From Ohio State University, an explanation for the existence of bloggers like Joe Romm and why many moderate scientists don’t speak out. There’s even “fake data” involved.
I’ve seen this phenomenon of extreme views being the most vocal in my own hometown of Chico, where a small vocal group of people often hold sway of the city council because they are the ones that show up up regularly to protest, well, just about anything. The council, seeing this regular vocal feedback, erroneously concludes that the view accurately represents the majority of city residents. The result is a train wreck, and the council sits there scratching their heads wondering why after making such decisions, they get their ears burned off by people unhappy with the decision. Bottom line, we all need to be more active in the public input process if we want decisions to be accurately reflected.
COLUMBUS, Ohio – People with relatively extreme opinions may be more willing to publicly share their views than those with more moderate views, according to a new study.
The key is that the extremists have to believe that more people share their views than actually do, the research found.
 |
|
Kimberly Rios Morrison
|
The results may offer one possible explanation for our fractured political climate in the United States, where extreme liberal and conservative opinions often seem to dominate.
“When people with extreme views have this false sense that they are in the majority, they are more willing to express themselves,” said Kimberly Rios Morrison, co-author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University.
How do people with extreme views believe they are in the majority? This can happen in groups that tend to lean moderately in one direction on an issue. Those that take the extreme version of their group’s viewpoint may believe that they actually represent the true views of their group, Morrison said.
One example is views about alcohol use among college students.
In a series of studies, Morrison and her co-author found that college students who were extremely pro-alcohol were more likely to express their opinions than others, even though most students surveyed were moderate in their views about alcohol use.
“Students who were stridently pro-alcohol tended to think that their opinion was much more popular than it actually was,” she said. “They seemed to buy into the stereotype that college students are very comfortable with alcohol use.”
Morrison conducted the study with Dale Miller of Stanford University. Their research appeared in a recent issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
The studies were done at Stanford University, which had a policy of prohibiting alcohol usage in common areas of all freshman dorms. In the first study, 37 students were asked to rate their own views about this policy on a scale from 1 (very strongly opposed) to 9 (very strongly in favor).
The average student’s views were near the mid-point of the scale — but most rated the typical Stanford student as more pro-alcohol than themselves.
“There’s this stereotype that college students are very pro-alcohol, and even most college students believe it,” Morrison said. “Most students think of themselves as less pro-alcohol than average.”
In the next two studies, students again rated themselves on similar scales that revealed how pro-alcohol they were. They were then asked how willing they would be to discuss their views on alcohol use with other Stanford students.
In general, students who were the most pro-alcohol were the most likely to say they wanted to express their views, compared to those with moderate or anti-alcohol views.
However, in one study the researchers added a twist: they gave participants fake data which indicated that other Stanford students held relatively conservative, anti-alcohol views.
When extremely pro-alcohol students viewed this data, they were less likely to say they were willing to discuss alcohol usage with their fellow students.
“It is only when they have this sense that they are in the majority that extremely pro-alcohol students are more willing to express their views on the issue,” Morrison said.
However, students who had more extreme anti-alcohol views were not more likely to want to express their views, even when they saw the data that suggested a majority of their fellow students agreed with them.
“Their views that they are in the minority may be so deeply entrenched that it is difficult to change just based on our one experiment,” she said. “In addition, they don’t have the experience expressing their opinions on the subject like the pro-alcohol extremists do, so they may not feel as comfortable.”
This finding shows that not all extremists are more willing to share their opinions – only those who hold more extreme versions of the group’s actual views.
These results have implications for how Americans view the political opinions of their communities and their political parties, Morrison said.
Take as an example a community that tends to be moderate politically, but leans slightly liberal.
People with more extreme liberal views in the community may be more likely than others to attend publicly visible protests and display bumper stickers espousing their liberal views, because they think the community supports them.
“Everyone else sees these extreme opinions being expressed on a regular basis and they may eventually come to believe their community is more liberal than it actually is,” Morrison said. “The same process could occur in moderately conservative communities.
“You have a cycle that feeds on itself: the more you hear these extremists expressing their opinions, the more you are going to believe that those extreme beliefs are normal for your community.”
A similar process may occur in groups such as political parties. Moderately conservative people who belong to the Republican Party, for example, may believe that people with extremely conservative views represent their party, because those are the opinions they hear most often. However, that may not be true.
