Now Grace at MPP is usually a bit far Left of Center, however I am not used to her being so cynical.
MPP GOP Translation
Here is the actual GOP survey. Thoughts?
And here is another one...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(144)
-
▼
March
(14)
- Education: Funding and Prejudice
- Is Pregnancy a Disease?
- FMEA, CAGW and 97%
- Who Stole the American Dream?
- No Subsidies for Big Oil
- MN Tax Cuts
- Cheaper Cleaner Energy
- MN Education Updates
- Climate Change Revisited
- GOP Issues / Belief Survey
- PolyMet Mining Regulatory Hurdles: Good or Bad
- Wages vs Buying Behavior
- Minimum Wage Increase is Not Necessary
- Why Tax Payers Subsidize Oversized Homes?
-
▼
March
(14)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
62 comments:
That's not a survey, it's a list of Republican Party talking points. And I don't think it represents any sort of explanation of why people are Republicans, it's just a list of things Republicans commonly say, many of which are also said by Democrats.
--Hiram
Of course they are surveys. The party is asking it's members what within the GOP platform matters most to them.
What I found interesting about Grace's comments is the very "negative intent" she assigns to the GOP's platform.
Though Conservatives may imply that Liberals are naive, bleeding hearts, socialistic, tree huggers, etc, rarely if ever do I hear Conservatives imply that the Liberal's intent is to actively / knowingly cause harm.
I mean some of Grace's definitions:
- Republicans hate gay people.
- A small weak government will do the bidding of 1% and not get in the way of corporate profits.
- Republicans are going to cut school funding until there is no more schooling. A smart electorate is not in the best interests of the 1%.
- No business or rich person should be held accountable by any regulation.
I hope she is just having some fun with this, however the views seem pretty close to what the MPP writers say often.
I guess my point is that her comments seem to be "hate speech". Something that I thought most of us are against.
By the way, I did find this one a little humorous / realistic.
"Protect fetal life at all costs. After birth, it is ok for the child to starve, be homeless and not receive health care."
Please, could you offer us a translation of the translation? With other languages, that often results in something like the game of "telephone," where the final result bears no resemblance to the original. Heck, even a single translation from, say, English to Chinese often results in hilarity, confusion, or offense. I think that is what happened here; that liberals simply don't communicate in the same language as rational English-speakers.
I think of this more like the man (mars) woman (venus) communication issue.
Two people speaking the same language and hearing totally different things. Yet each person is absolutely certain they are communicating and interpreting the situation correctly. While being way off.
I am participating in a related comment string on this post. MinnPost Facts Overrated
Sources:
Of course MJ took the Liberal view... Maybe going to the sources may be more informative.
Opening Political Mind
Nyhan Reifler
Does anyone disagree that people are very emotionally vested in their beliefs and paradigms, and that this can bias their perception of reality?
I know it may be hard to believe, but this is true for Liberals, Conservatives and Moderates. Where we came from and what we experienced influence strongly what we see, how we interpret it and how we judge if it is fact or fabrication.
Cognitive Dissonance, Scotomas and Paradigms
I agree that these exist. I disagree with irrational stereotypes of Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives.
Cognitive Dissonance
Scotomas
In fact, this is why I started G2A. I took a class from the Pacific Institute called the Investment in Excellence. That was where I learned the importance of self awareness and questioning what one believes.
My 2 favorite books along these lines are by the Arbinger Institute.
The Anatomy of Peace
Leadership and Self Deception
I will agree that we are far more likely to accept as factual those things consistent with our worldview, and to count as suspicious the things that are not. But I would ask upon what other basis we could possibly make such assessments? For example, if somebody tells me the world is getting warmer and I experience a winter like this one, how much credibility do I assign to a statement so completely inconsistent with my actual, real-world experience? If I hear Obama tell me that I can keep my insurance plan and my insurance plan is canceled, do I give him credit for telling me the truth or may I properly conclude that he was lying?
