And Now For Something Completely Different
And Now For Something Completely Different
As Bush and his cohorts seem hell bent on destroying this country it might be well worth putting a bit of thought and effort into stopping them. Since they seem to thrive on contention and conflict I would suggest research and education – seriously and on a large scale.
Let us say that we do not indulge in ranting and yelling, us versus them – but in knowledge, stated simply and with authority. Say that we, individually and as a group, work at learning everything possible about this group of individuals, their beliefs and goals, strategies and histories. Say that we use the Internet to coordinate activities and publish information and that we base everything on solid research and valid analysis, the independent verification of fact being the platform we stand upon.
What if a set of rules were defined for the validation of facts, the first rule being that facts must be validated independently, as in any serious academic endeavor – with truth being the goal, no matter if it proves us right or wrong - so we clearly separate the roles of those who gather information from those who validate it, and again from those who seek to draw conclusions about that information? What if legitimate academic societies define this rule set and a second rule set concerning the relationship between facts and the set of valid conclusions which may be drawn from them?
What if facts concerning all aspects of President Bush, his associates and the groups supporting them came in from tens of thousands of individuals with access to the Internet, these facts verified independently and published on the Internet in a clear and logical manner, so that they become a pool of information from which valid conclusions may be drawn? What if we begin to draw a picture, a coherent multidimensional map of these people and their actions?
What if we use great creativity and imagination? What if college and high school history teachers went into classes with honest questions: What is the truth of this and how do we find out? What if instructors of political science and government, mathematics, statistics, and computer science, logic and philosophy, sociology and psychology and every other legitimate academic discipline begin to seriously explore this subject, each from their own perspective? What if every class in every school in America took as a project examining one small piece of this puzzle, each from a slightly different view, and all these pieces were assembled on the Internet, using honesty and honest self-questioning as their guide?
What if this information were carried to America - carrying facts stated simply as fact, not invective, while thinking intelligently about all the different groups of individuals in this nation, not just the ones who agree with us or whom we agree with, and always respecting their specific legitimate concerns about the nature and direction of American society and culture?
This is just a thought – because if we used our creativity, intelligence, and imagination, individually and together, toward a goal of learning and honestly presenting the truth, I am not sure then what would happen – but when nothing is working it is best to try something else.
Sincerely yours,
Alan
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Alan, I do not want to
Alan,
I do not want to be negative, but as a Scientist hasn't my profession done what you ask and yet science itself is still being railed against?
Jim
Alan, I see you did not
Alan,
I see you did not get a chance to respond to me before you got offline. When you get a chance I hope you do so.
I do use much of the template you suggest on this blog. The other half of my posts deal with the emotional dressing down of Republicans gone mad as Politics at any time in earth history has as much to do with emotion as rational thought.
One very specific point to illustrate the former: I have been looking for NON compassion based reasons for why it is fully valid to approach the voting booth with Democratic desires in mind. I can elaborate if you like. My main point in mentioning it here is that I do not rely on the liberal heart. I respect fellow Americans who do not share my empathy (as much as is humanly possible that is). With respect to the template I suggest however the respect is 100% and so in keeping with what you propose.
I too searched for perhaps the best means to do what you ask. It occurred to me that I had already found it: this site (thanks to the owner, Bob Fertik). Why not begin here?
Jim
Methodology
Jim,
I am a computer scientist and have being using the Internet since 1988. I claim this is the way we must use this tool (the Internet) to get the desired results. Not precisely in this way, but fuzzily. There’s no way to prove something like this except through experimentation, actually trying it, which is only real way to prove anything. Do you understand the methodology here, why in fact it is something completely different, for instance Vince, from the sites which you mention? How would something like this be implemented?
Best regards,
Alan
Alan,-You did not answer my
Alan,
-You did not answer my question with respect to the Sciences already doing this and yet still being railed against by the Right. (I speak here to your seperation of powers in judging.)
-You also did not answer my concern that half the battle (for lack of a more precise measure) is a matter of emotional manipulation. Fact and rational thought do NOT motivate most people.
-You also did not comment on the fact that I am doing exactly what you ask. I understand you want it done in the context of a collective so that fuzzy logic might be brought to bear but as in any other endeavor: one can not expect a million layman to do the work of one Einstein in the field of Relativity. This implies that SOME authors on SOME sites MIGHT come up with EXACTLY what you desire in the way of RESULTS without the need for an overt COLLECTIVE effort. (Most blogs are collective anyway however even for the specific case just mentioned.)
And again, please address to what extent my own proposals do not rise to the level you propose. I worry about all personality types. I consider external reality. Etc.
