarky types like Maher? They come for the humor. They leave with a stomach ache.

I should have been more clear. Hopefully folks who have listened to the diavlog will understand who I am talking about. They were talking about arrogant liberals turning people off with their attitudes.

Quote:

Did anyone ever say the scientists are wrong? It seems the most skeptical thing folks have been saying is that the scientists haven't looked at everything before they have made their alarmist pronouncements. Perry needs to become far more versed in this. He needs to understand at a layman's level where the controversy lies.This is going to come up time and again.
I agree he needs to frame the controversy better. I'd say he needs to say something like "Climate Change has always happened, no one is disputing that, what is under dispute by scientists is the level to which human beings are contributing to it and whether we should be so alarmed by it as to destroy the economy over it"

Quote:

I would say that there are not as few as you seem to think. Besides the terms of the argument are so vague as to be almost meaningless. There is nothing sophisticated in the questions which were posed that yielded the results of the 97% survey and yet they have been repeated and repeated as though they are written on stone tablets.

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Interesting. I don't think Perry needs to get to far in the weeds on this. I don't think politicians are winning when they are trying to explain themselves.

whburgess 09-11-2011 04:10 PM

Re: Collective Madness
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 225374)
Great tirade on collective madness:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/386...1:55&out=42:59

The refusal to accept the theory of evolution and the denial of global warming could also be described as manifestations of collective madness.

Hell, we could probably just sum it all up by saying that having a different political or world view then Florian is a manifestation of madness...right?

chamblee54 09-11-2011 04:29 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
1- Mr. Loury has a problem with his microphone. The S sounds his makes rasp. This is annoying.
2-There were a few comments made about the arrogance of "experts", and those who agree with them. I have noticed this same attitude in Jesus worshipers that are challenged on their opinions.
3- Showing preference to combat veterans in hiring sounds good, but might not be good for the overall economy. A job should go to the person who will perform best.
chamblee54

Florian 09-11-2011 04:31 PM

Re: Collective Madness
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 225378)
Hell, we could probably just sum it all up by saying that having a different political or world view then Florian is a manifestation of madness...right?

Yes, I think that sums it up nicely. But far be it from me to suggest that you are mad.

ohreally 09-11-2011 04:59 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
If I heard a famous cosmologist diss another famous cosmologist with the words: "He doesn't even understand Calculus 101," I would be appalled. Because all cosmologists understand calculus, so whatever disagreements they might have must lie somewhere else.

But Krugman, Dean Baker, and apparently most economists (I once heard Laura Tyson diss Roubini on similar grounds) seem to love that kind of trash talk. According to Krugman (who seems usually more right than most), all of German economists are a bunch of buffoons who don't understand the first thing about macro. That's absurd on its face. Perhaps he means to tell us that the political context pushes them away from what they know and forces them into untenable positions. But then he should say that. Politics matters and perhaps in a democracy it's impossible to pursue the "best economic" policy. Eurobonds might be the only hope for the eurozone but the problem can't be that German economists have failed to grasp Keynes's genius. Perhaps there are more substantive reasons. Yet trash talk is how American economists argue. If you don't agree with me, it's not that your theory is different from mine (which would be OK), it's that you flunked Macro 101. Good grief: looks like a bunch of kids at recess!

Starwatcher162536 09-11-2011 05:07 PM

Re: Glenn; The ultimate dirty elitist?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 225356)
Because when the man says 'its game over for the climate if the keystone pipeline is built', it makes everything he says suspect.
Not because he said something that seems ridiculous; many people can get away with that without raising significant suspicion about their statements in their area of expertise.
It's when the ridiculous statement is intimately connected with their area of expertise that makes one suspicious.

The delineation I spoke of must be harder then I thought as you clearly aren't doing it. On the question of the climatological importance of the keystone pipeline, the main areas of relevant expertise does not include Climate Science. It's ...

