<html>
<body>
At 01:15 PM 10/28/2007, you wrote:<br><br>
My responses follow your posts - and hopefully you will take note of the
history of our posts<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Again, there is a lot to
say!</blockquote><br>
OK!<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">First, you never answered this
question: What is the GMA plan to keep Moscow<br>
from eventually smelling like Lewiston? Keeping out the single type of
<br>
business that you mention below won't do it.</blockquote><br>
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:
<dl>
<dd>Perhaps Ms. Swanson would provide us with a list of the economic
development accomplishments of the current city government.
</dl>You then made the following post:
<dl>
<dd>The real question, Jeff, is now that BJ has responded to your
question will you
<dd>read it and take note of it or will you continue to spread the lie of
anti-growth
<dd>just to get some of your friends elected?
</dl>I responded with a preamble
<dl>
<dd>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.
</dl>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.
<dl>
<dd>Not repeated here, but if you need to reference that list I can
provide it.
</dl>Nowhere in any of the posts I have cited do I note the words
"GMA".<br><br>
So then you posted:
<dl>
<dd>Here is the challenge to you, Jeff, and the GMA candidates. What
would count as bad growth?
</dl>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:
<dl>
<dd>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.
</dl>And now you tell me that my example won't count. Are you suggesting
that heavy manufacturing would be alright with you?<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Second, here's what you wrote to
Bruce, which prompted my initial comment:<br>
"My post was to highlight for Joe Campbell some of the issues that
lead to a <br>
conclusion that the current city government (or the current climate <br>
in Moscow) is anti-growth or anti business."</blockquote><br>
Yes, and I did just that.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.</blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Third, logic is the mother of
all sciences. It is not an empirical science -- but <br>
neither is math! Logic, like math, is a formal science upon which all
empirical sciences, <br>
like economics, are dependent. Logic is the science of correct reasoning
and without <br>
correct reasoning all sciences are reduced to collections of data; they
have no theoretical <br>
or predictive or explanatory significance. </blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
And, I am a Thomas Kuhn apostle.
<dl>
<dd><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Chemistry">Chemistry</a>
is often called <b>the central science</b> because of its role in
connecting
“<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Hard_science">hard
sciences</a>” such as
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Physics">physics</a> with the
“<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Soft_science">soft
sciences</a>” such as
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Biology">biology</a>,
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Medicine">medicine</a>, and
the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Earth_science">earth
sciences</a>.<a href="#_note-0"><sup>[1]</a><a href="#_note-good">[2]</a>
</sup>. The nature of this relationship is one of the main topics in the
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Philosophy_of_chemistry">
philosophy of chemistry</a> and in
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Scientometrics">
scientometrics</a>. The phrase was popularized by its use in a textbook
by Theodore L. Brown, titled <i>Chemistry: The Central Science</i>, which
was first published in 1977, with a tenth edition published in
2005.<a href="#_note-1"><sup>[3]</a></sup>
<dd>The central role of chemistry can be seen in the systematic and
hierarchical classification of the sciences by
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Auguste_Comte">Auguste
Comte</a> in which each discipline provides a more general frameworks for
the area it precedes (mathematics astronomy physics chemistry physiology
and medicine social sciences).<a href="#_note-2"><sup>[4]</a></sup>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
</dl>And I didn't say that economics was not a science. I implied that it
was not an <br>
exact science, as you seem to think it is. I don't much care if your
teachers <br>
told you otherwise. They were wrong. This is a matter of the philosophy
of <br>
science, not a matter of economics. Your teachers are not the experts
here.</blockquote><br>
No, I never implied anything of the sort. Economics is quite
logically, the science of choice, hence a social science.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The idea that economics is more
rigorous than logic, or math, or physics, or <br>
philosophy for that matter is a complete joke. I'm not saying it isn't
rigorous, <br>
of course it is. But it isn't more rigorous, nor is it as exact as the
first three.<br>
I will grant that it is more exact than philosophy but not more
rigorous.</blockquote><br>
Yes, indeed, it was a joke! Apparently, you did not get
it.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Fourth, 'fallacy' does not mean
"deceptive" or "misleading." A fallacy is a bad
argument <br>
that is psychologically persuasive. You can present a fallacy even if you
are not intending <br>
to deceive or mislead anyone. All that matters is that it is a bad
argument -- one with false <br>
premises or invalid reasoning, for instance -- that is nonetheless
persuasive.</blockquote><br><br>
<b>fallacy</b> (<i>plural</i>
<a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki//wiki/fallacies"><b>fallacies</a>
</b>)
<ol>
<li>Deceptive or false appearance;
<a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki//wiki/deceitfulness">
deceitfulness</a>; that which misleads the eye or the mind; deception.