Thanks,
Jim
P.S. Persuasion is important. If there is something more to what you propose than the counterpoints listed then simply move through them point by point so we can understand the nub of your proposal.
please see my reply below
Thanks,
Al
Let me make this more
Let me make this more concrete:
As a tendency I see nothing wrong in this. It is likely genetic or due to a character flaw or strength, and there is a germ of universal truth in it. In any regard, the Right has pressed this to the point of Dogma. As such, it is false, and I have attempted to falsify it to the satisfaction of Right leaning individuals, talking heads, and Democrats that have forgotten how to be Democrats.
How would the network you speak of address this?
Note too, that I introduced the FRAME. How would your network produce the frames as opposed to what fleshes them out (aka. Lists of facts).
(In order for an idea to take shape one must understand its limits. I do not ask that what you propose do everything, but it remains unclear to me, what the scope and role of the project would be.)
And by the way, you are also describing what the Press should be doing ;)
Jim, the data that Alan
Jim, the data that Alan refers to IS already available for anyone who has the inclination to research it. I believe what he is proposing is a communal "database" to make that research easier.
The main problem I see with this approach is the very short attention span, and shallow interest level, of the average voter. Those of us who are "activists" are already in possesion of much of the data Alan proposes, and have our own de facto database. Joe and Ms. Sixpack do not want to be activists, and only want the bare bones Reader's Digest version of political (read boring) events.
Blind partisanship by an uninformed voter has not been, and most likely never will be, overcome by anything as simple as dry factual information. Databases do not readily accept emotional input, or illogic, while partisan politics and ideology thrives on these two factors.
Bill, this is true that many, many
voters are swayed by emotional political manuevers.
This is exactly how Rove/GW have operated.
However, a growing number of middle American voters are
getting righteously sick of this tactic. A good example of this
is our local race for the 35th District( State) Senate seat.The election
is one week away, with both Repub candidates throwing mud and
garbage at each other as far as the eye can see.
Our one Democrat, Larry Caballero, finally got a story in our local paper.
He hasn't been involved in the mudslinging because he hasn't spent
a dime on campaigning.He doesn't have the six figures to do it.
Guess what? Many people have stated( even Repubs) that they will vote
for Caballero because they are utterly sick of the mudslinging
and like what he has to say.
http://www.dailypilot.com/front/story/42357p-63460c.html
Hey- there is hope for Orange County, yet. ;-)
I hear ya. I was thinking
I hear ya. I was thinking “attention span” as well.
Fact Check also has a bit of the flavor of this.
Anything however that influences the talking heads can have a positive effect on the populace so a new “institution” might help. There are however many points that need to be addressed before I could assess whether such a data base would be useful in a restricted sense.
I still keep thinking of the assault on the institution of Science. An institution that fact checks, peer reviews, allows anyone – who puts in the time – to enter, etc.
Jim, if I may indulge in
an emotional outburst-
Screw the nincompoops who assault Science!
They are ignorant and inconsequential.
I don't believe they speak for the majority
of Americans.
Humph!
;)
;)
Alan
Alan,
If I am to understand correctly, you are focusing on the STRUCTURE of debate. You are hoping that the STRUCTURE will aid both Liberal and Conservative folks into believing the final answers.
Well bring it on! That would be awesome, but that's my point:
BUT, if the above is true, why is the implication below FALSE.
And once again, if you allow your notion to become fuzzy enough, is it not simply what Vince suggests? Just look to the left of the screen at the number of blog sites. Look too at Democracy itself. Still, if you are suggesting an overall structure that would help, you need to address the points already made.
Jim
Alan, this is happening everyday
Sites like this, Commondreams, Informed Comment (Juan Cole), the Nation, Mother Jones, The Old American Century, Buzz Flash, Huffington Post, even the Smirking Chimp. All are sites that do their homework. And we ARE educating the populace, slowly but surely.
As we all know here, the problem is the MSM, combined with Faux New, Limpballs and their ilk that are blocking the truth at every turn.
We here will continue the good fight, and we can and will make a difference.
Saving the world from stupidity
One Republican at a time
Since November, 2004
reply
Vince,
Please see my above reply to Jim.
Best regards,
Alan
please see my reply below
Thanks,
Al
As both Jim and Vince have
As both Jim and Vince have pointed out, the actions that you call for are already happening -- in a "fuzzy" way. The emotions involved can not be removed from the process because the outcomes of these actions affect people's lives.
If you are simply saying that we need to make better use of the Internet, I would tend to agree. On the other hand, as a form of free speech (at the present anyway), the Internet is just as susceptible to emotion and bias as any other form of expression.
From the tone of your post however, I gather that yours is a plea similar to Rodney King's: "Can't we all just get along?" The short answer is yes, and that becomes apparent with certain events such as: natural disasters, external threats, Christmas Season, etc.
