Future Regrets?

[Peregrinator]

I sure hope not.

Me, too. And I hope you don't regret your self-preservation.

 

[Bidin~Time]

Me, too. And I hope you don't regret your self-preservation.

Thanks. I recognize this fault(?) in my disposition makes it difficult for others to get to know me. I do hope that once people get to know me, they think I am worth the effort.

 

[hsnh]

You have two spirals there, it seems; the larger spiral of capital-T Time and the smaller spiral, or maybe more solipsistic spiral, of hsnh-time. Which is not an objection, at all, just an observation.

I don't quite follow how linear time sense leads to needing to accept personal responsibility; isn't that what you're doing by applying gained wisdom every time you make a circuit on the spiral?

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id...AEIKjAG#v=onepage&q=time spiral plato&f=false

The first paragraph outlined it better than I did.


But perhaps I'm suffering from the immigrant syndrome (of being prejudiced against the anglo- saxon individualistic culture, which, paradoxically, I find to be quite judgmental of the individual).
So my views are often geared in that way.

But the other extreme that western feminists and liberals have now fallen into (the postmodern war against white males) isn't flash either.

 

[Peregrinator]

Thanks. I recognize this fault(?) in my disposition makes it difficult for others to get to know me. I do hope that once people get to know me, they think I am worth the effort.

I don't know you well, but you've always seemed like a good egg to me. Some of us are spread very thin...some of you are more selective. I don't think there's a better or worse there.

 

[Peregrinator]

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id...AEIKjAG#v=onepage&q=time spiral plato&f=false

The first paragraph outlined it better than I did.


But perhaps I'm suffering from the immigrant syndrome (of being prejudiced against the anglo- saxon individualistic culture, which, paradoxically, I find to be quite judgmental of the individual).
So my views are often geared in that way.

But the other extreme that western feminists and liberals have now fallen into (the postmodern war against white males) isn't flash either.

I remember that stuff...from a long time ago when I was a philosophy minor in college. Your outline was fine; my question stems from your conclusion, rather.

Maybe. I can't speak to that personally, being second gen on one side and third on the other, and even if I were first or an immigrant still a northern Euromutt. I agree that the culture is judgmental of indiviuals. It stems from notions of personal responsibility and liberty. What have you done with your freedom?

I don't see a war against me, except in extreme cases. I run in very, very liberal circles sometimes, particularly in my Facebook friends, and there's not so much a war against white men among the vast majority as there is a strident minority, as with all extremists.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Stalin and Mao both claimed their countries were in times of transition, is what I was referring to.

Fracking is only low cost if you factor out the damage it does, as Jaf0 pointed out. And science is pretty settled on an awful lot of stuff. Pretty sure the earth isn't flat, eg.

Not ad hominem; you have always defended profit against any and all objections. Ad hominem refers to the attempted refutation of an argument; I was only making an observation about you, not refuting anything fallaciously. You seem to confuse "ad hominem" with "insulting." Unless, for some reason, you're using the phrase literally, in which case, yes, my comment was about you, but then, why would it have no place in a polite discussion? There's nothing rude or insulting about saying "I see where some of your positions come from."

I don't think capitalism is, itself, harmful. The behavior of those who worship profit above all things is demonstrably harmful. Air pollution, acid rain, ocean acidification, agricultural runoff, these things are clearly harmful. They are, by and large, byproducts of someone's desire to obtain or retain capital. Thqt doesn't make capitalism harmful; it makes their behavior harmful.

Claiming that you are in a time of transition is clearly not the same thing as the transition between Mercantilism and Capitalism, so I don't have the slightest idea as to why you thought that it made any sort of a point.

What fracking damage? There are a lot of lies about it based in Political Science and I've addressed that repeatedly in your absence, and here is the go to rebuttal of all of that crap:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/g161/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593/

That is the Science, not the Political Science that spreads fear and disinformation in the hope of acquiring government funding to solve the problems they invent.

No, I have defended the free exchange of goods and services between individuals and supported a strong judiciary, as one of the few legitimate roles of central government, that upholds contracts and addresses harm done intentionally, or unintentionally by bad or incompetent actors. That which I object to which some people think is the only way to control business is the regulatory state which has no end, solves no problems, and is a hidden tax which robs a nation of its wealth which retards future technologies and industries. A regulation is a political reaction to something that has gone wrong. Now, it was either criminal or an accident. If it is criminal, there are criminal actions, if it was an accident the company/industry learns from it and faces civil actions by those harmed and all rational companies/industries do everything they can possibly do to avoid those costs and the damage they do to their brand. We don't need opportunistic politicians jumping into the process with their hair-brained ideas about how best to run industries that they have zero experience in.

I doubt highly that there are entrepreneurs, people who build and create who worship profit above all else. In fact the best example that I can think of of someone who puts profit upon that alter is George Soros who is actually unconcerned about creating destruction in his drive and compulsion to acquire wealth without provided any benefit to any person but himself.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Interesting perspective. I'm not sure that even if time were circular, that would erase regret.