Geophysics. Tar sands importance & by extension the proposed pipeline, in terms of how it could alter our carbon emissions profile, is tightly coupled with when conventional oil production peaks, how and if future conventional oil production grows pre-peak, & how steeply the conventional oil production curve falls post peak. If conventionally produced oil regains it's past abundance, or even if the ratio of importance between conventionally and unconventionally produced oil remains constant, then the importance of this proposed pipeline ranges from zero to small. Carbon emissions as a result of unconventionally produced oil will remain small (On a global scale). This is not intimately related to Hansens' expertise.

Economics and Politics. How elastic is oil to different pressures? If one envisions a future where the elasticity of oil to price increases is low and absent large increases in unconventional produced oil demand outstrips supply then this proposed pipeline, for the climate, doesn't matter. Absent state action people will still buy this oil. They will just do so at a higher price. If one envisions a future where the elasticity of oil is high in regard to fears of future impacts of consuming oil not rolled into today's prices then again this pipeline, with certain caveats mentioned in the next paragraph, doesn't matter. Higher emissions now will be compensated by lower emissions later forced by state actions. This is not intimately related to Hansens' expertise.

International trade and foreign relations. One example of state action would be a carbon tax. Business' relocating to other state's outside this carbon tax jurisdiction and then exporting to the original host country would hamper the efficacy of the carbon tax. A tariff system may be needed to be erected that's closely intertwined to other state's carbon emission profiles. Can international trade flourish aside such a system? Would the host country of this tariff system international standing be hurt such that intra-state relationships are soured so that other multinational joint efforts would be impeded? This is not intimately related to Hansens' expertise.

I could go on, but that should suffice for that point.

Finally; I disagree with Hansens on the importance of this pipeline. It is not a ridiculous statement though. There is alot of unconventional oil out there. More then enough to with a certain reasonable set of assumptions take humanity's cumulative carbon emissions far past the point that with another reasonable set of assumptions where societies start to collapse.

badhatharry 09-11-2011 05:22 PM

Re: The real problem sneerers, Experts vs. Masses, and subsidizing hiring Vets.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 225377)
Interesting. I don't think Perry needs to get to far in the weeds on this. I don't think politicians are winning when they are trying to explain themselves.

I guess the best they can do is avoid stepping in it with a stupid soundbite.

badhatharry 09-11-2011 05:30 PM

Re: Glenn; The ultimate dirty elitist?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 225384)
The delineation I spoke of must be harder then I thought as you clearly aren't doing it. On the question of the climatological importance of the keystone pipeline, the main areas of relevant expertise does not include Climate Science. It's ...

Geophysics. Tar sands importance & by extension the proposed pipeline, in terms of how it could alter our carbon emissions profile, is tightly coupled with when conventional oil production peaks, how and if future conventional oil production grows pre-peak, & how steeply the conventional oil production curve falls post peak. If conventionally produced oil regains it's past abundance, or even if the ratio of importance between conventionally and unconventionally produced oil remains constant, then the importance of this proposed pipeline ranges from zero to small. Carbon emissions as a result of unconventionally produced oil will remain small (On a global scale). This is not intimately related to Hansens' expertise.

It sounds like the Canadians aren't waiting for peak oil.

You say that Hansen's predictions don't relate to his expertise? I thought he was talking about the amount of carbon which would be released into the atmosphere if the tar sands are exploited to their potential. This seems well within his area of expertise.

ROLYAT136 09-11-2011 05:33 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Looking for a cartoon and some slogans?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Ocean 09-11-2011 07:11 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Nice conversation.

Glenn went on about arrogance and elitism and the like for quite a while. I guess he was at least partly trying to be devil's advocate. I agreed more with John's opinion about our world of knowledge becoming too complex and vast for people to be able to grasp knowledge in all areas with any depth. It is because of that complexity that we need to make decisions about who we will trust to represent an authoritative opinion. Do we trust NOAA or a psychic to be able to report on the course of a hurricane?