The longer answer is no, because society is made up of people who disagree about almost everything which is a matter of personal choice. Civilization is a concept that attempts to nurture societies into being accomodating of each other's beliefs and working cooperatively for the common good.
When politics and religion enter the equation, the whole "civilization" thingy gets skewed. When greedy politicians and fanatical religious leaders get a strangle hold on the proletariat by conning them with false promises and misleading purposes, it is time for passion and emotion.
That is what you are seeing on this blog, and the many other sites which are crying out loudly for justice and a return to sanity. And Democrats.com, along with most of the other reputable blogs, stresses the importance of verifiable facts. We demand attribution for all quoted sources, and question opinions based on pure speculation. This is the very purpose of Free Speech: the ability to passionately profess your patriotism, and loudly address injustice.
You not only have the right, but the duty to scream FIRE! in a crowded theatre, if in fact it IS on fire.
please see my reply below
Thanks,
Al
The Truth is in the Data
I apologize that it’s taken me so long to get back to you. I’ve been sick, exhausted, and busier with work than I should be. But no, this is something different than what you are saying. It is so damn simple but I cannot seem to communicate it clearly nor get people to see it, yet it’s the only thing that will really change anything.
And I am too tired to finish this. But I will put down what I’ve written and if you’re interested maybe you will get an idea.
These ideas come from working at IBM with both the logical and physical structure of information, how it is stored, how it is retrieved and displayed and how it can be sent across networks.
At IBM I basically lived in a data base for a dozen years. During that time I became convinced that truth, the closest to truth we can ever actually come, is in the data. If you want to find out the truth of something you gather every single fact you can about that thing and list those facts, one fact to a line, to infinity if you like. You may also want to attach a range of percentages to each line, expressing confidence in that fact actually being true.
I also programmed in assembler language. Yes/No, True/False. Do this for a while and you begin to see that most of what individuals think of as being causally linked arguments is really utter horseshit. Try it some time. Record someone convincing another person to do something and then type down every statement, one statement to a line. Then analyze the logic, if you can call it that.
You can’t really do something like this with paper but you can with digital media. We have enough disk space to record literally everything important that happens in this world today. Given fast Internet, anyone in the world can look at that information and even contribute to it.
There is the question of whether or not people are lying or unknowingly offering up false information. That is why we need independent verification of fact and openly published standards for verification. But we have all this within existing academic disciplines. In fact all these basic concepts are already tucked away nicely somewhere within academics.
Once you do this you’ve begun to build an institution, an essentially public institution that people will begin to have confidence in, very much in the way that people have begun to have confidence in the Wikipedia project and in Google. People go to Google because they trust the information they get there. But Google isn’t public. It’s privately controlled. You can’t look at the programming and you can’t look at all the data wrapped up in their servers. You only get the output. Take something public like Wikipedia, focus it at facts concerning the current administration, then put all those facts through the filter of classic academic standards for verification of truth, with the stipulation that all the data and all the discussion concerning the data must be open for all to see, and you’ve begun to create an independent platform.
I am not timid. I am not against strong action. My opposition to the dynamic of ‘us versus them’, of yelling and rabble rousing, comes from the fact that it does not work for us. We will never learn to lie as well as they can. We must change the basic dynamic.
Take an entire speech and transcribe it, one statement to a line, and put that on the Internet. Stripped of auditory and visual cues it will become apparent that what Bush is saying is pure crap.
Does something become true because you say it over and over again? God no. People will begin to see this when you put all the data out there, not summations or bits and pieces trying to prove something is true after you’ve already decided that it is. Put it all out there and people will begin to see a true picture.
Having retired from IBM in 1999 with this perspective on data and truth, I tried to convince various people, mostly liberals in research organizations, that we should do legitimate Internet based research on a massive scale. In one way or another I’ve be trying to talk people into this ever since, along with earning a living and raising a family.
To give you an idea of what I wanted to do, I wanted to create a simple list of all the quotes made by anyone to convince America to go to war with Iraq. Put these in chronological order; give the date, name of the person who said it, and venue. This would be an enormous list, a Mount Everest of Lies.
Get the data, validate it, and put it all out there. Long-term I want to start creating standards for data. Independent validation is the key. Data is not legitimate unless it is validated independently - nothing is true just because you or I or King George say that it is. Think Wikipedia with one more step, and that step is validating the data.
If we had done this during the past election I think we could have drawn the public eye away from paid media and on to the Internet. Because, for all the talk of the untruths that abound on the Internet, look how people, all sorts of people, go to the Internet to get information. When push comes to shove we want raw unbiased data, we don’t want commercials.
Now I have to stop. I’m played out and I have much more to do today.
The following are fragments from other things I’ve written. Maybe by reading them you’ll get an idea of what I’m trying to say.
