|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2009 : 19:43:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
We might one day travel to space via privately designed, owned and operated spacecraft.
|
We will not have done it without years of government funded research preceding it.
|
I'm inclined to agree. In spite of individual genius designers such as Burt Rutan and their own accomplishments, most tech oriented corporations aren't going to jump into space exploration without a profit and if they ever do it would be on the tails of government funded research and actual hands-on exploration.
|
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 12:03:53 [Permalink]
|
I think the point is not that this is the wrong place to discuss economics, but this is the wrong place to discuss nonsense.
He says that Federal spending is jumping "(mostly because of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid)".
Even if that were true, so what? Working people pay into those things because the system leaves some of us out, for whatever reason. There, but for the grace of chance go I. No one gets rich off Social Security, and a lot of people work and get Social Security because those programs are not funded well enough. Large as they are, they are nonexistent compared to France.
The reason we are overspending is because of corporate welfare, lack of a living wage, and shipping our jobs to lower paying countries. See http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm for where your income tax dollars go. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 12:27:23 [Permalink]
|
Good grief. Shermer seems to be saying that since the poor resent the rich, and the rich resent the lazy poor, that the resentment is all equal, and so it's okay for society to be that way. He neglects, however, the fact that the rich are generally powerful and organized enough to do something with their resentment, like defund welfare programs.
If the two groups resenting each other had power equity, such that one couldn't punish the other very well or for long, then yeah, who cares? So long as the power imbalance exists, however, it's important to keep the rich in check because their solution for the lazy poor will also punish the unlucky poor and the born poor. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 13:20:44 [Permalink]
|
In case no one's brought it up yet, Robert Carroll of The Skeptic's Dictionary has a pretty scathing review of Shermer's book The Mind of the Market. It begins with this condemning statement:| I'll begin by letting the reader know where I stand: after reading Mind of the Market (MOM), I trust Michael Shermer on economics as much as I trust Jenny McCarthy on autism. |
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/13/2009 13:22:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 13:46:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
It begins with this condemning statement:| I'll begin by letting the reader know where I stand: after reading Mind of the Market (MOM), I trust Michael Shermer on economics as much as I trust Jenny McCarthy on autism. |
|
Oh, that's gonna leave a mark. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 14:30:21 [Permalink]
|
The other reviews Carroll links to are also pretty brutal.
A side question comes up in reading his review, though. He says, many times, that certain things aren't necessarily moral obligations, like this:It might be prudent to avoid harming others unless harmed, but that doesn't make it obligatory. But Carroll never does say how anything could be a moral obligation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 14:58:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
A side question comes up in reading his review, though. He says, many times, that certain things aren't necessarily moral obligations, like this:It might be prudent to avoid harming others unless harmed, but that doesn't make it obligatory. But Carroll never does say how anything could be a moral obligation.
|
I'm guessing Carroll would argue that there can't be moral obligations, which doesn't affect his argument, but does throw a wrench into the arguments of Libertarians like Shermer who argue that such obligations ensure corporations and the rich don't screw the rest of us over for profit.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 15:30:04 [Permalink]
|
I think Carroll sums up Shermer's naivety in this passage:| He [Shermer] says that "at our core we are moral beings with a deep and intuitive sense about what is right and wrong, and that most of the time most people in most circumstances choose to do the right thing." |
But this ignores another truth: people weigh the price of acting morally against their own personal benefit. Yes, we humans possess an innate sense of fairness. But that's usually directed at others when we feel we have been treated unfairly. Rarely do individuals act fairly when they stand to gain substantially themselves. It's the "how much money would it take you to do X?" game. For instance, would you kill someone even if you knew you would never be caught or punished? Most people would probably answer "no," since there is something inside of us that recoils at the idea of murder even without the consequence of punishment. Now, consider the question "would you kill someone even if you knew you would never be caught or punished if you stood to make $20 million?" Suddenly most people aren't sure what they might do in those circumstances. The amount of personal gain is so great that it substantially changes the moral equation.
People are moral when the stakes are low--when the "personal cost" of morality is affordable. But if the stakes are high enough, morality usually goes right out the window. One need only look at human morality in times of war (when the stakes are life and death) to see that people are more than capable of truly immoral behavior. So Shermer is correct that we have an innate sense of morality. Where he errs is in trusting this moral sense to override competing desires to maximize personal gain the majority of the time. History does not support this view. And the idea that markets don't need to be regulated because of this innate morality is pure fantasy. When enough money is on the table, you can be assured that a sizable percentage of people are going to take it by any means necessary, morality be damned.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/13/2009 15:39:19 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 16:25:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Dave W.
