|
|
On November 20 2012 10:11 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 10:05 oneofthem wrote:
doesn't need to go that far. look at stem cell. But I'm talking (and think that the other two posters are talking) about a much larger thesis according to which religion's existence has been a net detriment to progress, conceived in terms of our increasing understanding of the world. This thesis is a lot messier and harder to make sense of.
Precisely, I am simply of the mind that there are better means with which to frame a cogent historical inquiry; imprecise reductionism leaves oh so much to be desired, at least insofar as the study of history is concerned.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in the present day that rule is valid though as a rationale for limiting scientific inquiry. whenever there is a religious reason to either limit experiments, or 'guide' theories, it is never a good thing.
to do a bit more work on this, even present day opponents of religious influence on science do not object to the existence of religious institutions or people. it's an action based objection to religiously motivated rationales or ideas behind many of the actions impeding science.
distinguishing between religious rationale/action and the social impact of religious institutions or whatever, you can get a better working attack on religion's slowing of science.
|
On November 20 2012 10:30 oneofthem wrote:
in the present day that rule is valid though as a rationale for limiting scientific inquiry. whenever there is a religious reason to either limit experiments, or 'guide' theories, it is never a good thing.
to do a bit more work on this, even present day opponents of religious influence on science do not object to the existence of religious institutions or people. it's an action based objection to religiously motivated rationales or ideas behind many of the actions impeding science.
distinguishing between religious rationale/action and the social impact of religious institutions or whatever, you can get a better working attack on religion's slowing of science.
If we are talking explicitly, then I agree with you. My problem has more to do with a refusal to acknowledge the possibility that issues of faith helped to "guide" many of mankind's greatest minds, and continue to do so, with a different scope and influence than in past days no doubt. I'm not interested in the minister changing the science books, that is a predicament with an obvious answer. I'm interested in the scientist who prays before sleeping.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
rest assured i have plenty of respect for 'religious' intuitions especially in ethics. but i think these things can be naturalized.
prayer...not so much respect. i do respect religious metaphors i think they are quite irreplaceable. such as
"well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5:15 train."
my philosophical trinity are all theists in one way or another
|
On November 20 2012 09:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 09:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 09:07 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it.
otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions. Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well. The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim. So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you. Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief. Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive! She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says". KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence. I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it. Why say it at all? Drawing a distinction between science and religion isn't hard. Once you do that you can restrain the class discussion to only scientific thought and end the problem there. Harming the child - which would happen if you publicly insult the mother - is unnecessary. What possible distinction could you draw that doesn't basically say "what she believes is nonsense". It is nonsense, there's no way for an educator to describe the belief in something clearly, provably untrue and utterly irrational in any other terms unless you start using "that's religion" as a synonym for "that's total and utter horseshit". If you keep doing that eventually they'll catch on that whenever you mean to call a belief retarded you call it religious and you won't have gotten anywhere. Even if you describe how scientific beliefs are based in observation of things that happen and religious beliefs are based on the lack of observation of things which don't happen it won't be long before the children begin to work out that one of these systems works better than the other.
Drawing the distinction between religious and scientific beliefs, without being disrespectful, is not hard. You should have to only do it a couple times, at most, and that's the end of it.
|
On November 20 2012 09:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 09:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 09:07 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it.
otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions. Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well. The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim. So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you. Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief. Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive! She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says". KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence. I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it. Why say it at all? Drawing a distinction between science and religion isn't hard. Once you do that you can restrain the class discussion to only scientific thought and end the problem there. Harming the child - which would happen if you publicly insult the mother - is unnecessary. What possible distinction could you draw that doesn't basically say "what she believes is nonsense". It is nonsense, there's no way for an educator to describe the belief in something clearly, provably untrue and utterly irrational in any other terms unless you start using "that's religion" as a synonym for "that's total and utter horseshit". If you keep doing that eventually they'll catch on that whenever you mean to call a belief retarded you call it religious and you won't have gotten anywhere. Even if you describe how scientific beliefs are based in observation of things that happen and religious beliefs are based on the lack of observation of things which don't happen it won't be long before the children begin to work out that one of these systems works better than the other.
There's a difference between what someone infers you're saying and what you're actually saying. If someone comes to believe that their parents are "retarded" based on them finding science more useful or whatever than their parents' teachings, the teacher isn't responsible for that. It's that student's choice to interpret such things in that fashion. However, if the teacher tells them that those people are "retarded", then that's a real problem; you remove the choice from the student.
We don't want teachers imposing their beliefs. Being taught scientific precepts and ideas does not automatically mean you give up the ones you had before or will assume that people who don't hold such beliefs are "retarded." However, being taught that such people are "retarded" is more likely to do so.
Teachers should teach the facts; questions of someone's beliefs that contradict them should not be part of the curriculum. Nor should teachers encourage the idea that someone is of lesser mental quality just because they don't agree with facts.
|
On November 20 2012 10:46 oneofthem wrote:
rest assured i have plenty of respect for 'religious' intuitions especially in ethics. but i think these things can be naturalized.
prayer...not so much respect. i do respect religious metaphors i think they are quite irreplaceable. such as
"well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5:15 train."
I think you presume a bit much in terms of what constitutes a prayer, and though I share your distaste for typical prostrations such as praying the Rosary, there are plenty of people who "pray" in very interesting and personal ways that are very different from typical portrayals of Christianity.
|
On November 20 2012 10:46 oneofthem wrote:
rest assured i have plenty of respect for 'religious' intuitions especially in ethics. but i think these things can be naturalized.
prayer...not so much respect. i do respect religious metaphors i think they are quite irreplaceable. such as
"well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5:15 train."
my philosophical trinity are all theists in one way or another
Ooh, one way or another. Give me a tiny, tiny hint and I'll guess.
|
'Freedom driven' or Fed driven?
William White has made some pretty convincing arguments that the shadow banking sector grew in no small part due to ultra easy Fed policy here.
|
On November 20 2012 10:54 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 09:50 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 09:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 09:07 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it.
otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions. Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well. The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim. So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you. Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief. Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive! She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says". KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence. I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it. Why say it at all? Drawing a distinction between science and religion isn't hard. Once you do that you can restrain the class discussion to only scientific thought and end the problem there. Harming the child - which would happen if you publicly insult the mother - is unnecessary. What possible distinction could you draw that doesn't basically say "what she believes is nonsense". It is nonsense, there's no way for an educator to describe the belief in something clearly, provably untrue and utterly irrational in any other terms unless you start using "that's religion" as a synonym for "that's total and utter horseshit". If you keep doing that eventually they'll catch on that whenever you mean to call a belief retarded you call it religious and you won't have gotten anywhere. Even if you describe how scientific beliefs are based in observation of things that happen and religious beliefs are based on the lack of observation of things which don't happen it won't be long before the children begin to work out that one of these systems works better than the other. There's a difference between what someone infers you're saying and what you're actually saying. If someone comes to believe that their parents are "retarded" based on them finding science more useful or whatever than their parents' teachings, the teacher isn't responsible for that. It's that student's choice to interpret such things in that fashion. However, if the teacher tells them that those people are "retarded", then that's a real problem; you remove the choice from the student. We don't want teachers imposing their beliefs. Being taught scientific precepts and ideas does not automatically mean you give up the ones you had before or will assume that people who don't hold such beliefs are "retarded." However, being taught that such people are "retarded" is more likely to do so. Teachers should teach the facts; questions of someone's beliefs that contradict them should not be part of the curriculum. Nor should teachers encourage the idea that someone is of lesser mental quality just because they don't agree with facts.
What the hell? Not agreeing with proven facts is just about a textbook definition of stupidity. Would you respect the opinion of someone who didn't believe in gravity? Or Oxygen? There not two sides to every debate, and both sides don't always have a point. Sometimes, or more often than not perhaps, someone is just right and someone else is just wrong. Appeasement of absurd beliefs in the guise of tolerance is counter-productive and inhibits development.