I also claim that there is a very big difference between liberals and conservatives with regard to cognitive dissonance. I have always said that liberals have the amazing ability to hold two completely contradictory thoughts in their mind simultaneously, with no evident ill effect. For example, almost every poll shows 30 to 40% of people approving of Obamacare or of Obama's handling of the economy, or the job Obama is doing as president. It doesn't matter what the news says about any of it, these numbers remain above 30%. The only possible /rational/ explanation is that these folks simply aren't paying attention and don't know the facts the rest of us think are obvious. The non-rational explanation is that they know these facts but refuse to allow them to conflict with what they want the reality to be.
Put it this way: liberals have a very rich fantasy life.
"I will agree that we are far more likely to accept as factual those things consistent with our worldview, and to count as suspicious the things that are not. But I would ask upon what other basis we could possibly make such assessments?"
Shouldn't we insist that our worldviews be consistent with facts and be discarded if it isn't? What other basis could there possibly be for assessing a world view?
"if somebody tells me the world is getting warmer and I experience a winter like this one, how much credibility do I assign to a statement so completely inconsistent with my actual, real-world experience?"
Is the experience of weather a world experience? Did you spend time in the record breaking heat of the current Austrailian summer? If not, is your personal, local experience at all consistent with claims about weather from a global perspective?
--Hiram
"I have always said that liberals have the amazing ability to hold two completely contradictory thoughts in their mind simultaneously,"
This is a characteristic of absolutist thinking that tends to view differences as contradictions. It's not that liberals hold contradictory views, it's that have far less of a tendency to regard differing views as a contradiction. This plays out in certain ways. This posting, for example, took an extremely isolated piece of data, weather conditions in Minnesota, and extrapolated it, without apparent difficulty, into an observation about global warming. Merits aside, this strikes the liberal mind as an astonishing piece of problematic logic. A isolated fact about the weather in Minnesota, or the weather in Austrailia, tells us not quite nothing, but pretty close to next to nothing about global climate conditions. It wold take vastly more data to justify conclusions far more limited in scope than the one conservatives seem very comfortable in making. This is a problem for conservative thinking, but what's even worse is that conservatives don't even perceive it as a problem.
--Hiram
When one sees the world in black and white terms, the potential for contradiction is everywhere. What people who see the world in those terms see a contradiction, what they fail to see is that the contradiction is a projection inherent in their own view. That's why they need a world view to define what they regard as what an acceptable fact might be, because too often facts conflict with, or at the very least aren't consonant with any particular world view.
--Hiram
The problems of absolutist thinking is why absolutists so often complain that those who differ from them are hypocrites, engaging in double standards (as if there were only two) or straw man thinking.
--Hiram
"A isolated fact about the weather in Minnesota, or the weather in Austrailia, tells us not quite nothing, but pretty close to next to nothing about global climate condition."
Yes, it would be like asserting that 2008 was a good year for the stock market because 10 of top 20 days in the history of the Dow Jones occurred in that year.
You are correct Hiram.
Their behavior is consistent.
They do consistently want to support American workers with someone else's money...
The question is not what one's worldview is, but how one forms it, and it must be from a combination of facts and experience and logic. New facts are always, or should be, tested against that experience.
Yes, "weather is not climate," but that is a meaningless fact when you're chipping 4 inches of solid "global warming" out of your driveway. Besides, if Australia is warm in the summer, that doesn't prove global warming, either. Look at the global temperature records that say no significant global warming for 15 years. That's a fact backed up by local experience, and it is contrary to the claims of the global warming alarmists. If knowing true from false makes me an "absolutist" then so be it.
"I will agree that we are far more likely to accept as factual those things consistent with our worldview, and to count as suspicious the things that are not. But I would ask upon what other basis we could possibly make such assessments?"
So if facts don't determine world view, what does? I think the answer to this question helps explain the role that authority plays in conservative thinking, both their own, and the way they project their thought processes on others. For conservatives, so often the definitive answer to why something is true is because some authority said it's true. The authority can be Ronald Reagan, or Frederich Hayek, sometimes it's a religious figure. But the outcome is the same, once the figure is cited, often with some completely uncontexted quote, the issue is decided and closed, and only facts which fit those ideas need be considered. What often amuses me is how that authoritarian approach is imputed to others. Conservatives often cite to me, liberals as authorities in the expectation that I will find authoritarian arguments as convincing as they do. Somebody will come up with an old FDR quote from 70 years ago, assuming that FDR is some equivalent to Ronald Reagan whose every word, is treated by conservatives as gospel, something I find very strange indeed.