I wanted to create a Seti-at-home type project, the final output of which would be a chronological list of all statements of fact made to convince America to go to war with Iraq. A simple list, one statement after another, the date it was made, by whom, and where. No commentary. No interpretation. Only data.
Do you know about Seti-at-home? Seti-at-home created a distributed system for gathering data, tens of thousands of home computers all feeding data into a central location. I cannot prove that the following scenario would actually occur because you cannot prove the future. But I claim that all the linked actions in the following scenario are at least plausible.
IF such an idea gains notice
AND catches the eye of American liberals/Democrats/whoever we are,
AND IF
a number of professional academic groups and individuals became interested so as to volunteer to take on all the various tasks necessary to make the project work
AND IF
A system could be developed so individuals all over the world could research quotes and upload them to some central Internet site in a specified format.
Output:
1. Mountain of lies and conflicting statements. Plausibly attracts great deal of attention.
2. Interesting process with links to Seti-at-home,also attracts attention.
3. Public discussion over what constitutes the truth, with it becoming obvious that everything Bush and Co. say is a mass of lies.
4. An ongoing institution (Connections of Bush to Enron, the California energy scandal, etc…) which, because the data is always there, gives us, humanity, a more accurate historical memory. (Politicians will no longer be able to lie knowing that people will forget.)
More than anything we must put the imprimatur of legitimacy on this type of inquiry. We must establish agreed upon rules published openly on the Internet. Define the rules and show the methodology. Independent verification of data. Is something true merely because I or you or Bush says that it is true? Why antidotal evidence in fact isn’t.
The output is a list, a comprehensive list of every possible quote, the actual quote, not a paraphrase or summation, but every quote in one enormous insane list. Think about it. For all practical purposes we have infinite storage capacity (and the CPU and programming to present it to everyone on this planet) then YES Virginia, we can show all the data online as one extruded mass of lies. And we can then follow the trajectory and quality, the length and breath of those lies, and feel the emotional impact which comes from encountering the truth in person. No more summaries. No more men behind the curtain telling us what the pollsters have deduced from the data. We want to see the data, all of it.
Anyone who claims to know the future is either full of shit or trying to sell you something. All I can claim is that given the plausibility of each step, a final outcome of something like this is possible, AND considering the range of plausible outcomes from such a project versus where we are now, the effort would be worth making.
The truth is in the data. Look at all the data long enough without preconceptions or undue emotion and you’ll come closest to the truth of it.
We, the moderates and liberals in this nation have tremendous professional skills - a pool of talent, everything from reporters to historians to veteran researchers and academicians of all types and sorts. During the last election this massive pool of talent sat around in utter frustration, asked to pass out leaflets at the mall, while the Democratic Leadership bungled away every chance we had.
I believe in this thing called ‘mapping’. Using data bases, we can begin to model realities. This might be a bit obscure if you’ve never studied data bases. But that’s what data bases do. They model realities, and they do a far better job of revealing the underlying truth of a reality than common news sources ever could.
You know of course what a new paradigm is. Well this is that, if it’s anything. And by strict definition, no one understands a new paradigm. So at least on that basis we’re on solid ground.
Thanks Alan,
Thanks Alan and sorry you have been sick.
An analogy to Wikipedia is perhaps the quickest way of explaining the crux of what you are saying.
I do not think you have answered my question of how this is ALREADY being done in the sciences yet NOT universally accepted (aka: the earth is 5000 years old, etc). I also see this as being done via other new institutions: E.G. The Skeptic Society www.skeptic.com.
I do understand that IF a public “Political Wikipedia” could be formed it would influence the public but this seems nearly a tautology. What would it take to get disparate political groups to accept the output when they don't accept the output from the sciences?
Further, I think you may be biased too strongly towards the bookkeeping side of “uncovering the truth”. I disagree that the truth lies in a laundry list of facts. (I understand you are arguing for more that that.) The truth lies in the synthesis of those lists via an intelligence (or an artificial one that computers still fall short of). I can, for instance, perform an array of mathematics in minutes, which would take a computer a billion years to accomplish. Of course one can always add our latest understanding to any computer so that it can again “win”, but the point remains: the Truth is not the same as Bookkeeping.
I am not dismissing the “political Wikipedia institution”, for lack of a better phrase, but I do think the points I made need to be addressed.
Jim
Alan, I am trying to understand
what you're proposing.
Here is what I've concluded.
We should pool our talents to build a data base of
information, independently verified for authenicity,
and post it on the internet.
You are right, more and more people are looking to
the internet for information. Perhaps this accounts
for lagging subscriptions to daily newspapers. The
internet is also the number one tool to use for research.
As a substitute teacher, teaching English and ESL in the
secondary grades, I alway tell my students to arm themselves
with facts, facts that cannot be disputed. This is mandatory
when they are assigned an argumentative essay, for example.
The key here is to promote the website, once it is established.
It should be promoted as a reference source.
If I missed your point by a mile, please let me know.
Close but...
You are close but still missing it, unless the ‘we’ you are talking about goes far beyond us here. It is the dynamic I envision. Pooled talents and resources yes, but the pool is everyone with access to the Internet.
Vince, you say:
“Sites like this, Commondreams, Informed Comment (Juan Cole), the Nation, Mother Jones, The Old American Century, Buzz Flash, Huffington Post, even the Smirking Chimp. All are sites that do their homework. And we ARE educating the populace, slowly but surely.”
I would say the difference between my vision of this institution, which doesn’t yet exist, and those institutions is that I want to allow the data to tell its own story, to educate people itself. I don’t want to draw conclusions, any more than a Google search draws conclusions for people. I truly believe that the truth is in the data, or the closest human beings can come to the truth of something, and because the cost of computer hardware has come down so low and because of the structure and dynamic of the Internet, this now gives us the capacity to display all the data concerning something, a person, place, or thing. And that’s what we should do.
The list of all quotes of ‘fact’ made to talk America into going to war plus all the changing justifications after it had begun, this appealed to me as a first project. It seemed simple to do. I first approached the people at Downingstreet.com about this, just asked them to mention the idea on their site. The person I spoke with saw the beauty of the Seti-at-Home connection. He finally said “that’s really interesting, but I think we’ll pass”. This is what people end up doing with truly different ideas. They might immediately see it, but it hasn’t yet been done so who can predict what will happen? Of course there is little risk in saying no to good ideas. I don’t say this as a value judgment but merely as a fact of life.
Logically there’s not much downingstreet.com could have lost in just saying, “This proposals seems interesting. What do you think?” It either happens or it doesn’t happen and if it doesn’t, well it’s a failed experiment that didn’t cost much to try. But if it had happened….
I try to think as logically as I can, and when I come to a place where I don’t know, I say, “I don’t know.” Truly new ideas and ways of doing things cannot come out of old patterns of thought because the structure of ones thinking limits the ideas that can emerge from it. So Jim, I don’t have an answer to many of your questions, but that does not invalidate the idea, although many times people take this to be the case. The default for them is that you have to prove all the “I don’t knows.” That’s impossible. But then, as you alluded to in an earlier post, most conversations really come down to a series of non sequiturs.
Vince, the other thing about these institutions you mention is that they are part of a dynamic called ‘us versus them’. We need The Nation doing what they are doing because we must hold the line against Bush/Rove, who are, pardon the expression, truly evil. But Bush and Rove feed off ‘us versus them’. They do everything possible to heighten such oppositions. That’s what they’re doing in the Middle East – and it serves them. They have the resources to dominate at that level. The reason we have come to the Internet to play the game is that it is so much cheaper to play here than via paid media, TV, radio and newspapers. But it is a holding action for us. What I am proposing uses the Internet in a new way to trump ‘us versus them’ entirely.
What are some of its elements?
Distributed mechanism for gathering data.
Independent verification of data.
Display all the data, instead of summations.
(Let the data tell its story.)
Also, clear definitions for rules governing all processes, openly displayed for all to see. So, for instance, if a group of scientists, social scientists, historians, journalists, and computer scientists took as their task setting up a process for the validation of data, they should come up with a clear step by step process showing what is valid data and how it differs from invalid data and we should be able to see how their decisions in validating specific data conform to these rules.
By the way, these ideas mostly come from working with ISO9000 requirements at IBM. Another important rule of ISO is that there must be one and only one master document and there must be a way for everyone to be able to tell which document that is. This is a powerful and important idea, though I don’t have the time to go into it because I’ve been up since 5AM and now I must go to work.
Best,
Al
Alan, to sum this up: your
Alan, to sum this up: your idea has merit, but does not mesh with activism. Democrats.com is a blog about Democratic activism, and for activists. We put out factual information 365/24/7, and attempt to reach the widest possible audience.
We intend to take our Party and our Country back from the neocons who have hijacked it. We don't really have the time to "analyze" the millions of pieces of information, and wait for someone to digest it.
A Simple Test
Bill,
I don't think you actually read what I've written here. If you have, then you did not understand it. But as a simple test of reading comprehension, for Democrats.com to commit to this idea, what would that commitment entail, how many resources and over what period of time?
Best regards,
Alan
AAMOF Alan, I suffered through
AAMOF Alan, I suffered through every word of your mind numbing and lengthy posts, and I admit that my reading comprehension was severely tested at times, and it was bothersome to have to connect disjointed dots, but I managed to struggle through somehow. If anything, my patience was tested.
