I have long held that our present American Civil War (no less than that) is a three-sided affair. There is a quiet majority who still believe in things like pragmatic problem-solving, grand ambition, chipping away at old-bad habits while pursuing technological progress and – above all – courteously negotiating in good faith, instead of raging at our neighbors and our institutions, portraying them as monsters. This majority is presently beleaguered from all sides. Both Left and Right seem bent on crushing any remnant of the old optimistic, can-do spirit that built the nation and an amazing civilization.
All right, I admit that one of those two wings happens to be, at-present, far worse, more dangerous and profoundly more insane; but the other is no less poisonous in its underlying cynicism and suspicion of can-do enthusiasm.
Hence, what are we to do… those of us who think that:
(1) past efforts at self-improvement actually worked… and hence...
(2) more efforts at vigorous self-improvement should be high on our agenda?*
Hence, what are we to do… those of us who think that:
(1) past efforts at self-improvement actually worked… and hence...
(2) more efforts at vigorous self-improvement should be high on our agenda?*
The solution? To keep on plugging away! To persevere. Continue fighting to make our kids and their kids better than us, the way our parents and grandparents tried to do that -- and succeeded -- with us.
By proudly endeavoring to make the next generation both more ethical and vastly more scientifically/technological powerful – because only that combination can save the world.
By proudly endeavoring to make the next generation both more ethical and vastly more scientifically/technological powerful – because only that combination can save the world.
With me so far? Then let’s look for examples of our side in this civil war… or rather, our center… fighting back:
== A Manufacturing Renaissance? ==
“We’ve launched an all-hands-on-deck effort between our brightest academic minds, some of our boldest business leaders and our most dedicated public servants from science and technology agencies, all with one big goal, and that is a renaissance of American manufacturing,” President Obama said in remarks at the National Robotics Engineering Center at Carnegie Mellon University, a high-technology facility adjacent to a rusted factory symbolic of the area’s industrial past, Mr. Obama said federal agencies would invest more than $500 million to seed the initiative. Of that, $70 million is to go to robotics projects.
I was already aboard the effort to spark a new Manufacturing renaissance. A year ago, I was asked by the Metals Service Center Institute to create a comic book set 20 years from now that discusses the many reasons for US industrial decline... and how it might come back. Have a look at Tinkerers!
Quoted near the end: "One of the biggest challenges we face as a Nation is the decline in our ability to make things." - Dr. Regina Dugan, Director of DARPA. (DARPA is investing $1 billion in alternative design and production methods, enabling new generations of modular, networked, "seamless," and democratized manufacturing. In our pragmatic civilization, we need to remember that individuals and self-made teams are the long-term solution creators… but our government, the one we own, will be key to empowering, stimulating, playing a vital role.
== LET’S START BY ENCOURAGING KIDS TO PROGRAM ==
Speaking of empowering… Computerworld Magazine examined the strange disappearance of any useful programming language from modern personal computers, a topic that I launched with my much-discussed Salon article “Why Johnny Can’t Code.” It’s a subject of great importance, since without a reliable common “lingua franca” language that all students share, teachers and textbooks cannot do what was routine in the 1980s… assign simple, twelve-line programs to their kids, introducing them to the very “basic” notions. Like the fact that human-written symbols propel math-fueled lines of code that command every single pixel that they ever see!
People arguing over “which introductory language is best (e.g. Python vs Perl etc) miss the entire point and are wasting everybody’s time. The lack of any shared, simple language on ALL computers has crippled the ability of educators to reach the millions of kids who own computers right now. Kids who could be computer tinkerers, the way their parents were. Any shared language… any at all… would empower educators and students, so long as using it involves as few steps as possible. Anything that requires downloading, instructions or procedure-teaching will lose 95% of students.
My original article sure stirred up a storm! And now I am pleased to say this problem was solved – somewhat - by a person it inspired. Drop by QuiteBasic – a complete turn-key BASIC system that a kid can start typing-into the instant the window opens, showing both graphics and results sections, as well. Totally intuitive. Suddenly, via the web, every BASIC assignment in all those old textbooks can come alive!