John's reference to willful ignorance seems quite appropriate. I think that experts in any area are feeling tired and frustrated by the phenomenon of willful ignorance and the level of acceptance that it has gathered in this country. It's very worrisome. It's similar to an epidemic. At some point kindness and diplomacy gives way to drawing lines and calling on lies and ignorance that can be extremely detrimental to our future if this trend continues. We can't just sit and take the most fantastic claims seriously and with respect while we see that kind of trend becoming more generalized. And then the willfully ignorant complain about smugness or arrogance. I would favor that people be educated on all kinds of topics, at least the basic facts of them. But this has to be a collective effort that includes political figures in both parties. Our role models have to be strong supporters of excellence in all areas of knowledge. We shouldn't accept national political leaders embracing ignorance or fostering mistrust in legitimate sources of knowledge.

Glenn talked about the detrimental effects of putting down religious believers. I agree with that point. But I think that we need to separate different aspects of religious beliefs. The part of religion that has to do with morality, or meaning and purpose can stand separate from those beliefs that are also intertwined in religious texts, which have to do with magical interpretations of the physical world. Questioning the age of the earth, or evolution based on religious texts should be challenged and rejected. Many religions have come to terms with the advance of science so we know it isn't impossible to reconcile them. We shouldn't go back to the middle ages.

Lastly, a note on today's remembrance of 9/11. I attended my local secular humanist talk this morning. The topic today was, of course, this commemoration. Poems were read, and there was sharing of thoughts and discussion. People went around the room telling the usual stories about what they were doing when the towers were attacked. One person was getting his teeth cleaned, the other was jogging, and so on. The man sitting next to me started saying that he was one of the survivors. He was in the 68th floor (I think he said) and got quickly to the stairs and was able to make it all the way down. On his way down he crossed firefighters that had started to go up. He apparently was puzzled by the contrast between his desperate drive to survive, and firefighter's selfless role. He also talked briefly about reflecting on how a sequence of violence can go on for ever if no one stops to think what our role is in provoking those attacks.

Later on, after a significant amount of discussion about the role of religion vs other factors (oil, interventionism, economic imperialism) this same man recommended a book that he found helpful to understand what happened: "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright. I'm not kidding.

Wonderment 09-11-2011 07:12 PM

Re: Evolution theory has Gaps
 
Of course evolution is compatible with major religions, including Catholicism. It's basically just a fringe version of fundamentalist American Protestantism that denies evolution. These fundies, however, vote in large number; therefore they are pandered to, no matter how patently ridiculous their views are.

Unit 09-11-2011 07:12 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Glenn plays devil's advocate masterfully when it come to elitist hubris. But one thing seemed to unite both in this discussion, the idea that 'elites' and 'liberal' are somewhat synonymous. Actually, data shows that more education is correlated with a better appreciation for free-markets, free trade etc...

As an aside I was puzzled that Glenn was able to articulate skepticism for govt action when it comes to foreign policy, worrying about the war becoming permanent and the abuses on civil liberties becoming commonplace, and yet he cannot make the same argument when it comes to invoking temporary interventionism of the govt into the economy, with outright govt employment of million of unemployed. John asked Glenn directly what he thought about this "as an economist" expecting to hear Glenn's usual devil's advocate broadside on some policy's good intentions and instead what we got was Glenn saying that it's just politically unfeasible, so he never put his economist hat on, no exploration of unintended consequences here....

whburgess 09-11-2011 07:27 PM

Re: Collective Madness
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 225381)
But far be it from me to suggest that you are mad.

Right. I'm sure such a suggestion is very very far from you.

ohreally 09-11-2011 07:50 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 225393)
I agreed more with John's opinion about our world of knowledge becoming too complex and vast for people to be able to grasp knowledge in all areas with any depth. It is because of that complexity that we need to make decisions about who we will trust to represent an authoritative opinion.