You list yourself as an "Independent," which takes very little comprehension to deduce that you are not a Democrat. It appears that you have not read my response, nor understood it. At the risk of repeating myself, I said that your idea has merit. I further pointed out that Democrats.com, and it's members, are activist Democrats who collectively, and actively (not passively) disseminate factual information which is pertinent to Democratic values and principles on a daily basis.
You have made your point, and floated your "database" idea for our members. You have made your "centrist" pitch for doing away with the "us vs. them" mentality, but unfortunately it is very much we Democrats vs. the neoconservative Republicans at the present time. All of the data available on the entire Internet will not defeat this attempted corporate coup -- only grassroots hard work, and rallying moderate good-hearted Middle Americans will level the playing field once again.
Now, if you do not begin to participate in other nodes, and contribute something other than this single "vaporware" issue to this blog, you will be politely escorted to the door. This is a private blog for Democrats, and membership is by invitation. And we have real work to do.
Bill, I must admit
I have avoided posting here again, mainly because my comprehension, not to mention my patience, has been sorely tested. If fact I am still not sure what Alan is really proposing.
Saving the world from stupidity
One Republican at a time
Since November, 2004
I'm not sure that Alan is
I'm not sure that Alan is totally sure of what he is proposing either. That is the reason that he has such a hard time explaining himself.
Research means nothing
if you can't write. Or, at least, hire someone to do it for you.
Saving the world from stupidity
One Republican at a time
Since November, 2004
Bill, Isn't that the mark of an independent
Bill, that is the mark of an independent, not knowing for sure what they think. Isn't that why independent rhymes with ambivalent?;)
Sorry Allan, it was just too easy to pass up;)
Proud member of the reality based community.
reply
Bill,
Then did you understand that I am not proposing this idea as a substitute for us versus them, but in addition to it? And further, that the idea would demand literally no work or cost or time on the part of Democrats.com, but in fact would only constitute a type of endorsement, a ‘this looks interesting, what do you think’, and finally that I have been a registered Democrat for thirty years now, and in fact still am, but I don’t like to advertise the fact since the Democratic Party is an enclave for such hopelessly gutless wusses. But aside from being gutless wusses, the Democratic Party also has no new ideas – and that’s where you fit in. Finally, although you may think that bullying me out of Democrats.com is a worthy substitute for our so-called leaders in the House and Senate having the spine to stop people like Alito and Roberts, in fact it isn’t at all. It’s just stupid. Your bullying was also gratuitous, as I was about to take my leave anyway, since your participation is a prime example of the type of mental masturbation these blogs are given to, which never have and never will lead anywhere. I want to create change, real change. This is not the place to do it.
Goodbye,
Alan
Bullying? Mental
Bullying? Mental masturbation? You want?
What you want is attention and praise for attempting to describe a vast project with half-vast ideas.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass...
Alan,You get angry over
Alan,
You get angry over Bill and so you trash this blog, all blogs, and Democrats in general for having “no ideas.” Yet you claim to be selflessly advancing the Democratic cause???
I took the time to engage you and asked for your opinion on several matters I am advancing and I get dead air. You seem incapable or unwilling to answer the simplest of questions on this project. Who do you think I am that you can waste my time?
This is persuasion?
Jim
P.S. The template for a Democratic advance is being created right here under your nose, in my opinion.
In Response
“I do not think you have answered my question of how this is ALREADY being done in the sciences yet NOT universally accepted (aka: the earth is 5000 years old, etc). I also see this as being done via other new institutions: E.G. The Skeptic Society www.skeptic.com.”
Jim,
It’s not being done because it hasn’t been done and I cannot define something that doesn’t yet exist by what that thing isn’t. Looking at the history of science and innovation, this is almost always the case.
My idea takes basic methodologies underlying science along with other academic disciplines such as the social sciences and history, melds this with my understanding of computers and attempts to create a unique platform for it on the Internet – a shared Internet institution. The Skeptics Society isn’t an Internet institution in the same way that Yahoo and Google and Wikipedia are Internet institutions. Seti-at-Home is an Internet institution that shows what a distributed system for gathering data can accomplish. It works because its architects set up a clear set of rules and procedures for gathering and assessing the accuracy of that data. I can’t say that my idea could work in the same way and I’m not even going to try and discuss the mechanisms to try and make it work because that would be pointless. There are tens of thousands of people in this world who do this kind of work on a daily basis at the levels of theory, design, and implementation. Our only task, the only task worth discussing here, is how we could spark the interest and imaginations of these people to take up such a project.
The Internet is a dynamic place. Something like this could happen, it just hasn’t. Maybe it’s luck. Maybe because I’m not terribly good at promoting my ideas. Maybe because people with the imagination to understand its power and the energy to take it forward have not yet happened upon the idea. Maybe they never will, or won’t in time.