Morrison said when she and her colleagues were thinking about doing this study, they had in mind the phrase about the “silent majority” in the United States, which was popularized by President Richard Nixon and his vice-president, Spiro Agnew. They referred to the silent majority as the people who supported the war in Vietnam, but who were overshadowed by the “vocal minority” against the war.
While there may not be one monolithic silent majority in the United States, Morrison said this study suggests that the minority may indeed be more vocal in some cases.
#
Leif Svalgaard (23:26:01) :
“The correct statement would be that when men and women do not impress their own beliefs on others – including their children – then a flourishing etc…”
To clarify:
I am not aware of any time when people voluntarily refrained from expressing deeply held convictions to others, and they voluntarily did not “impress thier own beliefs on their children.”
(Whereas we are all aware of examples in history in which they were restrained by the State from doing so.)
SamG
I don’t want to get too deeply into our political differences here. Clearly you’re from the political right, I’m from the left, and we can assume some major disagreements on a host of issues. That we agree on a basic skepticism towards AGW science has nothing to do with our politics, it’s simply a scientific matter. I’m sure we also agree that the sky is blue and that evolution is real and that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. You can call me “socialist-leaning” if you like, and I can call you various names too, but I see little relevance in that to the discussion. But I think you have to recognize that you are off-base here:
To be perfectly blunt, this is nonsense. You simply can not plead ignorance in this day and age. Isn’t it convenient that the believers pick up the ball and run with it, no questions asked and then cast aspersions on the ‘denialists’. Kidding right? Sounds like you’re making concessions for them.
In fact, most people can and need to plead ignorance on most scientific matters, when they lack the actual training in the field to evaluate the evidence. I’m frankly not qualified to evaluate various theories of physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc., much less climate science. The best I can do is defer to the acknowledged experts in the field and try to develop a layman’s understanding of their theories. The same goes for every area of science. Like almost everyone in this country, I am at the mercy of the experts, the actual scientists. I understand of course that science isn’t perfect, that it is all about conjecture, debate, experiment, and painstaking reviews. But bottom line, in most cases I simply have to defer to those who know better. That’s just they way it is for almost everyone in this country.
That of course gives scientists a tremendous power and responsibility. Most intelligent people respect and defer to the scientific community of experts when it comes to scientific issues, and climate is definitely a scientific issue. The political problems with the AGW hypothesis is rooted in the scientific community itself. One can argue that the science has become politicized, but the bottom line is that there is indeed a “consensus” out there among actual climatologists and other related scientific fields that AGW theory is legit and must be taken very seriously. That is just undeniable. After years of following the debate, I’ve come to the conclusion that this consensus is probably wrong, and that the scientific dissenters are right, but I have to admit that my personal opinion doesn’t carry much weight. I can also understand why most people who respect science would be inclined to accept the scientific consensus, and assume that it’s legitimate. This includes most politicians, most of whom are not even scientifically-minded, or literate in science, much less actual scientific experts in climate.
The sad truth is that most of those who oppose the science of AGW on the political stage are right-wing anti-science no-nothing douche-bags who have no scientific legitimacy to begin with. Limbaugh, Palin, Inhofe, and their like could care less about the science. They regularly reject the science in far more settled scientific areas such as evolution and the age of the earth. However, even a broken clock can be right twice a day, and this is one issue in which their anti-science stance happens to be right. It happens that their political inclinations force them into a position on this issue which is very convenient for them – just as convenient in its way as it is for environmentalists and progressives to support AGW alarmism. That it will very likely turn out to be the scientifically valid position is mere chance.
And it’s simply not true that those supporting the politics of AGW don’t ask questions. Unfortunately, the answers they get from the AGW science crowd are fairly comprehensive and convincing enough that most people just bow to authority on the issue. And yes, for some that’s very politically convenient for them, and so they are not as thorough in their questioning as they could be. But honestly what is Obama going to do when his science advisor, Chu, a Nobel-Prize winning physicist, and one of the best guys ever put in that position, with great plans for science all across the board, seems to completely buy into the scientific “consensus”. Chu is not a climatologists, so even he tends to bow to the experts in the field, who tell him the science is solid. Of course he should be more skeptical, and take the science apart, and maybe he does, and for some reason still sides with the alarmists. One can fault him to some degree for that, but how can one really fault Obama, who has no science background at all, for bowing to the wisdom of the “consensus” community when even his Nobel-Prize winning science advisor does so? And likewise with most of the Democrats in the house and the senate. Does Pelosi know jack shit about climatology? Of course not. She just hears all the climatologists, the UN IPCC, endlessly repeating this “consensus” stuff, and she feels obliged to go along with it. Political leanings aside, can you really blame her?