<li>An argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of
the matter at issue, while in reality it is not.
</ol>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"<br>
Fallacy fits both of our argument frames. Call it a draw on this
point???<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Fifth, I find it ironic that you
keep accusing me of 'name-calling' since you've called me <br>
'anti-intellectual' among other things. It is clear there is a lot of
name-calling from both <br>
sides and that the GMA does not have the moral high-ground, as you have
suggested. <br>
Apart from my comments to Crabtree, you would be hard pressed to find
much name-<br>
calling in my posts -- though like you I enjoy pressing the envelope and
putting in a few <br>
jabs with carefully constructed conditionals like: If Crabtree is right,
then the GMA is ...</blockquote><br>
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??<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Certainly I've been pushing
things lately but part of it was a response to your <br>
overly moralistic posts, and in particular the absurd suggestion that the
GMA <br>
was morally superior to the MCA. Give me a break! </blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The GMA website is run <br>
by Wilson's PR-guy and contains, among other things, a comment implying
<br>
that the current council lacks common sense. If that isn't an instance of
<br>
offensive name-calling, I’m not sure what is. In light of this, your
calls for a <br>
nice, friendly campaign without name-calling sound fake. Let’s park the
moral <br>
lectures and get back to the issues.</blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Lastly, I've never paid my MCA
dues, so I'm not a member!<br>
Can we leave the cheap technicalities aside, as well?</blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
Well, there we are.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">--<br>
Joe Campbell<br><br>
---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh@moscow.com> wrote: <br><br>
=============<br>
Joe,<br><br>
First, I am not on the Board of GMA. If fact, I <br>
think I still owe my dues for this year, so <br>
technically, I am probably not a member in good standing.<br><br>
If I were to have a say in organizing a forum on <br>
economic development, you can rest assured I <br>
would consider having you as a speaker.<br><br>
As to your perception that I said that MCA is <br>
"anti-growth", I don't recall ever stating that <br>
specifically about the organization. I do my <br>
level best to always analyze what people say and <br>
the positions that individuals take. I try to be <br>
very careful in that regard and be faithful to <br>
the Kenneth Arrow mantra "groups don't make <br>
decisions, people do". About the best that <br>
groups can do is vote; they really can't make <br>
decisions - that is a task left to each <br>
mortal. That said, it is possible that my <br>
wording might be construed to infer that I was <br>
referring to the group. I will try to be much more judicious in my
language.<br><br>
For the record, in our most recent posts, I have <br>
attempted to address individual positions - <br>
positions of the individual candidates for city <br>
council, positions of the current council, your <br>
positions, Bruce Livingstone positions, Mark <br>
Solomon's positions and so forth. If, in <br>
subsequent posts, that is not clear, let me know <br>
and I will make restitution quickly.<br><br>
Now then, you asked me to identify a "bad growth" <br>
activity. After considerable thought, and given <br>
the constraints in real estate that exist in <br>
Moscow (no need to preclude businesses that <br>
couldn't locate in Moscow because there is no <br>
room for them or they require infrastructure that <br>
we don't have), heavy manufacturing (large heavy <br>
equipment, aircraft, large-scale auto) would <br>
probably not be a good fit. That said, a custom <br>
manufacturer - say manufacturing small hybrid <br>
cars, wind turbines, solar energy systems, ATV's, <br>
bicycles, garden power tools, farm implements to <br>
serve Palouse farming specifically could fit very <br>
nicely. Also, I have long advocated wood <br>
manufacturing - furniture, etc. Hopefully, that answers your
question.<br><br>
But, given your premise to our continued <br>
discussion - that you would point out my <br>
"additional fallacies" where fallacy means <br>
"deceptive" or "misleading", I would not have an
<br>