I completely fail to understand how our world of knowledge is becoming too complex and vast for people to grasp. Why "is becoming"? By virtually any measure I can think of, the world of Europe between the two wars was more complex than ours: ethnically, culturally, economically, scientifically, psychologically, politically, and artistically. It's a bizarre trope of our time that everything is so much more complex now. It is not. Things have always been complex. In fact, part of what makes our era so culturally impoverished is the urge to oversimplify everything.

whburgess 09-11-2011 08:24 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 225393)
John's reference to willful ignorance seems quite appropriate. I think that experts in any area are feeling tired and frustrated by the phenomenon of willful ignorance and the level of acceptance that it has gathered in this country. It's very worrisome. It's similar to an epidemic. At some point kindness and diplomacy gives way to drawing lines and calling on lies and ignorance that can be extremely detrimental to our future if this trend continues. We can't just sit and take the most fantastic claims seriously and with respect while we see that kind of trend becoming more generalized. And then the willfully ignorant complain about smugness or arrogance. I would favor that people be educated on all kinds of topics, at least the basic facts of them. But this has to be a collective effort that includes political figures in both parties. Our role models have to be strong supporters of excellence in all areas of knowledge. We shouldn't accept national political leaders embracing ignorance or fostering mistrust in legitimate sources of knowledge.

Glenn talked about the detrimental effects of putting down religious believers. I agree with that point. But I think that we need to separate different aspects of religious beliefs. The part of religion that has to do with morality, or meaning and purpose can stand separate from those beliefs that are also intertwined in religious texts, which have to do with magical interpretations of the physical world. Questioning the age of the earth, or evolution based on religious texts should be challenged and rejected. Many religions have come to terms with the advance of science so we know it isn't impossible to reconcile them. We shouldn't go back to the middle ages.

This segment bears listening to repeated times. Glenn is very good here.

As I see it, his central question is here.

He answers this question in the form of another question here

An important factor that Glenn seems to miss is that the side 'distrusting the expert community' do not see themselves as distrusting of experts.

Perry doesn't say all experts are wrong, he simply says that he has some experts on his side as well.

Secondly, the denial that Perry really does have experts on his side is easily discoverable as a blatant lie and leads to more distrust of the politics.

No one believes that an expert stops being an expert because he disagrees with the 'consensus'.

Then when one learns that the consensus is really at the most abstract level (are humans a factor in the climate) and that in practical terms, as Glenn describes, the disagreement between the experts is much higher., one can only deduce that this is yet a further obfuscation on top of the one that says no experts agree with Perry (which is easily proven wrong), and the obfuscation that says more experts disagree then agree with him (which is ultimately meaningless).

It isn't unreasonable for folks to finally believe that the real consensus consists in an effort obfuscate for political purposes, and simply move along, comfortable in the knowledge that some experts support their view as well.

Ocean 09-11-2011 08:29 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 225398)
I completely fail to understand how our world of knowledge is becoming too complex and vast for people to grasp. Why "is becoming"? By virtually any measure I can think of, the world of Europe between the two wars was more complex than ours: ethnically, culturally, economically, scientifically, psychologically, politically, and artistically. It's a bizarre trope of our time that everything is so much more complex now. It is not. Things have always been complex. In fact, part of what makes our era so culturally impoverished is the urge to oversimplify everything.

I'm referring to knowledge, not the world.

harkin 09-11-2011 09:35 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by carkrueger (Post 225373)
Paul Krugman Is The Problem!!!

‘An Occasion for Shame": NY Times‘ Paul Krugman Attacks ’Fake Heroes’ Bush, Giuliani in Stunning 9/11 Blog Post

He didn't have the guts to open a comment thread on the NYT's website - he's a bully and a coward.

Krugman actually serves a good purpose inadvertantly. He is so spectacularly wrong so often that at a town hall meeting I saw on TV earlier this year the lefty shill asking a question quoted him, name first, and before she could even finish the entire room was engulfed in laughter. By practicing Alinsky tactics, he actually suffers what Alinsky advocated - ridicule at the mention of his name. I have a feeling that he shut his comments off to avoid mass-ridicule.

This is a guy who smears conservatives for using violent rhetoric, yet encourages his readers to burn Joe Lieberman in effigy, who said around eight years ago that what the US economy needed was a housing bubble, a guy who said that a senator was from a different universe, one where they didn't read textbooks, until it was pointed out to him the senator was echoing exactly what Krugman himself said in a textbook he wrote with his wife (Krugman tried to dig out from under this but the list of websites posting his quotes made him drop it).

Think about it, this is a guy who uses the anniversary of 9/11 to trash Bush and Giuliani, yet is silent on Obama extending almost all of their war on terror policies. You can't get any more empty-headed. He claims that it's the United States that should feel shame for 9/11, not the terrorists or the perverse religion that said they would party with virgins post-murder spree.

bjkeefe 09-11-2011 09:47 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 225404)
Krugman ...is a guy who smears conservatives for using violent rhetoric, yet encourages his readers to burn Joe Lieberman in effigy ...

It never fails go amaze me for how long and how energetically wingnuts regurgitate their lies.

Imagine if the energy feeding this mindless hate was put to some good purpose.

ohreally 09-11-2011 09:50 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 225401)
I'm referring to knowledge, not the world.

I know you are. But the knowledge is no more complex than the world around us, and that world has gotten simpler, not more complex. As for the knowledge itself, if I want information about anything I can get much better, uptodate, easy-to-read exposes on any topic than my grandparents could. My world of knowledge is much less complex than theirs: it comes to me all predigested. Ultimately I have to decide who I trust. But so did my grandparents. I think there's a certain amount of self-flattery in saying "oh, our world of knowledge is so complex and sophisticated." And now on so many levels, the intellectual discussion has become so simplistic in ways that would have seemed ridiculous a hundred years ago.

badhatharry 09-11-2011 10:16 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Quoting harkin: This is a guy who smears conservatives for using violent rhetoric, yet encourages his readers to burn Joe Lieberman in effigy,
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 225405)
It never fails go amaze me for how long and how energetically wingnuts regurgitate their lies.

oh brother

badhatharry 09-11-2011 10:30 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 225393)
At some point kindness and diplomacy gives way to drawing lines and calling on lies and ignorance that can be extremely detrimental to our future if this trend continues. We can't just sit and take the most fantastic claims seriously and with respect while we see that kind of trend becoming more generalized. And then the willfully ignorant complain about smugness or arrogance. I would favor that people be educated on all kinds of topics, at least the basic facts of them.

yes, people, especially children need to be educated.

Ocean 09-11-2011 10:33 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 225407)

The article by Paul Krugman starts:

Quote:

A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.


But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.
Do you understand that the first paragraph is written so that the message to progressives is something like this: Continue arguing what you want to argue and doing what you want to do, such as X, Y and Z, but don't delay passing the health care bill. Krugman isn't advocating that they do X, Y or Z. He's just saying that they shouldn't allow those things to prevent them from supporting health care.

So, yes, saying that he's inciting others to hang Lieberman in effigy is a misinterpretation, driven by bad faith or limited reading comprehension.

Ocean 09-11-2011 10:41 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 225408)
yes, people, especially children need to be educated.

No, that fear tactic takes place mostly in Sunday schools where they brainwash kids to believe in the rupture, or in Republican discourse making people believe that Democrats are communists or that all Muslims are terrorists.

Appropriate education is based on facts and evidence, not on willful ignorance or fear.

It would be nice if you were able to say something meaningful instead of posting nasty right wing propaganda.

graz 09-11-2011 10:43 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 225409)
The article by Paul Krugman starts:

Do you understand that the first paragraph is written so that the message to progressives is something like this: Continue arguing what you want to argue and doing what you want to do, such as X, Y and Z, but don't delay passing the health care bill. Krugman isn't advocating that they do X, Y or Z. He's just saying that they shouldn't allow those things to prevent them from supporting health care.

So, yes, saying that he's inciting others to hang Lieberman in effigy is a misinterpretation, driven by A) bad faith or B) limited reading comprehension.

I vote for letter #2.

Ocean 09-11-2011 11:47 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 225406)
I know you are. But the knowledge is no more complex than the world around us, and that world has gotten simpler, not more complex. As for the knowledge itself, if I want information about anything I can get much better, uptodate, easy-to-read exposes on any topic than my grandparents could. My world of knowledge is much less complex than theirs: it comes to me all predigested. Ultimately I have to decide who I trust. But so did my grandparents. I think there's a certain amount of self-flattery in saying "oh, our world of knowledge is so complex and sophisticated." And now on so many levels, the intellectual discussion has become so simplistic in ways that would have seemed ridiculous a hundred years ago.

Yes and no.

Yes, it's much easier to access information. But, no, the amount and complexity of information has also increased, some of which is beyond the grasp of the average person with average education. There was a time when understanding physics was reasonably easy. How easy is for the average person to have a good understanding of relativity or quantum physics?

Yes, we have to decide who we trust. And let's hope we do it rationally.

Yes, the intellectual discussion seems to have become simplistic at many levels. Isn't that in part because a significant portion of the discussion has reverted to discussing basics that are being challenged by the willful ignorant? Or perhaps because so many people have fallen outside the window of ability to participate in the conversation meaningfully that they continue to parrot meaninglessly?

Anyhow, I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing and it's getting late.

TwinSwords 09-11-2011 11:59 PM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 225411)
I vote for letter #2.

Huh. It is a mystery, isn't it? It would not surprise me if it was #2.

But it could very well be #1 -- proud, willful ignorance that comes from the part of the wingnut mind that shapes its worldview by a desire to "piss off liberals." Wingnuts will take a position they don't even believe just to spite the people they hate.

The wingnuts are so driven by their hatred of the left that their rejection of what we believe -- whatever we believe -- is the key factor in shaping their own worldview.

TwinSwords 09-12-2011 12:01 AM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 225409)
Do you understand that the first paragraph is written so that ...

She couldn't care less. The truth is of absolutely no importance to her.

TwinSwords 09-12-2011 12:06 AM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/2...attheyhear.jpg

Hal Morris 09-12-2011 12:19 AM

Re: Glenn; The ultimate dirty elitist?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 225387)
It sounds like the Canadians aren't waiting for peak oil.

You say that Hansen's predictions don't relate to his expertise? I thought he was talking about the amount of carbon which would be released into the atmosphere if the tar sands are exploited to their potential. This seems well within his area of expertise.

So the question becomes "What is the potential for oil production of the tar sands?" - a question for a geologist, assuming anyone can really answer it. If you know that, probably anyone with a general science background willing to look some things up and do some computation could calculate the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere. Hansen's expertise, for those willing to grant it, would be in what happens subsequently after the carbon is released.

graz 09-12-2011 12:41 AM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 225413)
Huh. It is a mystery, isn't it? It would not surprise me if it was #2.

But it could very well be #1 -- proud, willful ignorance that comes from the part of the wingnut mind that shapes its worldview by a desire to "piss off liberals." Wingnuts will take a position they don't even believe just to spite the people they hate.

The wingnuts are so driven by their hatred of the left that their rejection of what we believe -- whatever we believe -- is the key factor in shaping their own worldview.

I change my vote to both!

Sulla the Dictator 09-12-2011 12:52 AM

Re: God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
This fixation on Krugman's effigy remarks seems to be pretty off topic to his politicized op ed today.

Maybe the snarks can comment on that instead of offering up protective prayers to Gaia against "wing nuts"?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.