| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"*Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
23 Aug 2005 08:50:52 AM |
| Object: |
Hillary On Science. What dope she is |
The world may have lost a great opportunity. There have been only a handful
of great scientific thinkers that have revolutionized the way we see the
world. Among the more prominent are names such as Isaac Newton, and Albert
Einstein. Sadly, politics may have deprived the world of one of these great
minds, as Hillary Clinton was drawn to the world of politics rather than to
the world of science. Science has surely suffered for the lack of Hillary's
dedicated efforts toward its progress, but luckily, she has established two
new scientific research techniques that will just as surely benefit future
scientists in their endeavors toward building the scientific knowledgebase.
What makes this most amazing, and clearly demonstrates her potential as a
scientist, is that these new research techniques were established by Hillary
as a fulltime politician, not a dedicated scientist. Imagine if she had
dedicated herself to science. imagine if she had tried.
These two, new, scientific research techniques are as follows:
consensus makes fact.
While on a fact-finding trip to various parts of North America to study the
effects of human induced global warming, Hillary said, "It's not about
ideology. It's about science and facts and evidence. More and more people
regardless of their political background are saying this is a problem we
have to address."
Let's analyze this. "It's not about ideology." Of course it's not, any dolt
could have said that. This was probably part of her politics thing she does.
Here's where it starts to get good though, "It's about science and facts and
evidence." On initial examination, that sounds obvious, but I think science
has strayed away from science and facts and evidence lately. I think she was
subtly admonishing the scientific community for placing undue value on
speculation and hope and voodoo lately. Impressive, huh? Well, if you
thought that was impressive, hold on to your hats! The next line. the next
ONE sentence. establishes one of the two new research techniques.
"More and more people regardless of their political background are saying
this is a problem we have to address."
(I separated that sentence for impact.)
So, let me get this straight. That man is the primary cause of global
warming MUST be true if lots and lots of people (regardless of political
background) are saying it? GENIUS!!! Consensus makes fact. Throw all of that
"correlation vs. causality" garbage out the window; "consensus makes fact"
is so much simpler! It's amazing no one thought of that before.
Consensus makes fact. I wonder if I can get a grant to find out if the
universe is expanding or contracting. I could contract Gallup to poll 2500
people and. never mind, I'm sure someone else is already on that one.
Research By Anecdote
Although she may have gotten the idea from her husband, Hillary is the one
who took the bold step forward in applying the concept to science. The idea
is as simple as it is revolutionary. Find someone with an opinion that falls
in line with whatever the consensus is, and get them to tell a story that
relates to it. Since this person's opinion is a part of the consensus (and
we've already seen that "consensus makes fact"), the related story that they
tell is supporting evidence of the fact that was proven by the consensus. It's
so simple! It's so brilliant!
What follows is an example of how this can be applied. This example is from
the master herself.
"She (Hillary) also talked (when speaking of the damages caused by human
induced global warming) of what a 93-year-old woman at a fish camp at
Whitehorse told her. The woman said she had been fishing there all her life
but now fish have strange bumps on them." - Quoted from
http://www.countercurrents.org/climate-buncombe200805.htm
It's maddening to think of all the wasted time and money! Time and money
spent on old-fashioned research, when we could have just taken a poll, and
asked a 93 year old woman who likes to fish, if she had noticed anything
interesting.
Researchers using these two methods in tandem will reap enormous benefits,
the largest of which is probably that they will never expend effort looking
down the wrong path toward a conclusion. They will never hypothesize that a
phenomenon is caused by something other than what it is actually caused by,
because using the "consensus makes fact" method, they will have their
conclusion before the evidence gathering even begins. They will simply take
a poll, see what the end result is, then (and only then) they will start to
gather evidence that supports the conclusion by asking for anecdotal stories
from people whose opinion on the subject matches the consensus.
I've got a great feeling about this. Just off the top of my head, I can
think of several questions that can be definitively answered in this manner.
These are questions that may otherwise never get answered if the
old-fashioned research methods are employed to solve them. Is Elvis still
alive? Is there life on other planets? Is Elvis one of those lives? Who
killed JFK? Who built the pyramids in Egypt? And last, but not least. Does
the light in the refrigerator turn off when you close the door?
.
|
|
| User: "SmirkS" |
|
| Title: bush on dope - what science he is. |
23 Aug 2005 10:30:08 AM |
|
|
fake Harry Hope posted:
What dope she is
<rimshot>
thanks, he'll be here all week, folks.
~~
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: I don't really understand. How is it the new [Social
Security] plan is going to fix that problem?
BUSH: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big
cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on
the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price
increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being
considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers,
affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to
get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to
what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of
muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for
example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as
opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate
-- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage
increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were
put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the
promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will
help on the red.
--
TheTruthHurts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
