>> ^geo321:

Even though I've heard countless statements and sentiments to this errect. It's still unbelievably shocking to me. It's cutting close to bragging about being corrupt.


Yeah, to us it does. Then again, we choose to use our brain.

To the mindless fucks he's courting, the "undecided GOP voter," they just don't have a clue. If they had enough brain cells to rub together some logic, they wouldn't be registered Republicans.

Heartless, clueless, amoral assholes. That's all the GOP has sent up the last few decades. Cute catch phrases, prideful ignorance... it seems as those are all it takes to get noticed nowadays...

I was undecided about upvoting until I saw Wally backing out of the camera shot - that made me laugh

>> ^shuac:

Also, there's a category error in the poll. Agnosticism does not address belief. It addresses knowledge. No biggie.


You and I know that but most people think it means "undecided" so I opted to put it in there. Maybe it wasn't the best choice, but I can't change it now either way.

edit: I can, however, put a clarification in the description, so I'll do that now.

The problem is in the relative sense of urgency. You can of course argue that the "solution" lies in presenting a complex debate thereby sensitizing the public.
That, however, takes time and focus as well a certain degree of trust in the democratic process under the given circumstances.

The video this comment bases on seems to point to the fact that the circumstances are probably not "ideal" to put it lightly.

R.P. is stuck (and I believe he knows that). He can not (or does not want to) muster the "charismatic appeal" of Palin, Bachman and the likes (political slang: "baby kissing" or "populism", whatever rocks your boat). That makes him so likeable for us but also utterly helpless in his candidacy.

It might not appear as such with the debate being so "flat", but he is running against some VERY clever people (or rather, VERY clever political advisors).

Boy, it would be awesome if time proves me wrong.

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
You call it the "problem" but isn't it the solution?

>> ^Mauru:

The problem with Ron Paul running as a presidential candidate would be that his ideologies are so radically different (not all good mind you) from the current political perspective in the US it would take a very well educated public to win the "undecided" voter.
i.e.: voters who actually vote on ideologies, campaign goals and what we would generally call reason instead of partisanship and cultural background.
The Republicans and mainstream media are well aware of that fact and while they secretly like RP to run as senator or basically any other position (even though they can't openly admit it) because he breaks traditional voting habits they would never boost him as a presidential candidate.
Sad but true. That's why there's all the smirking when he speaks. It's not because they fundamentally oppose his principles but because they believe that the level of debate R.P. as a candidate would require to succeed is unachievable (or perhaps undesirable) at America's cultural level

You call it the "problem" but isn't it the solution?

>> ^Mauru:

The problem with Ron Paul running as a presidential candidate would be that his ideologies are so radically different (not all good mind you) from the current political perspective in the US it would take a very well educated public to win the "undecided" voter.
i.e.: voters who actually vote on ideologies, campaign goals and what we would generally call reason instead of partisanship and cultural background.
The Republicans and mainstream media are well aware of that fact and while they secretly like RP to run as senator or basically any other position (even though they can't openly admit it) because he breaks traditional voting habits they would never boost him as a presidential candidate.
Sad but true. That's why there's all the smirking when he speaks. It's not because they fundamentally oppose his principles but because they believe that the level of debate R.P. as a candidate would require to succeed is unachievable (or perhaps undesirable) at America's cultural level

The problem with Ron Paul running as a presidential candidate would be that his ideologies are so radically different (not all good mind you) from the current political perspective in the US it would take a very well educated public to win the "undecided" voter.
i.e.: voters who actually vote on ideologies, campaign goals and what we would generally call reason instead of partisanship and cultural background.

The Republicans and mainstream media are well aware of that fact and while they secretly like RP to run as senator or basically any other position (even though they can't openly admit it) because he breaks traditional voting habits they would never boost him as a presidential candidate.

Sad but true. That's why there's all the smirking when he speaks. It's not because they fundamentally oppose his principles but because they believe that the level of debate R.P. as a candidate would require to succeed is unachievable (or perhaps undesirable) at America's cultural level

>> ^wraith:

That was my point. Fluids are incompressible.
Unfortunately, those bad analogies seem to stick in the minds of the physics lay-person. Just think of the mother of bad analogies: Schroedinger's Cat. The particle may be in a undecided state between "life" or "death", yet the cat certainly isn't. It's either alive and very pissed or dead as a doornail.
When explaining science, avoid analogies whenever possible or clearly mark them as such and point out their deficiencies.