If time were circular the gunslinger would keep following the man in black through the desert, over and over again.

Oops, spoiler alert.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Fair enough. I can percolate.

Don't get me wrong, don't mean to be stingy or anything, but certain things are not easily described, especially when it's an.. 'alternate universe', then one looks as if living there

Besides, if you ever embark on that trail, wouldn't wanna spoil the ending.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Interesting perspective. I'm not sure that even if time were circular, that would erase regret.

Regret can only be erased within a few days maybe weeks after the regretful event took place.

 

[jaF0]

I know I'm going to regret eating this ice cream.

 

[Peregrinator]

Claiming that you are in a time of transition is clearly not the same thing as the transition between Mercantilism and Capitalism, so I don't have the slightest idea as to why you thought that it made any sort of a point.

What fracking damage? There are a lot of lies about it based in Political Science and I've addressed that repeatedly in your absence, and here is the go to rebuttal of all of that crap:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/g161/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593/

That is the Science, not the Political Science that spreads fear and disinformation in the hope of acquiring government funding to solve the problems they invent.

No, I have defended the free exchange of goods and services between individuals and supported a strong judiciary, as one of the few legitimate roles of central government, that upholds contracts and addresses harm done intentionally, or unintentionally by bad or incompetent actors. That which I object to which some people think is the only way to control business is the regulatory state which has no end, solves no problems, and is a hidden tax which robs a nation of its wealth which retards future technologies and industries. A regulation is a political reaction to something that has gone wrong. Now, it was either criminal or an accident. If it is criminal, there are criminal actions, if it was an accident the company/industry learns from it and faces civil actions by those harmed and all rational companies/industries do everything they can possibly do to avoid those costs and the damage they do to their brand. We don't need opportunistic politicians jumping into the process with their hair-brained ideas about how best to run industries that they have zero experience in.

I doubt highly that there are entrepreneurs, people who build and create who worship profit above all else. In fact the best example that I can think of of someone who puts profit upon that alter is George Soros who is actually unconcerned about creating destruction in his drive and compulsion to acquire wealth without provided any benefit to any person but himself.

This is a really interesting post in a lot of ways, but before I address anything else, can you explain to me, regarding the part I bolded, what criteria you use to distinguish between what you term "science" versus "political science?" I need to know how you filter before I respond.

 

[Peregrinator]

If time were circular the gunslinger would keep following the man in black through the desert, over and over again.

Oops, spoiler alert.

Maybe ol' Steve knows something the rest of us don't.

 

[Peregrinator]

Don't get me wrong, don't mean to be stingy or anything, but certain things are not easily described, especially when it's an.. 'alternate universe', then one looks as if living there

Besides, if you ever embark on that trail, wouldn't wanna spoil the ending.

No worries. I'll figure it out. Or I won't.

Regret can only be erased within a few days maybe weeks after the regretful event took place.

Um. Hmm. Life experiencee tells me otherwise.

 

[Peregrinator]

I know I'm going to regret eating this ice cream.

It's been a week...how now?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This is a really interesting post in a lot of ways, but before I address anything else, can you explain to me, regarding the part I bolded, what criteria you use to distinguish between what you term "science" versus "political science?" I need to know how you filter before I respond.

People who have a desired outcome and then cherrypick the 'science' that seems to support their agenda versus people who study science for the love of knowledge and then reach conclusions, a thesis, a theory, that others can then experiment on in order to replicate or disprove it.

In other words, you can make a simple computer model to try and model a chaotic system and with enough tweaking, you can actually manage to make it model past events (sort of like the Historical School of Economics which dominated the Socialists of the Chair and German Economics at the start of the last century) to the layperson's eyes. However, as we have seen, it fails to predict future events because it fails to include all drivers of 'climate.' That is because the model is not Science, but political science.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There are many great examples of researchers trying to prove to us via political science that eggs are bad for us, fat is bad for us, salt is bad for us, butter is bad for us and they have a point, if you overdose on the crap...



But they set out to prove something that they wanted/believed to be true so their experiments/studies were based upon flawed premises.



However, later, more unbiased studies of the various studies themselves showed that their results were simply just not true.

Now, if you are a nuclear scientist, then you can build a model that can test bomb payloads because you know all of the inputs to the reaction, it is not a chaotic system. That is Science that can be independently replicated.

 

[Saint Peter]

Science or Gump Science? The software used to made the video is modeling an asteroid near the Russian city of Chelyabinsk (2013). Are we cherry picking if what we know about the impact is applied to future versions of the software to make it more accurate? No. The 2013 event is a fortunate data source to tweeze the software and move it forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbh6GjRChnQ

The source is NASA's Ames Research Center. It was done using LLNL's ALE3D modeling software. Is every variable taking into account? Doubtful. There are variables out there we still do not understand or even know to exist. That does not stop the science. The model is created and scrutinized. Flaws are removed. Repeat.

