Lately I have enjoyed the occasional visit over to the townhall comments sections on posts there concerning the Expelled movie. I know, what was I thinking. But Sun Tzu said "know your enemy", so I see it as obligatory to occasionally wallow in the mud as it were. It gives me a chance to hand out some deserved derision on those intellectual charlatans that pimp ID. It also gives me a chance to expose readers there to arguments they may not see much in their self-made echo chambers. And of course, I hold out hope that some there will understand science a little better after I'm done. I really don't expect to learn much there, but you never know when a view can get changed.
I for instance, despite how my rhetoric might sound at times, *do not* think all creationists are dumb-as-rocks, or absolutely refuse to consider other points of view. In fact, as a naturally curious person, I find it almost impossible to believe that there are people out there so convinced of their position, or fearful of what they might find out, that they literally cannot be bothered to look at something which promises to overturn their misconceptions, even if you hand it to them. I can now.
The exchange occurred on the comments to the latest Brent Bozell column, this one on Expelled. It was the usual stuff from Bozell, who just cannot help but see anything that conflicts with his views as an attack of traditional, wonderful, conservative Christian America. He basically parroted the ID party line. So I'm bopping through the comments making some of my own and wondering if it be terminally boring to fisk all these standard arguments AGAIN, when I hit this question, from a gent named Birdman II:
"Supposedly, chimps and humans are the closest related of the primates. Yet all apes, including chimps, have 48 chromosomes. Does that mean that our common ancestor had 46, 47, or 48 chromosomes? Does that mean that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor after the other primates? And if the gorilla and the chimpanzee have 48 chromosomes could they cross-breed? What kind of mutation would it take add/subtract chromosomes? Wouldn't that mutation (I know they are rare) require that the exact mutation to occur in another individual of the opposite sex in the same generation in the same location? What are the odds of that happening by chance? I just have a hard time conceiving (pardon the pun) the logic of 'Humans and monkeys have a common ancestor.'"
Now sure, he's little biologically ignorant, but the questions are mostly good ones, and in that sea of ignorance, it stood out like a sore thumb. So I saw an opportunity to educate, and with one of my favorite clips no less, Ken Miller explaining the fused chromosomes. I was really curious to see what he'd say about it. Boy, was I slapped out of optimism:
"Oh, it's so simple...
Gene fusion, a hybrid; like crossing a horse and a donkey to get a mule. But which came first, the donkey, or the horse? OK, you evolutionists, we are going to need some voluteers to tests gene fusion, or hybridzation. Anyone want to mate with a chimp? (purely in the interests of science, mind you). Oh, wait, we would need to mate with that common ancestor to see if we can get a chimp (or would the chimp have to mate with the ancestor to create a human). Alas, no one has seen that common ancestsor lately. So, we have to take your word for it, Science Avenger? That still doesn't answer the question of the odds of two exact add/subtract chromosomal mutations to get a pure breeding stock happening in the same population in the same generation 1 male and 1 female.
Wow. Amazing, isn't it? I really had forgotten what it was like to converse with people that arrogant AND ignorant, who would refuse to look at the answer they demanded. And you know what else occurred to me? You can't persuade someone who won't even look at what you have no matter how you frame it. It has to be fixed early, which is why the issues of school science curriculums are so important.
Otherwise, science teachers discussing mitochondrial Eve might be faced with idiocy like this:
"Wait a minute. The female ancestor lived 140,000 years ago. And the male ancestor lived 90,000 years ago??
So our first ape/mother, by your calculations was ---- 50,000 years old?"
We have SO much work to do.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Collins and Nisbet Miss the Mark on the New "Angry" Atheists
Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, was recently interviewed and treated us to this quaint little comment, filled with all the loaded terms and basic intellectual dishonesty we've come to expect from far lesser intellects:
"I also think that those of us who are interested in seeking harmony here have to make it clear that the current crowd of seemingly angry atheists, who are using science as part of their argument that faith is irrelevant, do not speak for us. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens do not necessarily represent the consensus of science; 40 percent of scientists are believers in a personal God. A lot more are rather uncomfortable about the topic but certainly would not align themselves with a strong atheistic perspective. To the extent that it can be made clear that the assault on faith, which has been pretty shrill in the last couple of years, is coming from a fringe - a minority - and is not representative of what most scientists believe, that would help defuse the incendiary rhetoric and perhaps allow a real conversation about creation.
