It's bar-raising -- Mike mentioned "violent acts in support of abortion." He also mentioned "people" who support abortion during labor, which JC magically transformed into Dem legislators.
while there were private charities and the like people also generally starved and died in the streets.
Was that an organizational problem, or was it because there was less wealth overall and/or less of a felt need among society as a whole to take care of those who were struggling? There have been so many changes in our society and world in the last several decades that I don't know how good of a guide the older state of affairs provides us for this hypothetical.
I think soccer can be really interesting to watch once in a while, but hockey does the same concept better as a spectator sport -- it's faster, it's easier to take in the whole playing "field", there's a bit more scoring but not enough to significantly devalue the payoff of a goal, etc. Granted that there's too much fighting in the pros, but that's an issue with the culture of the game rather than the rules.
First of all, are you acknowledging the point in my first sentence? Does this cite request have a bearing on it?
Second, I don't have any cites one way or the other from the specific category you mention (which, by the bye, is raising the bar, since illegal detention wasn't the only topic) -- I'm just assuming that such people exist, based on the unending variety of human nature and opinions. Are you suggesting that anyone who was previously a hardcore whatever-it-takes kind of person who got caught in such a net would necessarily have an immediate change of heart? That no one is capable of holding such an opinion while acknowledging that some innocent people might be affected, possibly including him/herself, and believing that that's an acceptable price to pay for greater security?
It's about as fair as the point made by advocates for far harsher measures that it's easy to argue for a light touch if you haven't personally and directly suffered from an act of terrorism. And yet for either of these sides, there are people who do possess the necessary badge of suffering who'll nevertheless argue against the point.
Right, so the question is not "is there a better competing theory" but "does this model provide a high-enough level of confidence to justify taking costly measures to mitigate risk"?
Well, if you feel confident in your own ability to analyze the data, or if you have a particular trusted source, that puts you in a different position than most people who argue about this topic one way or the other.
If there isn’t an alternative explanation for the existing data, and one that predicts new data as it comes in better than the current explanation, then there’s no reason to reject the current explanation.
I keep seeing this argument from various people, and I don't think it's a very good one taken on its own. Say an economist comes to you and declares that he's worked out a model and plugged in a bunch of numbers, and he's determined that the US GNP in 2075 will be X. I don't have to provide a "better" model in order to plausibly reject his analysis -- I can just say that the world is way too complex and unpredictable for him to be able to provide any sort of confidence in that prediction.
A True Rejection doesn’t have to be likely, or timely, or even terribly plausible.
OK. But I suspect that's not really your True Rejection, nor is the other. Your later statement gets to it:
A cooling trend of the same length would be enough, I figured, to rattle the consensus
It's the consensus that provides your confidence. How would you identify a "better" theory if not by relying on the experts to validate it as "better"? Would you really disbelieve the consensus after 20 years if there was still widespread scientific agreement?
Re Koz, I don't see where he's rejecting AGW itself. There are four basic claims on this topic that tend to get mixed up. Here they are in roughly declining order of confidence:
1) The earth is warming
2) it's at least partially due to human activity
3) dire consequences will/may result if the trend continues
4) we can significantly mitigate the risk of #3 by taking drastic action that's realistically possible.
I see Koz as attacking 3 and 4, not so much 1 or 2.
Well, given that action is being urged now, having a True Rejection that requires a minimum of 20 years to be demonstrated isn't particularly helpful in the context of an argument over AGW.
Also, it's sort of a curious thing anyway -- why 20 years in particular? Doesn't seem very scientific. What if even after that 20 years, there's still a scientific consensus (maybe even more extensive than now) for AGW, and scientists have a plausible explanation for the 20 years of cooling (say, some sort of periodic weather phenomenon that just happened to occur in that span of time that threw off the numbers)?
I'm not planning to go expert-sniping -- I'm just trying to distinguish between informed opinion vs casual, unsophisticated observation. There's a big difference between "expert A said this event is due to AGW because of these numbers" and "I know this event is due to AGW because it resembles something that expert A said".
Um, you're doing the pointing but you're not an expert. Show me some experts doing the pointing (which was my original request) and I'll revise my estimate of your (and Yglesias's) seriousness.
That's a response I can respect. Pointing triumphantly to recent events because they seem to be congruent with your opinion on the topic is a mark of unseriousness, IMO -- climate change is a game of numbers, measured over the long term.
Pardon my ignorance, but are there any studies that demonstrate a link between these weather events and AGW? Skeptics are regularly derided when they point to certain current weather events as evidence against, so it seems that the same shouldn't be accepted blindly when going the other direction.
I don't understand this comment. Isn't the whole point of multiculturalism to honor the cultural differences within a society and fight against homogenization? Aren't all the "ethnic studies" departments typically grouped under the "multiculturalism" umbrella? People on the Left talk about african-american culture, chinese-american culture, etc., all the time.
I'm not well versed in libertarian theory, but it seems like if you don't reject the legitimacy of the state entirely (and my understanding is that libertarians != anarchists), then you have to accept some sort of access control, either to membership in the state or to access to the state's own resources. If the state owns the roads, for example, why can't the state legitimately control access to those roads just like an individual property owner can? If the state offers a promise of security to its members, why can't it decide who's encompassed by that promise?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “A Question for both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Supporters”
It's bar-raising -- Mike mentioned "violent acts in support of abortion." He also mentioned "people" who support abortion during labor, which JC magically transformed into Dem legislators.
On “Should Microsoft Let This Man Die?”
Actually I guess I was just restating what North had said but with less sarcasm. :/
"
Was that an organizational problem, or was it because there was less wealth overall and/or less of a felt need among society as a whole to take care of those who were struggling? There have been so many changes in our society and world in the last several decades that I don't know how good of a guide the older state of affairs provides us for this hypothetical.
