X-Message-Number: 29746
References: <>
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: internet debating
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:09:02 +0200

On 18 Aug 2007, at 14:11, John de Rivaz wrote:

> One way of "winning" a debate is to give the holder of the opposing
> viewpoint so much reading to do for which they have no time, that  
> they give
> up.

If they can't make a qualified contribution to a debate, they should  
give up.

The above 'excuse' can be applied by any 'know nothing' to continue  
with their ignorance and prejudice on any subject in science. If Rudi  
wants to make pronouncements about cryobiology, all he is going to do  
is damage his credibility.

On the other hand, there are entire areas, some trying to pass as  
science, which do have volumes of obfuscation as their primary  
strength. Post-modernism/social constructionism and neo-liberal  
economic theory are prime examples. The way to know the difference  
between pseudo science and science is to have some grounding in the  
philosophy of science. You don't need much, in most cases, however.  
You have to understand empiricism, repeatability, and remote  
criticism - as they function in any science. Of course, if you wish  
to penetrate a controversy in physics, medicine, etc. you have to at  
least understand the models being used, for example differential  
equations or statistics, well enough to evaluate criticisms of them.


> Just deleting certain people from the debate does not seem to me to be
> rational.

There first has to be a debate. If one person just assumes a person  
is saying X and the other is saying not X, you don't have a debate.  
When the Pope and an epidemiologist 'debate' the 'effectiveness' of  
condoms, they aren't going to get to a mutual understanding, because  
they assume different sources and concepts of truth


>
> I think the big problem with politics is that people who want to  
> control
> other people (especially by taxation) have to resort to force to do  
> it, and
> this translates to anger if they meet resistance.

Here we see the effect of neo-liberal obfuscation. While taxes are  
collected by 'resort to force', profits are not. If a monopoly wants  
to price a drug at 100 times production cost, that is not 'force'.  
You can always choose to not take the drug and die. However, you can  
also refuse to not pay taxes and go to jail. Which is 'force?' Free  
Market Fundamentalism is a barrier to understanding, just as is  
Christian Fundamentalism.

Political Economy is a highly technical and complex field. It  
requires a basic knowledge of Ethics as well as technical tools, such  
as mathematics. One of the biggest historical arguments in Economics,  
was resolved when someone showed that if both side's statements were  
reduced to mathematical form, they actually said exactly the same  
thing. Pronouncements like the above just show ignorance.



dss


David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29746