mdk

Game of Thrones season wrap-up

Tyrion: Where is the best line of the finale? Where is it?
GoT: Wherever lines go.

ISIS in Iraq

So Boerd said
My point is, if they won't even try to handle their own problems, we shouldn't either. 25,000 soldiers should have been able to handle 800 terrorists.

it's somewhat more complicated than a numerical comparison. A massacre serves the purpose of ISIS.

ISIS in Iraq

So Boerd said
Actually, I have to go easy on the Obama administration on this. 800 terrorists roll into a town, 25,000 Iraqi soldiers run away. If they aren't willing shed their own blood to defend themselves I'll be damned if we shed ours.And, this Maliki clown invited Iran to help.

It could have been two thousand terrorists. Ten thousand. A hundred thousand. Could've been one. Wouldn't make a difference. We have failed to obtain the necessary legal standing to operate in theater. Our hands are fully and completely tied until they deign to fix the situation, which, I imagine now that people are dying, someone will take notice (or lose their promotion).

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Imperfectionist said
:/ I feel like we've been making the same points at each other for a while, now, mdk. You are saying "science isn't ideal!" and I'm saying "there is no monolith of science! They're just fallible people!" Yeah, I believe we are in agreement. There are problems inherent in the system, based on simple economics and human nature. I simply choose to believe that such things are temporary, and we are moving towards a less flawed system...

Where we differ is, you're dismissing these shortcomings on account of the ultimate ideal; while I'm dismissing the ultimate ideal on account of the shortcomings. I don't think we're 'on a path towards full understanding of the cosmos,' not in the least.

Ironically my conclusion is the one based on evidence, and yours the one based on faith.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Imperfectionist said These are what I am taking issue with. You see the "scientific community" as a callous and contradictory group (maybe one that manufactures controversy and false beliefs, based on what you said and linked to about global warming), when in fact they are none of those things, nor is there even a single group. There are a vast number of different sciences, each with their own experts and each with their own failings, but I contend that they're all doing the best they can, technology is expanding, and we're on the path towards full understanding of the cosmos

I have some experience with peer-reviewed academia (majored in political science) -- it's frequently a dirty business. How it ultimately works is that you need to publish in order to land tenure. To publish you need arguments and data; data is frequently solicited and reused from public record or other studies -- the idea being to take data that already exists and use it to generate a job, via a supportable thesis. The gatekeepers are the reputable journals, which are largely comprised of peers (thus 'peer-reviewed') who ultimately are trying to accomplish the same goal of tenure themselves -- using the same practices to obtain and retask data. This is the actual system that exists, not the ideal we like to imagine.... it's full of conflicting interests and exploitative methodology. The tyranny is the consensus.... you picture a clean room with beakers and lab coats, I picture an angry mob, the actual truth is closer to the middle than either of us would like to believe. It's not what you think it should be.

That sounds unfair, doesn't it? And that's sort of my point. It's unfair to talk about what's wrong with our way of doing science. That's a very bad way to approach things. I want to do away with this implicit reverence we have for the field. Scientists are people. Just people. Only people. We seem to insist on treating them as something more than that.

Honest Movie Tagline Thread

IT"S LIKE SOMETHING YOU'VE EVER SEEN

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Imperfectionist said
I think all that first link does is validate what I said in my last post. Nothing is perfect, scientists are human, they do the best they can with what they've got, they can make mistakes, yada yada yada... The only reason this is news is because of the politics of the people on either side of the argument, . Without that politics, they would have no reason to falsify such things. And, it's entirely possible that they did nothing wrong. . These kinds of problems with the system get worked out over time. I'm not saying that there aren't individuals who are scientists, I'm saying that their failings are not the failings of the scientific community as a whole.

What you're describing here is called the No True Scotsman fallacy. That's not a big deal to me, argue how you like.... I only bring it up because the inclination you feel to justify and defend the practice of science is sort of my whole point. That specific emotion is comparable to religious belief. And I don't mean that as an insult -- I'm a religious person, I respect religious beliefs. They're important to me. I just want to be allowed to call it what it is. It means we're really not so different and we have no business demeaning each other over how we choose to think.

Your generalizations, basically, are what I take issue with.

What, specifically, are you taking issue with?

Game of Thrones season wrap-up

*first*

Honest Movie Tagline Thread

'A STOPPABLE FORCE MEETS PLOT ARMOR!'

'A MAN PUSHED TO THE LIMITS OF HIS BINDING CONTRACT!'

'POOR DECISIONS WORK OUT BADLY IN SPACE'

'THE TOP GROSSING FILM OF THE LAST THREE HOURS WHEN WE WERE COUNTING'

'EA WANTED TO SELL SOME GAMES SO HERE'S JESSE PINKMAN IN AN EXPENSIVE CAR'

'THE ONLY ANIMATED FILM OF THE YEAR SO FAR SO LET'S JUST CALL IT THE BEST I SUPPOSE'

ISIS in Iraq

This article should bring you up to speed on the latest developments, if you aren't familiar with the new-ish situation in Iraq.

Some of the old-guild people may (but probably won't) remember me making a big deal about our failure to obtain a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq following our withdrawal. It would seem those chickens are coming home to roost; we couldn't get the legal protections we wanted for American troops operating inside Iraq, and now we're unable (or justifiably unwilling) to send those troops where they're probably needed. American diplomacy shortcomings are starting to have some kinetic consequences..... I'm a little bit angry with our state department right now. Their entire job is to ensure that this situation never develops; instead, they've been wholly focused on the business of producing presidential candidates. Fucking shameful.