Things exist independent of our abilities to cognize or describe them. “What would it take to get disparate political groups to accept the output when they don't accept the output from the sciences?” A spark – that’s all, a spark. And we don’t care about disparate political groups accepting anything. We bring the concept into public awareness and then we let it roll.
Best regards,
Al
Allen,Well I’m still a
Allen,
Well I’m still a little vague but an ISO standard for Political Thought sounds fine to me. I still think the village people will storm the ivory tower with pitch forks if they do not like a particular result. For example:
1) Gay men have no choice. Think back to when you were a teenager. NOTHING on earth could keep you from a woman, but Gay men just “choose” not to be interested!?!? Here is a case were, in order to reach the correct conclusion men must think with their penis.
2) A small lump of iron, D in Diameter, takes T amount of time to form a skin of a depth H. Checking this over and over again, one finds that one’s formula correctly predicts T from D and H. One applies this to the earth and one finds that T is HUGE, NOT 5000 years. Further, after adjusting for the heat given off from radioactive elements one gets T=5.2 billion years.
3) Using a completely separate method for aging the earth one might get T=1second, 5000 years, 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years. Instead one gets T=5.2 billion years.
4) The Earned Income Tax Credit costs the bottom 90% who do not receive it, on average $100. That is raw data, but an important one. Even demanding the network to work it out requires an overriding bias. MINE. The amount puts it in perspective yet we had a Republican on here that once faced with the amount MOVED on to rejecting it on principle. Since he left I did not have a chance to continue the argument – even given his switch to a stand on principle. My argument would have ended with noting that the bottom 50% of Americans require very little in order to secure their economic votes. Votes which aid 90% of all Americans. Still I am guessing my Republican poster would have run from the discussion.
Now I understand that you may view this as being part of my previous questions. As I’ve said, I do not require that your network do everything. I do not require that you be able to explain fully how your network would deal with details.
In order however, for me to direct my efforts away from what I consider to be the most critical political goals, I would need to see answers to my very general questions. You have said enough that I can begin to give partial answers myself. I am also capable of writing code. In my case via FORTRAN, Assembly, etc. for the interaction of several subatomic particles, the trajectory of light rays past black holes, etc. Not exactly what is needed, but I’m at least oriented to one of the tools.
Anyway Allen. I do understand that you are saying that a lot will come out in the wash. I’ll give it some thought.
Jim
Sleep is a nasty habbit ;)
My kids have a bad one too: they want something to eat.......................... EVERY day!
Somehow, while this appears to be a 'noble' cause...
my rather trite initial reaction produces this old saw: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him/her drink."
One of the things that humans have and computers[databases]don't is passion. Passion in all forms. Without passion, life is dull and bleak. Just to lay out the material for all to participate in, will not make the presently unreachable individuals partake. They believe what they believe and will not change beyond that.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
grinch, I think ANYTHING
grinch,
I think ANYTHING that eschews equilibrium appears alive. Might that be a definition of life?
Jim
Jim, I think the opposite might be true...
don't think it matters how one chews his/her equilibrium.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
You just proved my point by
You just proved my point by disagreeing ;)
LOL !
You two are a riot!
;-)
Disagreeing is part of my job... 8^)
When our civilization has crumbled to dust and there is little left to show that it was ever here...our surviving descendants will somehow rediscover the rhythm of music by pounding stones and sticks together. From something so simple, civilization will again arise so that scientists and technicians can again end it.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
Activism: Please vote now
Proud member of the reality based community.
Wow- 57% voted $100.00/yr.
as of right now.
( so did I- and I mean it!)
This sounds very promising.
It's up to 60%
It's up to 60% now.
.
.
.
And don't forget that though the high poll result is due to kindess, there is also money to be MADE by sticking together!
My Concern
I am pleased to see the way the poll is going. My fear is that the growers would just find additional ways to screw the laborers. Having been tangentially associated with the field (albeit many years ago), I remain appalled at some of the things I saw and heard of.
Obviously, there are a lot of people on here...
who need to read through Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis, and Steinbeck.
Once engaged personally, activists are anything but 'fuzzy.' They have passion do they not?
A central database would be fine...but then, what is wrong with what we presently have available to us.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
Actually Grinch, the
Actually Grinch, the American "database" was written for us long ago. It is called the Constitution of the United States of America, and I much prefer the hardcopy version to the hacked and condensed digital version produced by the neocons and the "centrists."
Agree fully with you on hard copy...
Speaking of which, I always miss the old 'card catalog' when digging into something deeply. Using the quick, clean puter for research produces work that skips a lot of material...too narrow a focus perhaps.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
AN ASIDE: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN THE DATA.
The TRUTH is developed within the mind to most SIMPLY predict the most comprehensive set of new data from old data (while still, of course, being constrained by all data.)
