nerdgirl

Deterrence, eh? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Is the wisdom in knowing when to tell the difference? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

And mine from a third State has about the same information as the "Certificate of Live Birth" from Hawaii, but it's labelled "Record of Live Birth." I think the only thing we may have shown is that we in the US live in a federalism. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Then it wouldn't be a forced dichotomy. It would be a false parallelism. Yes, it is that too. If those are your stipulations then the inus is on you to show them. First, is either belief irrational? Second, do either groups exhibit the stipulated beliefs? If either (or both) are false, the assertion is false. And at least you’re referring to scientists rather than “science” now. The asserted equivalency does seem to have changed from the original version, which is quoted above. Are you trying to prove or disprove the existence of “a ‘God’” now? How does that change the notion that they depend on faith, again? It doesn’t. It demonstrates that skepticism and religion can co-exist. That neither are mutually exclusive. Knowable is a bit of a stretch, huh? No. Science only applies to those parts of the world that is knowable. If it’s not knowable one can’t use the method (science) to study or know of it. It’s tautological. For example, before Galileo viewed the Jovian moons through his telescope did they still exist? Yes. We didn’t have tools to see them. That didn’t mean they didn’t exist before the 1600s. The existence of the Jovian moons wasn’t ‘knowable’ by scientific methods (public, repeatable, pertaining to physical world) before that. A positivist could speculate (anyone can speculate with varying levels of physical rationality or irrationality underlying the speculation) but couldn’t assert with confidence before the observations. When there’s new data, the model gets revised. Unfortunately those all "exist" in the empirical world. You can't use the empirical world as proof that there are undoubtable things in the empirical world. I find the real existence of cooperative binding of oxygen to hemoglobin and myoglobin to be a very, very fortunate thing. Respiration and a whole host of other physiological processes suffer without it. No one, afaik, is trying to use “the empirical world as proof that there are undoubtable things in the empirical world.” From your posts, you seem to be arguing for a subjective perspective on the world, e.g., “assumptions” —again, please correct me if that’s wrong, but your posts in this thread have been very hard to follow. Please see your quoted dichotomy w/r/t differing assumptions between religion and science. You’ve been given an example in which assumptions don’t change the physical reality. What are these irrational assumptions? Asserting something repeatedly doesn’t make it true. And remember, if it’s outside the realm of the physical universe, science is not the appropriate method. Philosophically, the criterion I am using for "knowing" are the same here. They are both applicable in epistemic terms. That is all I need. What are those criterion? Or have you redefined “knowing” to suit the hypothesis you assert? If “knowing” is something that only *you* need (& perhaps only you know the definition of (?)), than it is outside the realm of science. That’s the realm of the metaphysical. To give a trivial example: like debating whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is better. What’s important for one person in choosing ice cream flavors may be different than someone else. That’s not the realm of science. However, the guage I am using (Certainty) is applicable to both religious and empirical assumptions. You can't quite be certain in either realm given the limitations of our sense experiences and the limited supply of evidence we have to come to such a necessary conclusion. You’re right to some extent. No one can be absolutely certain that tomorrow the sun will appear to rise in the east. Nor can I be absolutely certain that tomorrow morning I won’t wake up and be 5’10.” Based on knowledge of basic causal mechanisms and processes of astrophysics and physiology, I can be pretty gosh-darned certain that the sun will appear to rise in the east and that I won’t gain 5” in height while sleeping. Those hypotheses can also be tested. Including by someone else independently and repeatedly. And the results can be shared in a verifiable way. It's like testing that gravity won't work one time when you skydive. Religious or spiritual experiences aren't subject to public, repeatable verifiable tests and causal mechanisms. And one might consider whether or not they should be? For some it seems to matter a lot. For others less so. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

He has yet to prove that he was not the product of Caesarian section. Since that was not a common procedure when the Constitution was written, the framers did not know who they were disqualifying by insisting on "natural born" citizens. Clever! I hadn't thought of it like that before.