 

[thør]

In the past week, I have eaten many things that I cannot recognize. I regret nothing with regard to eating, not even the horse.

 

[RobDownSouth]

There are many great examples of researchers trying to prove to us via political science that eggs are bad for us, fat is bad for us, salt is bad for us, butter is bad for us and they have a point, if you overdose on the crap... But they set out to prove something that they wanted/believed to be true so their experiments/studies were based upon flawed premises.However, later, more unbiased studies of the various studies themselves showed that their results were simply just not true.
Now, if you are a nuclear scientist, then you can build a model that can test bomb payloads because you know all of the inputs to the reaction, it is not a chaotic system. That is Science that can be independently replicated.

SCIENCE BAD!
MATH BAD!
EDUCATION BAD!
VON MISES GOOD!

 

[hsnh]

SCIENCE BAD!
MATH BAD!
EDUCATION BAD!
VON MISES GOOD!

Wtf are you going on about?

Your posts are either lecherous, or mediocre.
Funny - or figures - why you keep attacking posters who have something interesting to say.

Dumbing down the board won't get you cheap pussy, you joke of a man.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

How else do you think he got elected into the Lit Hall of Fame...



His act is pure gold. Ask him.

 

[Peregrinator]

People who have a desired outcome and then cherrypick the 'science' that seems to support their agenda versus people who study science for the love of knowledge and then reach conclusions, a thesis, a theory, that others can then experiment on in order to replicate or disprove it.

In other words, you can make a simple computer model to try and model a chaotic system and with enough tweaking, you can actually manage to make it model past events (sort of like the Historical School of Economics which dominated the Socialists of the Chair and German Economics at the start of the last century) to the layperson's eyes. However, as we have seen, it fails to predict future events because it fails to include all drivers of 'climate.' That is because the model is not Science, but political science.

There are many great examples of researchers trying to prove to us via political science that eggs are bad for us, fat is bad for us, salt is bad for us, butter is bad for us and they have a point, if you overdose on the crap...



But they set out to prove something that they wanted/believed to be true so their experiments/studies were based upon flawed premises.



However, later, more unbiased studies of the various studies themselves showed that their results were simply just not true.

Now, if you are a nuclear scientist, then you can build a model that can test bomb payloads because you know all of the inputs to the reaction, it is not a chaotic system. That is Science that can be independently replicated.

Neither of these posts answers my question. Let me rephrase it, because I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from.

If I link you to a study, how can you tell by reading that study if it's science or "political science?" There must be some objective, quantifiable criteria you are using, if you're not engaging in political critique yourself. I want to understand those criteria. It looks like you simply dismiss any science that disagrees with you as "political." I do not wish to believe that of you.

 

[Peregrinator]

Science or Gump Science? The software used to made the video is modeling an asteroid near the Russian city of Chelyabinsk (2013). Are we cherry picking if what we know about the impact is applied to future versions of the software to make it more accurate? No. The 2013 event is a fortunate data source to tweeze the software and move it forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbh6GjRChnQ

The source is NASA's Ames Research Center. It was done using LLNL's ALE3D modeling software. Is every variable taking into account? Doubtful. There are variables out there we still do not understand or even know to exist. That does not stop the science. The model is created and scrutinized. Flaws are removed. Repeat.

This seems to be a common sticking point. People hate science that disagrees with them.

 

[Peregrinator]

In the past week, I have eaten many things that I cannot recognize. I regret nothing with regard to eating, not even the horse.

What does horse taste like? Any other interesting stuff? Where the hell are you?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Neither of these posts answers my question. Let me rephrase it, because I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from.

If I link you to a study, how can you tell by reading that study if it's science or "political science?" There must be some objective, quantifiable criteria you are using, if you're not engaging in political critique yourself. I want to understand those criteria. It looks like you simply dismiss any science that disagrees with you as "political." I do not wish to believe that of you.

If you link me to a study, I have little to go on.

If you talk to me about an issue based upon a study, then I have a little more to go on.


Example: A study comes out linking salt to hypertension. Well, okay, I'm willing to consider it and wait for corroborating studies, but the press and those whom like to control what I do to my body then turn it into a news cycle and then it becomes a myth that lives on well past its debunking. As the saying goes, "A lie goes all the way around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on."

Too much science by lesser intellectuals is presented to us as fact, without verification. In science, today, sadly, you get notoriety, academic prestige and greater access to funding when you scare the pants off of people. Now about the other "interesting" aspects of my post...




On a side note, up in Princess Park we have either a Peregrin or a Cooper's who has taken up a post in the dead part of an old tree to declare his territory. He cracks me up because he is over 100' in the air and if I walk up my driveway, a comfortable 200' from the tree itself, he takes off in great alarm as if I were a clear and present danger to him (and his way of life).