On “Gripes”
Simultaneously, or in sequence? The former ups the difficulty level a bit.
"
I think soccer can be really interesting to watch once in a while, but hockey does the same concept better as a spectator sport -- it's faster, it's easier to take in the whole playing "field", there's a bit more scoring but not enough to significantly devalue the payoff of a goal, etc. Granted that there's too much fighting in the pros, but that's an issue with the culture of the game rather than the rules.
On “A Work In Progress”
First of all, are you acknowledging the point in my first sentence? Does this cite request have a bearing on it?
Second, I don't have any cites one way or the other from the specific category you mention (which, by the bye, is raising the bar, since illegal detention wasn't the only topic) -- I'm just assuming that such people exist, based on the unending variety of human nature and opinions. Are you suggesting that anyone who was previously a hardcore whatever-it-takes kind of person who got caught in such a net would necessarily have an immediate change of heart? That no one is capable of holding such an opinion while acknowledging that some innocent people might be affected, possibly including him/herself, and believing that that's an acceptable price to pay for greater security?
"
It's about as fair as the point made by advocates for far harsher measures that it's easy to argue for a light touch if you haven't personally and directly suffered from an act of terrorism. And yet for either of these sides, there are people who do possess the necessary badge of suffering who'll nevertheless argue against the point.
On “Some People Just Want to Watch the World Burn”
He's still contributing at theforvm.org, his regular haunt (or one of them).
On “AGW and Logical Rudeness”
Right, so the question is not "is there a better competing theory" but "does this model provide a high-enough level of confidence to justify taking costly measures to mitigate risk"?
"
Well, if you feel confident in your own ability to analyze the data, or if you have a particular trusted source, that puts you in a different position than most people who argue about this topic one way or the other.
"
I keep seeing this argument from various people, and I don't think it's a very good one taken on its own. Say an economist comes to you and declares that he's worked out a model and plugged in a bunch of numbers, and he's determined that the US GNP in 2075 will be X. I don't have to provide a "better" model in order to plausibly reject his analysis -- I can just say that the world is way too complex and unpredictable for him to be able to provide any sort of confidence in that prediction.
"
OK. But I suspect that's not really your True Rejection, nor is the other. Your later statement gets to it:
It's the consensus that provides your confidence. How would you identify a "better" theory if not by relying on the experts to validate it as "better"? Would you really disbelieve the consensus after 20 years if there was still widespread scientific agreement?
Re Koz, I don't see where he's rejecting AGW itself. There are four basic claims on this topic that tend to get mixed up. Here they are in roughly declining order of confidence:
1) The earth is warming
2) it's at least partially due to human activity
3) dire consequences will/may result if the trend continues
4) we can significantly mitigate the risk of #3 by taking drastic action that's realistically possible.
I see Koz as attacking 3 and 4, not so much 1 or 2.
"
Well, given that action is being urged now, having a True Rejection that requires a minimum of 20 years to be demonstrated isn't particularly helpful in the context of an argument over AGW.
Also, it's sort of a curious thing anyway -- why 20 years in particular? Doesn't seem very scientific. What if even after that 20 years, there's still a scientific consensus (maybe even more extensive than now) for AGW, and scientists have a plausible explanation for the 20 years of cooling (say, some sort of periodic weather phenomenon that just happened to occur in that span of time that threw off the numbers)?
On “The fact that I’m a beer snob is beside the point”
XKCD on wine snobs.
On “The Culture is Fine, Thanks”
It's all been downhill since Modern Times.
On “Heating Up”
I'm not planning to go expert-sniping -- I'm just trying to distinguish between informed opinion vs casual, unsophisticated observation. There's a big difference between "expert A said this event is due to AGW because of these numbers" and "I know this event is due to AGW because it resembles something that expert A said".
"
Um, you're doing the pointing but you're not an expert. Show me some experts doing the pointing (which was my original request) and I'll revise my estimate of your (and Yglesias's) seriousness.
"
That's a response I can respect. Pointing triumphantly to recent events because they seem to be congruent with your opinion on the topic is a mark of unseriousness, IMO -- climate change is a game of numbers, measured over the long term.
"
Pardon my ignorance, but are there any studies that demonstrate a link between these weather events and AGW? Skeptics are regularly derided when they point to certain current weather events as evidence against, so it seems that the same shouldn't be accepted blindly when going the other direction.
On “Fantasy Utopias”
Perhaps it's just a Scottish accent, or taboo avoidance a la "gosh" or "jeepers creepers".
On “A word of advice for blogger and commenter alike”
Nah, *before* the internet they might've been lonely, but now they have an abundance of people to argue about fantasy novels with.
On “Atheist Fight”
Not necessarily.
On ““If you seek our monument, look in the hole””
They just had their slaves do it for them.
On “Reihan Salam on race”
I don't understand this comment. Isn't the whole point of multiculturalism to honor the cultural differences within a society and fight against homogenization? Aren't all the "ethnic studies" departments typically grouped under the "multiculturalism" umbrella? People on the Left talk about african-american culture, chinese-american culture, etc., all the time.
On “The Flaws and Shortcomings of Ron Paul”
I'm not well versed in libertarian theory, but it seems like if you don't reject the legitimacy of the state entirely (and my understanding is that libertarians != anarchists), then you have to accept some sort of access control, either to membership in the state or to access to the state's own resources. If the state owns the roads, for example, why can't the state legitimately control access to those roads just like an individual property owner can? If the state offers a promise of security to its members, why can't it decide who's encompassed by that promise?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.