Tim Daneluk

[Java Man]

Your literary parsimony is noted.

I hope you're also boycotting products produced in China, just to be consistent.

Rick

[Dave Balderstone]

In fact, yes. There are a number of countries that I refuse to buy from, and some whose products I actively seek out.

[Joe Barta]

You know, I've talked to people about that. On the one hand, they are quick to explain all the reasons why Made in China is "bad". But then they toddle their asses down to Walmart et al and proceed to buy cartloads of stuff made in China and all those other bad places.

Interestingly, when confronted with such obvious hypocrisy, they present the most convienent rationalizations... usually one of the following...

a) Since all our "good jobs" have gone overseas to places like China, we have hardly any money and have no choice but to buy the cheap items made in China.

b) Since so much is made overseas, we hardly have any Made in the USA products to choose from so we have no choice but to buy items made in China.

It's always refreshing to see that blaming everyone but yourself never goes out of fashion.

Joe Barta

[Dave Balderstone]

At Christmas time this year, our local Co-op grocery store had Mandarin oranges from both China and Japan, with the Chinese oranges selling for $1.50 less per box.

I picked up a box of the Japanese oranges and was putting it in my cart when an elderly gentleman asked "What's the difference, that you're buying the more expensive box?"

I replied "Japan has a functioning democracy."

He raised his eyebrows, nodded, and went for the Japanese product as well.

One box of oranges at a time...

[badger]

[Java Man]

I was once in the "Don't buy from China -- ever!" camp because I thought that to do so would support a repressive regime. But in 1997, I got to tour a Chinese factory and communicate (through an interpreter I trust) with employees when the bosses weren't around. My eventual conclusion was that capitalism is more likely to accelerate China's evolution to a democracy than to perpetuate the Chinese Communist Party.

Rick

[Joe Barta]

I'd say that's the hope and I agree. But there's a little man in my head that does wonder sometimes if something unforseen and terrible could come out of a really big and really rich communist/capitalist hybrid with 1.3 billion people.

Joe Barta

[Java Man]

Absolutely! But it won't be solved by chiding people to boycott Google or to stop buying Chinese products at Wal-Mart. No matter how strongly the case against buying from China is made, people will continue to buy at record rates.

Doing something about it requires the US policy makers to recognize that the country is sleepwalking into disaster, and must make smart and tough changes to head it off.

To me, the biggest problem is that the government and consumers are spending the US into debt at an unsustainable rate, and enriching China every step of the way.

1) The US administration is spending more than it collects in taxes, and borrowing from China (and others) to finance deficits. 2) The US-China trade deficit is gargantuan! American consumers are buying goods at a record pace from China, financing the growth of China's manufacturing and military might. Basically, the USA is paying the Chinese to overtake it.

It has often been observed that native Americans gave away their land to sharp European traders for a few beads and trinkets. This looks like the 21st century version of the same game, only this time, the Chinese are the sharp traders.

Google censorship and buying Chinese goods at Wal-Mart are irrelevant distractions compared to this. What's needed is BIG, across-the-board changes to government policy. IMHO, a smart and gutsy 2nd term US President would be addressing this problem now, not waiting until everyone and his dog thinks it's serious. But since the needed changes would require pain and sacrifice, the ruling party (whether R or D) won't act until they think it will help them win the next election, so I wouldn't bet on anything much happening until it's too late. This is the major weakness of democracy -- we don't respond to problems until they balloon into crises. China doesn't have that problem.

Rick

[Dave Balderstone]

So the US is the only country that can do anything?

What arrogance...

[Joe Barta]

Do you have any thoughts on how this thing might play out? What are the dangers? What are the concerns?

Joe Barta

[badger]

Hummm, as one who's salary is effectively paid by the chinese students who attend the university where I work I can only comment: Probably when an experiment, for which there is no risk assessment, using bio-hazardous materials, gos wrong and something really nasty escapes.....

[Java Man]

What arrogance?

Rick

[Java Man]

There are so many possibilities that I don't know where to start. But having a totalitarian state with as much economic and military might as the US isn't an inviting scenario to me.

Rick

[Joe Barta]

Then surely you could start somewhere?

You're more or less restating my point. Beyond that, I'd be interested to hear some realistic thoughts on how it might play out.

Joe Barta

[fredfighter]

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about 'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly off-topic at.

I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?

[Scott Lurndal]

George C. Deutsch, a 24 year old college dropout GWB political appointee.

see

scott

[Tim Daneliuk]

Not even close - I, for one, have never even heard of him.

I already replied to Fred privately and had not intend to respond here at all. But since the Professionally Snide have raised their heads once again, allow me to show you the real basis of my claims - It's *my* thread, after all. (If you need help with the Really Big Words, feel free to ask):

I am not entirely sure what you are asking. If you want a source for the claim that all systems of knowledge have unprovable starting points (I *think* that's what you're asking), pretty much any decent book on covering epistemology would do. Here is sort of the Cliff Notes:

What you "know" depends on what you accept as being "truth". But if you induct backwards to your primary or foundational "truth" (the premise(s) from which your system of knowledge proceeds) you can never "prove" them in the absolute sense. It is analogous to a system of mathematics (which is one example of a very narrow epistemology). You begin with a starting axiom or premise. This premise is not absolutely demonstrable as "true", it is just the jumping off point for your new system of math. You proceed to then build theorems from that starting axiom. A theorem is "proven" only in the sense that it is demonstrated to follow logically from the axiom and perhaps other subsidiary theorems. In general this is the only context in which "proof" is meaningful - as a test of a theorem against a premise. Even then, there is a sort of implicit assumption baked in - that "logic" or "reason" is a meaningful mechanism for apprehending things.

All systems of epistemology begin with some basic assertion like "There is a God that has revealed himself" or "Reality exists and can be observed" or "The best outcome for a human is self-indulgence", and so on. In the particular case of science, the foundational premises are something like this :

1. The physical universe is real. 2. We can reliably observe it by harnessing our observations by means of the scientific method. i.e. Logic/Reason work. 3. We can further derive information about the workings of the physical world by taking the results of our "harnessed" observations and applying further induction and deduction to them (i.e., by applying logic). 4. Everything we can ever know about the physical world can be understood in purely mechanical/material terms. i.e., While there may or may not be a larger cause or "purpose" to the world we observe (it's "teleology") understanding such a purpose (if any) is not necessary to the practice of science. Science need only concern itself with the physical parts and can disregard the possibility of a metaphysical whole.

There's more here, and I am definitely doing a handwaving description - a real philosopher would no doubt cringe at the liberties I've taken.

Now then, my original claim is that you cannot "prove" any of 1-4 above. The best you can do is demonstrate their _utility_ value. That is, you can show useful, practical results from presuming them to be true, but there is no objective standard by which to check them. For instance, it is possible that the universe is an illusion and we don't really exist at all - sort of the "Matrix" view of the world. We have absolutely no way of determining whether this is so or not.

In short, we *assume* certain starting points (because they make sense to us, they bring us practical results, they are consistent with other things we believe, and so forth). Once those starting points are established, we build a system (our "theorems" about knowledge) upon them. This exact situation exists for _every_ system of knowledge (epistemology). The axioms of any system can never be "proven" only tested on two dimensions: Do the consequent "theorems" proceed logically from the starting axiom? And, do the "theorems" provide some utility value?

The specific contention of the IDers in their critique of science thus falls in a number of areas. Before noting these, let me take care to make three important points:

1) The measure of any system cannot and should not be judged on the merits of its practioners. Just because some scientist fudged his cloning data does not mean that science is invalid in method or result. Just because there are lazy, stupid preachers in no way speaks to the merits of Theism. Similarly a brilliant, consistent scientist/preacher does not _validate_ their system. 2) IDers do not have an agenda to invalidate science. They do not see their work as undermining or eliminating science, but rather as enhancing/augmenting it to more completely be able to understand the universe. Yes, there are the Rev. Billybob Swampwaters of the world who see this as a prime opportunity to get their particular brand of Faith plugged into the culture, but . 3) ID is *not* the equivalent of Creationism. Many IDers flatly renounce any notion of a "Young Earth". They are concerned with what they believe is a hole in science as currently construed. Notwithstanding their personal religious Faiths, they are not specifically trying to "religionize" science as one would believe if you listen to the current culture wars on the matter.

So, here, as I understand it, are the main ID claims:

1) The currently regnant philosophy of science is fundamentally inadequate. Its assumptions are incomplete and thus unnecessarily self-limiting. Today's science is thus not completely wrong, it is merely incomplete. 2) The assumption that the mechnical/material view is sufficient is wrong. That is, to understand the physical universe, you have to look at more than just the parts. You have to investigate the telelogical questions - _Where_ did the parts come from? _Why_ do they work the way they do? In sum, you have to look at the whole house, not just the bricks, and when you do, you are inexorably driven to the conclusion it had a builder. 3) There is some evidence, using just _today's_ formulation of science, that natural selection/evolution cannot completely account for what we observe. In particular, it is claimed, there are biological constructs that could not survive in a less complex form (irreducable complexity). If so, this means that no precedent (less complex) biological form could survive long enough to evolve into what we see today.

For a very good summary of all this, written by the leading lights in the ID movement, see:

is a set of essays written by practicing scientists, philosophers, and other interested parties. Each of these essays is interesting in its own right, but the last chapter by Bruce Gordon (a philsopher of Physics educated at Northwestern University) is flat out brilliant. He makes a compelling case that the very foundations of today's philosophy of science are fundamentally broken and that the proposals of ID *enhance* science, not destroy it. Whether you agree or not, the book generally and this essay particularly are well worth your time.

[TeamCasa]

Other facts: The universe revolved around the earth. The earth is flat. Sound barrier can not be broached. ECT.

I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.

Dave

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services

---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **

----------------------------------------------------------

[todd]

Nothing like a non-sequitor to prove your point.

todd

[Joe Barta]

...that some "intelligent" being sat down one day and figured EVERYTHING out. It just seems so incomprehensible.

To me it has to be an all or nothing proposition. Either he figured EVERYTHING out or he (or nobody) figured NOTHING out. The alternative is an intelligent being that sat down one day and decided to figure out SOME things. Maybe like in the movie Oh God! he just figured out the "big things" and left the rest up to chance and to us.

If he figured EVERYTHING out, then one of the things he figured out is what I'm typing right now... and what I'll be typing in 3 minutes... and what every atom in my body will be doing every milisecond of every day. Sounds silly I'm sure. If that's the case then he only figured out SOME things. THEN the question is, WHICH things? And more importantly, what accounts for the stuff that he HASN'T figured out? And even MORE importantly, if being left to chance is good enough for SOME things, why is it so impossible to suppose it's good enough for ALL things?

Joe Barta