Al Those Great Scientists Here

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

On May 9, 4:41 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:50:13 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Every seaport in the world is going
> >to be under water. Many trillions of dollars of infrastructure,
> >refineries, etc would have to be rebuilt.
>
> One of the advantages of that is the new facilities are made from the
> latest technology.
>
> >What is going to happen is
> >mass starvation, millions of refugees, and wars over resources. No
> >one is going to be planting wheat and corn on "virgin tundra" soon
> >enough to feed the existing population. There will be a massive die-
> >off.
>
> What nonsense. These changes take place gradually over decades at the
> fastest. Humans will adjust if they have to. Evem if they don't
> perhaps it's time to thin the herd and improve the gene pool.

The 100' rise in sea level that you specified would be catastrophic
even if it took 100 years. It would not be possible to simply rebuild,
you'd probably have to rebuild 3 or 4 times as the sea level continued
to rise. Where would the money come from? The most valuable real
estate around the world would be wiped out and commerce severely
disrupted.

Bin Laden destroyed 2 buildings. You seem to think it's no biggie if
every port city in the world was devastated. Bin Laden killed 3,000,
you're saying "perhaps it's time to thin the herd and improve the gene
pool". You right wing traitors make bin Laden look like an
underachiever.

And you say you have a son- so your attitude is "I've got mine, Jack,
screw the grandkids." Ah, "family values", Republican-style.

I'd simply like to leave my grandkids a country in as good a shape as
it was when it was handed over to me.
-Paul

On May 11, 12:09 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <d7ddf1ee-1266-471e-83d2-9c1979cc1...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 1:59 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <be89f6b0-43b5-4993-b3f4-5cc2484e2...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 9, 11:31 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > > > > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
>
> > > > > > > > Read the link.
>
> > > > > > > I read it, and stand by what I said.
>
> > > > > > I am not surprised.
>
> > > > > I _am_ surprised.
> > > > > Where do you disagree with what I said?
>
> > > > Hmmm. You're saying you're surprised that I'm not surprised? That does
> > > > surprise me.
>
> > > No. I am surprised that you seem to disapprove of what I say:
> > > that self-labeling with the tag `reality based' is hubris.
> > > But, then, you are not giving clues to what you think,
> > > and I only infer that you disapprove of what I say.
>
> > What inanity. There is no hubris involved in acknowledging reality.
> > Maybe you're suggesting that reality isn't reality. But, then, you are
> > not giving clues to what you think, and I only infer that you
> > disapprove of what we say.
>
> I said exactly what I think.
>

You said you read it. I'm sure you think you read it. Let me refresh
your memory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

You then said "self-labeling with the tag `reality based' is hubris."
I wouldn't agree with that even if it were true, but it's not true.
According to the article the source of the term is an unnamed aide to
George W. Bush:

"The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-
based community," which he defined as people who "believe that
solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality."

So we were labeled, rather than being self-labeling. However, I
embrace that label. I DO believe that "solutions emerge from the
judicious study of discernible reality." It's not like we're claiming
that we're "saved" or "perfected" or "god's chosen" or some similar
nonsense. Now THAT'S hubris.

-Paul

On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:25:46 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
<carbide@egine.com> wrote:

>> What nonsense. These changes take place gradually over decades at the
>> fastest. Humans will adjust if they have to. Evem if they don't
>> perhaps it's time to thin the herd and improve the gene pool.
>
>The 100' rise in sea level that you specified would be catastrophic
>even if it took 100 years. It would not be possible to simply rebuild,
>you'd probably have to rebuild 3 or 4 times as the sea level continued
>to rise.

At current rates, even with an acceleration factor put into the
equation, it's estimated that the seas will rise about 280 to 340 mm
in 100 years. At that rate a 100 foot rise in sea levels will take
almost 10,000 years. Even if you have to build new seaports every
time the sea rises by 10 feet, you only have to rebuild every thousand
years. No problem.


http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/church_white/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf

On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:25:46 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
<carbide@egine.com> wrote:

>Bin Laden destroyed 2 buildings. You seem to think it's no biggie if
>every port city in the world was devastated. Bin Laden killed 3,000,
>you're saying "perhaps it's time to thin the herd and improve the gene
>pool". You right wing traitors make bin Laden look like an
>underachiever.