A perfect solution? Heck no! By all means start a grass-roots campaign to persuade Apple and Microsoft etc to agree on a turnkey educational, compact and simple introductory language to offer on all PCs! Make it Python, Perl, whatever. Just do it. But till then, at least quitebasic offers a glimpse of that old can-do spirit.
== And while we’re talking progress toward the Singularity ==
The Technological Singularity – a quasi mythical apotheosis that some foresee in our near, or very-near, future. A transition when our skill, knowledge and immense computing power increase exponentially to enable true Artificial Intelligence and humans are transformed into... well... godlike beings. Can we even begin to imagine what life would look like after this?
Listen to Ray Kurzweil speak on The Coming Singularity -- and how the exponential growth of information technology will revolutionize human civilization… and your future.
Listen to Ray Kurzweil speak on The Coming Singularity -- and how the exponential growth of information technology will revolutionize human civilization… and your future.
What is the Technological Singularity? An excellent article by Joel Falconer, on The Next Web, cites futurist Ray Kurzweil on the coming Singularity, along with my warning about iffy far-range forecasting: "How can models created within an earlier, cruder system, properly simulate & predict the behavior of a later, vastly more complex system?"
If you want an even broader perspective, try my noted introduction to the whole topic: “Singularities and Nightmares: Extremes of Optimism and Pessimism about the Human Future.” For there are dangers along the way, one being Renunciation -- as a fraction of the population rejects science and technology as a means toward progress.
How about portrayals in fiction? I mean, other than clichés about mega-AI gone berserk, trying to flatten us? Now, from a writer's perspective, the Singularity presents a problem. One can write stories leading up to the Singularity, about problems like rebellious AI, or about heroic techies paving the way to bright horizons. But how do you write a tale set AFTER the singularity has happened – the good version – and we’ve all become gods? Heh. Never dare me! That's the topic of my novella, Stones of Significance.
Ah, but not all techies think the Singularity will be cool. One chilling scenario: serving our new machine Overlords: Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak, speculates that humans may become pets for our new robot overlords: "We're already creating the superior beings, I think we lost the battle to the machines long ago. We're going to become the pets, the dogs of the house."
== Singularity related miscellany! ==
Creeply… but probably helpful… new teaching tool! Do you want to play the violin, but can't be bothered to learn how? Then strap on this electric finger stimulator called PossessedHand that makes your fingers move with no input from your own brain. Developed by scientists at Tokyo University in conjunction with Sony, hand consists of a pair of wrist bands that deliver mild electrical stimuli directly to the muscles that control your fingers, something normally done by your own brain.
Or do Cyborgs already walk among us? "Cyborg is your grandma with a hearing aid, her replacement hip, and anyone who runs around with one of those Bluetooth in-ear headsets," says Kosta Grammatis, an enginner with the EyeBorg Project.
And how do we distinguish Mind vs. Machine? In The Atlantic, Brian Christian describes his experience participating in the annual Turing Test, given each year by the AI community, which confers the Loebner Prize on the winner. A panel of judges poses questions to unseen answerers – one computer, one human, and attempts to discern which is which, in essence looking for the Most Human Computer. Christian, however, won the Most Human Human award.
In The Significance of Watson, Ray Kurzweil discusses the significance of IBM's Watson computer -- and how this relates to the Turing Test.
Hive Mind: Mimicking the collective behavior of ants and bees is one approach to modeling artificial intelligence. Groups of ants are good at solving problems, i.e. finding the shortest route to a food source. Computer algorithms based upon this type of swarm intelligence have proved useful, particularly in solving logistics problems.
Finally, how would we begin to define a universal intelligence -- and how to apply it to humans, animals, machines or even extraterrestrials we may encounter?
== How to Manage a Flood of Information ==
Kevin Kelly discusses his book: What Technology Wants “We are moving from being people of the book….to people of the screen.” These screens will track your eye movements on the screen, noting where you focus your attention, and adapting to you. Our books will soon be looking back at us.
All books will be linked together, with hyper-links of the sort I envisioned in my novel, Earth. Reading will be more of a shared, communal activity. The shift will continue toward accessing rather than owning information, as we live ever more in a flux of real-time streaming data.
Google looks to your previous queries (and the clicks that follow) and refines its search results accordingly...
