|
I want to thank you for looking into the IP issues. If there is something that would truly work in favor of America for long term growth I think IP (copyright and patent) reform are going to be huge. I really see IP reform as something similar to free trade. The biggest challenges for the politics of reforming IP is that like free trade, that reform will appear to hurt some sectors in the short term if not handled very carefully, and that is a very, very bitter pill for many politicians to swallow (especially when campaign money is on the line!).
Short term protections allow America (who is currently dominating in tech) to extract monopoly rents from the rest of the world. This may be beneficial for Americans in the short term, but it will eventually shoot us in the foot as other areas with less restrictive innovation laws attract innovators to their country. Did you know that Hollywood originally formed all the way out in californa because Edison wanted royalties on his patents? See how that industry ultimately grew up in the wild west? It certainly didnt' grow in the place where patents were rigorously enforced. By the time the patents expired, guess what: the areas where patents were enforced could no longer effectively compete because they were too far behind. Unless America's IP law is forced upon the rest of the world in it's entirety, this will eventually happen to the US too.
The only way to truly fully enforce American IP law would be trade treaties and then ultimately war. Are we really going to go to war over IP, to protect our short-term monopoly gains?
Since we are on evolution, I might as well add my 2 cents.
Really, I just want to clarify the definition of theory, since I'm really, really tired of people (especially politicians) misusing the word. Theory has two distinctive definitions, the scientific and the layman. I've taken this directly from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. [emphasis mine]
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
The problem is that most people conflate at one point or another definition meaning 1 with definition meaning 2 when they are not the same.
In science, a peer reviewed and accepted theory is of the former definition, not the latter, but many people, especially many of those what want to dismiss evolution as 'just a theory' conflate the the first and second definitions. There is a distinct difference between 'well I have a theory' as conjecture vs. 'the theory of [science]'. Until revolutionary knowledge comes about, theories are very rarely thrown out entirely. We just learn the theories needed revisions (sometimes major revisions) to fit more general cases (classical mechanics [or Newtonian physics as it is sometimes called] -> general relativity and relativistic statistical mechanics. )
Theories are never proven. They simply provide guidance for expectations and predictions. This is true of all theories. We cannot prove gravity. We just use the theory of gravity to explain and predict certain specific phenomena. The jump that people make seems to be people put faith in theories because of their ability to explain and predict, and somehow the discussion gets to this ridiculous level where you must 'absolutely prove' something. I guess theists sometimes take issue with how people put faith in these theories instead of their alternatives.
It is because theories provide predictive power that we are able to harness them in useful ways (for evolution, that would be animal husbandry, domestication, breeding, and various genetics.) I don't understand the sentiment of dismissing evolution as 'just a theory'. You can't definitively prove it, but it is useful in explaining and predicting results.
That said, personal beliefs are personal beliefs. This issue of evolution really only comes up when it seeps into education, and that's where it becomes a real issue. ID and/or creationism isn't science, and should not be taught as such.
As to theological education, I think theology can be useful, but I think if you do that you have to be careful about when exactly you introduce theology into the classroom, and how it is presented. Any study of religion should be a review of all different types of religion, their histories, their interactions, and their purposes. Study of religion should be more of a social science where you take a clinical look at the theology. The great fear with religion education has always been that is was going to be indoctrination for the religion. The fear it would be taught as 'YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN X' rather than 'Group so and so believes A because of B, C and D.'
I think we are both in agreement that science should be taught in science classes, and theology in theology or social science/social study classes.
Every time I have to correct someone on the use of the word theory because they are much more familiar with it's non-scientific definition my head hurts. I think in communication it is important not to conflate these definitions of theory, just like you don't want to conflate free as in freedom and free as in no cost. Even if you are not an expert in a field, semantics and words are the job of a politician. They have to mean what they say. I expect them to be chosen with wisdom. I see conflating the definitions as an act of pandering at best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst (you can convince both crowds that you meant their definition, so for the creationist crowd, you meant theory definition 2, for the intellectual crowd, you meant theory definition 1).
That said, I seriously doubt any politician will ever make the effort to avoid such misunderstandings. If you consider the use of or turning a blind eye of the use of such terms to be expedient for working with what you are given or deception is an exercise left up to each individual.
Edit: added details, more cohesion, better spacing.
Edit 2: I also believe that using appropriate terms and clarifying what the exact scope of the terms are very important, but is something very rarely done in politics because you need the ability to draw in a large audience, and at times that means using terms that can be interpreted multiple ways by multiple groups in order to get everyone's vote. Again I consider this at best pandering, and at worst intellectual dishonesty, and I doubt this practice will ever be abandoned.
I really wish more candidates would use science, statistics and numbers in what they do, and show not just the pluses but also the minuses. It also helps to show both studies that support and studies that oppose your position, and explain why you believe the context of your reports (and/or methodology of such reports) are correct, and why the others are incorrect. In that context, we can make the best informed decisions. I can respect candidates that I disagree with who do this, but more importantly a candidate is very likely to convince me to their position as long as they can show long-term overall good.
I think what I would respect the most is if we see studies that show certain policies did not achieve their goals, that the politicians sit down and try to come up with new policies to meet those original goals. The goals should always be the focus, not the methodology. We need to measure then prove out the effect of the things we do, but sadly the public has very little data about the results of all the policies put in place.
|
On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote:
@ JingleHell
After a quick review of the wikipedia article on "Intelligent Design", I have more appreciation for your intolerance of my use of the term. Is there an accepted term that simultaneously encapsulates big bang/cosmic/drift/evolution and the concept of a prime mover? I need to start using it instead of ID.
"Theistic evolution" is closer to what you're looking for.
|
@ 57 Corvette
I took a look at wikipedia to make sure I wasn't about to say something stupid and actually found a sentence that encapsulates a lot of what I've been saying over the past few pages:
"In contrast to so-called "American conservative" counterparts, however, they did not undertake as dramatic an ideological turnaround in the first half of the 20th century by continuing to follow mercantilism and nascent notions of the welfare state."
I have a hard time understanding the distinctions between major parties in other countries, particularly Canada and Great Britain. I guess we're used to the two-party system to the extent where we expect an absolute black-and-white distinction in the rhetoric and are somewhat confused by parliamentary systems with multiple parties.
Regarding the PC party specifically, it seems like they attempted to be a little too "big tent" in the sense that their ideology was a little too flexible to inspire the sort of loyalty that keeps a party together through the primary squabbles and platform disagreements. I think the endurance of the two-party system here owes a lot to this notion that we'll tear each other's throats out during primary season, but all have the understanding that when a winner emerges, it's time to get back to business. PC didn't do a good job in keeping internal strife under control. I do, however, appreciate the notion of never taking a stance that we are incapable of hearing new ideas and potentially adopting them. Regardless of PC's failures, we have to keep some element of that mindset at the forefront of our own politics.
Tell me something. After the Alliance merger referenced towards the end of the wiki article, did they ever have a period of dominance again? It sounds as if they didn't really get a boost from that event.
|
On April 28 2012 02:40 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote:
@ JingleHell
After a quick review of the wikipedia article on "Intelligent Design", I have more appreciation for your intolerance of my use of the term. Is there an accepted term that simultaneously encapsulates big bang/cosmic/drift/evolution and the concept of a prime mover? I need to start using it instead of ID. "Theistic evolution" is closer to what you're looking for.
Yeah. Theistic evolution I can accept.
|
On April 28 2012 02:40 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote:
@ JingleHell
After a quick review of the wikipedia article on "Intelligent Design", I have more appreciation for your intolerance of my use of the term. Is there an accepted term that simultaneously encapsulates big bang/cosmic/drift/evolution and the concept of a prime mover? I need to start using it instead of ID. "Theistic evolution" is closer to what you're looking for.
Do you think that the average Joe Schmo will hear that and know that I mean to include the entirety of scientific understanding about the origin of the universe? Personally, I like it, but I sort of have a job requirement of tailoring language a bit.
Thanks for that, though. That does seem to work much better.
|
On April 28 2012 02:52 SaintBadger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 02:40 Mindcrime wrote:On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote:
@ JingleHell
After a quick review of the wikipedia article on "Intelligent Design", I have more appreciation for your intolerance of my use of the term. Is there an accepted term that simultaneously encapsulates big bang/cosmic/drift/evolution and the concept of a prime mover? I need to start using it instead of ID. "Theistic evolution" is closer to what you're looking for. Do you think that the average Joe Schmo will hear that and know that I mean to include the entirety of scientific understanding about the origin of the universe? Personally, I like it, but I sort of have a job requirement of tailoring language a bit. Thanks for that, though. That does seem to work much better.
I think it's better to have to explain it a bit than to accidentally create misconceptions. Theistic evolution is still kind of broad, it covers multiple beliefs, but the range of things it covers are a bit different.
|
Just say you believe in evolution and that it is the way in which the Will of God is made manifest in the world (and that the process is itself a manifestation of Will).
Evolution is a beautiful and elegant process - how could one appreciate the glory of God's creation without an appreciation of one of his most subtle works?
(I'm not talking out of my ass here; I believe something much like this myself although I am not a theist. I would say that evolution is an unfolding of the Dao - but this amounts to much the same thing)
edit: Even if you believe that God made the world perfect, who says that that perfection exists at a single point in time? Does God exist WITHIN time?
|
@Delwack
I feel bad taking tiny quotes out of your large and well-written contributions, but "Theories are never proven. the simply provide guidance for expectations and predictions," is something I definitely need to keep in mind.
I actually was familiar with those definitions, but sometimes when trying to make a point, it's hard to find the correct substitutes. I think a strong influx of the word "predict" might help. For example, I should have said we now know that gravitational theory and relativity theory fail to predict quite a few circumstances they originally purported to include. That was my intended point.
It's extremely difficult to discuss evolution. EXTREMELY. In keeping with new found nomenclature, I'll ammend my disclaimer to say I suspect Darwin was successful in outlining a guide for predicting the mechanism of change from generation to generation of life, and by extrapolation, understanding the fossil record in a more meaningful way than simple observation.
I have no doubt in my mind that humans and apes share a common ancestor, but it's funny how one sets out to try to explain human feelings and has an all-too human reaction to the inevitable criticism.
Anyway, thank you for your help. I might actually have a PM for you soon. I spoke to a patent bar competent friend from Tulane and it turns out he is lobbying for reforms in D.C. right now. I may try to put you two in touch if you're interested.
|
On April 28 2012 02:50 SaintBadger wrote:
@ 57 Corvette
I took a look at wikipedia to make sure I wasn't about to say something stupid and actually found a sentence that encapsulates a lot of what I've been saying over the past few pages:
"In contrast to so-called "American conservative" counterparts, however, they did not undertake as dramatic an ideological turnaround in the first half of the 20th century by continuing to follow mercantilism and nascent notions of the welfare state."
I have a hard time understanding the distinctions between major parties in other countries, particularly Canada and Great Britain. I guess we're used to the two-party system to the extent where we expect an absolute black-and-white distinction in the rhetoric and are somewhat confused by parliamentary systems with multiple parties.
Regarding the PC party specifically, it seems like they attempted to be a little too "big tent" in the sense that their ideology was a little too flexible to inspire the sort of loyalty that keeps a party together through the primary squabbles and platform disagreements. I think the endurance of the two-party system here owes a lot to this notion that we'll tear each other's throats out during primary season, but all have the understanding that when a winner emerges, it's time to get back to business. PC didn't do a good job in keeping internal strife under control. I do, however, appreciate the notion of never taking a stance that we are incapable of hearing new ideas and potentially adopting them. Regardless of PC's failures, we have to keep some element of that mindset at the forefront of our own politics.
