The Urge to Explore

Shawn Wilson wrote:


With a cite. In that you have none, I win.

Actually, Shawn, there have been lots and lots and lots of cites.

You've ignored or misunderstood all of them.

You lose.

Sorry. Don't you see the pattern emerging? You're like Rand Simberg
when he talks about politics, you really are.

Dave

Shawn Wilson wrote:
Plonk.

Apparently not, as you keep responding to me.

Do you not know what "Plonk" means, or are you
just unable to keep a killfile active for a whole day?


No, it was taken entirely IN context.

No, it's not. That's the point, and the problem.

Yes, it is.

You admit to not being an expert on toxicity and physiology.
What grounds do you have, as a nonexpert, for challenging
a trained expert in stating that it's out of context?


Note that you have no cites to back up your claim.

I posted several. Several other people posted several
more of them. Sticking your head in the sand is a debate
tactic only useful in a room full of morons or mental
patients.


You, on the other hand, are puffed-up economist.

With a cite. In that you have none, I win.

I don't know what you think you've won here,
since people are responding to you in varying
degrees from laughing at you to arguing that
you're an idiot or kook, and you clearly have
not convinced anyone of the validity of any of
your arguments.

When you win a debate, people agree with you.
Lack of agreement is loss of debate, by definition.

Why are you even *here* if you don't care about
what anyone else thinks or says?

Go back to a quiet padded room and play with your
crayons, and leave adult discussion groups for people
with adult intellects and education levels.


-george william herbert

Shawn Wilson wrote:
OK, prove that term X doesn't exist some other way.

Were I an economist, I'd pull a Economics Encyclopedia
or Dictionary or equivalent off the shelf, flip to the
pages in question, and type in the equivalent of:

According to Froozbat's Dictionary of Economics,
(ISBN 1-2345-6789-0, Randomized House, New York, 2006),
the standard reference used in teaching Economics
nationwide, the proper usage is Chicago School;
there is no entry for Chicago School Monetarianism.
Additionally, the term was not used in (list undergrad
and graduate school courses you attended), and I cannot
find any reference to it in the journals Modern Historionic
Economics (consulted 2003-2005 editions), Money and Antimoney
Theory (consulted 2004 omnibus), and Economic Philosophy
and Statistics (consulted topic indexes for 2000-2004 years).

I am an expert because I got an economics degree from
Notyourbusiness University and am employed as an economics
analyst at PushmePullU Banc.

However, I am not an economist, and the above is purely hypothetical.


-george

(George William Herbert) writes:


I am an expert because I got an economics degree from
Notyourbusiness University and am employed as an economics
analyst at PushmePullU Banc.

He has claimed that he is an ABD. Given the volume of posts he generates,
I can see why he is ABD....

--
Bradford Holden
"Is that even legal?" CMR on the use of a turn signal.

George William Herbert wrote:

Why are you even *here* if you don't care about
what anyone else thinks or says?

Apparently he gets off on annoying people. Probably enjoys farting in a
crowded elevator.



--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

(George William Herbert) wrote:

With a cite. In that you have none, I win.

I don't know what you think you've won here,
since people are responding to you in varying
degrees from laughing at you to arguing that
you're an idiot or kook, and you clearly have
not convinced anyone of the validity of any of
your arguments.

That's not fair. I, for one, think he's an idiot *and* a kook. And
given that he hasn't present anything that could be charitably called
an argument, I don't know how one could prove validity.

--
Keith

"Dave O'Neill" wrote in message
ups.com...


I undestood what he meant, Justin Bacon and others understood what he
meant. What I am wracking my brains over is why an "expert" wouldn't.


Because an expert is more precise about his language than a layman.



Additionally, as a self described expert in economics who is quick to
hurl invective


Yes, because I have to discuss things with nitwits like you.




- why do you ignore experts in science and engineering
who point out you errors here?


Because they are wrong, as the experts I have cited show.



Tens of Thousands refer to those terms.


But only 36 put them together, none of them reputable.

shrug

So, context is important too. Why did you bother with that search, why
did you mentally lump them together rather than separating them into
the key clauses?


Because it was presented as one term, not two unrelated terms. He didn't
say Chicago School or Monetarism, he said Chicago School Monetarism. Ain't
no such thing, any more than a 'Free Market Command Economy'. Monetarism is
not from the Chicago School.




It was important for economists to have tools that, you know, actually
work
correctly.

Well, when they get some let me know will you?


The Fed keeps the economy humming along by manipulating an indirect control
in hundreths of a percentage point (Fed Funds rate, incremented in basis
points, which are 1/100th of a percentage point). We have tools that have
both high precision and high accuracy and demonstrable effectiveness.