The bottom line is, it’s the scientists themselves who need to see through this AGW alarmism and put their foots down, and report to the politicians and the public the seriousness of the arguments against climate alarmism. And to date, very few top scientists and climatologists have done so. The weight of scientific authority has been given to the alarmist science, and so that’s where the responsible people feel they need to be. You have to understand just how scientifically illiterate most people are, most politicians are, and how dependent they are on scientists to get these things right. It appears that in this case science has let them down. And unfortunately, a lot of the pressure to correct the science isn’t even coming from the scientific community, but from outsiders and amateur scientists and politically motivated skeptics that too often gives the skeptical community the feel of some crazed conspiracy cult. Or at least it’s been fairly easy for the AGW alarmists to characterize them that way – and unfortunately in many cases its actually been an accurate description. Are Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, Inhofe and their like actually credible spokesmen for this viewpoint? Only if you’re of a similarly crazed political bent, which most people are not.
You are neglecting the greenie/leftist agenda.
I actually support a lot of the greenie/leftist agenda. I’m big on alternative energy, on switching away from oil and coal as quickly as feasible and possible. I’m big on preserving the environment. And that shouldn’t be a leftist position, it should be a genuine conservative’s position as well. Conserving is what conservatism is supposed to be about, not rampant untramelled exploitation of the earth. I’m just not willing to support something I think is false in order to promote that agenda. I’m sad to see much of that movement attaching itself to the AGW bandwagon, but I can’t much blame them when the scientific community so clearly supports it. It would be different if the scientific community was telling everyone AGW is bullshit, but the left clung to it anyway. There’s certainly examples of dubious things some on the left clings to which science considers questionable, but this isn’t one of them. That is more often the problem with the right than with the left.
Obama is a politician. Politicians do what’s popular. But Obama is a democrat so he has socialist leanings as well.
Actually, cap and trade and various expensive economic remedies for AGW are not popular. Obama is pursuing them because the scientific community keeps telling him how important it is for the sake of humanity. His intentions are good, in other words. He’s willing to buck public opinion because the scientific community is, with few serious exceptions, virtually compelling him to do something serious about it. Obama is a man of reason, who feels compelled to do what is reasonable. In some areas, this means leaning towards government regulation and intervention. And frankly, if the scientific community were right about AGW, he’d be right to do so. But as a politician one can hardly fault him for not overriding the consensus opinion of most scientists on this issue. For some its easy, because they oppose Obama for political reasons, but at this stage, such people seem devoted to opposing anything Obama says or does, regardless of the merits. The right has become crazed and senseless on most issues, and has lost credibility in most people’s eyes. Very few are turning to them for wisdom on how to govern and deal with real problems in the country and the world.
And who will stand up and confess they were wrong; that they are culpable?
It is scientists who have that responsibility, not politicians. Politicians have tremendous cover to put in place harmful policies as long as the scientific community gives it not only their expert support and but literal urging. If the scientific community turned against AGW, political support for it would collapse overnight. As long s politicians say they were just following the advice of the preponderant voices of the scientific community, few will blame them for having been wrong. They will not be expected to have known better than scientific Nobel-Prize winners.
The culpability within the science community should be huge, but I wonder if it will actually ruin many careers. So much of the scientific community has supported AGW that you’d hardly have anyone left if you purged all its supporters. So, I’d expect a few scapegoats to be made, such as Hansen, Mann, Briffa, and many of the modellers. But for most it will be a general amnesty and they will just move on.
It’s in the layman’s world that the more serious consequences will arrive, in that people will simply not trust scientists as much anymore. It will be a boy-who-cried-wolf problem, such that even when there really is serious science behind various policy notions, people will always be able to compare it to that global warming fiasco, and thus cast doubt on its validity. That will be a serious problem for science and its relationship with the wider world.
Bush-bashing was such a trendy thing to do. Sure, he wasn’t the greatest president but you’ll be hard pressed finding a leftie criticizing the Obama administration, even when he contemplates more troops in Afghanistan than Bush deployed in Iraq.
Actually, there are a lot of people on the left criticizing Obama about Afghanistan, and calling for him to get out. The left is critical of Obama on a whole host of things, because they feel he isn’t moving fast enough are far enough on their issues. So this just isn’t true.