I realise being told that your view of the world is incorrect can be profoundly unsettling, but it is a necessary development process that everyone goes through at some point.
If someone is telling a student nonsense, no matter who that may be, a teacher has a moral and professional duty to inform that student that the people telling them said nonsense are wrong. No insult is inferred or necessary. There is nothing shameful or demeaning in being wrong.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 20 2012 11:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:'Freedom driven' or Fed driven? William White has made some pretty convincing arguments that the shadow banking sector grew in no small part due to ultra easy Fed policy here.
takes two to tango.
yes, easy monetary policy doesn't help things, but seems to me that these guys are just moving what used to be legit business down under the table, fearful of regulatory (or even market) oversight.
i'd say the shadow banking market grows as new shadow banking connections are made, and these connections in turn generate more connections. so basically it grows following a geometric formula, relying on the expansion of private information links.
the pattern of shadow banking transactions moving away from the u.s. to europe and asia is a show of this. an anthropologist may say it's the return of traditional societal ties of omerta and the clans against anglo saxon public markets.
btw that paper also makes this claim
"However, [continued near 0 bound monetary policy]was also due to the growing reluctance to use more fiscal stimulus to support demand, given growing market concerns about the extent to which sovereign debt had built up during the economic downturn."
|
On November 20 2012 12:22 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 11:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:'Freedom driven' or Fed driven? William White has made some pretty convincing arguments that the shadow banking sector grew in no small part due to ultra easy Fed policy here. takes two to tango. yes, easy monetary policy doesn't help things, but seems to me that these guys are just moving what used to be legit business down under the table, fearful of regulatory (or even market) oversight. i'd say the shadow banking market grows as new shadow banking connections are made, and these connections in turn generate more connections. so basically it grows following a geometric formula, relying on the expansion of private information links. the pattern of shadow banking transactions moving away from the u.s. to europe and asia is a show of this. an anthropologist may say it's the return of traditional societal ties of omerta and the clans against anglo saxon public markets. btw that paper also makes this claim "However, [continued near 0 bound monetary policy]was also due to the growing reluctance to use more fiscal stimulus to support demand, given growing market concerns about the extent to which sovereign debt had built up during the economic downturn."
Isn't shadow banking replacing traditional banking more so than the public markets? If so your anthropologist has it backwards.
As to the fiscal stimulus comment - it could very well be better to strike a balance that relies less heavily on monetary policy and more heavily on fiscal policy. That said, I doubt fiscal policy is any more immune to unintended consequences. In other words the cure could (or could not) turn out to be worse than the disease.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
shadow banking relies on non-public information and ties, so in that sense it is replacing an open price market.
but yea public investment can have unexpected outcomes, oftentimes unexpectedly good outcomes. such as GI bill,, new deal roads and dams etc
|
On November 20 2012 11:12 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 10:54 NicolBolas wrote:On November 20 2012 09:50 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 09:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 09:07 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well. The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim. So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you. Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief. Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive! She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says". KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence. I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it. Why say it at all? Drawing a distinction between science and religion isn't hard. Once you do that you can restrain the class discussion to only scientific thought and end the problem there. Harming the child - which would happen if you publicly insult the mother - is unnecessary. What possible distinction could you draw that doesn't basically say "what she believes is nonsense". It is nonsense, there's no way for an educator to describe the belief in something clearly, provably untrue and utterly irrational in any other terms unless you start using "that's religion" as a synonym for "that's total and utter horseshit". If you keep doing that eventually they'll catch on that whenever you mean to call a belief retarded you call it religious and you won't have gotten anywhere. Even if you describe how scientific beliefs are based in observation of things that happen and religious beliefs are based on the lack of observation of things which don't happen it won't be long before the children begin to work out that one of these systems works better than the other. There's a difference between what someone infers you're saying and what you're actually saying. If someone comes to believe that their parents are "retarded" based on them finding science more useful or whatever than their parents' teachings, the teacher isn't responsible for that. It's that student's choice to interpret such things in that fashion. However, if the teacher tells them that those people are "retarded", then that's a real problem; you remove the choice from the student. We don't want teachers imposing their beliefs. Being taught scientific precepts and ideas does not automatically mean you give up the ones you had before or will assume that people who don't hold such beliefs are "retarded." However, being taught that such people are "retarded" is more likely to do so. Teachers should teach the facts; questions of someone's beliefs that contradict them should not be part of the curriculum. Nor should teachers encourage the idea that someone is of lesser mental quality just because they don't agree with facts. What the hell? Not agreeing with proven facts is just about a textbook definition of stupidity. Would you respect the opinion of someone who didn't believe in gravity? Or Oxygen? There not two sides to every debate, and both sides don't always have a point. Sometimes, or more often than not perhaps, someone is just right and someone else is just wrong. Appeasement of absurd beliefs in the guise of tolerance is counter-productive and inhibits development. I realise being told that your view of the world is incorrect can be profoundly unsettling, but it is a necessary development process that everyone goes through at some point. If someone is telling a student nonsense, no matter who that may be, a teacher has a moral and professional duty to inform that student that the people telling them said nonsense are wrong. No insult is inferred or necessary. There is nothing shameful or demeaning in being wrong.
I didn't say that they shouldn't say that the wrong information was wrong. There's a difference between "that is wrong" and "the people who told you that are retarded". One of these is a fact, the other is drawing conclusions for the child.
|
On November 20 2012 13:30 oneofthem wrote:
shadow banking relies on non-public information and ties, so in that sense it is replacing an open price market.
Aspects are more secretive (avoids regulators) but it also relies more heavily on financial markets (securitization).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 20 2012 13:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 13:30 oneofthem wrote:
shadow banking relies on non-public information and ties, so in that sense it is replacing an open price market. Aspects are more secretive (avoids regulators) but it also relies more heavily on financial markets (securitization).
but it would be amistake to assume that securitization is driven mainly by central bank actions. distinct financial engineering 'inventions' that allow for risk alchemy played a large role in the expansion of securitization at least pre crisis. (with these asset backed securities, more loans could then be made, and that rate of security production was the limiting factor on loan production, at least during a bubble) when it comes to shadow banking, the short term nature of the swaps is probably pretty instrumental. i've not looked at how this stuff works though
|
On November 20 2012 13:53 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 13:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 13:30 oneofthem wrote:
shadow banking relies on non-public information and ties, so in that sense it is replacing an open price market. Aspects are more secretive (avoids regulators) but it also relies more heavily on financial markets (securitization). but it would be amistake to assume that securitization is driven mainly by central bank actions. distinct financial engineering 'inventions' that allow for risk alchemy played a large role in the expansion of securitization at least pre crisis. (with these asset backed securities, more loans could then be made, and that rate of security production was the limiting factor on loan production, at least during a bubble) when it comes to shadow banking, the short term nature of the swaps is probably pretty instrumental. i've not looked at how this stuff works though
My point is that securitization uses public markets, not that its driven by central banks.
Edit: it was a refutation of the "shadow" aspect of shadow banking.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here.
|
Make sure to include a link to this thread in the new one then! :-)
|
On November 20 2012 05:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 01:30 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 20 2012 00:14 semantics wrote:
Cutting spending flat out esp the military would call economic contractions for the US, saying flat out cutting will stimulate the economy is so out wrong for so many reasons. You'd be putting a lot of government contractors out of work, although i don't really care for some of them who use prison labor for less then minimum wage all while charging full competitive pricing because the way the laws are written. Conservatives have still failed to explain why, under their non-Keynesian worldview, massively cutting spending and reducing the deficit via the fiscal cliff is suddenly not a good idea after all. Who knew? I've already addressed this many times. 1) Your assertion that conservatives are 100% anti-Keynesian is false. Republicans have enacted stimulus plans of their own plenty of times the last one that I can recall being in '08. 2) There's more to the fiscal cliff than just the macro level austerity. For example, conservatives don't like the Bush tax cuts expiring or the military budget being cut.
Yes, you have addressed this previously... with Keynesian arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
