6 ms·

I'm highly educated (getting a PhD) and I disagree with the author on several points: 1. Climate change isn't very problematic. 2. The best way to counter mas

by javert 12y ago

I'm highly educated (getting a PhD) and I disagree with the author on several points: 1. Climate change isn't very problematic. 2. The best way to counter mass shootings is for more good people to have guns. 3. Obamacare will exacerbate the existing problems because the same cause gives the same result and we've been socializing our healthcare for decades. When self-proclaimed "intellectuals" treat issues that are not settled as dogma---you believe this, or you're stupid---it's no wonder Americans don't like intellectuals. In fact, it is to Americans' credit. That said, I even consider myself to be an intellectual---but I know I have to make rational arguments, not rely on dogma. In closing, presuasion via dogma just gives the anti-eveolution dummies in the South Carolina legislature more excuse not to listen to you when you actually do make a rational argument---e.g. about evolution.

pdonis 12y ago
Wish I could upvote this more. You nailed three of the examples that I found most questionable in the article. One thing I would add is that it's not just "self-proclaimed intellectuals" that treat issues that are not settled as dogma. Reputable scientists do it too, and that's a big reason why the average American doesn't trust scientists--not just politicians and the media, but actual scientists--to tell them the truth. I blogged about this some time back: http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/science-heal-thyself.html http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/science-heal-thyself.htm...
lukevdp 12y ago
The article didn't ask the question of whether people think climate change is problematic, it asked the question of whether people believe it is man made. The relevant quote is: "When it comes to global warming, only 33 per cent expressed a high degree of confidence that it is “man made,” something the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has declared is all but certain."
- javert 12y ago
  Indeed, that is slightly different question. But I have the same opinion of it. 1. We know that climate constantly changes over long periods---Big Ice Age, Little Ice Age, various warm periods with dinosaurs in them, etc. 2. Ask anybody who is old if they've seen perceptible climate change in their particular area. Yes, there's weather, but the climate in NYC, Phoenix, San Francisco, and N for any place, is the same that it was 100 years ago. We also know that any scientist who comes out against climate change is ostracized and that it's career suicide, and we've seen it happen. And we know that climate change is a dogma for the left. That is why I rely on direct perceptual evidence (per 1 and 2) instead of "what scientists say" on this. Actually, I always rely on perceptual evidence---but having nukes and airplanes backs up the physicists, having telescopes backs up the astronomers, and so on. I have no opinion on matters of science for which I have no access to perceptual information (e.g. string theory).
  - cam_l 12y ago
    "I always rely on perceptual evidence" so you are anti-intellectual.. or are you just trolling?
    - javert 12y ago
      To believe something without perceptual eveidence is to believe it blindly, just because somebody says so. We should not believe our intellectuals blindly, just because they say so. But that isn't an anti-intellectual stance. An anti-intellectual attitude would willfully dismiss what intellectuals say even when they do present perceptual evidence. As an aside, note that it is perceptual evidence that intellectuals rely on themselves to get their conclusions. This is particularly obvious in science (e.g. experimental method), but all actual knowledge is knowledge about reality and that means all actual knowledge is rooted in perceptual evidence.
      - javert 12y ago
        I like how somebody downvoted this, but didn't bother to correct the mistake the presumably believed they saw in my reasoning. That is anti-intellectualism.
  - peterashford 12y ago
    Well done for successfully confirming the article.
    - javert 12y ago
      So you can't make a rational argument about where I have made a mistake in my thinking? Yet you will condemn my thinking anyway? So you are willing to condemn based on your own prior beliefs, emotions or desires that you cannot actually validate? That is anti-intellectual. That is punishing virtue. That is failing to think and reason. That is what is destroying the world today.
      - peterashford 12y ago
jleyank 12y ago
Javert says (amongst other things): 3. Obamacare will exacerbate the existing problems because the same cause gives the same result and we've been socializing our healthcare for decades. I am aware of Medicare (65 years old and up as I recall), Medicaid (indigent) and I think Massachusetts has a state-based initiative that came from a Republican administration. Is this what you refer to as "socializing for decades"? If you have other examples of this, please cite...
- javert 12y ago
  Let me excerpt from an article (link below). "The Blues lobbied and convinced the states to treat them as nonprofit charity corporations rather than “for-profit” insurance companies, on the grounds that they were organized by doctors and hospitals. The Blues also requested and received tax-exempt status from the federal government. In return for their nonprofit status, the Blues agreed to offer health insurance on the basis of “community rating,” which meant that every customer would pay the same premium, regardless of age, sex, health history, lifestyle choices, or regional demographics.11 (This was occasionally modified to reflect different premiums for age and location and was then called “modified community rating.”)" As described in the article, the Blues then got legislation that made it so all companies had to bulk purchase healthcare for their employees from---you guessed it---the Blues. Of course other companies have learned how to get in on the gravy train in the meantime. So yeah, it's been (poorly) socialized medicine for decades and decades, and that was in fact the reason the Blues were granted special priviliges---in turn everyone got the same care, no matter what it cost, paid by their employer. Of course it was imperfect in that (1) it only socializes medicine for the employed and their families (imagine that!) and (2) it's ruined American healthcare already. [1] http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/winter-2007/moral-vs-universal-health-care/ http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/winter-2007/moral... By the way, doctors always bill using Medicare coding standards. The reason I can't talk to a doctor about my general health is because there is no Medicare code for that so he can't bill for it. I haven't seen a general practitioner in years.
  - makomk 12y ago
    So you're arguing that medicine is socialised in the US because it's provided by privately owner and run charities? Really?

by javert 12y ago

pdonis 12y ago

Wish I could upvote this more. You nailed three of the examples that I found most questionable in the article. One thing I would add is that it's not just "self-proclaimed intellectuals" that treat issues that are not settled as dogma. Reputable scientists do it too, and that's a big reason why the average American doesn't trust scientists--not just politicians and the media, but actual scientists--to tell them the truth. I blogged about this some time back: http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/science-heal-thyself.html http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/science-heal-thyself.htm...

lukevdp 12y ago

The article didn't ask the question of whether people think climate change is problematic, it asked the question of whether people believe it is man made. The relevant quote is: "When it comes to global warming, only 33 per cent expressed a high degree of confidence that it is “man made,” something the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has declared is all but certain."

javert 12y ago
Indeed, that is slightly different question. But I have the same opinion of it. 1. We know that climate constantly changes over long periods---Big Ice Age, Little Ice Age, various warm periods with dinosaurs in them, etc. 2. Ask anybody who is old if they've seen perceptible climate change in their particular area. Yes, there's weather, but the climate in NYC, Phoenix, San Francisco, and N for any place, is the same that it was 100 years ago. We also know that any scientist who comes out against climate change is ostracized and that it's career suicide, and we've seen it happen. And we know that climate change is a dogma for the left. That is why I rely on direct perceptual evidence (per 1 and 2) instead of "what scientists say" on this. Actually, I always rely on perceptual evidence---but having nukes and airplanes backs up the physicists, having telescopes backs up the astronomers, and so on. I have no opinion on matters of science for which I have no access to perceptual information (e.g. string theory).
- cam_l 12y ago
  "I always rely on perceptual evidence" so you are anti-intellectual.. or are you just trolling?
  - javert 12y ago
    To believe something without perceptual eveidence is to believe it blindly, just because somebody says so. We should not believe our intellectuals blindly, just because they say so. But that isn't an anti-intellectual stance. An anti-intellectual attitude would willfully dismiss what intellectuals say even when they do present perceptual evidence. As an aside, note that it is perceptual evidence that intellectuals rely on themselves to get their conclusions. This is particularly obvious in science (e.g. experimental method), but all actual knowledge is knowledge about reality and that means all actual knowledge is rooted in perceptual evidence.
    - javert 12y ago
      I like how somebody downvoted this, but didn't bother to correct the mistake the presumably believed they saw in my reasoning. That is anti-intellectualism.
- peterashford 12y ago
  Well done for successfully confirming the article.
  - javert 12y ago
    So you can't make a rational argument about where I have made a mistake in my thinking? Yet you will condemn my thinking anyway? So you are willing to condemn based on your own prior beliefs, emotions or desires that you cannot actually validate? That is anti-intellectual. That is punishing virtue. That is failing to think and reason. That is what is destroying the world today.
    - peterashford 12y ago

jleyank 12y ago

Javert says (amongst other things): 3. Obamacare will exacerbate the existing problems because the same cause gives the same result and we've been socializing our healthcare for decades. I am aware of Medicare (65 years old and up as I recall), Medicaid (indigent) and I think Massachusetts has a state-based initiative that came from a Republican administration. Is this what you refer to as "socializing for decades"? If you have other examples of this, please cite...

javert 12y ago
Let me excerpt from an article (link below). "The Blues lobbied and convinced the states to treat them as nonprofit charity corporations rather than “for-profit” insurance companies, on the grounds that they were organized by doctors and hospitals. The Blues also requested and received tax-exempt status from the federal government. In return for their nonprofit status, the Blues agreed to offer health insurance on the basis of “community rating,” which meant that every customer would pay the same premium, regardless of age, sex, health history, lifestyle choices, or regional demographics.11 (This was occasionally modified to reflect different premiums for age and location and was then called “modified community rating.”)" As described in the article, the Blues then got legislation that made it so all companies had to bulk purchase healthcare for their employees from---you guessed it---the Blues. Of course other companies have learned how to get in on the gravy train in the meantime. So yeah, it's been (poorly) socialized medicine for decades and decades, and that was in fact the reason the Blues were granted special priviliges---in turn everyone got the same care, no matter what it cost, paid by their employer. Of course it was imperfect in that (1) it only socializes medicine for the employed and their families (imagine that!) and (2) it's ruined American healthcare already. [1] http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/winter-2007/moral-vs-universal-health-care/ http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/winter-2007/moral... By the way, doctors always bill using Medicare coding standards. The reason I can't talk to a doctor about my general health is because there is no Medicare code for that so he can't bill for it. I haven't seen a general practitioner in years.
- makomk 12y ago
  So you're arguing that medicine is socialised in the US because it's provided by privately owner and run charities? Really?