But sure, he’s about to send your economy down the toilet and you want to play sides?
Are you wacko? Obama came into office amidst the worst economic crisis since the great Depression, with all of us already in the toilet swimming against a strong downward current. If anything, he’s rescued the country from that potential Depression, and he’s not getting nearly enough credit for it. If anything, the opinion of the financial world is that we are now coming out of that recession and on the verge of a recovery. We’ll see how it goes.
I utterly dislike the contemptuous and sinister nature of the left, and the actions of a few imperialists don’t justify the complete dismissal of capitalism.
No one in the Democratic Party is dismissing capitalism. Obama is a capitalist through and through, as am I, as are all Democrats. He’s just in favor of better economic regulations to keep capitalism on track. After the great Depression we instituted regulatory controls which kept things going pretty well until we recently repealed a lot of them, and let the banks go wild. The fact is, capitalist pigs need to be kept on a short leash to keep them from becoming feral hogs. They just need to be domesticated is all. No one wants to slaughter them.
conradg (02:09:56) :
However, the Big Bang theory states that the universe has a defined and thus finite energy, meaning that it’s mass is finite also.
Leif Svalgaard (05:32:21): This you need to substantiate. If anything, the total energy may be zero, but that does not mean that the mass is zero.
I didn’t say the energy of the Big Bang, and hence the universe, was zero, I said it was a finite sum. It’s a very large number by our standards, of course, but finite nonetheless. If it were infinite, the Big Bang would still be going on, pouring out endless new mass-energy.
You are perhaps referring to the total energy balance equations of the Big Bang. Even these, however, leave a finite energy imbalance that results in the observable universe. In no cases are these energies or masses infinite, however. Some of the characteristics of that balance results in theories such as dark energy and dark matter, which are to be tested at the LHC, but even in such theories, while the observable universe is seen as a very small fraction of the total universe, both are still finite in nature.
My son is actually a student of Joel Premack, the originator of the dark energy/dark matter theory. He once asked Premack what he would do if the LHC destroyed his theory, and he said that he hoped it would, because it would make the universe much more interesting. I wish there were climate scientists who had that kind of attitude towards their own pet theories.
“My advice, if you want to be on equal footing, put your name to your words. – Anthony”
I don’t need equal footing and I like my moniker. But I will never even hint at violence again since I abhor it.
Here is my current address if you think me a coward:
4225 N. 1st Ave., #505
Tucson, AZ 85719
Zeke the Sneak (11:32:39) :
How can free people be restrained from “impressing their own beliefs on others,” or from directing the education of their own children? This makes no sense at all.
People that will not give their children a badly needed bloodtransfusion or give their children a minimum of education can be prosecuted for neglect among other things.
conradg (13:32:45) :
If it were infinite, the Big Bang would still be going on, pouring out endless new mass-energy.
Does not make sense. Substantiate with a link, please. The total energy is probably zero.
Leif Svalgaard (14:28:57) :
People that will not give their children a badly needed bloodtransfusion or give their children a minimum of education can be prosecuted for neglect among other things.
Witholding medical treatment or truancy are not what you were talking about at all. You made a broad statement about how science, the arts, political freedom and economic opportunity only flourish when people do not impress their beliefs on others, not even their own children.
Zeke the Sneak (14:58:33) :
You made a broad statement about how science, the arts, political freedom and economic opportunity only flourish when people do not impress their beliefs on others, not even their own children.
And you disagree with that? The negation [which you then would agree with] is “science, the arts, political freedom and economic opportunity only flourish when people do impress their beliefs on others”.
Leif Svalgaard (15:52:58) :
Zeke the Sneak (14:58:33) :
You made a broad statement about how science, the arts, political freedom and economic opportunity only flourish when people do not impress their beliefs on others, not even their own children.
And you disagree with that?
Yes, I do because it is contrary to our Constitution and our laws. “Impressing one’s belief on others” can mean no other than freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free excercise.
“Impressing one’s belief on one’s own children” is no other than directing the upbringing and education of one’s own children.
Pierce vs. the Society of Sisters (1925) rendered the state of Oregon powerless in its attempts to force all children to attend public schools:
‘The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all gov’ts in this Union repose excludes any power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not a mere creature of the state; those who nurture and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations. Pierce, 268 US 510, 535’ “
conradg: If it were infinite, the Big Bang would still be going on, pouring out endless new mass-energy.
Leif Svalgaard; Does not make sense. Substantiate with a link, please. The total energy is probably zero.
Yes, according to the most accepted theories, the total energy of the Big Bang and the total universe is zero. But that includes, depending on the theory, dark energy/dark matter, gravity waves, plus all the matter-energy that exists beyond the event horizon of the big bang and which cannot be observed or known directly. The total energy of the observable universe is not zero, however. It is merely balanced out by other energy vectors such as those mentioned above which are not directly observable.
As for the universe being “infinite”, I think you need only look up a definition of the word in a dictionary. It means endless. An infinite universe cannot come into being from a discrete location such as the Big Bang theory states without taking infinite time, by definition.
As for supporting links, I don’t use those. I just call my friend who’s a particle physics professor and knows these things backwards and forewards. Saves me a lot of time. I just spent about an hour on the phone with him shooting the shit, and he clarified a lot of this stuff. You could do your own research, or phone a friend.
Dr S, I do not know if you have become a US citizen or not. The idea that children should be under the gaze and care of state educators, and not the parents, does not surprise me. I have been scrutinizing the Obama Administration’s educational policies:
1. The health care bill approved by the Finance Comm. includes funding to create a government home visitation program
2. The president wants schools to add time to classes, to stay open late and to let kids in on weekends, as well as eliminate summer vacations
3. The Obama-Biden comprehensive “Zero to Five” plan is a new “universal voluntary” preschool program, which they claim “is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten.”
4. sign treaty with the UN which would mandate that the state has the final say in what is “in the best interest of the child.”
5. institute Federal mandatory volunteer youth programs, in which young people serve in the advancement of environmental projects
(Sponsored by James McDermott, HR1444 Sub section 4B6)
6. “Aside from improving academic performance, Education Secretary Duncan has a vision of schools as the heart of the community.”
7. free breakfast, lunch, and probably dinner soon to come.
Leif Svalgaard (23:26:01) :
Zeke the Sneak (22:39:36) :
And coincidentally, whenever men and women are free to hold their own beliefs about that, a flourishing in science and the arts, political and religious freedom, and economic vitality are not far behind.
“Apart from the circularity [free to hold – religious freedom] the statement is false. The correct statement would be that when men and women do not impress their own beliefs on others – including their children – then a flourishing etc…”
Be precise, Leif. Is “When people do not impress their religious beliefs on others, including their own children. that science, the arts, political and religious freedoms and economic vitality will flourish?” what you believe?
conradg
Your post is long but I’ll point out that I don’t affiliate myself with right wing ideology and I still entirely disagree with this nanny state you’re endorsing, that is; humans should vindicate their errors because they relied on scientists. You still don’t understand that they want to believe and they will fight hard to keep up the charade that this is really happening.
I’m not a scientist, nor am I right wing but I detected the B.S right from the beginning. There are many tell-tale signs demonstrating AGW to be an evil twisted lie and you don’t have to be an expert to know this. Wishful thinking on your behalf.
Finally, those who believe that the existence of AGW is irrelevant, because it will force us to change our energy consumption habits anyway; are wrong.
If the entire globe is capable of changing through inadvertence, then they are quite capable of flip flopping when circumstances dictate. Good decisions are made consciously and hysteria creates trends.
Zeke the Sneak (16:31:06) :
You made a broad statement about how science, the arts, political freedom and economic opportunity only flourish when people do not impress their beliefs on others[…]
“And you disagree with that?”
Yes, I do because it is contrary to our Constitution and our laws. “Impressing one’s belief on others” can mean no other than freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free excercise.
Impressing one’s belief is the worst kind of oppression. The Constitution does not give you the right to impress or oppress anybody. It gives you the right [subject to Government and Judicial approval] to express your belief, not to ‘impress’ your belief on other people [impress= forcibly produce by pressure or influence].
conradg (17:03:47) :
An infinite universe cannot come into being from a discrete location such as the Big Bang theory states without taking infinite time, by definition.
The BB did not involve a ‘distinct’ location. All of infinite space expands everywhere. The observable universe is a function of our location and is thus not ‘the’ universe.
Glenn (18:25:28) :
Be precise, Leif. Is “When people do not impress their religious beliefs on others, including their own children. that science, the arts, political and religious freedoms and economic vitality will flourish?” what you believe?
I was very precise. This is what Zeke should have said [cf my remark above]. Personally, I don’t think there is a correlation, perhaps some wishful thinking, but that’s all.Nothing [especially science] flourishes by forcing religion down everybody’s throat.
Also note that infinity can extend vertically from time. It doesn’t have to be a function of ‘boundlessness’, it can be spacial realization of time.
One sugar please
Leif Svalgaard (10:20:45) :
“Life (on Earth) exists solely as the method for DNA to replicate.
stated differently: a chicken is an egg’s way of making another egg. Still, there is no purpose or intent of part of the egg.”
Here’s another take on this, from Robinson Jeffers’ De Rurem Virtute
… the egg too has a mind …
… a limited but superhuman intelligence
Prophetic of the future and aware of the past …
… and slowly, if it works, the race
Forms a new race: that is also part of the plan
Within the egg. I believe the first living cell
Had echoes of the future in it, and felt
Direction and the great animals, the deep green forest
And whale’s track sea; I believe this globed earth
Not all by chance and fortune brings forth her broods,
But feels and chooses. And the Galaxy …
Is not blind force, but fulfills its life and intends its courses. “All things are full of God.
Winter and summer, day and night, war and peace are God.”
In the absence of Reality, Probability reigns supreme.
Just a thought. curiousgeorge
That’s the way I figure it. If nothingness corresponds to 0 on the number line, then it is a highly improbable state. So chaos is the most likely state of things. However, given infinite time then Reality would arise. Having Purpose, He would quickly reign over purposeless chaos.
Back2Bat (07:00:34) :
Having Purpose, She would quickly reign over purposeless chaos.
This is not science, but religion, and should not be taught in public schools, except in the context of comparing various religions.” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Roger Knights (05:01:17) :
… the egg too has a mind …
… a limited but superhuman intelligence
I almost feels guilty having had two eggs [sunny side up] for breakfast…
REPLY: OK the obligatory joke…
This is your limited but superhuman intelligence….
ssssss…..
This is your limited but superhuman intelligence on Leif’s plate….
Any questions?
Fine. Then I will just say when you post Dr. S, you are expressing your radical opinion on education, but you are not “impressing” anyone with it! A new area of law!
“No Man’s Life Liberty or Property is Safe…While the Legislature is in Session”– Now we have to add our kids to the d*8% list!
Leif Svalgaard (07:37:56) :
Back2Bat (07:00:34) :
Having Purpose, She would quickly reign over purposeless chaos.
Leif,
Be a gentleman and quote me accurately please. I said “He”.
This is not science, but religion, and should not be taught in public schools, except in the context of comparing various religions.” Leif
I agree. But I also think government should have no role in eduction except where absolutely necessary.
Zeke the Sneak (10:56:28) :
“.
.
.
Now we have to add our kids to the d*8% list!”
Bingo!
“But for my children, I would have them keep their distance
from the thickening center; corruption
Never has been copulsory, when the cities lie at the monster’s feet
there are left the mountains.
And boys, be in nothing so moderate as the love of man,
a clever servant, insufferable master.
There is the trap that catches the noblest spirits, that caught
– they say – God, when he walked on earth.”
Robinson Jeffers
Zeke the Sneak (11:23:56) :
“
… there are left the mountains….
I love the mountains!
…. And boys, be in nothing so moderate as the love of man, …
Should have warned about the love of women ; )
There is the trap that catches the noblest spirits, that caught
– they say – God, when he walked on earth.”
Lost me there.
Robinson Jeffers
I should remember that name.
Back2Bat (11:05:37) :
Having Purpose, She would quickly reign over purposeless chaos.
Be a gentleman and quote me accurately please. I said “He”.
Perhaps, but I often correct quotes [lief – leif, etc] as long as the meaning is not altered. How do you know it is ‘He’? Most primitive religions consider the primary deity a ‘She’ and I did not not want to be parochial or partial to a specific one. You know – level playing field and all that]
Back2Bat (11:05:37) :
I agree. But I also think government should have no role in eduction except where absolutely necessary.
The public should have a role [to negate the excesses of the parents], not necessarily the ‘government’. In a civilized society, we delegate to the public a variety of services: education, protection, defense, old age pensions, basic health care. Correct education is essential, both as far contents [e.g. no ID, astrology, and the like] and availability [e.g. for girls, negroes] are concerned. If a society does not provide that [and a society can choose not to, e.g. in Kansas and by the Taliban] it will be overtaken and left behind, to the detriment of its citizens.
‘Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” ‘ from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift