Author Topic: Episode #657  (Read 5118 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Isranner

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #30 on: February 14, 2018, 07:50:59 PM »
Doubling down on Adams?  Nope, let's try quintupling down.  Yeah, that's the ticket!
I would say you are failing to successfully defend your position, but I still have no clue what your mission was to begin with.

I never wrestle with a pig.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #31 on: February 14, 2018, 07:59:56 PM »
It seems Isranner is engaged in Gish-galloping today.

Offline Isranner

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Episode #657 - Your Questions and E-mails: GMOs and Glyphosate
« Reply #32 on: February 14, 2018, 08:38:24 PM »
Quote from: Steven Novella
[1:08:56] "[A]nd if you want to favor farming that uses no pesticides then, frankly, you are a privileged elitist who doesn't care if half the world starves because there's absolutely no way we can feed the world without using pesticides, period."

The Kantian universalisability principle fallacy: If everyone became an MD like Steve, the world would starve to death. If everyone were consuming as much meat as Steve, there wouldn't be enough farming land to feed the world. If everyone lived in a single-family detached home with a large garden like Steve, the world would run out of arable land. If everyone installed solar panels on the roof of their home like Steve, the world would generate a lot of excess power when sunny and not enough during the night and the darker hours of the day or when cloudy. If everyone went on vacation to Hawaii like Steve, the world would ruin Hawaii.

The quote about Pence makes no sense. The big criticism of the rule has nothing to do with universalizability and everything to do with the fact that it is a comically absurd standard of behavior.
As for it being a "left-wing idea", since Kant was coming from a deontological point of view, wouldn't it be a right-wing idea?

I have the impression you're giving too much credit to "right-wing" conservatives:

[pp. 522/3–4] «The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks.

[…]
[pp. 523–4/4–5] Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

[…]
In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change.
[…]
[p. 526/6] Conservatives feel instinctively that it is new ideas more than anything else that cause change. But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas. Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.
[…]
Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism.»

— FA Hayek. Appendix: "Why I Am Not a Conservative." "The Constitution of Liberty." University of Chicago Press (1960, 2011) pp. 517–533
http://www.josephsons.org/stuff/HayekWhy.pdf
http://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html
http://cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/Friedrich%20August%20Hayek/Friedrich_Hayek%20-%20The_constitution_of_liberty.pdf
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20110902233319/fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11888
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #33 on: February 14, 2018, 09:03:38 PM »
Anyone who likes to Scott Adams for any purpose other than ridicule has already lost the argument in my mind.

Every time someone shoots the messenger a kitten dies:

«Attack the Messenger
When people realize their arguments are not rational, they attack the messenger on the other side. If you have been well-behaved in a debate, and you trigger an oversized personal attack, it means you won. When people have facts and reasons in their armory, they use them first. When they run out of rational arguments, they attack the messenger. That is the equivalent of throwing the gun at the monster after you run out of bullets.»


— Scott Adams. "How to Know You Won a Political Debate on the Internet." Scott Adams' Blog (May 15, 2017)
http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/05/15/how-to-know-you-won-a-political-debate-on-the

How to set up an unfalsifiable deepity -Me. 
#non-belief denialist

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: Episode #657 - Your Questions and E-mails: GMOs and Glyphosate
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2018, 05:28:31 PM »
The quote about Pence makes no sense. The big criticism of the rule has nothing to do with universalizability and everything to do with the fact that it is a comically absurd standard of behavior.
As for it being a "left-wing idea", since Kant was coming from a deontological point of view, wouldn't it be a right-wing idea?

I have the impression you're giving too much credit to "right-wing" conservatives:


Heh. I never said anything about conservatives. Or are you confused and think "conservative" and "right-wing" are the same thing?

These days, most of the right wing seems to be radical, which is the opposite of conservative.

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: Episode #657 - Your Questions and E-mails: GMOs and Glyphosate
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2018, 05:59:50 PM »
The Kantian universalisability principle fallacy: If everyone became an MD like Steve, the world would starve to death. If everyone were consuming as much meat as Steve, there wouldn't be enough farming land to feed the world. If everyone lived in a single-family detached home with a large garden like Steve, the world would run out of arable land. If everyone installed solar panels on the roof of their home like Steve, the world would generate a lot of excess power when sunny and not enough during the night and the darker hours of the day or when cloudy. If everyone went on vacation to Hawaii like Steve, the world would ruin Hawaii.

