| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mark-T" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2007 10:52:32 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Poor teaching of econ |
On Sep 3, wrote:
.... a real psychologist doing real research
would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
No, stupid, he wouldn't.
I just had to see that in print again.
Do you refuse to know the fact that many real
psychologists have done real research without defining
or measuring "amoral"? Scientists cannot identify all
the implications of their results. Indeed, they
are highly constrained in what peer-reviewed journals
will accept.
Now let me get this straight... a scientist
does research into a quantity (or quality)
X, which he cannot/does not define or observe,
then publishes his findings... that's what
you're claiming, regarding this investigation
into 'amorality'?
Mark
.
|
|
| User: "professorchaos" |
|
| Title: Re: Poor teaching of econ |
06 Sep 2007 01:24:11 AM |
|
|
Mark-T wrote:
On Sep 3, wrote:
.... a real psychologist doing real research
would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
No, stupid, he wouldn't.
I just had to see that in print again.
Do you refuse to know the fact that many real
psychologists have done real research without defining
or measuring "amoral"? Scientists cannot identify all
the implications of their results. Indeed, they
are highly constrained in what peer-reviewed journals
will accept.
Now let me get this straight... a scientist
does research into a quantity (or quality)
X, which he cannot/does not define or observe,
then publishes his findings... that's what
you're claiming, regarding this investigation
into 'amorality'?
Mark
It gets better later he claims they can and do measure morality but has
still failed to give one citation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Poor teaching of econ |
06 Sep 2007 02:29:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:52:32 -0700, Mark-T <MarkTanner50@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sep 3, wrote:
.... a real psychologist doing real research
would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
No, stupid, he wouldn't.
I just had to see that in print again.
Do you refuse to know the fact that many real
psychologists have done real research without defining
or measuring "amoral"? Scientists cannot identify all
the implications of their results. Indeed, they
are highly constrained in what peer-reviewed journals
will accept.
Now let me get this straight... a scientist
does research into a quantity (or quality)
X, which he cannot/does not define or observe,
then publishes his findings... that's what
you're claiming, regarding this investigation
into 'amorality'?
Yes, because he talked about what he found, not what it meant. Just
like medical researchers can study the correlation between drug
companies' advertising of infant formula and infant mortality rates in
Third World countries without measuring or defining "evil."
-- Roy L
.
|
|
|
| User: "professorchaos" |
|
| Title: Re: Poor teaching of econ |
06 Sep 2007 10:42:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:52:32 -0700, Mark-T <MarkTanner50@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sep 3, wrote:
.... a real psychologist doing real research
would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
No, stupid, he wouldn't.
I just had to see that in print again.
Do you refuse to know the fact that many real
psychologists have done real research without defining
or measuring "amoral"? Scientists cannot identify all
the implications of their results. Indeed, they
are highly constrained in what peer-reviewed journals
will accept.
Now let me get this straight... a scientist
does research into a quantity (or quality)
X, which he cannot/does not define or observe,
then publishes his findings... that's what
you're claiming, regarding this investigation
into 'amorality'?
Yes, because he talked about what he found, not what it meant. Just
like medical researchers can study the correlation between drug
companies' advertising of infant formula and infant mortality rates in
Third World countries without measuring or defining "evil."
-- Roy L
Roy still doesn't see the point. That measurement is not a measurement
of evil. Roy may find the results evil but the study of the effects of
advertising on infant morality rates does not say on a scale of evil
from 1 to 10 this is a 10. It simple says X amount of advertise affects
mortality rates by Y%. This is not a measure of how evil something is
nor can you say Y% change is less evil than Z% change. This is like the
neo-nazis claiming Hitler wasn't as bad as they say because he only
killed 3 million jews instead of 6 million and the 6 million is propoganda.
Note I am paraphrasing the Neo-Nazi so called argument not agreeing with
it. It is not propoganda and while the SS numbers, where the six million
number came from, may have very well been overstated numbers to make
Hitler think they were getting the job done, killing 1 person of because
of their religion or who their parents were is just as evil to me as
killing 6 million.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Poor teaching of econ |
07 Sep 2007 11:57:49 PM |
|
|
"professorchaos" <professorchaos@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46e0c8bd$0$16444$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
royls@telus.net wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:52:32 -0700, Mark-T <MarkTanner50@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sep 3, wrote:
.... a real psychologist doing real research
would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
No, stupid, he wouldn't.
I just had to see that in print again.
Do you refuse to know the fact that many real
psychologists have done real research without defining
or measuring "amoral"? Scientists cannot identify all
the implications of their results. Indeed, they
are highly constrained in what peer-reviewed journals
will accept.
Now let me get this straight... a scientist
does research into a quantity (or quality)
X, which he cannot/does not define or observe,
then publishes his findings... that's what
you're claiming, regarding this investigation
into 'amorality'?
Yes, because he talked about what he found, not what it meant. Just
like medical researchers can study the correlation between drug
companies' advertising of infant formula and infant mortality rates in
Third World countries without measuring or defining "evil."
-- Roy L
Roy still doesn't see the point. That measurement is not a measurement of
evil. Roy may find the results evil but the study of the effects of
advertising on infant morality rates does not say on a scale of evil from
1 to 10 this is a 10. It simple says X amount of advertise affects
mortality rates by Y%. This is not a measure of how evil something is nor
can you say Y% change is less evil than Z% change. This is like the
neo-nazis claiming Hitler wasn't as bad as they say because he only killed
3 million jews instead of 6 million and the 6 million is propoganda.
Note I am paraphrasing the Neo-Nazi so called argument not agreeing with
it. It is not propoganda and while the SS numbers, where the six million
number came from, may have very well been overstated numbers to make
Hitler think they were getting the job done, killing 1 person of because
of their religion or who their parents were is just as evil to me as
killing 6 million.
"professorchaos" raises a good point about what is "evil".
No doubt the German people considered Jews "evil"
because they were instigating the Class Wars of the 1900's
and they franchised Hitler to rid them of this "evil" menace
before it destroyed their nation and culture
as it did Russia's nation and culture,
after Jews assassinated the Russian Royal family,
co-opted the Russian government, murdered millions
of native Russians, and used Russia as a base from where to
train instigators, agitators, assassins and terrorists
to emplement their Class Wars all over the Earth.
And no doubt the Palestinian people considered Jews "evil"
because they were instigating the Religious Wars of the 2000's
and they franchised Arafat to rid them of this "evil" menace
before it destroyed their nation and culture,
as it had many nations and cultures throughout history.
Perhaps "evil" can best be determined on how "evil" people
get along with their neighbors. As can be seen Jews have come into
conflict with all of their neighbors throughout history,
whereas the German people are probably the most intelligent,
most productive, most moral folks on the Planet,
and they are welcomed as neighbors wherever they go.
The following two speeches by a famous German
give some indication of the concerns of the German people
during the Class Wars.
SPEECH OF APRIL 12, 1922
While now in Soviet Russia the millions are ruined and are dying,
Chicherin - and with him a staff of over 200 Soviet Jews - travels by
express train through Europe, visits the cabarets, watches naked dancers
perform for his pleasure, lives in the finest hotels, and does himself
better than the millions whom once you thought you must fight as
'bourgeois.' The 400 Soviet Commissars of Jewish nationality - they do not
suffer; the thousands upon thousands of sub-Commissars -they do not suffer.
No! all the treasures which the 'proletarian' in his madness took from the
'bourgeoise' in order to fight so-called capitalism - they have all gone
into their hands.
SPEECH OF JULY 28, 1922
More and more so to influence the masses that he persuaded those of the
Right that the faults of the Left were the faults of the German workman, and
similarly he made it appear to those of the Left that the faults of the
Right were simply the faults of the so-called 'Bourgeois,' and neither side
noticed that on both sides the faults were the result of a scheme planned by
alien devilish agitators. And only so is it possible to explain how this
dirty joke of world history could come to be that Stock Exchange Jews should
become the leaders of a Workers Movement. It is a gigantic fraud: world
history has seldom seen its like.
If FDR had opposed the War-for-profit gang,
rather than sell out to them,
WWII would have lasted six months,
and there would have been no Cold War, no nuclear weapons,
no Korean War, no Vietnam War, no 911, no Religious Wars, etc.
Fortunately for America and the world FDR died,
and as the Jews had not had time to "Jimmy Carter" the new leaders,
(Truman, Nixon, Hoover, McCarthy, etc.),
and Americans were sick of conflict and war,
the new leaders managed to prevent the takeover of America
by the War-for-profit gang.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
*** May 2007 Anti-Bigot Award ***
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "professorchaos" |
|
| Title: Re: Poor teaching of econ |
08 Sep 2007 01:52:30 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
"professorchaos" <professorchaos@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46e0c8bd$0$16444$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
royls@telus.net wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:52:32 -0700, Mark-T <MarkTanner50@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sep 3, wrote:
.... a real psychologist doing real research
would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
No, stupid, he wouldn't.
I just had to see that in print again.
Do you refuse to know the fact that many real
psychologists have done real research without defining
or measuring "amoral"? Scientists cannot identify all
the implications of their results. Indeed, they
are highly constrained in what peer-reviewed journals
will accept.
Now let me get this straight... a scientist
does research into a quantity (or quality)
X, which he cannot/does not define or observe,
then publishes his findings... that's what
you're claiming, regarding this investigation
into 'amorality'?
Yes, because he talked about what he found, not what it meant. Just
like medical researchers can study the correlation between drug
companies' advertising of infant formula and infant mortality rates in
Third World countries without measuring or defining "evil."
-- Roy L
Roy still doesn't see the point. That measurement is not a measurement of
evil. Roy may find the results evil but the study of the effects of
advertising on infant morality rates does not say on a scale of evil from
1 to 10 this is a 10. It simple says X amount of advertise affects
mortality rates by Y%. This is not a measure of how evil something is nor
can you say Y% change is less evil than Z% change. This is like the
neo-nazis claiming Hitler wasn't as bad as they say because he only killed
3 million jews instead of 6 million and the 6 million is propoganda.
Note I am paraphrasing the Neo-Nazi so called argument not agreeing with
it. It is not propoganda and while the SS numbers, where the six million
number came from, may have very well been overstated numbers to make
Hitler think they were getting the job done, killing 1 person of because
of their religion or who their parents were is just as evil to me as
killing 6 million.
"professorchaos" raises a good point about what is "evil".
I never said that Jews were evil. The statement was killing 1 person for
their religious beliefs or heritage in my eyes is evil just as killing 6
million people for their beliefs or heritage. In my eyes there are no
degrees of evil. If Hitler had ordered 1 person to be killed due to the
person's view, religion, or heritage the same punishment is appropiate
for killing 6 million. In this world death or life confined in a cage is
the ultimate punishment. Intentionally killing 1 or six million should
result in life in prison or death.
All of his crap about Jews being evil is just his crap not mine. He
should hope a terrorist who hates him for not being like them does not
get a hold. He will what the effect this kind of hate has. He would find
out it ain't pretty when you are the receiving end because you don't fit
into Bin Laden's idea of what Islam should be, or some other loony group
that doesn't like your religion or heritage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Poor teaching of econ |
08 Sep 2007 07:57:13 AM |
|
|
"professorchaos" <professorchaos@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46e246c0$0$17121$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Tom Potter wrote:
"professorchaos" <professorchaos@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46e0c8bd$0$16444$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
royls@telus.net wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:52:32 -0700, Mark-T <MarkTanner50@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sep 3, wrote:
.... a real psychologist doing real research
would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
No, stupid, he wouldn't.
I just had to see that in print again.
Do you refuse to know the fact that many real
psychologists have done real research without defining
or measuring "amoral"? Scientists cannot identify all
the implications of their results. Indeed, they
are highly constrained in what peer-reviewed journals
will accept.
Now let me get this straight... a scientist
does research into a quantity (or quality)
X, which he cannot/does not define or observe,
then publishes his findings... that's what
you're claiming, regarding this investigation
into 'amorality'?
Yes, because he talked about what he found, not what it meant. Just
like medical researchers can study the correlation between drug
companies' advertising of infant formula and infant mortality rates in
Third World countries without measuring or defining "evil."
-- Roy L
Roy still doesn't see the point. That measurement is not a measurement
of
evil. Roy may find the results evil but the study of the effects of
advertising on infant morality rates does not say on a scale of evil
from
1 to 10 this is a 10. It simple says X amount of advertise affects
mortality rates by Y%. This is not a measure of how evil something is
nor
can you say Y% change is less evil than Z% change. This is like the
neo-nazis claiming Hitler wasn't as bad as they say because he only
killed
3 million jews instead of 6 million and the 6 million is propoganda.
Note I am paraphrasing the Neo-Nazi so called argument not agreeing with
it. It is not propoganda and while the SS numbers, where the six million
number came from, may have very well been overstated numbers to make
Hitler think they were getting the job done, killing 1 person of because
of their religion or who their parents were is just as evil to me as
killing 6 million.
"professorchaos" raises a good point about what is "evil".
I never said that Jews were evil. The statement was killing 1 person for
their religious beliefs or heritage in my eyes is evil just as killing 6
million people for their beliefs or heritage. In my eyes there are no
degrees of evil. If Hitler had ordered 1 person to be killed due to the
person's view, religion, or heritage the same punishment is appropiate for
killing 6 million. In this world death or life confined in a cage is the
ultimate punishment. Intentionally killing 1 or six million should result
in life in prison or death.
All of his crap about Jews being evil is just his crap not mine. He should
hope a terrorist who hates him for not being like them does not get a
hold. He will what the effect this kind of hate has. He would find out it
ain't pretty when you are the receiving end because you don't fit into Bin
Laden's idea of what Islam should be, or some other loony group that
doesn't like your religion or heritage.
"professorchaos" raises a good point when he talks about a
"loony group that doesn't like your religion or heritage",
when he suggests that people "should hope" that Jews,
"who hate <them> for not being like them do not"
"Jimmy Carter" and "Mel Gibson" them.
As can be seen from current events,
and from numerous historical accounts,
Jews have institutionalized bigotry,
and aggressively and systematically "Jimmy Carter"
anyone who dares take a position that inhibits their agenda.
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
own."
Of course, "Jimmy Cartering"
is one of the lesser aggressions of Jews.
As can be seen, a German political party
that was trying to take a stand against the Jewish
instigations of the Class Wars of the 1900's,
had to form a private guard service called the Brown Shirts
to keep Jews and Jewish paid thugs from assaulting and
murdering their members, and from breaking up their
political meetings.
And of course, Jews have a long history of bombing
and assassinating critics.
One can see daily how Jews
use helicopters to fly around defenseless Palestine
and shoot rockets at the folks they want to assassinate.
Here is the web site that tells the stories of a few folks
who have been "Jimmy Cartered" by Jews,
and of course, one can do a Google search on
"assassinations" if they want to see how Jews
have assassinated or conned or paid others
to assassinate folks.
<http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>
Perhaps Jews have come into conflict with all of their neighbors
throughout history, not because of their greed and dishonesty,
and their propensity to instigate and profit from conflict and war,
but for their institutionalized use of bigotry.
Thanks for raising these important points "professorchaos"!
Your pal,
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
*** May 2007 Anti-Bigot Award ***
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Poor teaching of econ |
07 Sep 2007 01:35:05 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:42:20 -0500, professorchaos
<professorchaos@houston.rr.com> wrote:
This is like the
neo-nazis claiming Hitler wasn't as bad as they say because he only
killed 3 million jews instead of 6 million and the 6 million is propoganda.
Dang. I hate to win that way....
-- Roy L
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