Really? It appears to not take the form of "Either you choose A or B, not both, and nothing else." That is a forced dichotomy. I didn't say you had to choose anything. Yes, really. The forced component is a false parallelism w/r/t asserted equivalency of irrationality. Not all huh? Which one depends entirely on the provable, necessarily truth?. Questioning, rather than reliance on faith alone, is encouraged within core tenets of at least a couple religious traditions of which I am aware – Unitarian Universalism and Tibetan Buddhism. Heck, both of those encourage outright skepticism. Those are the couple of which I am aware; others might suggest more. Science as an empirical philosophy has tried doing the same. Are you making a claim here against philosophy? No. Positivism is the underlying philosophy (epistemology). Science is a process (or methodology) by which positivists explore the knowable/testable world. What I think you’re arguing … which I very much acknowledge, I may be wrong in my reading of your posts … is the post-positivists/constructivists/critical realist’s perspective (another epistemology). They would concur with your ‘bottom line’ characterization of science versus the metaphysical (ontological epistemology) characterization of religion. The post-positivists/constructivists/critical realists are less than right when it comes to the physical and life sciences, however. Some things are *not* subjectively constructed. For example, the absorption band of iron porphyrin (the active molecule in hemoglobin protein in red blood cells) is a specific nanometer (nm) wavelength of light in the UV-Vis spectrum - that doesn't change regardless of one’s assumptions. The specific nanometer (nm) wavelength of light absorbed changes depending on whether oxygen or cyanide is bonded to the iron atom not whether a conservative lesbian black female Jew, a straight white liberal male Hindu, or a libertarian asian transgender secular humanist is observing it. Where they (the post-positivists/constructivists/critical realists) do have validity is w/r/t the practice of science by humans. E.g., the classic works: The Mismeasure of Man and The Mismeasure of Woman, contain vivid examples. Humans don’t always behave rationally. Personally, I think that can be a wonderful trait – love, honor, bliss, hope, excitement, and courage are often irrational but can make the human experience worth living, imo. If you try to measure a water molecule (~0.25nm) with a yardstick, it’s not going to give you a precise result. If you try to measure the distance from the Earth to Alpha Centauri with a yardstick (~4 x 10^17 yards), it’s not going to give you a precise result. The underlying reasons for the differences in precision are not the same, i.e., not equivalent or equal. To try to explain the differences in the methods or approaches to measuring parts of the world using the same explanation would be a forced dichotomy too. Please let me know if that all makes sense or any sense or if I need to go grab Wendy’s rock. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Reservoirs of energy come from the 1st Law of Thermo. So far, we've identified kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, and a host of others. But, I seriously doubt we've found all of them. Back in the days when I could solve a time-independent Schrödinger equation (for H), You forgot? I can still do it. Guess you've got more 'nerd' credentials than I do. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thank you for the additional clarification, especially this from your next post: While many do derive ethical and moral codes of behavior (responsibility and accountability) from religious principles, one can also derive ethical & moral codes of behavior from the rule of law, from Enlightenment principles of personal liberty and personal responsibility, and/or from any number of a-religious philosophical approaches, e.g., from Aristotle to Descartes to Ayn Rand to Existentialism (authenticity & Da Sein) to Star Trek. Nor does that preclude a secularist, a humanist, or an atheist from seeking guidance & inspiration from the great religious traditions and from religious philosophers/ethicists, e.g., from the Norse Poetic Edda to Saint Teresa of Avila (a personal favorite) to Soren Kierkegaard to Spinoza (orthodox Jew who eventually became a pantheist) to the Dalai Lama (another favorite). It also doesn't preclude someone like me who's at my church two or three times a week from seeking guidance or inspiration from other religious traditions and from secular, humanist, or completely non-religious traditions. I find intellectually provocative what Kurt Vonnegut succinctly described: “being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead. Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.” Not as call or inspiration to be a secular humanist or adopt other belief system but as a thoughtful challenge -- & that's a good thing, imo -- to my own beliefs. Im-ever-ho, what Vonnegut describes is the ultimate in personal responsibility: behavior because it’s normatively right, without motivation or expectation of material or immaterial compensation now or at some time in the future. Others will disagree - c’est la vie virtuelle. There’s a high-ethics question, more of an intellectual/philosophical nature than pragmatic impact: if one’s behavior is based on the ultimate reward system (eternal life), how truly ethical is that behavior? If I need the threat of a powerful deity's wrath to hold me accountable, how much of my own personal responsibility is at play? Theologians & philosophers throughout history have grappled with this question with less resolution than a typical Speakers Corner's thread. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