Are you willing to extend this argument and claim there is no such thing as tragedy of the commons?
PS: FWIW, the so called "tragedy of the commons" has been overhyped by central planning advocates:

Yeah, it's not like it's something that could ever happen (*cough* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing *cough*).

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9547
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #36 on: February 16, 2018, 12:01:44 AM »
I'm a little surprised by the lovefest for Elon Musk by the rouges.
Great success with the Falcon Heavy launch, but I find the Tesla payload a bit distasteful.  A self promoting move that could have been used for something, anything, else that didn't look so self absorbed.
There is some criticism that this is just more space junk (which the rouges have expressed concern about), but I think it's only saving grace is that it's been blasted out past Mar's orbit where it's not an immediate concern.


Musk expected the first launch of the Falcon Heavy to fail. For it to be a good test, it needed a payload, but expecting it to fail, he couldn't very well sell the launch for satellites or other genuine space missions that cost money to build. Using his old original Roadster as the payload was a bit of whimsey no worse than using an equal weight of bricks. The space junk issue is real, but the solution is not to use bricks rather than a car as the mock payload. Developing rockets means testing, and testing means space junk. The car is neither here nor there. It is a bit of cross-promotion of his other company, but in the context that's harmless enough. He could have sold the car as a collector's item (Elon Musk's own Roadster, probably Roadster Number 1) but instead made it the first street-legal car to leave the Earth and soar out to the asteroids.

I admire Musk because he's responsible for my car, which is loads of fun to drive. I think his ideas about a colony on Mars are pretty crackpot. I doubt if anybody gets everything right. But he has gotten electric cars right, and he built the first private company to successfully launch resupply rockets to the ISS.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5261
  • mooh
Re: Episode #657 - Your Questions and E-mails: GMOs and Glyphosate
« Reply #37 on: February 16, 2018, 05:14:07 AM »
For such "tragedy" to take place it is first necessary that the wants exceed the carrying capacity of the commons.
So how many consumers actually want and can afford foods from pesticide-free farming (at market prices) and what is the carrying capacity of the world's agricultural land for the production of such foods?

First of all, organic farming is not necessarily pesticide free. In fact, the pesticides that they do use are less effective because of the arbitrary restriction that they need to be "natural" in origin, and therefore they have to use more of them to reach the same level of effectiveness. If they don't use pesticides at all, it is obvious that their crops will be more affected by organisms that would otherwise have been killed by those pesticides; that is why farmers started using pesticides in the first place.

Second, you are ignoring what has been pointed out already; anti-GMO advocates actively try to stop even fundamental research into GMOs from occurring and are actively engaged in spreading misinformation about GMOs in the hopes of killing the market for such products. That is a problem, since, even though they do this under the cloak of acting environmentally conscious, the alternative they offer will actually have a much bigger environmental impact and is not sustainable.

PS: FWIW, the so called "tragedy of the commons" has been overhyped by central planning advocates:

Speaking as someone who has invested a substantial amount of time in trying to understand climate change and it's implications, and the debate surrounding it, as well as various other such topics (and a bit of game theory), I strongly disagree.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5261
  • mooh
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #38 on: February 16, 2018, 06:45:38 AM »
That's not how you pronounce Nathalie.  Especially given the woman was Belgian and the 'th' sound doesn't even exist in French (or Dutch).

Yeah, the 'th' is simply pronounced as a 't' sound. All Dutch vowel sounds are a little less drawn out than their counterparts in English, but 'ie' is pronounced a lot like 'ee', as in 'green'. You don't have the 'a' sounds in English, so those are hard to describe. It's the 'aa' sound in this video (like in 'maan', not 'man'):

Mooohn!

Offline PanickingOctopus

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 2
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #39 on: February 17, 2018, 04:10:53 AM »
This is the first time I've outright known a noisy and was so excited when I sent an email in.

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #40 on: February 22, 2018, 06:40:10 PM »
Scott Adams on why analogies are useful for explaining but not for making predictions:

Analogies are excellent tools for explaining a new situation for the first time. And sometimes analogies help you recognize situations that are potentially dangerous before you have all the facts. It is completely rational to use analogies in those two contexts. It is not rational to make a final decision based on an analogy.»

— Scott Adams. "Let’s Talk About Hitler." Scott Adams' Blog (March 10, 2016)
http://blog.dilbert.com/2016/03/10/lets-talk-about-hitler

I had meant to reply to this sooner but time slipped away from me.

Basically, this is just Adams creating an exception to excuse his own use of analogies in spite of criticizing others (such as Harris) for doing the same. It's called special pleading. And it doesn't even work because Harris was not using an analogy "to make a final decision" but rather to convey a notion, so Adams made the criticism in the context of an analogy that was used in the way that he elsewhere endorsed. And in the interview with Harris, he condemned analogies with no mention of this exception (understandable but inconsistent, since it would have excused Harris from the criticism), yet he slipped in his own "2 movies 1 screen" analogy.

Adams is making rules for others and bending them in ad hoc ways to excuse his own violations.

I think you would be better off finding a guru other than Scott Adams. Or better still, learn to think for yourself and don't subscribe to any gurus.

Offline Isranner

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Episode #657 - Your Questions and E-mails: GMOs and Glyphosate
« Reply #41 on: April 22, 2018, 02:39:15 PM »
For such "tragedy" to take place it is first necessary that the wants exceed the carrying capacity of the commons.
So how many consumers actually want and can afford foods from pesticide-free farming (at market prices) and what is the carrying capacity of the world's agricultural land for the production of such foods?

First of all, organic farming is not necessarily pesticide free.

But Steve Novella didn't mention "organic farming" in the comment I quoted, neither did I in any of my replies:

Quote from: Steven Novella
[1:08:56] "[A]nd if you want to favor farming that uses no pesticides then, frankly, you are a privileged elitist who doesn't care if half the world starves because there's absolutely no way we can feed the world without using pesticides, period."

Steve specifically said "farming that uses no pesticides" and "feed the world without using pesticides". Are you familiar with what a straw man argument is?
BTW, I already pointed out the use of such fallacy in a previous comment by another participant, in that case applied to non-GMOs instead of pesticide-free farming:

Dr. Novella is *not* making this fallacy in the quote you provided. […] No one is saying "everyone has to do X, Y, and Z to feed the world."  His point is that by throwing your lot in with the anti-GMO crowd, either by repeating their dishonest talking-points or financially rewarding them by exclusively demanding organic foods, you are helping them in their mission to deny GMO products to everyone.  And that is their underlying mission, second only to their desire to make a less scientifically literate planet.  This has been covered a dozen times on the podcast.  You do not have to accept any particular school of philosophy to understand this, or to understand the context of Steve's above quote.

Straw man. Steve Novella specifically referred to "favor[ing] farming that uses no pesticides" in the line that I quoted.

Second, you are ignoring what has been pointed out already; anti-GMO advocates actively try to stop even fundamental research into GMOs from occurring and are actively engaged in spreading misinformation about GMOs in the hopes of killing the market for such products. That is a problem, since, even though they do this under the cloak of acting environmentally conscious, the alternative they offer will actually have a much bigger environmental impact and is not sustainable.

Again, neither Steve nor I mentioned anything about anti-GMO advocates. It's perfectly compatible "to favor farming that uses no pesticides" without being an anti-GMO advocate. The only reference that I made on anti-GMO was to reply to Sawyer that he was "seeing hidden intentions in 'the anti-GMO crowd'", what, on the other hand, was factually accurate. No anti-GMO advocate has ever claimed that "their [underlying] mission [is] to deny GMO products to everyone", nor that "their desire [is] to make a less scientifically literate planet". All of that is the product of his imagination. Or as Scott Adams calls it, a manifestation of "The Psychic Psychiatrist Illusion".

PS: FWIW, the so called "tragedy of the commons" has been overhyped by central planning advocates:

Speaking as someone who has invested a substantial amount of time in trying to understand climate change and it's implications, and the debate surrounding it, as well as various other such topics (and a bit of game theory), I strongly disagree.

I don't think you're an unbiased observer, what makes your strong disagreement highly unreliable. And I base my opinion solely on the argumentation you've used in your comments rather than on what I imagine your hidden intentions are.

Finally, "You can't have your cake and eat it."
Either you'll be unable "to feed the world" because you favor farming that uses no pesticides (that is, assuming that what you want impose to everybody else what you want for yourself), or you favor organic farming that does use pesticides.
But you can't claim that "organic farming" "isn't sustainable" because "there's absolutely no way we can feed the world without using pesticides" (apparently, what you understood from Steve's comment) while at the same time you admit that organic farming does use pesticides.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2018, 02:41:27 PM by Isranner »

 

personate-rain