But while Sunstein worried that citizens would deliberately use technology to over-customize what they read, Pariser, the board president of the political advocacy group MoveOn.org, worries that technology companies are already silently doing this for us. As a result, he writes, “personalization filters serve up a kind of invisible autopropaganda, indoctrinating us with our own ideas, amplifying our desire for things that are familiar and leaving us oblivious to the dangers lurking in the dark territory of the unknown.”..."
Very entertaining and informative... and the last five minutes are scarier n’ shit! Jesse Schell’s mind-blowing talk on the future of games (from DICE 2010)... describing how game design invades the real world... is just astounding. Especially the creepy/inspiring worrisome last five minutes. Someone turn this into a sci fi story! (Actually, some eerily parallel things were already in my new novel, EXISTENCE. You’ll see! In 2012.)
Enough to keep you busy a while? Hey, I am finally finishing a great Big Brin Book… a novel more sprawling and ambitious than EARTH … entitles EXISTENCE. Back to work.
--------------
* Ponder my statement about "self-improvement" in the second paragraph. The Left despises phrase #1 and the Right hates #2. Think about it. That fact encapsulates our problem. Especially for those of us who believe that #1 leads directly to #2.
--------------
* Ponder my statement about "self-improvement" in the second paragraph. The Left despises phrase #1 and the Right hates #2. Think about it. That fact encapsulates our problem. Especially for those of us who believe that #1 leads directly to #2.
228 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 228 of 228If you use government force to stop someone from picking a pocket or breaking a leg, you support the use of government force.
Do you believe in liberty or freedom or not? Your argument is not consistent with your own beliefs.
Once we acknowledge that we do support the use of force, we then need to determine where it is appropriate. (i.e. When one person takes advantage of another.) Everything past this point is just a matter of what society considers appropriate behavior or inappropriate.
Fundamentals: Government exists to accomplish tasks and prevent behavior society considers unacceptable.
Regulations are a tool that is an extension of preventing unacceptable behavior. As with any tool, it can be misused.
As I was trying to point out with Rewinn, if democracy doesn't support a regulation it should be removed. There is likely more common ground between what you consider acceptable and what Rewinn does than you would believe. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to have a conversation on the subject without miscommunications.
You are caught up in an idea that has value, but is not a silver bullet. Encouraging self growth is important and needs a seat at the table.
rewinn -
No, I've personally never tested for e-coli my self (no personal lab), nor would I try. E-coli only is dangerous for the very young and the elderly; those with weaker immune systems. I don't worry about it personal.
But this is the system used by the 'government' test at the source. But there are so many point along the chain to your table it becomes very inefficient to test everything. It takes time to grow the cultures and run the tests, so the food still has the possibility of reaching your table. So government testing just gives you a false sinces of security and someone to blaim if you get sic.
If they get a hit the throw the whole source crop or what ever under the bus. Still no guaranty something might slip buy.
If you believe a better way than testing is focuse on sanitation and cleanliness of the facilities that hold and transfer our food. This can be done at the state and local level much more efficiently than at the federal level. If not even more efficiently by a none profit 'Consumer Reports' type group.
So if the FDA our government could test everything 100% of the time and could ensure 0% failure rate. What are you doing in your own home to not contaminate your food yourself?
Josh
Jacob -
But my job is not to come to the middle, but be the balancing for against the other side.
If I believe something to be wrong, how is accepting a little bit of it any better than just giving in entirely?
Ever hear of the Overton Window.
Josh
P.S. rewinn can you google: e-coli salmonella home testing kit. I just did it was interesting?
I never bothered to look myself e-coli wast something I worried about.
I'm pretty sure if I wanted to test for e-coli I could now.
:-)
Josh
A failure to step outside favored "isms" looks to be grease on the skids for us, perhaps sports fans are trying to apply football metaphors to the real world?
"nolitase", cerebral laxative for ideologues?
Tim -
Your confusing non-agreement with closed mindedness (?spelling). I'm open to hear what ever they have to say I don't have to agree or support what they believe.
If I had stuck my fingers in my ears and said nany nany boo boo I can't hear you then I would be closed minded.