Ah, the "angry atheists" being "shrill" and a "fringe". What bush-league framing, an obvious attempt to poison the well and make the three horsemen look unreasonable via labeling.. "Angry atheists" should proudly take their place next to the "uppity blacks" and the "flaunting homosexuals". It's all the same dance, the tunes and partners just change over time. Never mind why an oppressed group is a bit angry, just imply that their anger is their problem.
Just where exactly have those gentlemen claimed to speak for the consensus of scientists? This, like all scientific issues, is about evidence, not what the consensus is. The issue is what is a proper scientific perspective on this issue. Whether most scientists live up to that standard on this most incendiary of issues, remains to be seen. However, given that to many religions, denying the existence of the gods is considered one of the most serious offenses one can commit, the notion that this conversation can be had without rhetoric that seems incendiary, is naive in the extreme. There is no nice way to say "there is no evidence, and thus no reason any scientist should accept, to believe in gods". It is incendiary by its very nature.
Of course, Mr. Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do Framing Master Matt Nisbet would have us believe otherwise. His evidence? Mere assertion:
"The evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future."
It's not the scientists that are placing them in opposition, it's the religious who keep making baseless claims about the material world that do. The problem is basic, and goes to the heart of the milquetoast evasion above. Religion is NOT a way of understanding the world. It might be a way of coping with the world, or of rationalizing the world, but that is as far as it goes. Were it a way of understanding the world, it would on occasion derive some understanding that the rest of us can use, instead of confining it's "discoveries" to all that meaningless happy talk known as theology. Not once in the history of man has a group of theologians made a discovery which resonated in science, changing theories and prompting research. Theology is the one and only academic pursuit which sees no need to reconcile itself with other areas of study, and thus contributes nothing to them, or of human knowledge.
This gives us those of us with intellectual integrity two options: reject all religious claims which fail the test of science, and be left with a religion so generic it is hardly worth having, or play an internal game of lets-pretend, where we apply one standard to our scientific lives, and a completely different one to our comfy religious views, despite any good reasons why this one area of thought should be exempt from the standards to which everything else is subjected. Well, except one: religion cannot withstand that. It cannot be a nonoverlapping magisteria because it isn't a magisteria at all.
But unperturbed by this bit of logic, Nisbet then goes on to once again, blame those who demand intellectual consistency on these subjects, and based on the loftiest of sources:
"In reviews otherwise harshly dismissive of Expelled, Jeffrey Kluger of Time magazine describes Dawkins and Myers performance as 'sneering, finger in the eye atheism,' while Justin Chang of Variety refers to Dawkins as 'atheism taken to hateful extremes.'
Wow, with cites of such journals of distinction on his side, what possible retort can we muster? I know, we'll wait to see what Teen and Seventeen have to say on the matter. Once again Nisbet demonstrates that he is the William Dembski of the social sciences (right down to censoring conflicting views on his blog). Damning Dawkins and Myers based on the misrepresentations of them in the popular, nonrigorous media is in the same vein as damning Darwin based on what deranged German dictators thought of him. However, it is even worse, because it is the histrionic reaction to the simple, level-headed comments that people like Dawkins make about religion that is the problem, not what Dawkins is saying. He is proof that it doesn't matter how it is said. As long as it said, the religious will react that way. This is the lesson of history.
And what would a Nisbet rant be without his article of faith:
However, in coming decades, if the goal is to defend the teaching of evolution in schools and to maintain public trust in science and scientists, [Dawkins' and Myers'] message likely serves as a liability towards that end.
That's right Matt, keep chanting that self-serving mantra and hope none of us notice the complete lack of supporting evidence. If your goal is to get us "angry atheists" to change our ways, imitating the worst rhetorical traits of creationists is not the way to go about it.
The transition of our society from one based on superstition to one based on science will be a long gradual one, as most great changes are. There will be bumps along the way, as those like Francis Collins clinging to their baseless comfortable views will no doubt resist the changes. But some of them will change, either through a little intellectual handholding through "framing", or a swift kick in the intellectual ass as delivered by the we "angry atheists". It is a heterogeneous audience, needing a heterogeneous approach, and the idea that those using a more direct, confrontational approach do harm to the cause is a claim not only in complete conflict with history (think MLK, Ghandi), but with current experience as well.
