Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Kaitlyn S]

Let me just add that it is a dangerous game for the party in power to ignore the other side. Right now the Republicans control everything and IMO it would be just awful to pass a lot of legislation and executive orders to take the country far right, only to have a Democratic sweep in a few years and have the country move far left. Nobody could plan anything that depends on the future because the country could be drastically different in a few years. I feel that any party that is in power needs to carefully consider the other side's position since it represents about half the country. I'm not sure how to make that happen politically but since there are very strong opinions on both sides of each issue and very many people on each side, so ideally some degree of compromise needs to happen.

 

Trump choosing Bannon is scary since it's an implication that this isn't happening. However there is hope. Obama had both the House and the Senate for two years and yet couldn't get that much accomplished. Perhaps the same will happen this time; after all there is much disagreement between the conservative congressmen and the Trump populist congressmen and the good ol' boys of the GOP establishment. So it's unlikely that they're going to agree on much and maybe any of the factions will need some Democratic support to get anything done. Let's hope so. For while I'm in favor of conservative change, I'm also opposed to ignoring the opinions of left-leaning Americans just because we won this time.

[Kaitlyn S]

It is important to understand our own confirmation bias in order to factor it in to our research. Otherwise, we simply search out quotes to support our position.

I recently got that lesson when I stated that the left was following Alinsky tactics and someone mentioned that the Tea Party was handling out Rules to Radicals to some of their leaders (to follow, not just to see what the other side was doing.) I looked it up and damn! He was right!

[billw55]

Now, that did not 'prove' that the theory was absolutely 'right'. It merely showed that the theory was consistent with the observed universe and thus was entitled to be treated as provisionally correct. Indeed, those satellites that provide us with GPS info and near instantaneous global data transmission are able to do so only because the engineers who specified their orbits and the flow of data, took into account relativity....for satellites in orbit, due to their relative velocity compared to the surface of the earth, time passes at a measurably (tho incredibly tiny) different rate!

Thought I would add a little to the science here. For GPS satellites, special relativistic effects due to relative motion must indeed be taken into account. However, general relativistic effects due to being farther out in earth's gravitational field are larger, and in the opposite direction. Both effects must be correctly calculated and adjusted for to get GPS working to the existing precision.

[mikeh]

Thought I would add a little to the science here. For GPS satellites, special relativistic effects due to relative motion must indeed be taken into account. However, general relativistic effects due to being farther out in earth's gravitational field are larger, and in the opposite direction. Both effects must be correctly calculated and adjusted for to get GPS working to the existing precision.

I did say I was doing some gross simplification, but thanks for the addition

[onoway]

I have pretty much given up on the outrage posts stuff except for what is happening at Standing Rock in North Dakota. That has actually got to the point where I am starting to call people out for moaning and wringing their hands about what was done to the Native Americans 100 years ago while sitting comfortably on their butts while the Sioux and others are being blasted with water cannon in below freezing temperatures, fired on with rubber bullets and tear gassed on their own land. By taxpayer paid police for the benefit of corporate interests.

 

Moaning about what happened 100 years ago and ignoring what is going on now so they can focus on Trump's latest twitter ( this is not referring to anyone here, but people on Facebook I badly misjudged as actually being activists) infuriates and depresses me.

 

Latest word, which I don't know if true or not, is that a bunch of US veterans are coming to Standing Rock to support the protesters. That's what counts, in the long run. Obviously not everyone can do that, but where people put their energy is telling.

[helene_t]

Normally if scientists agree on something, I would rationally go along with it. However, the argument is whether the scientists truly agree or those that disagree are being muffled. Again, I don't know the answer, but conservative (you might say alt-right) sources say that the public is only hearing one side.

You could check for yourself by asking some scientists.

 

The problem with Fox News etc is not that they are conservative. Because there is no such thing as a conservative (or liberal, or socialist) science. There is good science and there is bad science (or pseudo science, or non-science, or anti-science).

 

You can be a good scientist while having conservative, liberal, communist, anarchist or facist political viewpoints. I suppose scientists are relatively unlikely to support politicians that are hostile to science. But there are plenty of scientists who are conservative.

 

Are antropogenic-climate-change-sceptical climate scientist being mufled?