Me & rewinn have been having a civil discussion. He thinks I'm misguide & I him. We haven't resorted to name calling, so it's been a good day for discourse.
Josh
Jacob said:
"If you use government force to stop someone from picking a pocket or breaking a leg, you support the use of government force."
No, I believe in the Secound Amendment, it's my job to protect my life and property. The governments job is to mediate disputes and give judgments in the court system. That's why we are judged by "A Jury of One's Peers," not a judge. We become a country of regulations and not due process.
:-(
Josh
Also, there is a difference between voluntarily relinquishing some of my authority to the government to mediate disputes and getting it to make me behave as others wish.
Yes my statement was put in black and white terms.
Josh
Joshkie, I don't think I'm confused, but you are catching some pent-up frustration, You're entitled to your point of view, I think it's a valid one, but it's only a small part of the Compound Failure. It's high time for politicians to start finding ways to work together, to be United States citizens first, Democrats & Republicans second, think about who's minding the store, while they defend their patron's tax breaks.
So, if unions give up colective bargaining, I'll give up corporate taxes brakes. Deal?
Sigh....,
Josh
@Joshkie
I could point out the obvious by saying that you've entirely missed my point, the point of the NYtimes article, and so, the point of why Rand is wrong, but it would be so much more productive to explain WHY you're wrong.
You're wrong, put simply, because you decided to look at things like a chimp, and decided to very much not look at things like an evolutionary scientist.
Evolution doesn't work with the individual; it's a process that affects groups. Individuals don't evolve; groups evolve.
You missed the point because you haven't stopped thinking about it on the individual level and moved to thinking about the group.
On its surface, altruism may include caring for the weak and burdensome, but that has nothing to do with why we evolved to do it, biologically and socioculturally (it's merely a fortunate side effect). It also has NOTHING to do with reproduction. Chimps reproduce just fine, and tigers reproduce better than we do by far. If altruism in our evolutionary history had followed your caricature, we wouldn't exist, because making everyone reproduce, including the less fit, helps no one. That is NOT what altruism is about; again, care for the weak is but a side effect (and it doesn't eliminate natural selection, but I wont' get into that right now).
What altruism is strictly about in terms of evolution is putting aside one's own interests and caring for the group. Altrustic just individuals aren't people who feel "guilty" and care for those who can't take care of themselves; that isn't nearly the whole of what altruism is about.
It's about Steve Irwin risking his life to promote the cause of conservation. It's about the journalists who risked and often gave their lives for hard working conditions and modest pay to report the attrocities in Sierra Leone, Darfur, Rwanda, Iraq, and numerous other places. It's about the public school teacher who works for meager pay to teach the next generation of world leaders. It's about William Wilberforce dedicating his life, even in poor health, to the abolition of slavery. It's about the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, and it's about Betty Williams enduring angry protestors hurling rocks and bottles in 1976 Ireland to march for peace. It's about Galileo, who was locked away by The Chuch for refusing to renounce the truth about the solar system, and the early advocates of the theory of evolution who felt the pressure of decades of persecution by religious institutions for furthering science. Certainly you've heard of John Scopes? It's even about the world's climate scientists, who endure life-long persecution and accusations in the pursuit of bringing important information to global society (the 21st century equivalent of Galileo).
These are the people in recent history who have continued the trend of turning our species from a roving band of apes to a global civilization that walks on the moon, and when mammals start walking on the moon, they're doing something right.
If you think of altruism as nothing but seeing someone who's inherently disadvantaged and exerting time and effort to care for them, then yes, it might be hard to understand why it would be an evolutionary advantage, because that only looks at the individual.
If you consider the notion of reciprocity, cooperate ventures, and above all else, the willingness to spend one's life, not advancing one's self, but advancing one's society, then it's easy to see how both biological evolution and sociocultural evolution has found altruistic GROUPS (not individuals) to be stronger than groups dictated purely by selfishness. THAT is why it is we who build societies that put men on the moon, and chimps do not.
"No, I believe in the Secound Amendment, it's my job to protect my life and property. The governments job is to mediate disputes and give judgments in the court system. That's why we are judged by "A Jury of One's Peers," not a judge. We become a country of regulations and not due process.