The above admits an external reality where analysis may form a “data” base but synthesis occurs in the mind: Often in the minds of just a few humans on the planet (or even one) at first.
I am not saying Alan would press the statement: “the truth is in the data” too unreasonably, but I did have concerns which I addressed in other posts with respect to FRAMES. I see that as akin to “Treat time as a dimension.”
The Data base is step one(ish). I will spare you all from an explanation of the ish ;)
I still agree with Alan (if I understand him correctly), but only in a very restricted sense: Certain individuals of various political bents WOULD be drawn into such a project. A smaller subset of them would also learn something. I still do not see how, when the institutions of Science do not get a pass from the irrational crowd, such a database would draw in the masses or even the talking heads.
Friday Scientist's Jokes for Jim!!
Submarine USS Wahoo ss238
Einstein dies and goes to heaven only to be informed that his room is not yet ready. "I hope you will not mind waiting in a dormitory. We are very sorry, but it's the best we can do and you will have to share the room with others." he is told by the doorman (say his name is Pete). Einstein says that this is no problem at all and that there is no need to make such a great fuss. So Pete leads him to the dorm. They enter and Albert is introduced to all of the present inhabitants.
"See, Here is your first room mate. He has an IQ of 180!"
"Why that's wonderful!" says Albert. "We can discuss literature!"
"And here is your second room mate. His IQ is 150!"
"Why that's wonderful!" says Albert. "We can discuss mathematics!"
"And here is your third room mate. His IQ is 100!"
"That's wonderful! We can discuss the latest plays at the theatre!"
Just then another man moves out to capture Albert's hand and shake it.
"I'm your last room mate and I'm sorry, but my IQ is only 80."
Albert smiles back at him and says, "So, where do you think interest rates are headed?"
--------------------------------------------------------------
When considering the behaviour of a howitzer:
A mathematician will be able to calculate where the shell will land.
A physicist will be able to explain how the shell gets there.
An engineer will stand there and try to catch it.
------------------------------------------------------------
A physicist and a mathematician are in the faculty lounge having a cup of coffee when, for no apparent reason, the coffee machine bursts into flames. The physicist rushes over to the wall, grabs a fire extinguisher, and fights the fire successfully.
The same time next week, the same pair are there drinking coffee and talking shop when the new coffee machine goes on fire. The mathematician stands up, fetches the fire extinguisher, and hands it to the physicist, thereby reducing the problem to one already solved...
--------------------------------------------------------------
How does a mad scientist freshen their breath?
With Experi-Mints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Send in the Clones
A scientist was successful in cloning himself.
He was asked to speak at a national convention of cloning scientists.
The meeting room was located on the 45th floor of a New York skyscraper.
The scientist arrived with his clone and proceeded to the podium. The clone sat at the end of the head table. The scientist began the speech intending a tribute to the advances in the field of modern biology.
"My fellow scientists," he began. But before he could utter another word, the clone sprang to his feet and shouted out a heap of abuse and swearing!". The crowd began to murmur as the scientist commanded the clone to "Sit down and shut-up!" Apologizing for the interruption, the scientist began again, "My fellow scientists..."
Again the clone sprang to his feet and yelled, swearing waving his arms about and abusing everyone in sight.
Incensed, the scientist rushed to the clone, grabbed him, and threw him out of the window.
The crowd gasped and security rushed into the room. A short while later the police arrived and were explained the events that had transpired.
The police chief said to the scientist, "We are going to have to arrest you." The scientist replied, "For what? I have committed no crime. What fell from the window was a clone, not a person." The attending scientists nodded in agreement. "Well," retorted the police chief, "we cannot let this heinous act go unchallenged."
The police chief thought for a moment and then ordered the scientist held, for "Making an obscene clone fall...."
--------------------------------------------------------------
team of archaeologists found a slab of rock with 5 figures carved on it, in order:
A Woman, A Donkey, A Shovel, A Fish, A Star of David.
After months of study, the leader took the rock and went on a lecture tour. He said the carvings were thousands of years old but even so, they revealed a lot about the people of that time.
The woman being placed first in the line of figures showed that women were held in very high esteem - most likely a family oriented culture.
They probably used the donkey to till the fields. The shovel shows they were highly intelligent as they knew how to make tools. The fish shows they knew how to augment the crops they raised by also reaping from the sea. The Star of David of course indicates they were a very religious group of people.
A little old man in the front row finally got the attention of the speaker.
When acknowledged he said, "I'm sorry to blow your conclusions but you were reading it left to right. In Hebrew we read from right to left.
That way it reads, "Holy Mackerel, Dig the Ass on that Chick!"
LOL!
Thanks Wahoo!
The last one really got me :)