"I also think that those of us who are interested in seeking harmony here have to make it clear that the current crowd of seemingly angry atheists, who are using science as part of their argument that faith is irrelevant, do not speak for us. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens do not necessarily represent the consensus of science; 40 percent of scientists are believers in a personal God. A lot more are rather uncomfortable about the topic but certainly would not align themselves with a strong atheistic perspective. To the extent that it can be made clear that the assault on faith, which has been pretty shrill in the last couple of years, is coming from a fringe - a minority - and is not representative of what most scientists believe, that would help defuse the incendiary rhetoric and perhaps allow a real conversation about creation.
Ah, the "angry atheists" being "shrill" and a "fringe". What bush-league framing, an obvious attempt to poison the well and make the three horsemen look unreasonable via labeling.. "Angry atheists" should proudly take their place next to the "uppity blacks" and the "flaunting homosexuals". It's all the same dance, the tunes and partners just change over time. Never mind why an oppressed group is a bit angry, just imply that their anger is their problem.
Just where exactly have those gentlemen claimed to speak for the consensus of scientists? This, like all scientific issues, is about evidence, not what the consensus is. The issue is what is a proper scientific perspective on this issue. Whether most scientists live up to that standard on this most incendiary of issues, remains to be seen. However, given that to many religions, denying the existence of the gods is considered one of the most serious offenses one can commit, the notion that this conversation can be had without rhetoric that seems incendiary, is naive in the extreme. There is no nice way to say "there is no evidence, and thus no reason any scientist should accept, to believe in gods". It is incendiary by its very nature.
Of course, Mr. Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do Framing Master Matt Nisbet would have us believe otherwise. His evidence? Mere assertion:
"The evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future."
It's not the scientists that are placing them in opposition, it's the religious who keep making baseless claims about the material world that do. The problem is basic, and goes to the heart of the milquetoast evasion above. Religion is NOT a way of understanding the world. It might be a way of coping with the world, or of rationalizing the world, but that is as far as it goes. Were it a way of understanding the world, it would on occasion derive some understanding that the rest of us can use, instead of confining it's "discoveries" to all that meaningless happy talk known as theology. Not once in the history of man has a group of theologians made a discovery which resonated in science, changing theories and prompting research. Theology is the one and only academic pursuit which sees no need to reconcile itself with other areas of study, and thus contributes nothing to them, or of human knowledge.
This gives us those of us with intellectual integrity two options: reject all religious claims which fail the test of science, and be left with a religion so generic it is hardly worth having, or play an internal game of lets-pretend, where we apply one standard to our scientific lives, and a completely different one to our comfy religious views, despite any good reasons why this one area of thought should be exempt from the standards to which everything else is subjected. Well, except one: religion cannot withstand that. It cannot be a nonoverlapping magisteria because it isn't a magisteria at all.
But unperturbed by this bit of logic, Nisbet then goes on to once again, blame those who demand intellectual consistency on these subjects, and based on the loftiest of sources:
"In reviews otherwise harshly dismissive of Expelled, Jeffrey Kluger of Time magazine describes Dawkins and Myers performance as 'sneering, finger in the eye atheism,' while Justin Chang of Variety refers to Dawkins as 'atheism taken to hateful extremes.'
Wow, with cites of such journals of distinction on his side, what possible retort can we muster? I know, we'll wait to see what Teen and Seventeen have to say on the matter. Once again Nisbet demonstrates that he is the William Dembski of the social sciences (right down to censoring conflicting views on his blog). Damning Dawkins and Myers based on the misrepresentations of them in the popular, nonrigorous media is in the same vein as damning Darwin based on what deranged German dictators thought of him. However, it is even worse, because it is the histrionic reaction to the simple, level-headed comments that people like Dawkins make about religion that is the problem, not what Dawkins is saying. He is proof that it doesn't matter how it is said. As long as it said, the religious will react that way. This is the lesson of history.
And what would a Nisbet rant be without his article of faith:
However, in coming decades, if the goal is to defend the teaching of evolution in schools and to maintain public trust in science and scientists, [Dawkins' and Myers'] message likely serves as a liability towards that end.
That's right Matt, keep chanting that self-serving mantra and hope none of us notice the complete lack of supporting evidence. If your goal is to get us "angry atheists" to change our ways, imitating the worst rhetorical traits of creationists is not the way to go about it.