interest in that activity. Use your time for something
else.<br><br>
Thanks for the invitation to your class, given <br>
your recent propensity to emotional outbursts and <br>
name-calling, I doubt that sitting through your class would be of value
to me.<br><br>
I think the economists at the University of <br>
Washington (my alma mater) would have a good <br>
chuckle over your statement that "...Economics is <br>
not a SCIENCE like lgic oand (sp) math and <br>
physics are sciences. Yes, they would say - you <br>
are right - it is much more difficult! The <br>
science of choice is much more rigorous.<br><br>
I am curious though - were you inferring that <br>
"logic" is a science like math and physics. Is <br>
there a branch of logic that goes beyond the <br>
study of correct reasoning, valid induction and <br>
deduction? Is there more to the discipline than <br>
describing relationships among propositions in <br>
terms of implication, contradiction, contrariety and conversion?<br><br>
Cheers Joe - it has been ..... not very enjoyable.<br><br>
At 07:19 PM 10/26/2007, you wrote:<br>
>Jeff,<br>
><br>
>I've been busy lately and unable to keep up with <br>
>your posts. I've read them There is so<br>
>much wrong with what you've written it is hard to get started.<br>
><br>
>First, let me point out that I've organized, as <br>
>a board member of the MCA, a public forum<br>
>with you as a speaker. No one in the GMA has <br>
>ever organized a forum with me as a<br>
>speaker -- least of all you. I̢۪m not afraid of <br>
<br>
>talking to you in a public forum.<br>
><br>
>But I don't want to focus on that. Instead, I <br>
>want to point out one of your many fallacies.<br>
><br>
>You claim that the MCA is 'anti-growth' and <br>
>mentioned a few cases. In reality, the GMA<br>
>holds the extreme view.<br>
><br>
>My posts have tried to point out the <br>
>contributions to growth that the MCA has supported<br>
>-- contributions noted by BJ and Bruce. You <br>
>ignore these. That doesn't mean that they<br>
>aren't contributions to growth. The MCA is not anti-growth. This is a
lie.<br>
><br>
>I believe that some, but not all, growth is <br>
>good. As far as I can tell, you and the GMA<br>
>believe that ALL growth is good. That is why you <br>
>were able to come up with such a long<br>
>list to shove in our faces. But you hold the extreme view.<br>
><br>
>Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is some growth that <br>
>the GMA doesn't like. Steed wants to<br>
>find a home for pig farms. You̢۪d like to put a <br>
<br>
>Super Walmart on the east side of town<br>
>without first solving the west-east traffic-flow <br>
>problems. I'm pressed to find an example<br>
>of growth that the GMA does not like.<br>
><br>
>Here is the challenge to you, Jeff, and the GMA <br>
>candidates. What would count as bad<br>
>growth? How will you help Moscow from eventually <br>
>looking like Las Vegas or smelling<br>
>like Lewiston? I can̢۪t see it, so I can̢۪t vote that way.<br>
way.<br>
><br>
>Answer that question and I take the time to <br>
>point out some of your other fallacies!<br>
><br>
>Best, Joe<br>
><br>
>PS Economics is not a SCIENCE like lgic oand <br>
>math and physics are sciences. I̢۪m teaching <br>
<br>
>the Theory of Knowledge next semester. It is an <br>
>undergraduate course but I beg that you take the class. I̢۪ll even
pay for it.<br>
.<br>
><br>
>At 11:20 PM 10/25/2007, you wrote:<br>
> >Jeff,<br>
> ><br>
> >Labels like 'anti-growth' are gross over exaggerations yet
even<br>
> >below you continue to perpetuate this myth, just like other
members<br>
> >of the GMA. Nor do I see satisfactory responses to posts by BJ
and<br>
> >Bruce to your false charges. That was my point.<br>
> ><br>
> >I don't see that as being anti-intellectual. <br>
> I'm just calling it as I see it.<br>
> ><br>
> >--<br>
> >Joe Campbell<br>
> ><br>
> >---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh@moscow.com> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >=============<br>
> >Joe, I do not appreciate my honesty being called into question
simply<br>
> >because we disagree on selected issues. It is a very
disingenuous<br>
> >tactic that you and your political allies use to obfuscate
the<br>
> >issues. It is unbecoming of you and very
"anti-intellectual". I<br>
> >would have presumed that you would not resort to such<br>
> >behaviors. Perhaps it is because you have nothing else to
offer and<br>
> >can only resort to name calling.<br>
> ><br>
> >If you disagree with me, fine - state your case, I'll state mine
-<br>
> >and we will move on.<br>
> ><br>
> >As to the topic we were engaged in, "No Joe", you
appear to have a<br>
> >significantly different view about our local government.<br>
> ><br>
> >Let's take a close look at what the council has done (and not
done) -<br>
> >here is a sampling:<br>
> ><br>
> >Remember the ice rink decisions - and the impact on the hundreds
of<br>
> >ice rink users.<br>
> ><br>
> >Remember the posturing for "no development in the
corridor" - which<br>
> >has resulted in significant friction with our neighbors to the
West.<br>
> ><br>
> >Remember the handling of the removal of Mr. Jon Wheaton from his
15<br>
> >years of volunteer service on Board of Adjustment. Local
government<br>
> >can certainly make changes in positions, but to "fire"
a volunteer,<br>
> >just because he has a different opinion?<br>
> ><br>
> >Remember the WalMart and big retail store decisions.<br>
> ><br>
> >Remember all the rhetoric concerning the development of the 77
acre<br>
> >Thompson property - are you proud of how that was handled?<br>
> ><br>
> >Remember the 3rd Street decisions - and the fact that folks
living on<br>
> >D St and 6th Street have been waiting for years for their
quality of<br>
> >life to improve (and their traffic to abate some) - a clear
example<br>
> >of protect the few and punish the many.<br>
> ><br>
> >Remember the New Cities Vision - thousands of tax dollars to
obtain a<br>
> >recommendation that Moscow should have high rise apartments
and<br>
> >condos in downtown - and oh, downtown visitors should also have
an<br>
> >unobstructed view of the surrounding countryside.<br>
> ><br>
> >Remember the fight with the County over who should manage the
impact<br>
> >zone and the City's position on that - a rather clear end run
around<br>
> >state protocols.<br>
> ><br>
> >Remember the effort to bring firearm bans to Moscow - another
effort<br>
> >to go around state protocols.<br>
> ><br>
> >Remember the handling of the trees around the Moscow Mall.<br>
> ><br>
> >Need I mention all the angst over selected religious
organizations<br>
> >and their occupancy of downtown spaces.<br>
> ><br>
> >Remember the decisions about whether we could cooperate with
Whitman<br>
> >County in sharing in development of shared government
services<br>
> >(utilities, fire, security) in the corridor.<br>
> ><br>
> >Recall the decision on "living wages"?<br>
> ><br>
> >Granted, you will no doubt favor the actions that the council
took on<br>
> >several of these issues (the issues are necessarily
philosophical and<br>
> >ideological in tenor). But the fact is that each of these
decisions<br>
> >casts a cloud on some aspect of economic development. If
you are<br>
> >persuaded that their actions were appropriate, then you are
espousing<br>
> >"anti-growth" and "anti-development"
sentiments. And contributing to<br>
> >the view that Moscow is "anti-business" and
"anti-growth".<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >At 07:55 AM 10/25/2007, you wrote:<br>
> > >The real question, Jeff, is now that BJ has responded to
your<br>
> > >question will you<br>
> > >read it and take note of it or will you continue to spread
the lie<br>
> > >of anti-growth<br>
> > >just to get some of your friends elected?<br>
> > ><br>
> > >I'm betting the latter!<br>
> > ><br>
> > >Best, Joe<br>
> > ><br>
> > >------------------------------<br>
> > ><br>
> > >Message: 5<br>
> > >Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:15:57 -0700<br>
> > >From: Jeff Harkins <jeffh@moscow.com><br>
> > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] real economic development in
Moscow<br>
> > >To: bjswan@moscow.com, vision2020@moscow.com<br>
> > >Message-ID:
<200710250416.l9P4GBfJ070204@mail-gw.fsr.net><br>
> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii";
format=flowed<br>
> > ><br>
> > >Perhaps Ms. Swanson would provide us with a list of the
economic<br>
> > >development accomplishments of the current city
government.<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> >
>=======================================================<br>
> > > List services made available by First Step
Internet,<br>
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994.<br>
> >
>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net/" eudora="autourl">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> >
>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> >
>=======================================================</blockquote>
</body>
</html>