--Hiram
Facts and experience, and presumably logic that ties them together, determine worldview, or should.
That is why I cannot believe your statement about conservative thinking; it is simply denied by my experience. It is liberals that I most often hear repeating the same language on a given subject, as if they had all received the same "talking points memo." They don't cite an authority, though, just the talking point. They become completely unglued (yes, I'm generalizing) when confronted by a contrary viewpoint, fact, logic or even a simple question like "why?" Conservatives, when they do quote somebody like, say, Rush Limbaugh, do so because "he agrees with me," rather than the other way around. Or someone said it so very well.
Here's an even stranger twist. Have you often heard Republicans quoting Barack Obama on the subject of deficits? Why do Democrats not quote and accept him as the authority, for example that "raising the debt ceiling is unpatriotic"? http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/03/republicans-resurface-obama-of-four-years-ago-raising-the-debt-is-unpatriotic-video/
I don't think liberals "quote authority" very often because in their own mind they are always right, and if you disagree you are simply stupid or hateful, or both. Just look at the MPP post that started this conversation. The other reason they don't quote authority is because the truth is whatever they say it is at the moment, regardless of what they said 4 years ago, or last week. They're not hypocrites, though, because to do that you have to act contrary to your fixed principles.
Obama Debt Video
Personally I think the Liberal and Conservative views both seem to deny the reality of human nature.
Conservatives say we do not need regulations because people will use good common sense.
Liberals say if we give people enough money, they will do the right things with it and become self sufficient.
Centuries of experience show that neither is correct. Some percentage of the population will use poor judgement and try to personally profit at the cost of others. Be it a business that tries to save money by transferring costs to others. Or the free loader who wants to get money for nothing.
Allow me to disagree with you on both points. I think conservatives say we do not need unnecessary regulation (somewhat by definition), while liberals think everyone is "entitled" to free food, clothing, shelter, etc. because they feel generous with OPM.
The conservative view, that some things must be "illegal" because they permit harm of others for profit, is consistent with human nature, because SOME will do it, even unknowingly. Who knew, for example, that burning coal cleanly was going to make the planet uninhabitable by producing CO2?
But assuming that giving people free stuff with no strings attached and cutting them off if they work is going to make them want (let alone able and willing) to work and be self-sufficient, well, that not only defies human nature but simple logic as well.
Well, the global temperature records say "no warming", merely that the global temperature has remained well have above historical averages.
The presence of one bad winter doesn't negate the long term trend. In fact, 3 of the warmest winters in Minnesota history have occurred since 1997.
OK, so weather in Minnesota doesn't tell us anything about "global warming" either way, is that the point? We are talking about how one reconciles belief with fact. Does what one accepts as factual depend on worldview? I suspect it most certainly does, and should. Does that alter the fact? No, absolutely not.
So, if I believe that global warming is at best over-hyped, based on not only my personal observation (a fact) but on the fact that 48 of the 50 computer models used by the IPCC to predict global warming have now failed to predict the actual global temperature for several years, most of them significantly so, why should I accept someone's mis-characterization or condemnation, such as Grace's, of that belief?
Ok you win... The next post is on Global Warming: Fact or Fiction...
Leave a comment with your best links...
"It is liberals that I most often hear repeating the same language on a given subject, as if they had all received the same "talking points memo."
I don't deny that there are absolutist thinkers among liberals. But I wouldn't confuse the way we argue, with the way we think. When I am making a case for something, I make it as strongly as possible. But for the purposes of this discussion, I am not making a case for anything. I am just pointing out two facts; that it's hot in Austrailia, and cold in Minnesota. To advocates and purveyors of memorized talking points on either side of the issue, I ask, how do we decide which fact is more significant? Or even that if either fact is significant?
--Hiram
"Have you often heard Republicans quoting Barack Obama on the subject of deficits?"