The transition of our society from one based on superstition to one based on science will be a long gradual one, as most great changes are. There will be bumps along the way, as those like Francis Collins clinging to their baseless comfortable views will no doubt resist the changes. But some of them will change, either through a little intellectual handholding through "framing", or a swift kick in the intellectual ass as delivered by the we "angry atheists". It is a heterogeneous audience, needing a heterogeneous approach, and the idea that those using a more direct, confrontational approach do harm to the cause is a claim not only in complete conflict with history (think MLK, Ghandi), but with current experience as well.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Brayton Nails the Anti-Gay Marriage Gang
There is no slapdown the equal of applying an opponent's argument in an absurd, but consistent, manner to their own, and reaching a ridiculous conclusion. Ed Brayton gives the anti-gay marriage consortium such treatment with this quote:
"We start with the proposition, on this connection, that it is the family which constitutes the structural element of society, and that marriage is the legal basis upon which families are formed. Consequently this court has held in numerous decisions over the years that society is structured on the institution of marriage; that it has more to do with the welfare and civilizations of a people than any other institutions; and that out of the fruits of marriage spring relationships and responsibilities with which the state is necessarily required to deal. Text writers and judicial writers agree that the state has a natural, direct and vital interest in maximizing the number of successful marriages which lead to stable homes and families, and in minimizing those which do not.
Typical anti-gay marriage stuff right? Wrong. It's from a case called Loving vs. Virginia, made by the side defending laws forbidding interracial marriage. And in 100 years, the resistence to gay marriage will look just as absurd to the average person.
"We start with the proposition, on this connection, that it is the family which constitutes the structural element of society, and that marriage is the legal basis upon which families are formed. Consequently this court has held in numerous decisions over the years that society is structured on the institution of marriage; that it has more to do with the welfare and civilizations of a people than any other institutions; and that out of the fruits of marriage spring relationships and responsibilities with which the state is necessarily required to deal. Text writers and judicial writers agree that the state has a natural, direct and vital interest in maximizing the number of successful marriages which lead to stable homes and families, and in minimizing those which do not.
Typical anti-gay marriage stuff right? Wrong. It's from a case called Loving vs. Virginia, made by the side defending laws forbidding interracial marriage. And in 100 years, the resistence to gay marriage will look just as absurd to the average person.
Dembski on Expelled, Shows the Basic Logical Blunder at the Heart of ID
For a solid illustration of the fundamental logical flaws at the heart of Intelligent Design, who better than William Dembski himself to provide us with one:
"In EXPELLED, Stein interviews atheistic scientist after atheistic scientist, and they all admit that they haven’t a clue how life arose. There is no materialistic theory of life’s origin, and anyone who suggests otherwise is bluffing."
OK, so far so good. There are certainly interesting hypotheses out there, but none rising to the level of theory. Given the time involved, and the rarity of fossilization, exacerbated by the nature of those first early replicables, this may be as far as it ever gets in our lifetime. However, I remain optimistic, as there are many problems of science that have taken a very long time to be resolved. Nonetheless, this problem is in the "not solved" bin with the grand unification theory, The Reimann hypothesis, and balancing the federal budget. But for Dembski, this somehow adds credence to his argument, and this is where he runs off the rails.
"To assert that life arose by purely material forces is therefore an article of speculative faith."
Non sequitor. The nonexistence of a fully ironed out scientific theory does not amount to speculative faith. The assertions that the presents that appear under the Christmas tree, the "Face on Mars", and the eggs that appear in Easter baskets, arose by purely material forces, is not speculative faith. They are supported by considerable evidence, albeit not iron-clad proof. But this does not make all options equally viable, which is what Dembski is implying. This is a common mistake of his, assuming all unknown probabilities are equal.
Whatever level of speculation is involved in those claims, the amount of speculation with the Santa, alien face-carvers, and Easter Bunny theories is larger by orders of magnitude, and for one very simple reason. None of these things has even been demonstrated to exist, and existence must be demonstrated before it is rational to assign any effect to the hypothetical cause. It makes no sense to blame a broken vase on my imaginary pet cat.
"Stein is on the side of freedom of inquiry and expression in asking for intelligent design to have a place at the table."
No, Stein is going much further than that. He wants the table to be opened up to any and all hypotheses, even those that don't even have identified mechanisms. It would be like someone in the 18th century wanting a chair at the table at the heavier-than-air flight discussion with his hypothesis that fairies will lift his plane into the sky. Does it matter that no one else at that time knew how to fly? Go find some fairies first, then we'll talk. That's ID reasoning in a nutshell: if you don't know the answer, we get to make shit up.