I think explaining qubits does a better job for first time quantum beginners. It also makes them see the potential for awesome. BUT, it is hard to explain--plainly. I blame my college professors and books. Scientific American has an awesome article for the "lay"-man for qubits.

I get blank stares with entanglement.

That was my point. Fluids are incompressible.

Unfortunately, those bad analogies seem to stick in the minds of the physics lay-person. Just think of the mother of bad analogies: Schroedinger's Cat. The particle may be in a undecided state between "life" or "death", yet the cat certainly isn't. It's either alive and very pissed or dead as a doornail.

When explaining science, avoid analogies whenever possible or clearly mark them as such and point out their deficiencies.

Excellent! I don't necessarily disagree with the move itself (not that I agree, I'm now undecided pending further research) but I do disagree that it wasn't run through congress.

^I'm going to count that one in the 'Undecided' column.

PRE-DEBATE
PRO: 22% CON:57%
UNDECIDED:21%

POST-DEBATE
PRO: 32% CON: 68%

Does it really look like passing? I thought it was roughly even, with the undecideds expected to fall against the change. I would love to see it pass.

Watching from far, far away, I will be very sad if it doesn't pass. This kind of change happens so rarely, and can teach people that the sky doesn't fall with a bit of progressive change. Given that the undecideds tend to fall to the negative, it looks unlikely with the kind of negative media it seems to be getting.

And what kind of argument is it that California would be seen as not serious if they legalise pot? How could an argument like that get any traction?

I doubt any of us here are climatologists, but we are people. As people, we can expect people doing science on climate to not be entirely dissimilar to us. While they my process possess information regarding a particular area, they are not immune to the culture they live and work in. Quine talked about this a lot. That science doesn't evolve like the romantic picture that is painted. Rather, like pop culture, science shifts its entire focus from one foundational theory to another. Einstein doesn't extend Newton, it replaces it. Why do we not, rather, adapt the math of Newtonian physics to incorporate the data of relativity and keep the same mindset of forces instead of space time warps? Quines answer is that, like pop culture, a mans theory only lasts as long as he is around to extend it. Eventually, no matter if your theoretical construct was correct, if you aren't around to sort out the sometimes minor technicalities...your out. The people after you will eventually supplant your theory with something else more trendy. That science is subject to the same rules of the schoolyard as anything else. Peer review is more of a contest of popularity and not overall truth value.

As such, the very act of peer review is subject to the cultural perspective of the day. The moral and political climate of the day speaks volumes to what peer evaluated papers support or don't. Peer review is the best we have in science to approximate how we experience the universe, but it is not without its short comings. Let us not fall into the fallacy of authority, and majority in stating x group of people are more correct than y group opposed. Instead, judge things on merit of the argument.

To that end, I find that I am undecided on the whole debate. Moreover, I hesitate to put government in control of saving the environment...such was already their responsibility in the gulf. I don't want to live in a world of wrappers and smog, and to that end, I am motivated for cleaner technologies. Being wasteful has always felt somewhat despicable. To me, I remain skeptical of mans prowess of weather prediction. Year after year there is tail of "the worst hurricane season in history" that fails to show itself. If you say it enough I guess eventually it will be right, but that takes some of the wind out of the sails(har har har).

Furthermore, where is the data to support that global warming would even be bad? The only fact to the end that I am even familiar with is more extreme weather, and that dried up lake in Africa. I have lived next to lots dried up lakes and rivers...so that seems like more of a social disaster than an environmental one.

In the end, I feel like there is some snake oil salesmanship over the whole ordeal. I think we want to believe that we are the next greatest disaster. We will entwine any evidence into the web of belief . And ostracize anyone that deviates. We have always been at war with Eurasia, after all.

edited: grammar and spelling

Yogi said: "Obama is to the right of the public in every major issue foreign or domestic."

I think we have to admit that's taking tribalist spin a bit far.

-Obama opposed the Arizona immigration bill, even though Americans supported it by a landslide.
-The following poll puts the numbers at 74% in favor to 23% against and 3% undecided.
-http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010460-503544.html