Actually, some theorists believe it was the population reduction
during the last ice age that led to modern humans. It's estimated
that only a few thousand humans survived. Homo Sapiens before the ice
age were different from the ones that came after the ice age. So it's
not clear that population bottlenecks are a bad thing.

Unlike you, I have faith that the human race will adjust to whatever
the situation presents.

On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:52:44 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
<carbide@egine.com> wrote:

>However, I
>embrace that label. I DO believe that "solutions emerge from the
>judicious study of discernible reality." It's not like we're claiming
>that we're "saved" or "perfected" or "god's chosen" or some similar
>nonsense.

However, it does claim that you know what reality is.

On May 12, 5:13 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:52:44 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
>
> <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> >However, I
> >embrace that label. I DO believe that "solutions emerge from the
> >judicious study of discernible reality." It's not like we're claiming
> >that we're "saved" or "perfected" or "god's chosen" or some similar
> >nonsense.
>
> However, it does claim that you know what reality is.

I'm fortunate to live in a time when a lot of the basic stuff has been
worked out- most of us know the earth is not flat, it revolves around
the sun rather than vice versa, the stars in the "firmament" move, the
universe and earth are respectively around 13 and 4 billion years
old, etc etc.

Then there is the really obvious stuff- Bush is the worst president in
history, the Iraq war was an unnecessary fiasco, the war in
Afghanistan is going badly. As an example of "discernible reality"
here are US combat deaths in Afghanistan by year:
Year US
2008 26
2007 117
2006 98
2005 99
2004 52
2003 48
2002 49
2001 12
Total 501

Note the trend. That's the opportunity cost of diverting scarce
resources to the fiasco in Iraq, and proof that the best troops in the
world cannot overcome incompetent civilian leadership.
-Paul

"Paul G." <carbide@egine.com> wrote in message
news:f7e2b0d9-562e-4947-9298-66e9616097e7@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 12, 5:13 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:52:44 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
>>
>> <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>> >However, I
>> >embrace that label. I DO believe that "solutions emerge from the
>> >judicious study of discernible reality." It's not like we're
>> >claiming
>> >that we're "saved" or "perfected" or "god's chosen" or some similar
>> >nonsense.
>>
>> However, it does claim that you know what reality is.
>
> I'm fortunate to live in a time when a lot of the basic stuff has been
> worked out- most of us know the earth is not flat, it revolves around
> the sun rather than vice versa, the stars in the "firmament" move, the
> universe and earth are respectively around 13 and 4 billion years
> old, etc etc.
>
> Then there is the really obvious stuff- Bush is the worst president in
> history, the Iraq war was an unnecessary fiasco, the war in
> Afghanistan is going badly. As an example of "discernible reality"
> here are US combat deaths in Afghanistan by year:
> Year US
> 2008 26
> 2007 117
> 2006 98
> 2005 99
> 2004 52
> 2003 48
> 2002 49
> 2001 12
> Total 501
>
> Note the trend. That's the opportunity cost of diverting scarce
> resources to the fiasco in Iraq, and proof that the best troops in the
> world cannot overcome incompetent civilian leadership.
> -Paul

The most difficult task in the world is being minister to an idiot king.

Phil H

On Tue, 13 May 2008 10:16:49 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
<carbide@egine.com> wrote:

>I'm fortunate to live in a time when a lot of the basic stuff has been
>worked out- most of us know the earth is not flat, it revolves around
>the sun rather than vice versa, the stars in the "firmament" move, the
>universe and earth are respectively around 13 and 4 billion years
>old, etc etc.

I'm afraid that even these most basic things are full of assumptions.
You assume that the earth, flat or not, is real. How could you
possibly know this in a way that is separate from your subjective
experience? There is no such thing as objective reality.