Dembski also doesn't get to declare the scientific search over:
"Materialistic approaches to life’s origin have failed. In Rennie’s words, they constitute 'nonanswers.'"
OK, so what? Does Dembski have some reason to think this problem, if it had a completely materialist explanation, would be solved by now? By what argument does he reach this conclusion? It's not as if tons of fossil evidence had been found from that era that showed absolutely no trace of any material processes. We just don't have much data from that era of earth's history. Maybe we'll find some, maybe we won't. Dembski's statement is missing the necessary qualifier "so far".
Even if the search remains unsuccessful for 1,000 years, that still doesn't warrant hypothesizing some sort of highly complex conscious being to explain how complexity and consciousness arose. That negative regress has never been resolved, and science simply doesn't allow for making shit up when you've grown impatient with its rate of progress. THAT is what Stein and Dembski are promoting.
"In EXPELLED, Stein interviews atheistic scientist after atheistic scientist, and they all admit that they haven’t a clue how life arose. There is no materialistic theory of life’s origin, and anyone who suggests otherwise is bluffing."
OK, so far so good. There are certainly interesting hypotheses out there, but none rising to the level of theory. Given the time involved, and the rarity of fossilization, exacerbated by the nature of those first early replicables, this may be as far as it ever gets in our lifetime. However, I remain optimistic, as there are many problems of science that have taken a very long time to be resolved. Nonetheless, this problem is in the "not solved" bin with the grand unification theory, The Reimann hypothesis, and balancing the federal budget. But for Dembski, this somehow adds credence to his argument, and this is where he runs off the rails.
"To assert that life arose by purely material forces is therefore an article of speculative faith."
Non sequitor. The nonexistence of a fully ironed out scientific theory does not amount to speculative faith. The assertions that the presents that appear under the Christmas tree, the "Face on Mars", and the eggs that appear in Easter baskets, arose by purely material forces, is not speculative faith. They are supported by considerable evidence, albeit not iron-clad proof. But this does not make all options equally viable, which is what Dembski is implying. This is a common mistake of his, assuming all unknown probabilities are equal.
Whatever level of speculation is involved in those claims, the amount of speculation with the Santa, alien face-carvers, and Easter Bunny theories is larger by orders of magnitude, and for one very simple reason. None of these things has even been demonstrated to exist, and existence must be demonstrated before it is rational to assign any effect to the hypothetical cause. It makes no sense to blame a broken vase on my imaginary pet cat.
"Stein is on the side of freedom of inquiry and expression in asking for intelligent design to have a place at the table."
No, Stein is going much further than that. He wants the table to be opened up to any and all hypotheses, even those that don't even have identified mechanisms. It would be like someone in the 18th century wanting a chair at the table at the heavier-than-air flight discussion with his hypothesis that fairies will lift his plane into the sky. Does it matter that no one else at that time knew how to fly? Go find some fairies first, then we'll talk. That's ID reasoning in a nutshell: if you don't know the answer, we get to make shit up.
Dembski also doesn't get to declare the scientific search over:
"Materialistic approaches to life’s origin have failed. In Rennie’s words, they constitute 'nonanswers.'"
OK, so what? Does Dembski have some reason to think this problem, if it had a completely materialist explanation, would be solved by now? By what argument does he reach this conclusion? It's not as if tons of fossil evidence had been found from that era that showed absolutely no trace of any material processes. We just don't have much data from that era of earth's history. Maybe we'll find some, maybe we won't. Dembski's statement is missing the necessary qualifier "so far".
Even if the search remains unsuccessful for 1,000 years, that still doesn't warrant hypothesizing some sort of highly complex conscious being to explain how complexity and consciousness arose. That negative regress has never been resolved, and science simply doesn't allow for making shit up when you've grown impatient with its rate of progress. THAT is what Stein and Dembski are promoting.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Real Lesson Kristen Byrnes Teaches us, with a Little Help from David Berlinski
In case you have missed the story, an enterprising young lady named Kristen Byrnes has put together and global warming denialist website, and NPR was apparently so impressed that they did this story on her. I can't improve on the critiques on the content of that story, which you can read here,here,here, and here. Basically the NPR story bent over backwards to be kind to Kristen, not really pursuing just how much of her views on the subject are derivative of her step-dad's, and despite the fact that her site is the same old disreputable shit, with lots of cherry-picking of data, pseudoscience, and insightful gems like this:
"With these lectures [Al Gore] only considered one point of view, and did not consider the other side of the story (warming being natural), which would have made his movie a little more believable. "
More believable to who Kristen? There is no "other side" to global warming, evolution, or any other scientific issue. There is the reasonable view based on ALL the available evidence, and then there are the literally limitless number of worthless views based on other things (stupidity, rebelliousness, religious motive, plain old denial, reliance on false authorities, political allegiance, etc.). How many of these play a part in Kristen's view I won't venture a guess. What caught my interest in the story was this angle:
Skeptics loved it: A 15-year-old attacking the mainstream scientific view.