Tell me something. After the Alliance merger referenced towards the end of the wiki article, did they ever have a period of dominance again? It sounds as if they didn't really get a boost from that event.
Well, The 2007 Election resulted in a Minority (Less than 50% of all seats) Conservative Federal Government, which basically sucked, they couldn't get much done as they needed help from one of the other official parties (Liberals, NDP and Green party) to pass anything through. In 2011 however, they managed to pick up a Majority federal government and are now doing well running the country (although I still think Steven Harper is an idiot, but thats probably because I am Leftist.)
|
On April 28 2012 02:55 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 02:52 SaintBadger wrote:On April 28 2012 02:40 Mindcrime wrote:On April 28 2012 02:34 SaintBadger wrote:
@ JingleHell
After a quick review of the wikipedia article on "Intelligent Design", I have more appreciation for your intolerance of my use of the term. Is there an accepted term that simultaneously encapsulates big bang/cosmic/drift/evolution and the concept of a prime mover? I need to start using it instead of ID. "Theistic evolution" is closer to what you're looking for. Do you think that the average Joe Schmo will hear that and know that I mean to include the entirety of scientific understanding about the origin of the universe? Personally, I like it, but I sort of have a job requirement of tailoring language a bit. Thanks for that, though. That does seem to work much better. I think it's better to have to explain it a bit than to accidentally create misconceptions. Theistic evolution is still kind of broad, it covers multiple beliefs, but the range of things it covers are a bit different.
That's a very astute point. I appreciate it.
|
|
|
@57 Corvette
Can you recommend a resource for someone who needs to catch up on contemporary Canadian politics? We used to have drinking parties at my frat house watching the British House of Commons on CSPAN, so I educated myself on that country as best I could, but I'm somewhat negligent with regards to our neighbor to the north.
|
I'm sitting here trying to think of some of the big talking points in national politics that haven't been discussed here.
Abortion, check
Climate change, check
Economy, semi-check
War, check
Terrorism, not much
Same-sex marriage, check, check, check
We're missing a couple of things. Anyone want to give immigration a whirl? How about Unions? Unions are going to be HUGE this season. Campaign finance?
I enjoy the theological stuff a lot, but I feel like I've gotten far from my realm of expertise.
I've actually been asking around the office to see if some others want to get in on this, but they think I'm weird and more than a tad unstable when I tell them I'm up to 2500 views on a computer game forum.
EDIT: Sort of touched affirmative action, but that's actually my specialty. Wrote a bunch on that subject in law school.
2nd EDIT: Who is actually enthusiastic about voting for Obama? I never know in these forums whether the people who argue against conservatism are dyed in the wool liberal or just disdainful of all the choices. Also, I'm very grateful for the international audience. I'm sorry I keep focusing on US-specific issues and circumstances, but I really appreciate the perspectives from outside this country.
|
On April 28 2012 03:11 SaintBadger wrote:
I've actually been asking around the office to see if some others want to get in on this, but they think I'm weird and more than a tad unstable when I tell them I'm up to 2500 views on a computer game forum.
HAHA
2nd EDIT: Who is actually enthusiastic about voting for Obama? I never know in these forums whether the people who argue against conservatism are dyed in the wool liberal or just disdainful of all the choices. Also, I'm very grateful for the international audience. I'm sorry I keep focusing on US-specific issues and circumstances, but I really appreciate the perspectives from outside this country.
I voted for Obama the first time but I will not this time as I feel he did not do a good enough job to warrant my vote. I will not however vote for Romney because the right is hijacked by a lot of bigoted idiots and I will not play into their hands. I think that it is impossible for me to be represented at all in our current political system, so I will vote for a third party candidate.
|
I can give you my opinions: Unions are an outdated concept that was once necessary before other laws were enacted to prevent stupid stuff, like you know, death from workplace hazards. I don't think unions are really as necessary today, labor markets tend to work themselves out fairly well in the end. I like at will employment. I don't think unions will be a big issue to anyone who isn't a union member today. Unions are starting to engage in a lot of rent-seeking behavior themselves, and are an administrative nightmare for the union members, the union itself, and the legal structure around it. I don't think unions should be banned, but I don't think unions should be allowed to have a monopoly on workers in an industry or company either (e.g. a company is free to hire non-union workers at all times). Monopolies always encourage economic activities that are not beneficial to anyone, be them from bad trade law, bad patent and/or copyright law, or faulty contract law.
If you want to tackle campaign financing, I'd pose the broader question: What do you believe the best measures for reducing all forms of corruption in government would be? (examples of corruption occur in contract processes, 'buying' politicians to create policy through the offer of future lobby jobs or well-paid positions on industry boards, prominent example: Christ Dodd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd, power-grabs by various departments, rent seeking behaviors of government agencies). I don't necessarily think getting rid of them is the solution, because then you have an argument of why have government at all? How do we best reduce corruption across all sectors of government? Campaign financing plays a big part in this because of course the politicians are expected to scratch their backers backs at some point and time in the future. Can we even prevent this from happening? How do you best tackle these corruption issues?
I'm not sure where I really stand on immigration, that's a harder issue. I guess what I'd ask is what do you think of current immigration quotas and our visa system? Do you think being very tough on illegal immigration truly benefits the nation long and short term?
|
@sam!zdat
What do you say to someone who tells you that in the US, if you switch your vote from Dem to third-party, it's the functional equivalent of voting Rep since there is no chance of a third party winning?
|
On April 28 2012 03:30 SaintBadger wrote:
@sam!zdat
What do you say to someone who tells you that in the US, if you switch your vote from Dem to third-party, it's the functional equivalent of voting Rep since there is no chance of a third party winning?
My response is that if I vote for one party out of default then I am abdicating my political voice. Demographically, I am a locked in vote for Obama and so he has no incentive to represent my views. I want to vote FOR somebody, not against somebody. I think thinking about it instrumentally is the wrong way to go about it - I want to be REPRESENTED.
|
2nd EDIT: Who is actually enthusiastic about voting for Obama? I never know in these forums whether the people who argue against conservatism are dyed in the wool liberal or just disdainful of all the choices. Also, I'm very grateful for the international audience. I'm sorry I keep focusing on US-specific issues and circumstances, but I really appreciate the perspectives from outside this country.
Definitely disdainful of all choices. Both political parties annoy me to no end. corruption is rampant, and even if people are interested in actually solving problems, the method we have used to get there has been so horrible that any good is lost by the end of the process. Rent seekers and gains from short-term thinking are winning more often over meaningful reform that could hurt us in the short term.
|
Yes, exactly. The entire system is corrupt so voting for one candidate within it is meaningless. At this point, all I can do is vote against the system. I think the difference between the candidates is negligible, at least from my political standpoint.
edit: because each candidate only cares about representing 51% of America. Since most of that is locked in due to ideological polarization, the only people with power are the relatively uninformed middle 5% or so, and so our system turns into a circus.
edit again: and unless you live in a swing state, which I don't, nobody cares about you.
|
On April 28 2012 03:06 SaintBadger wrote:
@57 Corvette
Can you recommend a resource for someone who needs to catch up on contemporary Canadian politics? We used to have drinking parties at my frat house watching the British House of Commons on CSPAN, so I educated myself on that country as best I could, but I'm somewhat negligent with regards to our neighbor to the north.
Basically any Canadian National News source will have information on Canadian politics (IE., National Post.com, Globe and Mail.ca, Sun news network.ca). Party websites offer some insights into what's going on as well.
Edit: I should mention that party websites are, of course, biased. Some news sources as well. For instance, the CBC, considering the funding cuts the government has planned for them, can be rather predisposed in their articles.
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/ is good as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