"
So you're saying that the US should adopt a system of throwing out ALL of our police forces and simply having everyone own a gun, so that people simply run around, having at each other every time one wants to infringe on another?
Do I actually have to spell out where that would go?
Let's just assume for a second that you have your gun, and your fine, and individual potential criminals don't bother you, because you have your gun. Then organized crime comes along and a gang of armed people decides to commit a crime against you, because they can, because they've figured out that without any police force, they're now the ones who can control everything.
How is your one gun helping you now? Who knows, maybe you decided to use P90s, and you're trying some silly dual-wield scheme like you're in a bad first person shooter. NOW do you feel safe about defending yourself from the 29 thugs outside who outgun you, have more resources than you do, and want your stuff?
I'm betting you don't, so now what do you do? Well, at that point, if you want any hope of still protecting yourself, then you'll join your own gang. We'll call it a militia just to make it sound slightly less petty.
So now you've reduced the United States to decentralized militias, having at each other while vying for control, each looking to establish its own vision of "order" (no doubt in its favor).
Basically, you've managed to turn the United States into modern day Afghanistan. Congratulations.
Oh, but wait! You don't have to do all that, because we have "the courts", right?
Tell me, Joshkie, since you've just abolished all of the forces that maintain law and order, exactly who enforces the decrees of the courts?
"No, I've personally never tested for e-coli my self (no personal lab), nor would I try. E-coli only is dangerous for the very young and the elderly; those with weaker immune systems. I don't worry about it personal"
Okay, so how about hexavalent chromium? How about MTBE? How about methyl mercury?
These things have all found their ways into water supplies, cleaned up and kept out of the majority of them by none other than state and federal government.
Can you find me a home test kit for hexavalent chromium? Even if you can, where are going to get your water from even if you do find all the major sources are polluted? Let's say you live out in the southwest and the entire Colorado River has become contaminated. Can you please explain how a home test kit will help you or the millions of others there at that point?
"So if the FDA our government could test everything 100% of the time and could ensure 0% failure rate. What are you doing in your own home to not contaminate your food yourself?"
So you're saying we can have government, or personal responsibility, but that we can't have both?
That's a false dichotomy.
I fully rely on the FDA to substantially REDUCE the number of harmful substances I have to worry about, which then makes my job of personal responsibility about ten times easier, allowing me to focus my life on other things besides constant paranoia over food and the drugs I buy.
Boy, it sure is nice to have the best of both worlds, isn't' it? ;)
Corey 8:39 -
Who's not thinking in evolutionary terms? Evolution doesn't care about who walked on the moon.
Evolution is all about the genes and what speices passes the on in the most efficient way possible.
Does altruism strengthen us moraly mabe mabe not. My point was from an evolutionary point of view all it does is allow a larger crosssection of the population to pass on their genes.
From an evolutionary point of view ants and insects are more efficient at passing on their genes.
:-)
Josh
P.S. "...the willingness to spend one's life, not advancing one's self, but advancing one's society..."
Advancing one's society has nothing to do with evolution.
Corey 9:15 -
I never said government has no place just that I don't beleive in top down government with central planning.
Every thing in my opinion should start with the family, and local groups (Churchs, local busniss and local charities).
Then if their are disputes between these groups it gets settled by the local municipalities. (Which has a limmted local police forces & court system to deal with local matters.)
If there are disputes between municipalities then it gets settled at the state level. (A state level marshal services, dealing with crime issues over multiple municapalities, and a state level court system to deal with things that cant be delt with at th local level.)
If things cant be delt with at the state level or is between multiple states then, and anly then, does the Feds get involved. (The Feds job is to protect the staes from other governments with a standing army and have a court system to deal with things that could not be handled at a lower level.)
In this model the power starts with the poeple and ends with limited involvement of Feds.
How do we pay for this I beleive in a flat tax of 13% @ the local, 7% @ the state and 5% @ Fedral. We would need a balneced budget amendment where we could only spend what is brought in.
I hope that clears up my position.
To the water isues and things like that: It is up to the local communities to manage themselve. If they are doing a poor job that effects, it's up to the surrounding municapalities to inforce their interests. If not at that level it goes up the chain.