On May 14, 1:42 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 10:16:49 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
>
> <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> >I'm fortunate to live in a time when a lot of the basic stuff has been
> >worked out- most of us know the earth is not flat, it revolves around
> >the sun rather than vice versa, the stars in the "firmament" move, the
> >universe and earth are respectively around 13 and 4 billion years
> >old, etc etc.
>
> I'm afraid that even these most basic things are full of assumptions.
> You assume that the earth, flat or not, is real. How could you
> possibly know this in a way that is separate from your subjective
> experience? There is no such thing as objective reality.

Nevertheless, if you ride through a large enough pothole,
you will bend your rims, and it does no good to explain
to the pothole that it is merely a construct through which
you approximate the true nature of roadness; the Platonic
ideal of a road, after all, is flat.

Man, I miss the good days when conservatives would beat
up softheaded liberals and strawman postmodernists,
claiming they said everything was subjective, and were
out to overthrow Western Science, etc. That was always a
caricature, although there were a few people who actually
fit it. Now that this particular culture war has turned a corner,
all of a sudden it becomes convenient for wingers
to reject empiricism, so they do.

Ben

P.S. It's a perfectly legitimate position to reject the idea
that a person can have purely objective knowledge of the
natural world. However, to take this a step beyond and
reject empirical knowledge derived from the study of
phenomena outside oneself, is, well ... It's an old chestnut.
Boswell says that Samuel Johnson, on hearing that Bishop
George Berkeley denied the existence of external realities,
kicked a rock and said, "Thus do I refute Berkeley."

http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html

On May 14, 2:42 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 10:16:49 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
>
> <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> >I'm fortunate to live in a time when a lot of the basic stuff has been
> >worked out- most of us know the earth is not flat, it revolves around
> >the sun rather than vice versa, the stars in the "firmament" move, the
> >universe and earth are respectively around 13  and 4 billion years
> >old,  etc etc.
>
> I'm afraid that even these most basic things are full of assumptions.
> You assume that the earth, flat or not, is real.  How could you
> possibly know this in a way that is separate from your subjective
> experience?  There is no such thing as objective reality.

You sound like the desperate defense lawyer in an extortion case where
I was on the jury. The FBI had phone recordings of multiple explicit
threats and tons of other evidence. The lawyer tried to build a
defense out of minor inconsistencies elsewhere in the evidence and
argued "How can you convict when we don't know what really happened"?
I had the hubris to vote for conviction being the law and order
liberal that I am.

Bret

On May 14, 3:04 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

> Samuel Johnson [...] said, "Thus do I refute Berkeley."

I know a guy who was told he had little chance of getting tenure here.
He sought, received, and accepted an offer from that school down the
peninsula. He said something very much like Johnson.

Bret wrote:

> You sound like the desperate defense lawyer in an extortion case where
> I was on the jury. The FBI had phone recordings of multiple explicit
> threats and tons of other evidence. The lawyer tried to build a
> defense out of minor inconsistencies elsewhere in the evidence and
> argued "How can you convict when we don't know what really happened"?
> I had the hubris to vote for conviction being the law and order
> liberal that I am.

Oh christ, now you're going to start Greg up on this.

--
Bill Asher

On May 14, 4:20 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bret wrote:
> > You sound like the desperate defense lawyer in an extortion case where
> > I was on the jury. The FBI had phone recordings of multiple explicit
> > threats and tons of other evidence. The lawyer tried to build a
> > defense out of minor inconsistencies elsewhere in the evidence and
> > argued "How can you convict when we don't know what really happened"?
> > I had the hubris to vote for conviction being the law and order
> > liberal that I am.
>
> Oh christ, now you're going to start Greg up on this.

There was plenty of evidence to convict you of dumbassy and so I did.

I'm not the pettifogging dumbass who gave birth to Ben Franklin, but I
was there when it happened.

