<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
<pre>Me: I think Natalie Portman is hot.<br>Carl Westberg: I think Angelina Jolie is hotter.</pre> Me: I think that water boils at 600 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level.<br>> Carl Westberg: I think that it boils at considerably less than that.<br> Actually, Angelina Jolie could make a pot of water boil just by looking at it. That's my opinion, and it happens to be true. Carl Westberg Jr. <br>> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:40:29 -0700<br>> From: chasuk@gmail.com<br>> To: starbliss@gmail.com<br>> CC: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Global Warming Contrarians Exposed<br>> <br>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Ted Moffett <starbliss@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> <br>> > unless you have a doctorate relating to the economics, water<br>> > resources, or urban planning involved, or a law degree regarding the legal<br>> > complexities.<br>> <br>> Nope. I'm total un-degreed. I'm currently laboring to rectify that,<br>> but it ain't happened yet.<br>> <br>> > Only those with a PhD. in the particular discipline covering the issue at<br>> > hand would be posting, perhaps, assuming having a PhD. would satisfy your<br>> > conditions for being qualified to make a pronouncement.<br>> <br>> That's not actually what I'm saying. But read on...<br>> <br>> > Explain why, given a public list serve such as Vision2020 is an opportunity<br>> > for those who do not have a PhD. or law degree covering the topic under<br>> > discussion, to discuss and learn, why "we should lay off the unqualified<br>> > pronouncements," whatever you mean exactly? Perhaps you did not really mean<br>> > what it appears your comment suggests?<br>> <br>> I think I've already belabored this enough, but I'll make the attempt<br>> one more time: I don't object to someone, anyone, expressing an<br>> opinion on something in which their opinion is the only measure of<br>> truth.<br>> <br>> Me: I think Natalie Portman is hot.<br>> Carl Westberg: I think Anglina Jolie is hotter.<br>> <br>> Both of us are right, and our opinion makes it so.<br>> <br>> Then there is this conversation:<br>> <br>> Me: I think that water boils at 600 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level.<br>> Carl Westberg: I think that it boils at considerably less than that.<br>> <br>> In this case, only one of us can be right, and that person happens to<br>> be Carl. But this isn't expert level knowledge. it is within both<br>> our realms to argue. This is reasonable argument. In other words, I<br>> don't object to someone, anyone, expressing an opinion on something<br>> which doesn't require expert level knowledge for that opinion to be<br>> valuable.<br>> <br>> But what about this?<br>> <br>> Me: I think that Professor Fizzbottom is correct when he argues that<br>> the Higgins boson particle, when redacted by mitochondrial drift, (and<br>> considering the influence of chaotic extremis created by Golgi body<br>> apparatus) will cause plenitudinal corruption in dalmations.<br>> <br>> Someone Else: Ah! But Professor Ezekiel Tink disagrees! In fact,<br>> he... Etc. Etc.<br>> <br>> Now, I didn't actually say anything meaningful at all (unless it was<br>> accidental). Neither did Someone Else. But pretend that these<br>> arguments are valid for Profs Fizzbottom and Tink to have, being<br>> authorities on the subject. This reduces Me and Someone Else to mere<br>> cheerleaders for our respective Profs. Our opinions are entirely<br>> worthless. Th truth of our Profs claims are not matters of opinion,<br>> and we don't have the qualifications to usefully judge their words.<br>> We are making unqualified pronouncements.<br>> <br>> Worse, the same old players make the same old predictable<br>> pronouncements, every time. If Gore/Clinton/Kerry seem to be<br>> favorable towards proposition X, then certain Vision2020 members will<br>> invariably, and reflexively, take opposing sides. If<br>> Bush/McCain/Reagen heirs seem to be favorable towards proposition X,<br>> then certain Vision2020 members will invariably, and reflexively,<br>> take opposing sides. So, in the case of complicated issues like<br>> global warming, we have people arguing about the causes of global<br>> warming who are (a) unqualified to do so, and (b) aren't making<br>> arguments based on the evidence at all, but based upon fan club<br>> membership.<br>> <br>> In other words, it is pointless for someone, anyone, to express an<br>> opinion on a matter of fact, something which requires expert level<br>> knowledge for that opinion to be valuable, when: (a) they don't<br>> possess that expert level knowledge, and (b) they aren't arging THEIR<br>> OWN opinion at all, but regurgitating the opinions of presumably<br>> qualified scientists only because it happens to match (or not match)<br>> whatever Bushco espouses.<br>> <br>> Whew!<br>> <br>> Chas<br>> <br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>> http://www.fsr.net <br>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> =======================================================<br><br /><hr />How well do you know your celebrity gossip? <a href='http://originals.msn.com/thebigdebate?ocid=T002MSN03N0707A' target='_new'>Talk celebrity smackdowns here.</a></body>
</html>