;-)
Josh
Corey @ 9:21 -
I said:
"So if the FDA our government could test everything 100% of the time and could ensure 0% failure rate. What are you doing in your own home to not contaminate your food yourself?"
You said:
"So you're saying we can have government, or personal responsibility, but that we can't have both?"
That was my point too. You can't just rely on the government. You need to take some responsibility too.
To your question about the other things I can't test for myself, I have a % stage water filter that takes care of most of that.
:-)
Josh
P.S. Thats my last post for awhile gott other things to do.
Take Care everyone,
Josh
"Who's not thinking in evolutionary terms? Evolution doesn't care about who walked on the moon."
You're not thinking in evolutionary terms, and not grasping my point.
We dominated the planet, took advantage of its resources, developed science and technology, all because we had an evolutionary advantage over the other intelligent species that share a close relation with us.
The fact that we have a civilization that puts people on the moon is nothing but evidence that we are, in fact, more evolved.
"Advancing one's society has nothing to do with evolution."
Wrong.
Humans operate in societies, particularly agrarian society.
Evolution isn't just a biological phenomenon, but a sociological phenomenon. Societies evolve just like species do, and sociocultural evolution works in much the same way biological evolution does (societies that are fit are successful, and come to define how humans live).
When people contribute to society, they make it more fit, and in turn, make our species as a whole more fit. We evolved to use society as a tool to advance ourselves, and so, advancing society makes us a more successful species.
How could you EVER suggest that advancing society has nothing to do evolution?
"Does altruism strengthen us moraly mabe mabe not. My point was from an evolutionary point of view all it does is allow a larger crosssection of the population to pass on their genes."
No, what it does is enable cooperative ventures and the protection of the group and the promotion of its interests by individuals, which makes the group stronger. And as it is groups that evolve, this gives groups and evolutionary advantage, because they are more likely to survive that groups who's members will not further the group's interest at their own expense.
"From an evolutionary point of view ants and insects are more efficient at passing on their genes."
It's funny that you should mention insects as an evolutionarily successful class, because insects are altruistic.
Groups of insects survive well because individual insects are, in many cases, more than willing to give their lives to protect the colony, making the group more likely to survive and thrive.
Thank you for making my point for me.
"I never said government has no place just that I don't beleive in top down government with central planning."
Good, because the US doesn't HAVE a top-down government.
State and local governments manage their own affairs until it is felt that an issue arises that they cannot deal with.
For instance, individual states were not ending segregation in the 1960s, so the US government passed the Civil Rights as of 1964, under the Instate Commerce Clause.
So your generalized statement is a statement of how we already run.
So tell me, what specific function of federal government would you take from it? What EVIDENCE do you offer that state and local government would do and equal or better job at it?
"To your question about the other things I can't test for myself, I have a % stage water filter that takes care of most of that."
If I had a dollar for every agent that the filter wouldn't protect your from, I'd be a very rich man.
What's more, the issues of contaminated fresh water go far beyond what comes out of your tap.
Those contaminants inflict damage on the overall environment, making animals we harvest for food (such as fish) more toxic, and harming biodiversity.
That's why it's good that laws are in place to make sure that stuff doesn't end up in your water.
No you are sadly mistaken, try doing any thing at the local level with out running the gauntlet of Fedral bureaucracy. EPA, FDA, Fedral Banking Regs and many more.
The Feds have rules & regs they forces the states to follow. The states then forces the local municipalities to follow.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulations.htm
What I out lined is how the Founders set up our government which we no longer follow.
Take a look at the history of government agencies and departments with the dates they started through out Government.
:-)
Josh
Joshkie, every federal law out there exists precisely because state and local laws were in adequate.
Did you know that this nation started without a centralized government of note?
Prior to 1887, we had exactly the kind of government you suggest, under the Articles of Confederation.
Do you want to know how that worked out for us? Just read up on the causes of Shay's Rebellion.
So, again, rather than making vague statements about how our government supposedly should run, based on no evidence whatsoever, what you should do is cite specific issues that you think should be taken out of the hands of the federal government, and offer evidence that state and local governments would do better, like I asked before.
If you can't even do that, then do you see why it might be difficult for us to take suggestions of MASS changes to our present system seriously? Right now, our system works. It's problemed, but it works. If you want to suggest a radically different want of doing things, then you need to offer serious evidence that it's going to work better than our present system, and that evidence should be tangible, not a pile of personal theories on how things *should* work out.
Excuse me, 1787; the US Constitution was ratified in 1787 (obviously).
and don't bring up vague arguments of how our "Founding Fathers" intended government to run.
I'm sick and tired of the worn out "classical liberal" argument.
Can you show me where the Founding Fathers included the power for Congress to create the US Air Force? Of course you can't.
Do you know why? Because in 1787, no on conceived of the need, just like no one conceived of the need for the 14th Amendment (see Baron v Baltimore), or anti-trust laws, or environmental protections.
We live in a world today that's different than the world of 1787. It's a different reality with different issues, and different solutions that are needed. These people lived a long time ago, and they weren't infallible even back then, so let's stop basing our arguments on the fallacy of raising a bunch of dead guys to the status of all-knowing deities.
"The Founding Fathers intended us to [bla bla bla]" isn't a real argument. It's a red herring, a bad copout.
If you have a suggestion for how to improve the nation, then show real, tangible evidence that it's something to be taken seriously if you want it taken seriously.
If you want to be taken seriously, then what you don't do is say "oh, hey, a bunch of guys from 240 years ago thought it was a great idea, and they must be right!".
“But my job is not to come to the middle, but be the balancing for against the other side. If I believe something to be wrong, how is accepting a little bit of it any better than just giving in entirely? Ever hear of the Overton Window.”
Yes, I call it bad faith politics/discussion. Its a deliberate manipulation to acquire more. There is no ‘other side.’ There is normally value in everyone’s goals. We should be seeing if we can incorporate them. Sometimes you can’t due to cost or excessive complexity. If you are only going to present an extreme, you are not going to use your mind to seek out the good aspects of alternative views. You need to do that to contribute.
I don’t see much point in talking to you otherwise.
====
For others...
I don't recommend engaging Josh at all except on this mode of thought. According to it, it is disadvantageous to him to acknowledge any point/truth you might have. If you add to how easily the brain shortcuts to disagreement, it will be almost impossible to have a real conversation with him. We need to clues to see where our ideas have traction and where our different experiences hinder conversation. The Overton Window directly discourages this. It is a tool for takers preying upon the weak. Until he abandons it, he is not fit for conversation.
@Jacob - exactly right. When @Joshkie argues that if he doesn't believe in something, then it is wrong for him to consider contrary evidence, he is not using a rational mode of thought, but a "religious" mode of belief in the worst sense (...my apologies to those who use religion in the best sense to find spiritual and moral truths; in my experience successful spirituality ALWAYS include a willingness to accept truth whereever it may be found ...). One "tell" is the invention of "facts" about the harmlessness of e coli; this shows that the responses are not founded in factual content but in the feeling of making a response,akin to the process whereby you get the same pleasure chanting "Gladly The Cross I'd Bear" as you do chanting "Gladly, The Cross-Eyed Bear".
It's a waste of time arguing with a fanatic since the ground rules are that nothing you say will change their mind; you are simply providing them with entertainment. And, frankly, the denialist methodology was done much better in Monty Python's Argument Clinic
This episode is, however, directly on point with OP's advocacy of pragmatic problem solving instead of ideology. Pragmatic solutions always involve a willingness to consider the other guy's ideas; after all, maybe he knows something you don't.
My old catechism teacher often used to say "We should never fear new truths, because all truth is God's truth"; of course she also belongs to a religion that official endorses evolution.
Joshkie, on the other hand, seems to hold to an outlook on political issues that DOES NOT endorse empirical evidence of any kind.
He has as much admitted that he will not consider any evidence that contradicts his established point of view.
That isn't broadly religion; it's specifically religious fundamentalism.
Just a simple google of "programming kids" brought up Scratch:
http://scratch.mit.edu/
Programming for kids.
Got it from this article:
http://mindshift.kqed.org/2011/05/5-tools-to-introduce-programming-to-kids/
And of course, there's lego mindstorms, which I'm going to get for my daughter when she's old enough.
Her name is Ada, btw... :)
Post a Comment