"A federal judge tossed out a controversial lawsuit Thursday brought here by a U.S. Army reservist seeking to avoid deployment to Afghanistan because he questions Barack Obama’s eligibility as president. "Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia [Looks like that's over by you [GeogiaDon]. It's not ATL metro area. - nerdgirl] seeking conscientious objector status and a temporary injunction. "'The same Constitution upon which Major Cook relies in support of his contention that President Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States very clearly provides that federal courts shall only have the authority to hear actual ‘cases and controversies,’ [U.S. District Judge Clay] Land [a former Republican State Senator from Columbus GA, who was appointed by Pres Bush in 2001] stated in his written order. "'By restricting the Judiciary’s power to actual ‘cases and controversies,’ our founders wisely established a separation of powers that would ensure the freedom of their fellow citizens. They concluded that the Judicial Branch, the unelected branch, should not inject itself into purely "political disputes," and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.'" Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Absolutely! To many Americans, "socialism!!" is synonymous with "blasphemy!!". All emotion and dogma; precious little independent reasoning. Invoke the word, and further discussion is foreclosed. Sometimes it seems to me that folks call “socialism” things they don’t like. AFAIK, everyone who's reading this, even the non-Americans, are benefiting – right now – from the product of an American “socialist” program (i.e., something funded via redistribution of money collected through taxes): the internet. I like this one. Most folks around here seem to like this one as demonstrated by free choice usage. /Marg ... btw: it's also a good example of the benefits of defense research for those who don't like investing in anything related to the military (altho' the Intergalactic Computer Network was initiated under a Democrat, Pres Kennedy) and basic research for those who don't like investing in things that don't have immediate commercial or tangible value Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Sounds interesting. Do you remember the title or author? Thanks. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur for lots of reasons on the problems of lack of interest and incentives to pursue science, math, and engineering. Multiple reasons, some of which you’ve cited. Do you have any data to suggest that the number of individuals interested in pursuing medical degrees is declining? It’s my understanding that is largely controlled by number of medical schools. From a business perspective, it's a smart business model: flooding the market would hypothetically lower cost (salaries). There are few incentives to change that model. It's also worked well for most of the 20th Century. Do you have data on number of lawyers versus number of folks pursuing business or economics degrees? The latter two seem to me to have been the primary shift. And frankly, why not? It’s arguably easier than a degree in science or engineering. While I’m sure one can find anamolous examples, how many folks go from b-school to electrical engineering? The vector is overwhelmingly in one direction. Make more money … or appear to over the last 10-20 years … than most scientists or engineers. Appear to have more job options than declining science, math, and engineering jobs. American kids aren’t stupid … okay, the subset who might be likely to go into a science or engineering field aren’t completely stupid. They see and hear about “off-shoring,” labs closing, how much work you have to do compared to a business degree, etc. There’s also a question in my mind of how valid is the rhetoric that there aren’t available young scientists and engineers? (Maybe not available at the price Bill Gates, et al. want to pay.) I disagree with Gates; more H1-B visas is not the answer to “How to Keep America Competitive”. Before globalization, the market would have adjusted (hypothetically) to raise the prevailing wage. One result of globalization is the wages can remain low if there is an available workforce to fill them. A few folks recognized the connection between lack of available decent-paying jobs and decline in one subset of engineers when the Southern California aerospace industry seemed on the verge of collapse, e.g., #’s of jobs “decline[d] from 370,000 in 1988 to slightly more than 160,000 in 1996. Despite some modest gains since 1996, aerospace employment remains below 170,000, less than one-half the level of a decade ago,” (from Trends in the Southern California Economic Region). In 1987, aerospace engineering-related jobs accounted for 10% of the US manufacturing jobs (see Chapter 2 Life After Cutbacks: Tracking California's Aerospace Workers). More recently, the National Academy of Sciences report Rising Above the Gathering Storm recognized the jobs connection. The declining American science and technology workforce is a *major* issue for many of the federal agencies, including the DoD. In 2005, the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) charged the Defense Science Board (DSB) with looking back to the Cold War and the “technologies” (i.e., capabilities in DoD-speak) that gave the US strategic dominance and technological advantage over adversaries (i.e., precision, speed, stealth and tactical ISR) and identifying equivalent technological capabilities for the 21st century: 21st Century Strategic Technology Vectors In addition to identifying 4 critical “capabilities,” the DSB found that there is a lack of career science and technology development – a “crisis” – for DoD activities. This is exacerbated by the decline in math and science education, which was seen as creating a national security problem. A major theme of the DSB study was that revitalizing human capital is essential for the DoD to realize the technology needed to dominate over adversaries of the 21st century. The last three USD(AT&L)’s and the current one, a physicist by training, have spoken about this repeatedly, including acknowledging the lack of reasonably well-paying jobs as an issue. In December 2007, Steve Forbes spoke about his review on the decline in scientists and engineers and investment in technology research at the Forbes/Wolfe Nanotechnology Forum: “technology is the critical piece.” One of his prime concerns is that America’s declining investment in science and decline in training of new scientists and engineers is creating a situation in which America will be “buying” new ideas and innovation from foreign sources (like China) and becoming clients rather than selling them on the global marketplace. While a lot of folks of talked about it, imo, the decline in S&T capacity remains a strategic blind spot with respect to action. Ignoring it is not going to make it go away. President Bush put together the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) that emphasized the importance of science and engineering education of innovation. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the detailed feedback. Much appreciated! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Was there a specific or even general reason why you (or your wife) didn't like it? Did something not work the way you expected? More work than you expected? Did you keep both the CatGenie and the old regular litter box at the same time? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

There are quite a few, im-ever-ho, really, really interesting questions underlying that statement. Science, the human spirit/individual experience (humans are storytellers), and organizational structures (e.g., religion) can provide valuable insight, again im-ever-ho. Does natural man, perhaps due to cognition or organizational behavior wired into our squishy grey matter, create such systems of ethics and behavior? We know that altruistic-like behavior is observed in animals, that suggests it’s not a merely human trait. Does responsibility or accountability require religion? Require a specific religion? Some assert it does. If I understand correctly, that’s the assertion you’re making? Some assert that it requires their religion or sub-sect of religion. Does it have to be one or the other? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That’s a forced dichotomy. (Many) religious beliefs depend on faith. Testing is often of a personal nature. (A few religious traditions encourage questioning. How that tradition reconciles with reality is another issue.) Science is a process that is repeatable/reproducible, open/public, and not subjective relating to the physical/natural world to determine causal relations. The process of experimental science generates both explanations and new questions; scientists tend to be very comfortable with uncertainty, even actively demanding measures of uncertainty (as opposed to imprecision or inaccuracy). If something is outside of the testable realm -- the “realm of sense-perception” -- science is not the appropriate method. One might call religion a process to comprehend the untestable within the limits of our biological human capacity. Philosophy -- from Aristotle’s “forms” to Heidegger’s DaSein to post-modern deconstructionism -- has tried to bridge the testable realm with the untestable with varying degrees of success and precision. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. Even with all the conflict and atrocities motivated by religious disagreement throughout human history, in consideration of the amazing art, music, literature, architecture, and community that our religions have yielded, that's not a trade-off worth making, im-ever-ho. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Reservoirs of energy come from the 1st Law of Thermo. So far, we've identified kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, and a host of others. But, I seriously doubt we've found all of them. Back in the days when I could solve a time-independent Schrödinger equation (for H), I thought zero-point energy was an interesting concept. Still do … but not sure I could do much quantum anymore. Gotta keep up my ‘nerd’ credentials. -[at myself] /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How’s it going? Still happy with it? I’m seriously thinking about getting one for my new place. Had any significant problems that you wished you knew about beforehand? How did you get your cats to switch from the old litter box to the cat genie? Just put it in the same place and they figured it out? Would appreciate hearing from anyone else [Nightingale, Drew?] that’s got a catgenie too! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, in the Rasht valley, the border incident, and in Kyrgyzstan. Looks like the German MNF troops might be more engaged than they have wanted to be thus far (mostly domestic politics as driver in the German's case). Probably a result of low-level fighters returning to homelands. The signal needs to get substantially larger to be appreciatively above the usual ‘noise’ level for the ‘out-of-the-way-a-stans,’ imo. The underlying motivations of IMU-affiliated insurgents in Central Asia are different than the separatist-nationalist Uyghurs. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