Skeptics loved it? Why? Does it make mainstream science look bad that a 16 year old girl can put together an anti-global warming website? Of course not. It makes the skeptics look bad, and the answer as to why is part of the response that should be given to people making comments like David Berlinski did in this debate, and by others elsewhere, who attack evolutionary theory but refuse to offer any alternative:
"I don't see why I am obliged to answer that...I find scientific flaws with Darwininan theory, I don't have to replace it."
Yes, you do, and Kristen shows us why. She shows just how easy it is to appear to make a case if all one does is cherry pick data and interpret it to one's liking. This is what evolution-deniers have been doing for decades, and the global warming denialists follow the same pattern.
Most science is imperfect. Most science could be improved. Showing this doesn't prove true whatever alternative view is being touted, be it Intelligent Design, or the its-warming-but-humans-didn't-do-it hypothesis that Kristen and many other AGW denialists support. To make your case, you have to, well, MAKE YOUR CASE. Do the science. Come up with a fully developed theory that encompasses ALL of the data, and does so better than the prevailing theory. THEN you've done something worthy of notice. Until then, you just a loud fan in the stands pretending you are in the game.
Being a pure skeptic is so easy even a 16-year-old can do it. That's what Kristen shows us, and the glowing reaction to her website shows just how low the academic standards of skeptics are. That's the lesson here.
"With these lectures [Al Gore] only considered one point of view, and did not consider the other side of the story (warming being natural), which would have made his movie a little more believable. "
More believable to who Kristen? There is no "other side" to global warming, evolution, or any other scientific issue. There is the reasonable view based on ALL the available evidence, and then there are the literally limitless number of worthless views based on other things (stupidity, rebelliousness, religious motive, plain old denial, reliance on false authorities, political allegiance, etc.). How many of these play a part in Kristen's view I won't venture a guess. What caught my interest in the story was this angle:
Skeptics loved it: A 15-year-old attacking the mainstream scientific view.
Skeptics loved it? Why? Does it make mainstream science look bad that a 16 year old girl can put together an anti-global warming website? Of course not. It makes the skeptics look bad, and the answer as to why is part of the response that should be given to people making comments like David Berlinski did in this debate, and by others elsewhere, who attack evolutionary theory but refuse to offer any alternative:
"I don't see why I am obliged to answer that...I find scientific flaws with Darwininan theory, I don't have to replace it."
Yes, you do, and Kristen shows us why. She shows just how easy it is to appear to make a case if all one does is cherry pick data and interpret it to one's liking. This is what evolution-deniers have been doing for decades, and the global warming denialists follow the same pattern.
Most science is imperfect. Most science could be improved. Showing this doesn't prove true whatever alternative view is being touted, be it Intelligent Design, or the its-warming-but-humans-didn't-do-it hypothesis that Kristen and many other AGW denialists support. To make your case, you have to, well, MAKE YOUR CASE. Do the science. Come up with a fully developed theory that encompasses ALL of the data, and does so better than the prevailing theory. THEN you've done something worthy of notice. Until then, you just a loud fan in the stands pretending you are in the game.
Being a pure skeptic is so easy even a 16-year-old can do it. That's what Kristen shows us, and the glowing reaction to her website shows just how low the academic standards of skeptics are. That's the lesson here.
The War has a part in the Economic Downturn? You Don't Say!
For a discussion of the impact the war in Iraq has had on the economy, here is a discussion at the Washington Post.
Not being an economist, I can't much argue the specific points here. However, one cannot lose sight of the big picture. The war must create some side benefit: better access to oil, improved infrastructure, improved international relations (yeah I know), to have a positive impact on the economy. War per se doesn't do anything for the economy than did going to moon per se. It's the side effects that make the benefit. Otherwise, all we'd have to do to improve the economy would be to pretend we are at war all the time, and just drive our tanks and planes into the ocean (or whatever more ecofriendly alternative occurs to you).
Not being an economist, I can't much argue the specific points here. However, one cannot lose sight of the big picture. The war must create some side benefit: better access to oil, improved infrastructure, improved international relations (yeah I know), to have a positive impact on the economy. War per se doesn't do anything for the economy than did going to moon per se. It's the side effects that make the benefit. Otherwise, all we'd have to do to improve the economy would be to pretend we are at war all the time, and just drive our tanks and planes into the ocean (or whatever more ecofriendly alternative occurs to you).
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
McCain's Economic Proposal: a Do-Nothing Dance around the Real Problems
John McCain wanted to show he was as strong on the economy as he was on other issues. Well, given his repeated inability to distinguish Sunni from Shiite, I'd say his economic proposal is right in line with his understanding of other issues. With a few notable exceptions, McCain's proposals are what is becoming alarmingly common with Republicans. They seem to have no economic policy, except the one we know doesn't work: cut taxes and hope, while the budget deficits grow larger and larger.
To help people weather the [economic] downturn immediately, McCain urged Congress to institute a "gas-tax holiday" by suspending the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Well, it is always nice to have more cash in your pocket, but what exactly is this going to accomplish? The majority of people used their income tax rebate to pay down their personal debt, rather than going out and spending and stimulating the economy. What makes McCain think this will be any different? In addition, every dollar in tax reduction is a dollar more we add to our already massively swollen deficits, which just increases the burden on us in future years.
He also renewed his call for the United States to stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and thus lessen to some extent the worldwide demand for oil.
Now we are talking. While this subject is a bit outside my areas of knowledge, at least it is a legitimate economic policy. Sadly, there are very few of those in McCain's proposal.
McCain also said the Education Department should work with the country's governors to make sure that each state's guarantee agency — nonprofits that traditionally back student loans issued by banks — has both the means and the manpower to be the lender-of-last-resort for student loans.
Making it easier for college students to get loans is a laudable goal. After all, we need high-skilled, highly educated workers. But it takes money to do this. Where is it going to come from?
As usual, there is no answer.
"Require more affluent people — couples making more than $160,000 — enrolled in Medicare to pay a higher premium for their prescription drugs than less-wealthy people."
This is a move in the right direction, and one that is likely to continue on that trend regardless of who is in office. Social Security and Medicare are, in essence, welfare programs for old people. It makes little sense to have such a program apply fully to people who are wealthy and need little assistance, especially with our current budget crisis. However, this is unlikely to have a significant impact on the problem without considerable help from other sources.
"Raise the tax exemption for each dependent child from $3,500 to $7,000."
This is horribly flawed for several reasons. First, it is anachronistic. The United States no longer has a motive to encourage childbearing. We have more people than we need. If anything, the tax code should surcharge people for having children, not reward them for it. Second, the vast majority of Americans pay little in taxes in the first place. This is the piece of the puzzle the Republicans seem blinded to. Tax cuts don't mean jack if you aren't paying taxes in the first place. And third, however small the effect, this is yet another cut in income at a time where our income is too small already.
"Offer people the option of choosing a simpler tax system with two tax rates and a standard deduction instead of sticking with the current system."
Aside from the sheer fantasy nature of such a proposal, what problems would it solve? Sure, we'd spend less time filling out our tax forms, but unless it amounts to greater government revenues, we still have all the same problems we had before.
"Suspend for one year all increases in discretionary spending for agencies other than those that cover the military and veterans while launching an expansive review of the effectiveness of federal programs."
This is economic masturbation. The military, veterans benefits, social security and medicare, and interest on the debt, amount to about 74% of government spending. Restricting spending cuts to the remainder is swatting at a fly while ignoring a swarm of hornets. As long as politicians treat the military and social security as untouchable, our budget problems will continue.
At least McCain got some of the rhetoric right:
"In so many ways, we need to make a clean break from the worst excesses of both political parties," McCain said, adding "somewhere along the way, too many Republicans in Congress became indistinguishable from the big-spending Democrats they used to oppose."
Indeed, they have. So put your budget where your mouth is Mr. McCain, and put ALL government spending on the table for possible cuts. I can think of one $14Billion a month military expense that could stand some cutting pronto.
McCain's parting commentary on the plans of Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton was typical pie-in-the-skyism:
"Both promise big 'change.' And a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade would certainly fit that description," McCain said. Playing on the title of an Obama book, McCain added: "All these tax increases are the fine print under the slogan of 'hope:' They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year — and they have the audacity to hope you don't mind."