A side question comes up in reading his review, though. He says, many times, that certain things aren't necessarily moral obligations, like this:It might be prudent to avoid harming others unless harmed, but that doesn't make it obligatory. But Carroll never does say how anything could be a moral obligation.
|
I'm guessing Carroll would argue that there can't be moral obligations, which doesn't affect his argument, but does throw a wrench into the arguments of Libertarians like Shermer who argue that such obligations ensure corporations and the rich don't screw the rest of us over for profit. |
One could argue forever about whether such supposed natural moral obligations are built into capitalism, but even a quick look at the events of the last couple of years shows that most corporations will do anything to anyone, so long as even a short-term profit is in the offing. They'll even destroy themselves in the pursuit of immediate profit. Morality simply don't come into it in any real way.
Our present recession is in-our-faces evidence that strong and enforced regulations are required, not only to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful, but to protect the rich from their own short-term greed.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 17:07:48 [Permalink]
|
So, here we have one of the top two skeptics in the country, at least as far as the public face of skepticism goes, just spouting horseshit. What the hell? But what I think is worse is where he is doing it. Honestly, it's no secret that Penn & Teller and Shermer and several other prominent skeptics are libertarians. (By no means most of them.) But it seems to me that only Shermer is pushing it on the skeptical community, the way he is. He knows that the most negative comments he gets are when he posts shit like he just did on skepticblog. So why does he persist?
I once told Dave that I hope there isn't a subject that I have so much passion for that I go off the deep end with it and lose my ability to reason. This isn't just about Shermer's libertarianism. We can argue about his opinion in that area. Whatever. To me the worst he is doing is his proselytizing. He is absolutely campaigning for his personal political views in an embarrassing attempt to win over the skeptical community, and presenting those views as though they have some kind of scientific merit.
Shermer has gone off the deep end...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 17:23:00 [Permalink]
|
Just to embarrass you, I replied to your comment...  |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 18:08:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I once told Dave that I hope there isn't a subject that I have so much passion for that I go off the deep end with it and lose my ability to reason. This isn't just about Shermer's libertarianism. We can argue about his opinion in that area. Whatever. To me the worst he is doing is his proselytizing. He is absolutely campaigning for his personal political views in an embarrassing attempt to win over the skeptical community, and presenting those views as though they have some kind of scientific merit. |
I actually wouldn't care that Shermer is "proselytizing" if I thought his ideas had merit. Outspoken atheists often get accused of "proselytizing" or of being "just like fundamentalists" too. But I don't think there's anything wrong with being an advocate for good ideas, and I don't think championing a worthy cause is something to be ashamed of. The reason fundamentalists are an embarrassment is because their views are wrong, not because they seek to disseminate them. Similarly, Shermer's crime is not in strongly advocating a political philosophy to the skeptical community, but in failing to apply skepticism and critical thinking to his political philosophy. His ideas have been absolutely shredded by the skeptical community at large, but I've yet to see Shermer adequately address these numerous critiques. If his ideas did have scientific merit that would be one thing, but they don't. So Shermer's failure in this case is that not that he's proselytizing, it's that he's stopped being a skeptic.
| Shermer has gone off the deep end... |
Aye. It's always a shame when one of our own loses it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 18:16:58 [Permalink]
|
| I have repeatedly made the case that he never was... |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2009 : 18:43:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I actually wouldn't care that Shermer is "proselytizing" if I thought his ideas had merit...Similarly, Shermer's crime is not in strongly advocating a political philosophy to the skeptical community, but in failing to apply skepticism and critical thinking to his political philosophy.
|
As you know, I am against anyone advocating a default political ideology for the skeptical community. I should have said; "...proselytizing for a political party or ideology that all skeptics should embrace."
And yes, I do think that is the worst thing he is doing. Also, I doubt that you can truly advocate for any political ideology without leaving so much critical thinking behind, no matter how much is applied, that the best you will ever get is an opinion. As a group, (skeptics), what we should campaign against are those political idea's that are demonstrably false or weekly supported, and that are of concern to skeptics.
I'm willing to argue for liberalism, but I am not willing to push it as though it's so well supported that every skeptic should be a liberal. I'd like it if they were, but it ain't gonna happen. In terms of the kind of "scientific skepticism" that we promote, our politics folder is the least skeptical folder on this forum. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Why Michael Shermer is a Libertarian