 

I haven't had much contact with climate scientists so I can't say based on first hand evidence that this is not the case. Having worked in similarly politically sensitive research areas like pesticide safety and breast cancer screening I can say, however, that the trend is basically what you would expect: while government employed or industry employed scientists are being heavily censored by their employers' interests, academic scientists generally have a lot of freedom, and even when they feel pressure from peers, funders, bosses and editors, different scientists can feel opposite-direction pressure so if you listen to the whole scientific community you will get a varied picture. Not necessarily completely unbiased: "70% of academic scientists believe product X is safe" would not be very significant. But if 99% believe it is probably safe to say that it is our best guess based on available evidence.

 

I suppose climate science could be different. Maybe there is a global conspiracy that suppresses divergent views on antropogenic climate change. But I find it unlikely. Generally, the scientific community feeds on disagreement. So if they all agree I think it is for the same reason why they all agree that the moon is not made of green cheese.

 

By the way, they don't all agree. Yes, nearly all agree that CO2 and methane emmisions is at least partly responsible for the temperature increase over the last century. But there are plenty of details which they disagree about. And that disagreement is by no means being swept under the carpet.

 

They probably all agree that Mike Pence is talking out of his *****, though.

 

Anyway, seeking input to this discussion on hyperpartisan anti-scientific websites is not the way to go.

[mikeh]

 

 

 

.

 

Climate change? I'm sitting that one out. I don't know enough and most of the material on the matter neither interests me nor is understandable to me. The only thing I have to say about it is that both sides of scientists should be allowed to speak freely on the subject. I at some point heard that Lynch wanted to arrest climate change denying scientists but that is probably right wing propaganda, but in case it isn't, she shouldn't be allowed to do that. Not only for freedom of speech, but let's let science happen freely and without legal consequences.

 

Normally if scientists agree on something, I would rationally go along with it. However, the argument is whether the scientists truly agree or those that disagree are being muffled. Again, I don't know the answer, but conservative (you might say alt-right) sources say that the public is only hearing one side. I believe that there are evil forces in government, on both sides, so while it sounds like a conspiracy theory, I can't discount it as being 100% false. Certainly if the government only gives grants to scientists who have a preconception that man-made climate change is not only real but will have disastrous effects, then there is bias coming from the scientific community. It's not that I don't believe the scientists, it's that I'm not sure I'm not hearing only one side. After all, if I listen to Fox News and Breitbart, wouldn't you say I'm only getting one side of each issue? The same may be true for climate change, except that it's the other side.

 

Am I denying man-made climate change? Not on your life. I don't know enough. What I am sure of is that those scientists that I am allowed to hear from say that it's real. So that says there is at least some chance that it is real and I would be a fool to say that it isn't.

 

I agree that since we don't know, the safer path is to assume that we can do something about it, as long as the expense isn't so great that other necessary programs will bite the dust. For example, given a choice between funding education or trying to fix the climate change problem, I think we have to fund education. If we are rich enough to do both, fine. However, our country is almost 20 trillion in debt (NOT counting unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities) and that works out to be a few hundred thousand for every taxpayer! If you count the unfunded liabilities, each new baby born is a few hundred thousand dollars in debt at birth. At some point, people will stop funding the U.S. government's extravagance. Also, it's a worldwide initiative and much of the world is ignoring the problem. Last I heard, only the USA fulfilled their Kyoto Protocol obligations, so we can pour untold trillions trying to solve the problem but it will do little good if there are countries with 4 times as many people as we have that continue to pollute and are become more industrialized.

 

 

 

 

The US signed Kyoto but Congress refused to ratify it. However, that is a quibble. The more important fact is that the US has not met its targets. Kerry was quoted in 2013, I think it was, as claiming that it had, but the Washington Post did an excellent article, with statistics, refuting that idea and pointing out thet Kerry was using political sleight of hand in much of what he said. Given that the WP is generally seen as pro-Obama, I think it fair to see this as likely accurate reporting since it was critical of the Obama administrations claims on climate change.

 

Since it took me less than a minute to find and read the start of the WP article, I suspect that as with most of your other 'facts' you are regurgitating some lie you heard or read somewhere without any interest at all in whether what you write is true. It is a classic post-truth statement. How it made you feel was more important to you than whether it was true.

 

As for being on the fence, another 30 seconds or so online will lead you, via the miracle of google, to understand that 97-98% of climate scientists stand on one side of the fence. Guess which side.

 

As for the others being muffled...the idea that there are hundreds or thousands of PhD researchers into climate change who are being muffled is ludicrous. Where do you get these ideas from? Have you ever aksed yourself how this muffling is being done?

 

Hmmmm....the Republican Party has controlled the House for years, and the Senate for some time, and they have climate change deniers on influential committees. The coal industry has its very existence at stake, and surely paying a few hundred million or more on science to save their businesses would make sense to the coal companies/ What about the oil companies? Hmm....they'd love to show that reliance on oil isn't causing mass species extinctions, I'd think. What do you think? Do you think that the Republican controlled administrations of Bush Jr. were muffling scientists?

 

In Canada, we did indeed have government censorship of climate science. Our former right wing government banned federally employed scientists from any public comment. Why? Because they agreed that our Oil Sanda are major contributors to global warming, and the government wanted to keep that under wraps. Thus the only evidence of muffling of which I am aware is to the opposite effect of your story.

 

So please explain the evidence for you assertion that there are two more or less equal sides to the climate change scientific consensus/

 

Oh...don't bother. You are not only ignorant, which is true of all of us with respect to most areas of knowledge, but you are intellectually lazy.

 

Ignorance is unavoidable, and nothing to be ashamed about. We come into the world utterly ignorant and, if we are lucky, we spend the rest of our lifes, leaving aside dementia, learning. it is both a glory of our humanity and a sobering thought that the growth of human knowledge outpaces the ability of any one person to learn, so our individual ignorance decreases in absolute terms but increases in relative terms.

 

It is a shame that so many of us are comfortable with our ignorance, and have no intellectual curiosity. We substitute for that wonderful attribute a willingness to live inside an informational bubble in which we are fed lies and distortions that resonate with our ignorant biases, and we mistake that for learning.

 

I don't give a damn about you as a person, any more than you do about me. However, you are able to write, and you claim, falsely, to like to debate. You commit a far greater wrong against yourself than you do against me, by your intellectual laziness. My only real concern is that you reflect and represent an alarmingly large number of people who no longer think, but repeat memes.

[PassedOut]

Climate change? I'm sitting that one out. I don't know enough and most of the material on the matter neither interests me nor is understandable to me. The only thing I have to say about it is that both sides of scientists should be allowed to speak freely on the subject. I at some point heard that Lynch wanted to arrest climate change denying scientists but that is probably right wing propaganda, but in case it isn't, she shouldn't be allowed to do that. Not only for freedom of speech, but let's let science happen freely and without legal consequences.

 

Normally if scientists agree on something, I would rationally go along with it. However, the argument is whether the scientists truly agree or those that disagree are being muffled.

In the Climate Change Thread, y66 posted a link to this article, The Rockefeller Family Fund vs. Exxon, with some of its introductory text. If you read on past that introduction, you'll find a very understandable history of the findings of the ExxonMobil scientists over the years and of the actions of management to counter those findings. The report has numerous reference links if you wish to learn the basis for statements made.

 

You might be too young to have seen how the cigarette companies worked to create doubt about the scientific evidence that cigarette smoking causes cancer. Doing so was effective enough to keep cigarette profits high for forty years. The doubts created about the scientific evidence for climate change are spread using the same playbook, and even employed some of the same players.

 

It's fine to read that report skeptically, but do read it to see what you think. (After Orlando, if you don't have time now). :)

[onoway]

The former right wing government in Canada also banned scientists who had concerns in the area of fisheries from commenting - and pretty much anything else which might possibly impact what the government wanted to do.

 

Harper wiped out several long term studies and sold off some of the infrastructure which had supported science, one notable one being the PFRA which had had a direct influence in bringing the Prairies out of the 1930's dust bowl..yes it reached into Canada. It had ever since supplied trees free to anyone who had more than 10 acres, a very positive strategy for combatting climate change. This is likely to have a fairly large impact the next time a drought rolls around, and it will, we have had minor ones within the last ten years.

 

Was it Carlin who said that an educated public was the last thing that a government wants?

[Kaitlyn S]

You commit a far greater wrong against yourself than you do against me, by your intellectual laziness. My only real concern is that you reflect and represent an alarmingly large number of people who no longer think, but repeat memes.

My "intellectual laziness" is somewhat practicality. If I assume that everything I believe is wrong, and has to be checked, it would take me hours to write a fairly simple but long post, since I would have to check everything that wasn't 2+2=4. I have to make some assumptions about things that I already "know" being true. If they aren't true, I'll find out soon enough, but to me it's better to write something including 50 facts in an hour and have someone tell me that one of my facts is false then to spend 12 hours checking every one of the fifty facts. Even adding in the time discussing intellectual laziness, the time spent is still far less.

 

How would you feel if you had to write your long posts and had to check every thing that you were going to say before you wrote it? You wouldn't get to say anything. You're writing what you know, and if you say something wrong, you're probably going to get away with it because I'm not that likely to call you out on it because I'll probably not know it is wrong (however I'll look it up if it sounds fishy.)

 

But you know the points I was trying to make, and it's not really that relevant to my points whether we met the Kyoto protocol or not. Instead of discussing the points, you decided it was better to call me intellectually lazy. The points being that (1) how does it do any good to try to solve climate change if others won't do their part, and (2) what are you going to give up to pay for it? These are both very important points IMO and if you disagree that either of these points is important, just say so. You can add that you believe I'm wrong about the US meeting Kyoto protocol in your discussion, but to say you really want to discuss issues, and then make the "mistake" the focal point of your discussion is kind of disingenuous. If you want to discuss issues, fine, let's discuss issues. But if your sole reason to discuss issues is to make your "adversary" look stupid, then I have no desire to engage, for we're not discussing issues, we're involved in a sh*t-flinging contest. Not having much practice, I don't think I stand a prayer in a sh*t-flinging contest against you since it's an essential part of your career and you're probably pretty good at it.

 

While the particulars of climate change science don't interest me, I'm willing to discuss the practical side of the politics and economics of it. That is if we can do so with some mutual respect. It doesn't sound like that's going to happen though. It's almost like you're saying "You said something wrong so you're not worth talking to anymore." I know that isn't exactly what you're saying but you can understand how it sounds like that. Imagine how someone would feel if they were discussing the play of a hand on the Expert forum and someone came up with a really detailed line of play and someone else dismissed them from the discussion because at one point he said "The odds of a 3-2 split are 70%" and the reason given for the dismissal of his ideas were that the odds were more like 67.8% even though the rest of his analysis was good. And everybody else is talking about the hand but ignoring this one poster just because he was wrong about one of the facts. Do you think that's right?

[jonottawa]

I don't think any of us can be sure that it doesn't apply to us. If I had to guess, I think both sides suffer from cognitive dissonance as you described it.

 

It's unlikely that we are right about every point, and it's unlikely that they are right about every point. There are some very smart people on both sides of this article (I'm talking nationally, just not here.)

 

I absolutely agree with that.

 

However, when someone frames an argument in a dishonest way, you can (if the misrepresentation is blatant enough) certainly reply with near-metaphysical certainty that their accusation doesn't apply to you. Cognitive dissonance doesn't enter it.

 

I can't (and don't) claim to be right about every issue. Though as someone who greatly admired Bill Clinton when he was president & who supported Hillary and then Obama (after Hillary lost the nomination) in 2008, and who now is more excited (though prepared to be disappointed yet again) about the Trump presidency than any presidency in my lifetime, I think I'm in a better position to argue that I'm FAIRLY RESISTANT to cognitive dissonance than your average bear (or than a lifelong leftist.)

 

Here are some examples of things I DON'T like about Trump (or his agenda,) for instance:

 

Kowtowing to Bibi (especially on Jerusalem, which I find incredibly offensive & counter-productive.)

Preemptively ruling out a prosecution of Hillary instead of letting the FBI/DoJ do their jobs once he takes office.

Abolishing the estate tax.

Saying an unqualified yes to torture (I'd much rather he just said 'I'll keep them guessing' or at least 'only in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances' to torture.)

Involving his children in his administration.

Signaling a willingness to compromise too easily. The other side HATES him & showing weakness won't change that. Obama made the same mistake in 2009. Then Democrats got crushed in 2010, so his show of 'good faith' was NOT rewarded by the voters either.

 

Oh look! More racist Hillary supporters:

[jonottawa]

After many years of often invigorating, sometimes frustrating and almost always informative participation in this forum I have decided to leave. Only time will tell whether this is a permanent decision or something that will prove to be temporary.

 

What precipitated this was an increasingly acrimonious exchange with a valued contributor to the forum. It descended to accusations of dishonesty. At the same time, I was reading a thread on BW about a poster who had been banned, and I read some of the posts that had got him into trouble, and was disturbed to realize that on occasion I used a similar tone in my posts here. So the decision, while prompted by an exchange with one particular poster, is more about recognizing issues in how I have communicated here than it is about anyone else. The recent exchange is the trigger, not the cause. To the extent that anyone wishes I did not quit, please do not cast blame on anyone other than me.

 

In hindsight, I believe that one of the problems has been that I have allowed something that is an asset in my vocation, as a trial lawyer, to colour the way I write here. I tend, as counsel, to present arguments and assertions in a manner suggestive of a confident belief in my position, even if I harbour more doubt than is apparent. In addition, as a trial date approaches, I tend to become ever more convinced of the validity of my ideas...as I tell clients, when warning them that my objectivity diminishes on the eve of trial, if I can't convince myself, I am unlikely to convince a Judge or jury. I think that sometimes that ability to convince myself overcame more considered judgement.

 

I think, therefore, that despite (usually) good intentions, many of my posts come across as less respectful of other opinions than would be warranted or appropriate.

 

I think that this problem is compounded by the nature of the medium. I sometimes write posts with tongue firmly in cheek only to find that someone has taken it seriously and problems ensue. I don't want to inflate the significance of this: such instances are rare. More commonly, either I read into someone's post something that was either not there or not intended, or someone reads into one of my posts something I did not, at least, consciously intend to convey. In other cases, I post too quickly, and end up saying something that is clearly wrong or inappropriately phrased.

 

All of these issues are accentuated, in seriousness, by the tone I often use. That tone has often infuriated some readers...I suspect that there have been more than just the handful who have responded publicly.

 

So on reflection I think it best that I take at least an extended break from posting. I hereby apologize to those I have offended. I am not pretending that I never knowingly offended a small number of posters, but I suspect that the number I have offended well exceeds the number I intended to offend, and to those and to those who read my posts with some disquiet, I apologize. And to those I intentionally offended, I also apologize. Disagreement is fine, but should be more respectful than I sometimes was.

 

Explanations of how some of that offence was unintended do not constitute and are not offered as justifications or excuses. As someone who uses language as a tool in my vocation, I ought to be more fully aware than I was to the effect of tone and the possibility that nuances I had in mind (on some posts) would not be apparent to anyone simply reading the printed word. The faults were mine, and I regret them sincerely.

 

I wish all who post or browse here all the best. I have learned a lot about bridge in my time here, and have come to think of some posters here as friends despite never meeting them in real life. Thank you all.

 

QFT

[hrothgar]

Life might get interesting

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

 

Note that Halderman has some serious chops in this area.

 

Please note: Much as I despise the thought of a Trump Presidency, I'm not sure whether this fight is a good one to wage.

Its very unclear whether you could come to a definitive finding.

Its possible that the fight could be more destructive than the alternative.

 

At the same time, if this is legitimate then we have some serious issues to figure out.

 

FWIW, I think that we'd all be a lot happier if the entire country was using a voting system like the one in use in Arizona.

It has some very good properties and seems well designed. (For example, it uses electronic voting machines that produce a physical/audit-able paper ballot)

[Kaitlyn S]

Mike, while I realize that you're being as nice as you can, it's really hard for you to hide your contempt or disdain. You want someone to discuss issues with that knows as much as you do. My interest in politics and issues is fairly recent, so I'm probably not that person. I realize that now. As we both are constantly learning, I will probably never be that person. Unfortunately, someone that might be that person already agrees with you on most points so the discussion isn't going to go very far. Al_U_Card and Jon certainly do not agree with you but I think you have even less desire to discuss things with them than you do with me.

[Kaitlyn S]

Here are some examples of things I DON'T like about Trump (or his agenda,) for instance:

 

Kowtowing to Bibi (especially on Jerusalem, which I find incredibly offensive & counter-productive.)

Preemptively ruling out a prosecution of Hillary instead of letting the FBI/DoJ do their jobs once he takes office.

Abolishing the estate tax.

Saying an unqualified yes to torture (I'd much rather he just said 'I'll keep them guessing' or at least 'only in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances' to torture.)

Involving his children in his administration.

Signaling a willingness to compromise too easily. The other side HATES him & showing weakness won't change that. Obama made the same mistake in 2009. Then Democrats got crushed in 2010, so his show of 'good faith' was NOT rewarded by the voters either.

On Bibi: I feel pretty strongly that we should try to stay allied with the only Democratic state in the Middle East, for if they fall, it will only embolden their destroyers with their disastrous ideology.

On Hillary: I assumed he wouldn't do anything. However, he might have some intelligence that we don't have that nothing is likely to come from the investigation.

On the estate tax: I agree. This sounds self-serving to me.

On torture: I agree. Sad to say it seemed that several of the leading Republican candidates were in favor of torture. While I was at one time, I realized that I couldn't really call myself a Christian and support torture.

On involving his children: If he honestly thinks they are the most qualified people to do the job, that's fine. I'd bet 60% of Americans would rather see one of his children replace Banner. I'm one of them - one of his children would be benign and Banner is divisive.

On compromise: I'm OK with it. If he doesn't compromise, half the country is not represented since the GOP has both houses of Congress and will have the Supreme Court (which should not be partisan IMO but I don't know what to do about that.) Plus, I don't think Obama showed good faith; it seemed to be his way or the highway, and his appointment of Holder was anything but compromising.

[jonottawa]

On Bibi: I feel pretty strongly that we should try to stay allied with the only Democratic state in the Middle East, for if they fall, it will only embolden their destroyers with their disastrous ideology.

On Hillary: I assumed he wouldn't do anything. However, he might have some intelligence that we don't have that nothing is likely to come from the investigation.

On the estate tax: I agree. This sounds self-serving to me.

On torture: I agree. Sad to say it seemed that several of the leading Republican candidates were in favor of torture. While I was at one time, I realized that I couldn't really call myself a Christian and support torture.

On involving his children: If he honestly thinks they are the most qualified people to do the job, that's fine. I'd bet 60% of Americans would rather see one of his children replace Banner. I'm one of them - one of his children would be benign and Banner is divisive.

On compromise: I'm OK with it. If he doesn't compromise, half the country is not represented since the GOP has both houses of Congress and will have the Supreme Court (which should not be partisan IMO but I don't know what to do about that.) Plus, I don't think Obama showed good faith; it seemed to be his way or the highway, and his appointment of Holder was anything but compromising.

 

You're offering false extremes on Israel. It isn't kowtow to Bibi or drop all support for Israel.

 

On Hillary it gains him nothing, costs him credibility with his supporters & gives aid and comfort to his enemies. We elected him in part to restore America as a Nation of Laws. Not to insert himself into an ongoing investigation.

 

I wish you'd stop calling him Banner. Bannon's not going anywhere, nor is there any justification for vilifying him when we've had Jarrett & Rove as the last 2 presidential consiglieres. And I have no interest in what 60% of Americans want to see. I'm interested in what's right. He (understandably) has a blind spot where his children are concerned.

 

You're again offering false extremes, this time on compromise. You don't negotiate with yourself. You don't signal a willingness to work with an enemy who hates you UNTIL they offer to work with you. Obviously if the Democrats signal a willingness to compromise to help push parts of his agenda forward in exchange for something they want, THEN you compromise.

 

As for Obama's signaling a willingness to act in a bi-partisan way at the beginning of his first term, that's in the past so I'll just agree to disagree.

[mikeh]

Mike, while I realize that you're being as nice as you can, it's really hard for you to hide your contempt or disdain. You want someone to discuss issues with that knows as much as you do. My interest in politics and issues is fairly recent, so I'm probably not that person. I realize that now. As we both are constantly learning, I will probably never be that person. Unfortunately, someone that might be that person already agrees with you on most points so the discussion isn't going to go very far. Al_U_Card and Jon certainly do not agree with you but I think you have even less desire to discuss things with them than you do with me.

The fact that you admit to knowing little is a start. The next step is to THINK and research before you post more of the lies you have absorbed from your friends and the right wing bubble in which you seem to have spent most of your life. I do in fact know more than you do, about many of the topics under discussion, as do many here. But little of that knowledge is hidden or difficult to find. Heck, just google whatever factual matter you think is true and you will soon learn if there is reason to be doubtful. A combined time of 5 mins on google would have prevented you from displaying your appalling ignorance on just about everything factual that you have posted here. btw, I don't for a second claim any special status: the things I know are known by many, which is why I know them. Indeed, I have learned much from this site, and not just about bridge. I hope you do as well.

 

I don't have contempt for you. I have contempt for the liars who populate the information sources that you and your friends use. You're a victim. Maybe now that you have seen that there is an entire world of evidence-based reality available to you, you will cast off the shackles of ignorance. I can but hope.

 

As for jon, he has revealed himself for what he is, and I'm not going to respond to that ugly person anymore. As for Al, he is delusional, a reality denying fool who haunts here for reasons unknown to the rest of us since he never references bridge. I don't know if jon does, but I know of pretty much all the better players in Canada and I don't think he is one of them. So I suspect he is just one of those trolls with no life, who finds a website or two where he can post his angers and fears and make himself seem like someone important. In the words of his hero: sad.

[Kaitlyn S]

but I know of pretty much all the better players in Canada and I don't think he is one of them.

TBH you could know the better players in the US and not know me because I'm not one of them :D If you play in the Main Bridge Club, you know that being a good player is not a prerequisite for being here :lol:

[Winstonm]

Mike, while I realize that you're being as nice as you can, it's really hard for you to hide your contempt or disdain. You want someone to discuss issues with that knows as much as you do. My interest in politics and issues is fairly recent, so I'm probably not that person. I realize that now. As we both are constantly learning, I will probably never be that person. Unfortunately, someone that might be that person already agrees with you on most points so the discussion isn't going to go very far. Al_U_Card and Jon certainly do not agree with you but I think you have even less desire to discuss things with them than you do with me.

 

I strongly suggest you read Merchants of Doubt. It is a documented tracing of the attempts over decades by a relative handful of scientists to use their reputations to create confusion and doubt about scientific findings they thought would lead to government intervention and were a threat to profits.

[Vampyr]

I think that when someone says that they will accept the scientific consensus if it can be proven that scientists who disagree with it are somehow being suppressed, there is no hope for them. Gravity and electromagnetism are theories about which there is broad scientific consensus, and in fact these are mainly accepted by the general public. However, perhaps dissenting scientists have likewise been suppressed. The Sun moves around the Earth. Does it not? Am i to believe the liberal heliocentric conspiracy?

[StevenG]

I think there is a problem, in that there are fields in which some scientists have been suppressed. John Yudkin, in the field of nutrition, is a good example. Practical science invariably overlaps with industry and politics, meaning that there will always be vested interests.

[Kaitlyn S]

I think there is a problem, in that there are fields in which some scientists have been suppressed. John Yudkin, in the field of nutrition, is a good example. Practical science invariably overlaps with industry and politics, meaning that there will always be vested interests.

I agree. I believe there is massive suppression of discoveries (or research of) alternative medicines and supplements to keep the drug companies bringing in the big bucks.

[Winstonm]

I think there is a problem, in that there are fields in which some scientists have been suppressed. John Yudkin, in the field of nutrition, is a good example. Practical science invariably overlaps with industry and politics, meaning that there will always be vested interests.

 

It is rather unlikely - maybe even impossible - to prevent genuine scientific research findings from being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In most cases of previous attempts to smear science with doubt the presumed motive has been zealotry and fierce loyalty to free-market, anti-regulation ideology.

[mikeh]

I agree. I believe there is massive suppression of discoveries (or research of) alternative medicines and supplements to keep the drug companies bringing in the big bucks.

This is another fact-free belief. Think about what you are saying. The fake remedy industry is booming like never before. Fraudsters pimp their products on mainstream media...Dr. Oz makes a huge living out of promoting fake remedies (green coffee, anybody?).

 

Homeopathy is extremely popular despite there being no reputable study showing that it works. Btw, the peddlers of homeopathy have more than enough money to run real trials if they wanted to do so. Look into how it is supposed to 'work' and, unless you are incredibly credulous, you'd soon realize why no such studies are run.

 

Chiropractic, despite being extremely lucrative for its practitioners, is based on non-scientific ideas about anatomy, formed well over 100 years ago. It happens to afford relief in some cases, but so too does physiotherapy, which happens to be based on more current, and correct, ideas about the human body. Meanwhile, I have read reports from chiropractors claiming to be able to treat concussions and other non-spinal/non-muscular conditions. Not all chiropractors make such claims, but enough do to cause me concerns. Btw, I wouldn't let a chiro near my body.

 

Acupuncture: a triumph of the placebo effect. No proper study has, to my knowledge, ever shown any objective effect. How do they study this? They use both real needles and fake needles...in which the point of the needle draws up into the body of the needle rather than breaking the surface of the skin. It looks to the patient as a real needle. Such studies show that the fake needle is as effective as the real.

 

Rieki energy healing. Energy, whatever that means in this context, is somehow transferred from the practitioner to the patient without any physical interaction. A study performed by a teenager (it was well done, a really valid study, btw) as a science project became famous for debunking the practice, but of course it continues to generate lots of money for the quacks.

 

Btw, if anyone claims that their therapy uses 'energy', in an undefined way, that is a pretty good indicator of fraud. Energy and quantum are sciency sounding words so fraudsters love to use them in order to sound sciency.

 

I rarely link directly to sources, but am happy to suggest google search terms that will lead you to resources. Google 'studies of acupuncture'. Or 'reiki studies'

 

Do your own research.

 

Conspiracy theories are everywhere. Anti-vaxxers still promote deadly diseases in previously immune communities, based largely on the fraud committed by Dr. Wakefield (who has been struck as a doctor for that fraud but who still rakes in profits from books and speaking engagements).

 

I give up on you, Kaitlyn. You have absolutely zero interest in understanding reality if it contradicts your beliefs: you value ignorance as superior to knowledge. I know you will deny that, but your posts demonstrate it beyond argument.

 

Muffled climate change scientists could disprove human involvement in global warming

 

Professor demonstrates futility of socialism by experiment in marking

 

Journalists are intimidated into not criticizing Islam

 

Employers won't hire blacks because they fear baseless discrimination lawsuits by blacks, but not, apparently, by latinos, women, gays, trans, disabled, Asian people

 

Big Pharma suppresses life-saving alternative treatments

 

 

The only time you have indicated that you did ANY fact-checking was after you were challenged on your employer nonsense, and even then, after admitting that a key underlying assumption was untrue, you maintained your belief. Most rational people, on learning that a basic assumption was wrong, revisit their belief. Not you. No, you just find another reason to cling to your fantasy.

 

I do give up. No more responses to your never-ending demonstrations of gullibility and ignorance.

[barmar]

I think there is a problem, in that there are fields in which some scientists have been suppressed. John Yudkin, in the field of nutrition, is a good example. Practical science invariably overlaps with industry and politics, meaning that there will always be vested interests.

Perhaps this is why we should be more willing to accept the concensus about climate change.

 

The "vested interests" want to suppress information about climate change. They should be able to pay plenty of scientists to spread their party line, much like the tobacco industry did decades ago. But with all their money, they haven't been able to suppress the overwhelming scientific concensus that human-caused climate change is real.

 

Someone suggested that the naysayers are being muffled. Who would be doing all that muffling, and how would they achieve it when there's so much money on the other side?

 

The general problem with conspiracy theories is that it's really hard to maintain all the secrecy that they require. It's probably more plausible that 9/11 or the JFK assassinations were inside jobs than that all the scientists with evidence against climate change are being suppressed. The former just require a conspiracy of a small handful of people within some government organization, not a worldwide network of scientists and journals.