Thanks for that link JCH. It helps illustrate my point quite well when, for example, obama claims that government agencies will fully comply with foia requests, which they do with fully redacted documents.
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Barnes
↧
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by ordvic
One word was a name the other was a title. The two words were not commonly used until after Constantine where the name and the title became a first and last name.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Barnes
I too like Fiorina, notwithstanding the anchor baby issue (and,gee, I hope no one is offended by that term!). A Fiorina/Carson ticket would, imo, be tough to beat while providing great entertainment value watching libs try to figure out how to continue the racist/war on women narrative. Trump/Cruz could also be interesting, but a lot less electable.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by jim2
Funny, Barnes :) Fitting for this post of Judy’s. In fact, this blog is a bastion of free speech compared to public schools and universities. And social media I’m guessing, but that is just a guess.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by scotts4sf
Back to climate stuff. El Nino dumped major rain in LA and San Diego CA but not much in N CA and the Sierra mountain snowpack. El Nino is starting in mid Sep re Nov and we are hoping to break the drought with at least an above average rain year. Could be much bigger. How to predict six months in advance? Easier in 100 years cause no one can check the results against observations. The other problem is teasing out natural variations from man made precipitation increases. Looking to see the magnitude of the recent 4 year drought vs historical, i.e. 1977, vs estimates of middle ages mega droughts in 900 to 1200 BC. Suggested data sources would be appreciated.
Scott
↧
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by climatereason
Scott
Ironically al gore wrote a good book on previous climatic changes and I think the Californian historic droughts were included.
Here is a book review of his tome, ‘earth in the balance’ from 1992 where again there seemed to have been a substantial Californian drought.
http://lawschool.unm.edu/nrj/volumes/33/1/19_musgrave_earth.pdf
I have read through the US monthly weather reviews which commenced around 1870 and again they are notable for the frequent references to severe drought.
One of the reasons for the drought is the enormous pressure on available water resources. I was astounded to see the phenomenal population increase from 1870 to today. It is unsustainable bearing in mind the certainty that, according to history, California will frequently have a severe shortfall in rain and snow.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by richardswarthout
Tony
I still like Carson but think Carly would be a more effective president. She’s tough and straight to the point; America’s Margaret Thatcher. The debate starts at 8:00 PM EST; 1:00 AM your time. It is on CNN; will try to find a link for you.
Look for her latest ad at carlyforamerica.com
Richard
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by climatereason
Richard
The BBC just did a profile of Trump on the 10 o clock news. They mentioned the 3 hour debate was just about to begin. Hope you have lots of beer and popcorn laid on. If you find a link I will watch some of it, I can’t promise three hours though.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by omanuel
Professor Curry,
The broad-based Heterodox Academy is ideally suited to examine each news release to see if it might be the missing piece of the Climategate puzzle:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/16/cia-confirmed-oswald-contacted-cubans-soviets-befo/
↧
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by richardswarthout
Tony
Do you get CNN International?
Richard
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by climatereason
Richatd
No
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by stevepostrel
I welcome President Obama’s lip service toward open debate on campus and plan to deploy it with vigor in future debates with would-be censors. But it should be pointed out that it his myrmidons in the Department of Education’s Office of Equal Opportunity who are largely responsible for the problem:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/06/campus-censorship-is-the-feds-fault.html
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Science or Fiction
If I understand your position correctly it can, at partly, be described along the following lines:
If a theory is not based on proper laws, it should be regarded as a so-called special science. Then you propose that climate science belongs among these special sciences. Further, you seem to indicate that these special sciences are characterized by underdetermination. If this is your position I feel tempted to accept your position. From the link you provided, and urged me to read, a theory characterized by underdetermination has two possible characteristics:
“But neither Duhem nor Quine was careful to systematically distinguish a number of fundamentally distinct lines of thinking about underdetermination that may be discerned in their works. Perhaps the most important division is between what we might call holist and contrastive forms of underdetermination.
Holist underdetermination … arises whenever our inability to test hypotheses in isolation leaves us underdetermined in our response to a failed prediction or some other piece of disconfirming evidence. That is, because hypotheses have empirical implications or consequences only when conjoined with other hypotheses and/or background beliefs about the world, a failed prediction or falsified empirical consequence typically leaves open to us the possibility of blaming and abandoning one of these background beliefs and/or ‘auxiliary’ hypotheses rather than the hypothesis we set out to test in the first place.
But contrastive underdetermination … involves the quite different possibility that for any body of evidence confirming a theory, there might well be other theories that are also well confirmed by that very same body of evidence.»
“in some recently influential discussions of science it has become commonplace for scholars in a wide variety of academic disciplines to make casual appeal to claims of underdetermination (especially of the holist variety) to support the idea that something besides evidence must step in to do the further work of determining beliefs and/or changes of belief in scientific contexts: perhaps most prominent among these are adherents of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) movement and some feminist science critics who have argued that it is typically the sociopolitical interests and/or pursuit of power and influence by scientists themselves which play a crucial and even decisive role in determining which beliefs are actually abandoned or retained in response to conflicting evidence.”
ref: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/philosophy.pdf
(This is the position I deduced from your statements above, and the link you provided, please bear with me if I am putting up a straw man – that is not my intention.)
I think it is worth noting that the possibilities, which failed prediction leaves open, are exactly the stratagems to evade falsification which Karl Popper warned about, and ruled out, from his empirical method:
“it is still impossible, for various reasons, that any theoretical system should ever be conclusively falsified. For it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible»
Also note that the challenge related to contrastive underdetermination is clearly recognized by Karl Popper:
“But through a finite number of points we can always draw an unlimited number of curves of the most diverse form. Since therefore the law is not uniquely determined by the observations, inductive logic is confronted with the problem of deciding which curve, among all these possible curves, is to be chosen.”
I think it is fair to say that while Karl Popper provided a method to increase knowledge, the works of Duhem and Quine on underdetermination is about unknowledge.
Regarding climate science, I have a few other possible descriptions which also fits observations about climate science – however on a tentative basis – I am not able to resist the temptation to accept the description of climate science as a so-called special science.
↧
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by jim2
Really, water management would probably suffice. But the leftest way is to find some group to blame, not solving the physical problem, but the political one.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by jim2
Tony, if you have a good internet connection, the debate is streamed live on the CNN web site.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Michael
Maybe affirmative action for conservatives?…..oh wait, NAS has said that affirmative action is evil.
How did they put it, it rewards the “the social pathologies of young blacks”….
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Joshua
Ensuring diversity based on race, ethnicity, class, religion = bad.
Ensuring diversity based on political ideology = bad (if libz are in the minority).
Ensuring diversity based on political ideology when conz are in the minority = long overdue.
↧
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Wagathon
Given a 97% consensus of opinion concerning the validity of AGW theory, belief that all global warming may be natural — e.g., it’s the sun, stupid — is the new heterodoxy and yet not one thing has changed: there still has been no global warming for nearly 2 decades (going on 3 decades depending on how it’s calculated and the dataset used). How unorthodox!
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Wagathon
What I now see in Obama’s quote is not an entreaty to engage in a free and open discussion of the facts before making up their minds but rather a challenge to Leftists to take advantage of every opportunity to exercise their dogmatism when talking to anyone with whom they disagree.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Peter Lang
Vaughan Pratt,
I just saw this comment by Leo Smith on Energy Policy and thought of you the ex Stanford professor, who has retired to a life of trolling and posting juvenile, childish comments on subjects he hasn’t got a clue about (such as energy economics).
I have many friends of the Left persuasion, and the key feature they all share is that to them political action is about expressing a desire to do the right thing: to address fundamental problems with society as they see it – to achieve a social justice or an environmental ideal. They support and will vote for anyone who expresses these desires clearly, whether or not the actual proposed solutions are sane or out of cloud cuckoo land
In this mindset, wars haven’t been eliminated, or poverty eradicated, and renewable energy doesn’t work, not because these are impractical ideals, but because we haven’t spent enough of (someone else’s?) money on them.
Additionally they all, to a man (or woman) see public money as someone else’s money The rich must be taxed, the corporations must be taxed..and, despite often being fairly affluent, they do not consider that the money so spent is in fact their money.
If you challenge them they will say ‘we have to start somewhere’.
If you want to challenge the Left, I think that you need to understand this mindset – I call it being trapped in an emotional narrative, where self worth and a clear conscience are equated with supporting a Cause, even if the cause is arrant nonsense.
I dont have a solution, but I do think that is where the problem really lies. Not with energy policy, but with a culture that panders to low self esteem, is jealous of success, and compassionate towards failure, emphasises hatred and resentment against those who strive to be better, and paints the world as one of conflict where the only way losers will get to win, is by voting in some deeply unpleasant people who will on their behalf, behead the dragons and tuck them up in bed at night with a glass of warm milk.
Because what counts is not achievement, but intention.
…
As I often say, your heart in the right place, your head in the clouds, and your hand in someone else’s pocket…
“Corbyn in La La Land” http://euanmearns.com/corbyn-in-la-la-land/
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