Is it better to continue to run up deficits? We spent $243 BILLION last year in interest on the debt. That's $243,000,000,000, or close to $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country! Rigid resistance to tax increases without an alternative that will close the budget gap is irresponsible at best, and childishly dishonest at worst. Someone needs to tell the Republicans that "Cut taxes and hope" is not an economic plan. It is denial of their civic responsibility, and it is something this country can no longer tolerate.
To help people weather the [economic] downturn immediately, McCain urged Congress to institute a "gas-tax holiday" by suspending the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Well, it is always nice to have more cash in your pocket, but what exactly is this going to accomplish? The majority of people used their income tax rebate to pay down their personal debt, rather than going out and spending and stimulating the economy. What makes McCain think this will be any different? In addition, every dollar in tax reduction is a dollar more we add to our already massively swollen deficits, which just increases the burden on us in future years.
He also renewed his call for the United States to stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and thus lessen to some extent the worldwide demand for oil.
Now we are talking. While this subject is a bit outside my areas of knowledge, at least it is a legitimate economic policy. Sadly, there are very few of those in McCain's proposal.
McCain also said the Education Department should work with the country's governors to make sure that each state's guarantee agency — nonprofits that traditionally back student loans issued by banks — has both the means and the manpower to be the lender-of-last-resort for student loans.
Making it easier for college students to get loans is a laudable goal. After all, we need high-skilled, highly educated workers. But it takes money to do this. Where is it going to come from?
As usual, there is no answer.
"Require more affluent people — couples making more than $160,000 — enrolled in Medicare to pay a higher premium for their prescription drugs than less-wealthy people."
This is a move in the right direction, and one that is likely to continue on that trend regardless of who is in office. Social Security and Medicare are, in essence, welfare programs for old people. It makes little sense to have such a program apply fully to people who are wealthy and need little assistance, especially with our current budget crisis. However, this is unlikely to have a significant impact on the problem without considerable help from other sources.
"Raise the tax exemption for each dependent child from $3,500 to $7,000."
This is horribly flawed for several reasons. First, it is anachronistic. The United States no longer has a motive to encourage childbearing. We have more people than we need. If anything, the tax code should surcharge people for having children, not reward them for it. Second, the vast majority of Americans pay little in taxes in the first place. This is the piece of the puzzle the Republicans seem blinded to. Tax cuts don't mean jack if you aren't paying taxes in the first place. And third, however small the effect, this is yet another cut in income at a time where our income is too small already.
"Offer people the option of choosing a simpler tax system with two tax rates and a standard deduction instead of sticking with the current system."
Aside from the sheer fantasy nature of such a proposal, what problems would it solve? Sure, we'd spend less time filling out our tax forms, but unless it amounts to greater government revenues, we still have all the same problems we had before.
"Suspend for one year all increases in discretionary spending for agencies other than those that cover the military and veterans while launching an expansive review of the effectiveness of federal programs."
This is economic masturbation. The military, veterans benefits, social security and medicare, and interest on the debt, amount to about 74% of government spending. Restricting spending cuts to the remainder is swatting at a fly while ignoring a swarm of hornets. As long as politicians treat the military and social security as untouchable, our budget problems will continue.
At least McCain got some of the rhetoric right:
"In so many ways, we need to make a clean break from the worst excesses of both political parties," McCain said, adding "somewhere along the way, too many Republicans in Congress became indistinguishable from the big-spending Democrats they used to oppose."
Indeed, they have. So put your budget where your mouth is Mr. McCain, and put ALL government spending on the table for possible cuts. I can think of one $14Billion a month military expense that could stand some cutting pronto.
McCain's parting commentary on the plans of Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton was typical pie-in-the-skyism:
"Both promise big 'change.' And a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade would certainly fit that description," McCain said. Playing on the title of an Obama book, McCain added: "All these tax increases are the fine print under the slogan of 'hope:' They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year — and they have the audacity to hope you don't mind."
Is it better to continue to run up deficits? We spent $243 BILLION last year in interest on the debt. That's $243,000,000,000, or close to $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country! Rigid resistance to tax increases without an alternative that will close the budget gap is irresponsible at best, and childishly dishonest at worst. Someone needs to tell the Republicans that "Cut taxes and hope" is not an economic plan. It is denial of their civic responsibility, and it is something this country can no longer tolerate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