On May 14, 1:42 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 10:16:49 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
>
> <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> >I'm fortunate to live in a time when a lot of the basic stuff has been
> >worked out- most of us know the earth is not flat, it revolves around
> >the sun rather than vice versa, the stars in the "firmament" move, the
> >universe and earth are respectively around 13 and 4 billion years
> >old, etc etc.
>
> I'm afraid that even these most basic things are full of assumptions.
> You assume that the earth, flat or not, is real. How could you
> possibly know this in a way that is separate from your subjective
> experience? There is no such thing as objective reality.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with
bullshit".
-Paul

On May 8, 11:50 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> In article <bb78e344-0cc3-4681-9e64-134f7271e...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 8, 9:41 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > > In article <482314ac$0$14355$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> > >  Ted van de Weteringe <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> > > > > "reality-based community"---I love it!  When do we move?
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
>
> > >    I'm betting on the aide in question being Karl Rove.
>
> > I think it was Douglas Feith. I do hope we find out some day.
>
>    You know, Feith is also a good choice. But it sounds so Rovian to me - similar to
> his comment to NPR host Robert Siegel about the then-impending '06 elections: "You
> may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math. I'm entitled to
> 'the' math."

The more I think about it the more it sounds like someone on a manic
high. I once had a housemate that was an undiagnosed manic depressive.
Their behavior became increasingly erratic until they were confronted
by the household. We were told that we just didn't understand what it
was like to be perfect. Things went downhill from there. Police,
hospital, lithium, bus ticket home to live with parents. Our landlord
was manic depressive himself and totally understood.

Bret

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

>> Samuel Johnson [kicked a rock and said, said, "Thus do I refute
>> Berkeley]."

Robert Chung wrote:
> I know a guy who was told he had little chance of getting tenure here. He
> sought, received, and accepted an offer from that school down the
> peninsula. He said something very much like Johnson.

Did the Dean rock ?

Jack Hollis wrote:
> I'm afraid that even these most basic things are full of assumptions. You
> assume that the earth, flat or not, is real. How could you possibly know
> this in a way that is separate from your subjective experience? There is
> no such thing as objective reality.

Greg will tell you I passed my Turing test.

On May 14, 3:56 pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 3:04 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
> >  Samuel Johnson [...] said, "Thus do I refute Berkeley."
>
> I know a guy who was told he had little chance of getting tenure here.
> He sought, received, and accepted an offer from that school down the
> peninsula. He said something very much like Johnson.

Only with what the Times refers to as "an Anglo-Saxon
epithet," I hope.
Which school, UCSC, SJSU? Stanford? Going
from Berkeley to Stanford, some would consider that
a step down. While there are many junior colleges in
the US of A, there is only one junior university,
Leland Stanford Junior University.

http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/
(paragraph under "History")

Ben

On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:04:38 -0700 (PDT), "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

>> I'm afraid that even these most basic things are full of assumptions.
>> You assume that the earth, flat or not, is real. How could you
>> possibly know this in a way that is separate from your subjective
>> experience? There is no such thing as objective reality.
>
>Nevertheless, if you ride through a large enough pothole,
>you will bend your rims, and it does no good to explain
>to the pothole that it is merely a construct through which
>you approximate the true nature of roadness; the Platonic
>ideal of a road, after all, is flat.


Of course, the ancient Chinese realize that the idea of flatness can
only exist if there is also the idea of not flat. It's amazing that
two thousand years before the birth of Christ, the Chinese had already
anticipated the pot hole.

In much the same way, the idea of conservative can only exist in
contrast to the idea of liberal. If one ceases to exist, so does the
other. The question is, because they both need the other to exist,
does it really matter which one you are?

On May 15, 8:17 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> In much the same way, the idea of conservative can only exist in
> contrast to the idea of liberal. If one ceases to exist, so does the
> other. The question is, because they both need the other to exist,
> does it really matter which one you are?

To paraphrase your sophistry: In much the same way, the idea of living
can only exist in contrast to the idea of dead. If one ceases to
exist, so does the other. The question is, because they both need the
other to exist, does it really matter which one you are?

It matters to me.
-Paul