Last time I checked, climatologists do not possess a tool that actually,
you
know, works correctly. They can't explain the historical record.

As this subthread started out- you are worshipping a mathematical tool
but
ignoring whether it actually, you know, WORKS.

It doesn't matter how wonderful zeta functions are in other situations
than
this one- they DO NOT WORK HERE!

And you know this for a fact? Gosh?


Yes, I do. Note the absence of climate models that accurately generate
known past states.




The point is if you knew anything about Zeta functions you would
understand that any large control system can become highly unstable and
variable with what appear to be realtively small changes to the inputs.


Gee, Chaos, never heard of that before...



But you don't know that, and you don't understand why that is the case.

Worse than that. You don't even seem to care.


I would say the problem is with you. You are doing EXACTLY what actual
scientists are trained not to, you are worshipping your mathematical model
and excusing its failure to conform to reality. "The model isn't at fault,
reality is just too complicated".

Bull****.

Economists deal with unstable dynamic systems literally ALL THE TIME. OUR
models work. Why? Because we insist that a model that doesn't work
doesn't, you know, work. Reality is not "too complicated", your model is
just broken.

You cling to it because you have got things ass backwards. Reality matters,
mathematical models are just tools. And you need to find the right tool for
the job and avoid using the wrong ones.

"Dave O'Neill" wrote in message
ups.com...

He's something of an expert in that field.

He tells me that global warming is a fact and that sea levels are
rising.

So, here, on the one side I have an Oxford educated physicist telling
me one thing and an economist telling me another.

Gee... who should I believe????


What you CAN'T cite is a cost-benefit analysis supporting the notion that
money should be spent to reduce CO2 emissions.

Shawn Wilson wrote:
"Dave O'Neill" wrote:
He's something of an expert in that field.
He tells me that global warming is a fact and that sea levels are
rising.
So, here, on the one side I have an Oxford educated physicist telling
me one thing and an economist telling me another.
Gee... who should I believe????

What you CAN'T cite is a cost-benefit analysis supporting the notion that
money should be spent to reduce CO2 emissions.

Of course not. Because doing so would be an attempt to prophesize
the future of events we cannot precisely predict.

We can put various statistical bounds around the likely futures,
and attach reasonable cost estimates to those, and create a
cost-benefits envelope. But that's not an analysis, which presumes
actual hard numbers to work with.

Naive cost-benefits analysies are the wrong tool.
Regardless of what odds you assign to the probability
of warming, the effects of warming if it happens, the costs
of that range of predicted effects, and the costs to mitigate
the warming in the first place. It's the wrong shaped model.

A cost probability spectrum / risk probability spectrum /
benefits probability spectrum analysis is possible, and has
been done before repeatedly. But nobody tends to agree on
the parameter values used, even if the methodologies are
fairly clear.

Sometimes the combination of science, public policy,
and economics is an ugly knot which is not subject to
solutions which are amenable to any of the participating
fields as "proper" methodology, but nonetheless must be
attempted because of the at least significant risk of
something going very wrong, and the consequent risks
of "doing nothing". Ignoring the problem is dangerous,
even if it turns out to be a minor problem. The potential
risk from climactic swings is too high, even if we ignore
the (alledged, for the sake of argument) anthropogenic
forcing terms.


-george william herbert

Dave O'Neill wrote:

I undestood what he meant, Justin Bacon and others understood what he
meant. What I am wracking my brains over is why an "expert" wouldn't.


Its part of Shawn's pattern. He scatters seemingly outrageous
statements through his posts, waits for people to call him on them and
then gradually falls back upon an argument from obtuseness as his
justification for the original lure. By then of course the thread has
spun off into all sorts of wierd digressions and there's that much more
noise been generated to mask the numerous occasions where he gets his
ass handed to him over egregious errors. A sufficiently lazy skim of
the thread might get taken in by all this chaff he provokes, although I
think it would have to be a *very* superficial skim.

For instance, see his earlier comment about proving that the sun rises
in the west. He responded to my query on that with an example so
absurdly simple minded, that it wasn't worth the bother of trying to
pin him down as to which scientific studies he was accusing of such
grotesque, ham-handed fraud (which was the context of his original
post). I vaguely recall that there are a bunch of other examples dotted
through the thread (I've noticed it sufficiently often to think its a
pattern after all) but I can't muster the energy to track them down -
it'd mean having to wade through a bunch of Shawn's posts for starters
(and he was running at about 10% of the posts to the thread last I
looked).

Life's far too short for that.

Regards
Luke