Republicans often quote Barack Obama. The quotes that come specifically to mind are statements about health care, you can keep your doctor, that sort of thing, as if he were some authority on health care.
"Why do Democrats not quote and accept him as the authority, for example that "raising the debt ceiling is unpatriotic"? "
I don't quote him because on such matters because I don't think of him as an authority. Politicians are rarely authorities on anything besides being politicians. I didn't think so when he made the statement, and I don't think so now. When you don't think in authoritarian terms, the fact that people say conflicting things just isn't a problem. Authoritarians do, and what's amazing to me, is not so much that they do see a problem, is that they can't seem to grasp that other people don't. They don't understand that differences and changes, are not necessarily contradictions.
--Hiram
You notice how Republicans quote Barack Obama not because they are persuaded by his logic, or because they believe in what he says, but to undermine his authority? They see arguments in terms of authority, and that think of Obama himself as an authority, albeit a failed one. And they simply cannot comprehend that there are people who don't see the world in authoritarian terms, to whom such arguments are not convincing, and not even relevant.
This is not to say, there aren't actual authorities in the world. But with the rarest of exceptions, ambitious politicians are not among them.
--Hiram
" how do we decide which fact is more significant?"-- hiram
A very important point; thank you. We are more willing to accept facts that comply with our worldview, which is derived from what may be a vast array of other facts. It makes us naturally and appropriately skeptical of things which seem to conflict, and I cannot imagine that being improper thinking, unless the evidence against one's worldview becomes so strong that one SHOULD change it but does not. In this case, I cite the Minnesota winter because that agrees with all the other facts I know about this issue, and allow that, although local Minnesota "weather is not climate," it still agrees with my worldview, whereas that same argument allows me to dismiss the weather in Australia. A skeptic like me will happily use the global warming acolytes' own argument against them.
And Hiram, you are not the average liberal.
The point is in how you make the argument (just like with the bullying bill).
If you want to talk about what you say is inaccuracy in the climate change models, that's something we can have a legitimate debate over.
If you want to say that because we've had a severe winter in Minnesota this year that it means global warming is nonsense, you're free to argue that, but you're also going to get told that you're being irrational and stupid. Because such an argument is in fact irrational and stupid.
It's like a guy who told me during the post-9/11 stock market slide that he didn't see what the problem was because his stock portfolio of 2 stocks was doing just fine.
"... the fact that people say conflicting things just isn't a problem."
Ah. You have just proven conclusively that politicians are not people. When people say "conflicting things" they are lying on one end or the other, unless they openly admit that they have changed their minds, obtained new information, or something. When Obama said Bush was unpatriotic for deficit spending, and then proceeded to quadruple it, he wasn't having a change of worldview, just a change of words. Now, an absolutist like me would call that a flat-out lie for political purposes-- grandstanding-- and not a matter of fundamental belief or principle as we OUGHT to get from our politicians.
Sean, you're basically right, though I would never, I hope, call somebody here stupid. Irrational, maybe, if provoked. The question in my mind is why we tolerate, in this case, those claiming that Australian weather tells us something, but that Minnesota weather does not, any more than we tolerate the reverse? Why do we tolerate the irrational notion that the current cold, snowy weather proves "climate change" when the ONLY and exceedingly tenuous scientific evidence supports only WARMING? Why do we allow these folks to blame the California drought on climate change when the models predict that California will be WETTER?
If the liberals are going to attack conservatives for having certain beliefs or principles, shouldn't they be asked to offer proof that we are in error? Otherwise they're just being insulting. A religious belief is not subject, or shouldn't be, to such argumentation, but a political principle or the lack of them should be.
We are more willing to accept facts that comply with our worldview, which is derived from what may be a vast array of other facts.
But how do we decide what our world view is to be. We are told that facts play a role as does logic and experience. But what we experience is just one form of fact, and logic is a tool that helps understand facts but doesn't add to facts.
Facts are facts. Why shouldn't we be willing to accept all of them? Isn't the acceptance of some, and the rejection of others a form of self deception?
--Hiram
I cite the Minnesota winter because that agrees with all the other facts I know about this issue, and allow that, although local Minnesota "weather is not climate," it still agrees with my worldview, whereas that same argument allows me to dismiss the weather in Australia.
How is it that facts "agree"? How does the fact that it's cold in Minneapolis agree with the fact that it's warm in Austraiia? Can a stone agree with a rock?
--Hiram
"When people say "conflicting things" they are lying on one end or the other, unless they openly admit that they have changed their minds, obtained new information, or something."
And this is at the heart of it; the belief that conflicting things are contradictory things. Last night, I observed that it was dark outside. This morning I observed that it was light outside. Those statements are in conflict. Was I lying in either case? Does whether I was lying really depend on some open admission of something?
I think there are often consistencies if you search for them. Obama said self serving things in 2005 and is saying self serving things now. Consistency reigns. I don't think what serves a politician's narrow self interest at any given time should be determinative in any discussion about policy.
--Hiram
"I have always said that liberals have the amazing ability to hold two completely contradictory thoughts in their mind simultaneously, with no evident ill effect,"
The phrase "cognitive dissonance" always reminds me of Paul Wellstone. In his last campaign, I attended a small neighborhood gathering for Paul. Someone asked him what he thought of John Ashcroft, who had been a conservative senator, and was then AG. I am sure the questioner expected Paul to rail about his ideological opposite, but he didn't. Instead Paul said, "I feel this cognitive dissonance [he used that exact phrase]about John Ashcroft. You know how it is when you have a neighbor with whom you agree about absolutely nothing, but who is still a really good neighbor? That's how I feel about John Ashcroft." I remember that as if it were yesterday.
--Hiram
"The question in my mind is why we tolerate, in this case, those claiming that Australian weather tells us something, but that Minnesota weather does not, any more than we tolerate the reverse?
I am willing to tolerate lots of folks. I claim that the weather in Minneapolis and the weather in Austrailia do tell us something. I think they are roughly equal in significance. But I also think, to draw meaningful conclusions from weather data, one needs vastly more information.
--Hiram
Sean,
No more use of the stupid word... All of us are pretty smart, though we definitely think and believe differently.
Hiram,
I think politicians that vary their talking points significamtly for political gain are displaying a significant lack of character. And I wonder why people then vote for them.
In my disagreement with Paul over at MP, I noted that a self aware person should be able to make a list of pros and cons regarding any topic. No matter how strongly they feel about it.
Since rarely is anything all good or all bad, correct or incorrect, etc. And there always consequences of every action or inaction.
I think politicians who don't respond to changing circumstances or who learn from experience are a threat to the republic. But I do have to admit, I did think Mitt Romney's willingness to change what many of us think of as deeply important , in ways that curiously always seemed politically convenient, did suggest to me, a character flaw. I don't think tha about phony issues such as the debt ceiling. The republicans who routinely voted for debt ceiling increases in the Bush and who are nominally voting against them now aren't showing bad character, they are just grandstanding a bit as Obama wa. Not nice, maybe, but politics as usual.
--Hiram
If Obama was against deficit spending and increasing the national debt in 2008. And he said it was unpatriotic.
Then he definitely has adjusted his view... Or he was just misleading the people he was speaking to. Or he is very unpatriotic.
National Debt as % of GDP
I think some statements are being conflated here. Obama was critical of raising the debt ceiling, but that was at a time when President Bush was using debt to lower taxes in 2006. In a prospering economy which we had at that time, he thought that was a bad idea, something with which I agree. The comments about patriotism were made in the heat of the 2008 campaign, and weren't specifically related to the raising of the debt ceiling. The logic of that argument is based on the notion that maintaining high debt levels, much of which is held by foreigners, gives those foreigners undue influence over American policy, and hence is unpatriotic. I happen to disagree with both the premise and conclusion of that argument, but many people do believe that argument, and some of them have gone so far as to call President Obama unpatriotic or to use similar terms with respect to those policies.
--Hiram
I don't understand "making a list of pros and cons." I suppose most of us do something like that, subconsciously, but I think it is more a matter of "weighing the evidence" and "considering the facts" as our worldview considers their veracity. I don't think there are that many issues, either, in which there is a wide range of proper actions-- quite often it is "yes or no." There is a right answer and a wrong answer, and the compromise between the two is at best half-right. Whether we have enough facts to deduce that right answer is another matter, but you can suspect the right answer, in most cases, while you gather more information. But you should, at some point, decide one way or the other.
"weighing the evidence" and "considering the facts" as our worldview considers their veracity.
World view has nothing at all to dc with evidence, how it should be weighed or whether something is a fact. A rock is a rock no matter how I look at it, and it's weight is measured by a scale, not by how I feel about it.
--Hiram
An analysis of an issue would be very suspect if one only considers the pros, and ignores the cons of their personal position. And conversely emphasizes the cons, and ignores the pros of the opposing position.
I think that is the opposite of self awareness. (ie self deception) This is pretty typical, and the reason G2A exists.
Well, in terms of pros and cons, I think it's a good idea to look at the facts before forming an opinion. And it's always a good idea to look at facts independently of any opinions one has already formed.
I think of this in terms of Newtonian Mechanics. NM worked just fine for hundreds of years. For many purposes, it works just fine today, as evidenced that apples, when they come loose, always fall from trees. But as we learned more about the physics of the world, it became clear that NM did not work in all circumstances, that discrepancies in facts and evidence were appearing that NM could not account for, and it was necessary to develop additional theories, like the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to explain or at least account for what experimenters were seeing.
Was NM disproven as a world view? It depends on how you define it, but I have never thought it interesting to think so. What I choose to think instead, is that it has been limited, and supplemented but that it still tells me quite reliably not to sit under trees containing ripe apples if I don't wish to be hit on the head.
==Hiram
Excellent comment !!!
This concept should apply very well to the climate change discussion. My perspective is that there are a lot of facts regarding the climate, its history, changes, etc.
And a lot of theories regarding causation, possible consequences, etc. Yet both sides keep trying to claim these are theories are facts...
I wonder how much debate and strife there was regarding NM when he first introduced it... Or when the scientists first started to believe that the earth actually revolved around the sun.
I think you are confusing worldview-- a notion of how the world really works and opinion about how -- with how one processes information and determines the veracity of facts.
Worldview Definition
dictionary.search.yahoo.com
n. noun: The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
For example, if one's view of life is that we are to make our own way, we are going to look askance at the notion that the world somehow owes us all a living, because we don't believe that is a good way for humans to live, though we may concede it is human nature to be lazy if they can.
The debate over climate change can be viewed in a similar way, but shouldn't be. I have heard it said it is an act of hubris to assume that measly humans can destroy God's Creation of the Earth. That's a worldview talking. But the scientific evidence-- raw facts-- can prove it.
Oh, and wasn't Copernicus put to death for his scientific belief? Much the same as the climate zealots have proposed for "deniers"?
I thought it historically has been the change resistant status quo faction (ie deniers) that has put the paradigm challengers to death.
I mean there are many powerful and wealthy deniers that have a lot vested in the status quo beliefs.
As for God's creation: "The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it." I don't know if "work it and keep it" meant "use up it's natural resources and pollute it".
Self Deception occurs often because of one's worldview. And one's worldview is usually created by the accumulation of one's life experiences. And one's life experiences are usually generated by pure luck of when, where and to whom you were born and raised.
As we have discussed before... Would Jerry be the same Conservative, American Loving, Christian, Pro-business, Anti Big Govt, Anti-Welfare, etc person if he had been born and raised in say a:
- Taliban village
- Beijing China
- Small town in France
- Somalia
The denial that one's "worldview" could be incorrect, definitely can negatively impact the quality of their analysis.
The worldview has a lot of power to enable deception, since it skews the facts we notice or believe are relevant, it skews how we weight the facts, it skews our view of causation, etc.
One of the fascinating things here is how the burden of proof has been shifted from those who have a religious belief (in global warming) and urge a radical change, to those who simply believe there is insufficient scientific evidence to alter the status quo. And then the "prophets" suppress the skeptical viewpoint.
"The worldview has a lot of power to enable deception, since it skews the facts we notice or believe are relevant, it skews how we weight the facts, it skews our view of causation, etc."
So, are you suggesting that the sum total of our experience should have no weight in determining how we perceive reality, what is important or even what is "factual"?
My favorite saying from my Adult Psychology Professor is that "not all old people are wise".
And don't forget this favorite of mine...
A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's full! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "This is you," the master replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."
I have no problem being a skeptic regarding Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), that doesn't mean I believe they are wrong.
Of course if they are correct, a lot of humans are going to die. So I think it is worth keeping an open mind. And taking "low pain" steps to reduce the risks if possible.
What I am not going to do is say they are wrong. Personally I don't think there is enough data on either side of the argument to conclusively determine the potential impact and/or severity.
What in your worldview makes you SO resistant to their theories?
To answer your question, we really heavily on our worldview to make snap decisions regarding issues of low to average importance. That's efficient and great.
Now on something important, do you really want scientists ignoring facts and data because they don't align with that scientist's worldview? How confident would you be that they had arrived at the "facts and data" based reality or hypothesis?
I guess I am always evaluating and broadening my worldview... Hopefully some day I will be wise.
I'm sorry I brought worldview into the conversation, because I keep hearing it used as a way to deny the truth or even to contradict scientific fact. It's not. It's an idea, confirmed by experience, about how one finds Truth, and to some degree what some of those truths are, like the nature of human nature. Granted, science is not always conclusive, and the great leaps in science are generally made by skeptics, but it is the skeptics seeing both sides of the debate, not the True Believers (like the climate change crowd).
"What in your worldview makes you SO resistant to their theories?"
Because I have evaluated their theories and know as a matter of pure science they are pure kaka. It's not a matter of worldview. I know enough science and have looked at the case made by both sides enough to realize that the facts are on the side of the skeptics. I have read enough to recognize that the science in support of CAGW theory AT BEST proves that they are wrong about their policy prescription, and generally speaking does not offer anything approaching the level of proof required to suggest a radical change to our global economy.
"Of course if they are correct, a lot of humans are going to die."
And if we believe they are right, and act on it, a lot MORE humans are going to die. Again, estimates are that "preventing" CAGW will cost $70 Trillion, but that we could eliminate global poverty for about $7 Trillion.
That $70 trillion will be spent on jobs, technologies, etc... These actions grow economies and feed people. It isn't putting $70 Trillion into a hole somewhere?
Based on your own views, that $7 trillion would not eliminate world poverty... Unless you have decided welfare is a way to eliminate world poverty all of a sudden. Besides who is going to pay out the $7 trillion.
The $70 trillion (by the way, neither of those numbers are my estimates, they are "official," from the scientist/economists studying the problem) would be spent on technologies to control CO2 and to replace fossil fuels with vastly more expensive energy, thus keeping the poor, poor. It's atrocious public policy from a humanity standpoint. I don't know how the $7 trillion would be spent, but I am guessing it would be things like building coal-fired power plants so people could cook meals, refrigerate food, and have a place to work-- economic development. And a wealthier society would be better able to adapt to the effects of global warming if it WERE to occur, in essence a "preventive" measure in itself.
Here is the other thing most don't consider. To Prevent CAGW requires that its cause, magnitude and mechanism be fully known and understood, and the preventive action must be known to directly address those things. However, if we choose to adapt, it does not matter why, where, how much or even IF global warming occurs. Considering the unknowns that you yourself acknowledge, doesn't that sound like the wiser course, especially at the much lower cost?
Because I have evaluated their theories and know as a matter of pure science they are pure kaka
I just don't have confidence in the notions that because it's cold in the wintertime Minneapolis and hot in the summertime says much of anything about global climate change.
--Hiram
Exactly right. And asserting that a cold winter in the US is caused by Global Warming is even more of a stretch. At some point, a collection of weather readings IS climate-- local, regional or even global.
I just read a piece by a Warmist insisting that the Little Ice Age, previously denied by Warmist Michael Mann and others, was not really a global phenomenon but a matter of "regional" climate changes affecting mostly the Northern hemisphere.
Post a Comment