[Vision2020] What is Jeff talking about? (was something else)

[Jeff Harkins]

At 01:15 PM 10/28/2007, you wrote:

My responses follow your posts - and hopefully 
you will take note of the history of our posts

>Again, there is a lot to say!

OK!

>First, you never answered this question: What is the GMA plan to keep Moscow
>from eventually smelling like Lewiston? Keeping out the single type of
>business that you mention below won't do it.

We must be operating in parallel universes.  The 
"contributions of the current city council" issue 
began with my post to the viz, the following request:
Perhaps Ms. Swanson would provide us with a list 
of the economic development accomplishments of the current city government.
You then made the following post:
The real question, Jeff, is now that BJ has 
responded to your question will you
read it and take note of it or will you continue 
to spread the lie of anti-growth
just to get some of your friends elected?
I responded with a preamble
Joe, I do not appreciate my honesty being called 
into question simply because we disagree on 
selected issues.  It is a very disingenuous 
tactic that you and your political allies use to 
obfuscate the issues.  It is unbecoming of you 
and very "anti-intellectual".  I would have 
presumed that you would not resort to such behaviors.
and following the preamble I posted a rather 
lengthy list of actions and decisions made by the 
current city council that I argue create an aura 
of anti-growth and development.
Not repeated here, but if you need to reference that list I can provide it.
Nowhere in any of the posts I have cited do I note the words "GMA".

So then you posted:
Here is the challenge to you, Jeff, and the GMA 
candidates. What would count as bad growth?
After advising you that I am not on the board of 
GMA and that in fact I am not a member in good 
standing because I forget to pay my dues (but I 
am planning to do so) and that I really could not 
speak for the GMA, I responded with:
After considerable thought, and given the 
constraints in real estate that exist in Moscow 
(no need to preclude businesses that couldn't 
locate in Moscow because there is no room for 
them or they require infrastructure that we don't 
have), heavy manufacturing (large heavy 
equipment, aircraft, large-scale auto) would 
probably not be a good fit.  That said, a custom 
manufacturer - say manufacturing small hybrid 
cars, wind turbines, solar energy systems, ATV's, 
bicycles, garden power tools, farm implements to 
serve Palouse farming specifically could fit very 
nicely.  Also, I have long advocated wood 
manufacturing - furniture, etc.  Hopefully, that answers your question.
And now you tell me that my example won't count. 
Are you suggesting that heavy manufacturing would be alright with you?

>Second, here's what you wrote to Bruce, which prompted my initial comment:
>"My post was to highlight for Joe Campbell some of the issues that lead to a
>conclusion that the current city government (or the current climate
>in Moscow) is anti-growth or anti business."

Yes, and I did just that.

>By calling the MCA anti-growth I, of course, 
>meant saying this about their supported 
>candidates, who are all current council members. So, there it is.

Well, one of the problems with this list serve is 
that it is very difficult to know what you meant 
to say.  I stand by my response - read K Arrow - 
you will gain an appreciation for why decision 
theory is framed around the actions of individuals, not groups.

>Third, logic is the mother of all sciences. It 
>is not an empirical science -- but
>neither is math! Logic, like math, is a formal 
>science upon which all empirical sciences,
>like economics, are dependent. Logic is the 
>science of correct reasoning and without
>correct reasoning all sciences are reduced to 
>collections of data; they have no theoretical
>or predictive or explanatory significance.

You may face a validation problem with your 
declarations about logic and science. This issue 
is not worth pursuing in a general public forum - 
an angels on heads of pins debate that is best 
reflected in some academic journal.  If it makes 
you happy, I will concede that logic is a formal 
science.  Ratiocination has intrigued me over the years.

  And, I am a Thomas Kuhn apostle.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Chemistry>Chemistry 
is often called the central science because of 
its role in connecting 
“<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Hard_science>hard 
sciences” such as 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Physics>physics 
with the 
“<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Soft_science>soft 
sciences” such as 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Biology>biology, 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Medicine>medicine, 
and the 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Earth_science>earth 
sciences.[1][2]. The nature of this relationship 
is one of the main topics in the 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Philosophy_of_chemistry>philosophy 
of chemistry and in 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Scientometrics>scientometrics. 
The phrase was popularized by its use in a 
textbook by Theodore L. Brown, titled Chemistry: 
The Central Science, which was first published in 
1977, with a tenth edition published in 2005.[3]
The central role of chemistry can be seen in the 
systematic and hierarchical classification of the 
sciences by 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Auguste_Comte>Auguste 
Comte in which each discipline provides a more 
general frameworks for the area it precedes 
(mathematics astronomy physics chemistry 
physiology and medicine social sciences).[4]
>And I didn't say that economics was not a 
>science. I implied that it was not an
>exact science, as you seem to think it is. I don't much care if your teachers
>told you otherwise. They were wrong. This is a matter of the philosophy of
>science, not a matter of economics. Your teachers are not the experts here.

No, I never implied anything of the 
sort.  Economics is quite logically, the science 
of choice, hence a social science.

>The idea that economics is more rigorous than logic, or math, or physics, or
>philosophy for that matter is a complete joke. 
>I'm not saying it isn't rigorous,
>of course it is. But it isn't more rigorous, nor 
>is it as exact as the first three.
>I will grant that it is more exact than philosophy but not more rigorous.

Yes, indeed, it was a joke!  Apparently, you did not get it.

>Fourth, 'fallacy' does not mean "deceptive" or 
>"misleading." A fallacy is a bad argument
>that is psychologically persuasive. You can 
>present a fallacy even if you are not intending
>to deceive or mislead anyone. All that matters 
>is that it is a bad argument -- one with false
>premises or invalid reasoning, for instance -- that is nonetheless persuasive.


fallacy (plural <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki//wiki/fallacies>fallacies)
    * Deceptive or false appearance; 
<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki//wiki/deceitfulness>deceitfulness; 
that which misleads the eye or the mind; deception.
    * An argument, or apparent argument, which 
professes to be decisive of the matter at issue, while in reality it is not.
Well, you had accused me of telling a lie in your 
previous post so I assumed you were being clever 
and masking the lie word with "fallacy"
Fallacy fits both of our argument frames.  Call it a draw on this point???

>Fifth, I find it ironic that you keep accusing 
>me of 'name-calling' since you've called me
>'anti-intellectual' among other things. It is 
>clear there is a lot of name-calling from both
>sides and that the GMA does not have the moral 
>high-ground, as you have suggested.
>Apart from my comments to Crabtree, you would be 
>hard pressed to find much name-
>calling in my posts -- though like you I enjoy 
>pressing the envelope and putting in a few
>jabs with carefully constructed conditionals 
>like: If Crabtree is right, then the GMA is ...

Joe, you called me a liar.  I am an academic just 
like you.  Deception, misrepresentation, lies, 
falsehoods are all breaches of the academic 
community.  I consider your statement most 
anti-intellectual.  Maybe you did not "mean" to 
say that, maybe you did - how would I know??

There is very little in this world that I can 
control - especially what partisans say during 
the heat of an election.  But I can refuse to 
engage in dialogue that results in insults, bad 
behaviors and the like.  A civil discourse in 
interesting to me - sometimes on many 
levels.  Perhaps we can enjoy continued 
conversation on issues that we care about.

>Certainly I've been pushing things lately but 
>part of it was a response to your
>overly moralistic posts, and in particular the absurd suggestion that the GMA
>was morally superior to the MCA. Give me a break!

Please point out to me where I stated or inferred 
that the GMA was morally superior to the MCA.  If 
you can point to a quote, I will most assuredly retract that statement.

>The GMA website is run
>by Wilson's PR-guy and contains, among other things, a comment implying
>that the current council lacks common sense. If that isn't an instance of
>offensive name-calling, I’m not sure what is. 
>In light of this, your calls for a
>nice, friendly campaign without name-calling 
>sound fake. Let’s park the moral
>lectures and get back to the issues.

Well, I don't have any input or control over the 
GMA website.  Perhaps you should direct your 
remarks to them.  But, I would have to say, many 
of the issues I cited in the list of 
decisions/actions by the current council call their judgment into question.

>Lastly, I've never paid my MCA dues, so I'm not a member!
>Can we leave the cheap technicalities aside, as well?

Well, I am confused because in the previous post, 
you noted to me that you were a board member of 
the MCA.  MCA must be organized a bit differently 
from the GMA.  GMA members pay dues.

Well, there we are.

>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>=============
>Joe,
>
>First, I am not on the Board of GMA.  If fact, I
>think I still owe my dues for this year, so
>technically, I am probably not a member in good standing.
>
>If I were to have a say in organizing a forum on
>economic development, you can rest assured I
>would consider having you as a speaker.
>
>As to your perception that I said that MCA is
>"anti-growth", I don't recall ever stating that
>specifically about the organization.  I do my
>level best to always analyze what people say and
>the positions that individuals take.  I try to be
>very careful in that regard and be faithful to
>the Kenneth Arrow mantra "groups don't make
>decisions, people do".  About the best that
>groups can do is vote; they really can't make
>decisions - that is a task left to each
>mortal.  That said, it is possible that my
>wording might be construed to infer that I was
>referring to the group.  I will try to be much more judicious in my language.
>
>For the record, in our most recent posts, I have
>attempted to address individual positions -
>positions of the individual candidates for city
>council, positions of the current council, your
>positions, Bruce Livingstone positions, Mark
>Solomon's positions and so forth. If, in
>subsequent posts, that is not clear, let me know
>and I will make restitution quickly.
>
>Now then, you asked me to identify a "bad growth"
>activity.  After considerable thought, and given
>the constraints in real estate that exist in
>Moscow (no need to preclude businesses that
>couldn't locate in Moscow because there is no
>room for them or they require infrastructure that
>we don't have), heavy manufacturing (large heavy
>equipment, aircraft, large-scale auto) would
>probably not be a good fit.  That said, a custom
>manufacturer - say manufacturing small hybrid
>cars, wind turbines, solar energy systems, ATV's,
>bicycles, garden power tools, farm implements to
>serve Palouse farming specifically could fit very
>nicely.  Also, I have long advocated wood
>manufacturing - furniture, etc.  Hopefully, that answers your question.
>
>But, given your premise to our continued
>discussion - that you would point out my
>"additional fallacies"  where fallacy means
>"deceptive" or "misleading", I would not have an
>interest in that activity.  Use your time for something else.
>
>Thanks for the invitation to your class, given
>your recent propensity to emotional outbursts and
>name-calling, I doubt that sitting through your class would be of value to me.
>
>I think the economists at the University of
>Washington (my alma mater) would have a good
>chuckle over your statement that "...Economics is
>not a SCIENCE like lgic oand (sp) math and
>physics are sciences.  Yes, they would say - you
>are right - it is much more difficult!  The
>science of choice is much more rigorous.
>
>I am curious though - were you inferring that
>"logic" is a science like math and physics. Is
>there a branch of logic that goes beyond the
>study of correct reasoning, valid induction and
>deduction?  Is there more to the discipline than
>describing relationships among propositions in
>terms of implication, contradiction, contrariety and conversion?
>
>Cheers Joe - it has been ..... not very enjoyable.
>
>At 07:19 PM 10/26/2007, you wrote:
> >Jeff,
> >
> >I've been busy lately and unable to keep up with
> >your posts. I've read them There is so
> >much wrong with what you've written it is hard to get started.
> >
> >First, let me point out that I've organized, as
> >a board member of the MCA, a public forum
> >with you as a speaker. No one in the GMA has
> >ever organized a forum with me as a
> >speaker -- least of all you. I̢۪m not afraid of
>
> >talking to you in a public forum.
> >
> >But I don't want to focus on that. Instead, I
> >want to point out one of your many fallacies.
> >
> >You claim that the MCA is 'anti-growth' and
> >mentioned a few cases. In reality, the GMA
> >holds the extreme view.
> >
> >My posts have tried to point out the
> >contributions to growth that the MCA has supported
> >-- contributions noted by BJ and Bruce. You
> >ignore these. That doesn't mean that they
> >aren't contributions to growth. The MCA is not anti-growth. This is a lie.
> >
> >I believe that some, but not all, growth is
> >good. As far as I can tell, you and the GMA
> >believe that ALL growth is good. That is why you
> >were able to come up with such a long
> >list to shove in our faces. But you hold the extreme view.
> >
> >Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is some growth that
> >the GMA doesn't like. Steed wants to
> >find a home for pig farms. You̢۪d like to put a
>
> >Super Walmart on the east side of town
> >without first solving the west-east traffic-flow
> >problems. I'm pressed to find an example
> >of growth that the GMA does not like.
> >
> >Here is the challenge to you, Jeff, and the GMA
> >candidates. What would count as bad
> >growth? How will you help Moscow from eventually
> >looking like Las Vegas or smelling
> >like Lewiston? I can̢۪t see it, so I can̢۪t vote that way.
>  way.
> >
> >Answer that question and I take the time to
> >point out some of your other fallacies!
> >
> >Best, Joe
> >
> >PS Economics is not a SCIENCE like lgic oand
> >math and physics are sciences. I̢۪m teaching
>
> >the Theory of Knowledge next semester. It is an
> >undergraduate course but I beg that you take 
> the class. I̢۪ll even pay for it.
>.
> >
> >At 11:20 PM 10/25/2007, you wrote:
> > >Jeff,
> > >
> > >Labels like 'anti-growth' are gross over exaggerations yet even
> > >below you continue to perpetuate this myth, just like other members
> > >of the GMA. Nor do I see satisfactory responses to posts by BJ and
> > >Bruce to your false charges. That was my point.
> > >
> > >I don't see that as being anti-intellectual.
> > I'm just calling it as I see it.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Joe Campbell
> > >
> > >---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >=============
> > >Joe, I do not appreciate my honesty being called into question simply
> > >because we disagree on selected issues.  It is a very disingenuous
> > >tactic that you and your political allies use to obfuscate the
> > >issues.  It is unbecoming of you and very "anti-intellectual".  I
> > >would have presumed that you would not resort to such
> > >behaviors.  Perhaps it is because you have nothing else to offer and
> > >can only resort to name calling.
> > >
> > >If you disagree with me, fine - state your case, I'll state mine -
> > >and we will move on.
> > >
> > >As to the topic we were engaged in, "No Joe", you appear to have a
> > >significantly different view about our local government.
> > >
> > >Let's take a close look at what the council has done (and not done) -
> > >here is a sampling:
> > >
> > >Remember the ice rink decisions - and the impact on the hundreds of
> > >ice rink users.
> > >
> > >Remember the posturing for "no development in the corridor"  - which
> > >has resulted in significant friction with our neighbors to the West.
> > >
> > >Remember the handling of the removal of Mr. Jon Wheaton from his 15
> > >years of volunteer service on Board of Adjustment.  Local government
> > >can certainly make changes in positions, but to "fire" a volunteer,
> > >just because he has a different opinion?
> > >
> > >Remember the WalMart and big retail store decisions.
> > >
> > >Remember all the rhetoric concerning the development of the 77 acre
> > >Thompson property - are you proud of how that was handled?
> > >
> > >Remember the 3rd Street decisions - and the fact that folks living on
> > >D St and 6th Street have been waiting for years for their quality of
> > >life to improve (and their traffic to abate some) - a clear example
> > >of protect the few and punish the many.
> > >
> > >Remember the New Cities Vision - thousands of tax dollars to obtain a
> > >recommendation that Moscow should have high rise apartments and
> > >condos in downtown - and oh, downtown visitors should also have an
> > >unobstructed view of the surrounding countryside.
> > >
> > >Remember the fight with the County over who should manage the impact
> > >zone and the City's position on that - a rather clear end run around
> > >state protocols.
> > >
> > >Remember the effort to bring firearm bans to Moscow - another effort
> > >to go around state protocols.
> > >
> > >Remember the handling of the trees around the Moscow Mall.
> > >
> > >Need I mention all the angst over selected religious organizations
> > >and their occupancy of downtown spaces.
> > >
> > >Remember the decisions about whether we could cooperate with Whitman
> > >County in sharing in development of shared government services
> > >(utilities, fire, security) in the corridor.
> > >
> > >Recall the decision on "living wages"?
> > >
> > >Granted, you will no doubt favor the actions that the council took on
> > >several of these issues (the issues are necessarily philosophical and
> > >ideological in tenor).  But the fact is that each of these decisions
> > >casts a cloud on some aspect of economic development.  If you are
> > >persuaded that their actions were appropriate, then you are espousing
> > >"anti-growth" and "anti-development" sentiments.  And contributing to
> > >the view that Moscow is "anti-business" and "anti-growth".
> > >
> > >
> > >At 07:55 AM 10/25/2007, you wrote:
> > > >The real question, Jeff, is now that BJ has responded to your
> > > >question will you
> > > >read it and take note of it or will you continue to spread the lie
> > > >of anti-growth
> > > >just to get some of your friends elected?
> > > >
> > > >I'm betting the latter!
> > > >
> > > >Best, Joe
> > > >
> > > >------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >Message: 5
> > > >Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:15:57 -0700
> > > >From: Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com>
> > > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] real economic development in Moscow
> > > >To: bjswan at moscow.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > >Message-ID: <200710250416.l9P4GBfJ070204 at mail-gw.fsr.net>
> > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> > > >
> > > >Perhaps Ms. Swanson would provide us with a list of the economic
> > > >development accomplishments of the current city government.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >=======================================================
> > > >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > >                http://www.fsr.net
> > > >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > >=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071028/3e86e527/attachment-0001.html