On the UAV subject, this week the USAF released its unclassified Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Plan 2009-2047. 82 pages of cool stuff that the Air Force wants to/hopes to/dreams of doing with UAVs, including dog-fighting. /Marg ... not my area, but darned good, acronym-filled, miltary tech wonk porn-filled reading for some. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Would you point to one? A few years back I had some discussions with a guy who at the time was in OSD-PA&E and he knew of no such study. (NB: w/r/t discussion of OSTP in another active thread who has a high skewed prestige to power ratio, the folks in PA&E have a very high skewed power to prestige ratio. They can impact programs.) US Air Force Air Logistics Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) found privatization of repair activities on F-15, C-130, C-5 and C-17 aircraft was so inefficient and cost more than federal employees that WR-ALC 402d MXW reversed the decision and has been hiring since summer 2007. Eric Prince, former CEO, of Xe (nee Blackwater) acknowledged in the Q&A period of his October 2007 Congressional testimony that there was no data supporting the perceived value to the taxpayer of contracting Blackwater versus employing federal workers in Iraq for private security. One can build an argument, rather robust im-ever-ho, that the uniformed military is underpaid. Perhaps most notably within the enlisted and junior officer ranks. Better paying civilian employment has regularly been cited as _one_ of the reasons for the high attrition rate of Army Captains, particularly West Point grads. It may also be _a_ factor in retaining E-6's. While not military services, data from other agencies also suggests contractors are not cheaper for the USG. In 2007, the CIA Inspector General found that a civilian employee costs the government an average of $126,500 annually including salary & benefits, while the average contract employee doing comparative work costs $250,000 annually. The IG’s findings were reported in the December 2007 House-Senate conference report on the fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization Bill. A number of folks have been concerned less w/r/t pure monetary costs than the less tangible consequence of having a reported up to 70% of the National Clandestine Service filled by contractors. Average tenure of an intelligence analyst is less than 7 years – they take their TS/SCI’s and go make a lot more money. IRS collection by federal employees was found to be more cost effective than private sector. While there are instances in which private companies do perform more efficiently, they are not _all_ instances and, perhaps, more importantly, there may be instances in which other factors are more important than lowest cost, e.g., civilian nuclear safety, air traffic control, nuclear submarine operation. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

A lot of that came from the military downsizing, as well - they no longer had the personnel to do everything that needed to be done, so the contractors are hired to fill the gap. Are you effectively acknowledging the accuracy/veracity/agreement with of [DrewEckhardt’s]s comments to which I replied? Hypothetically a downsizing would have reduced budget; that's the usual argument. Unless you’re arguing/acknowledging contractors doing the same job as civilians or military personnel cost more, especially when the budget of other agencies are not being increased commensurately, e.g., see SecDef Gates comments on USAID staff differentials from when he was there and 2007, it doesn’t explain the disparity in defense budgets. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

One of the reasons that I attribute (others have too, not trying to assert it’s a purely novel idea on my part) to the apparent difference in defense budgets between the US and other countries is purely domestic politics. There are other reasons too, which others have noted explictly [e.g., nanook's posts in this thread] … but this is one that I don’t think gets enough attention. From the early 1980s through mid-2000s, there was a domestic inclination to cut government size. Or cut apparent size of the federal government, e.g., no increases in federal civilians with a shift to increased reliance on contractors. At the same time the only budget that was politically palatable to increase was the Defense Budget. One of the unintended consequences is that the Defense Department now gets ‘stuck’ being the effective lead for things that they don’t want or is only marginally in their mission area. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yep. Of the friends I have who have worked privately in Iraq, salaries seemed to _start_ there. Sadly, one didn't come back. When the Army's Human Terrain System converted what were previously very high-payed contractor positions (some over $300K/year, most around $200K/year) to federal civilians (less than $100K/year) an estimated 1/3 quit. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying