Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: A novel

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 209110 times) previous topic - next topic

entropy, Testy Calibrate, DaveGodfrey and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42075
Yes, he is.

And Tom Cruise is a more visible sales guy for Scientology.

Why do we care?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42076
So is citing Prince Charles's endorsement a valid or fallacious Appeal to Authority in your humble opinion Hawkins?
Neither

You really should study up on the appeal to Authority thing.

Wrong!
It's the fallacious one.
Charles is not any kind of authority on land management.
Dave's not citing Charles as an authority.

He's lording a predicted expansion in the use of HMG by the British crown over us unbelievers.
I'm just saying that (King) Charles is probably a more visible sales guy for holistic management than say... Dave Hawkins.
This (retrospective) rationalization for why you posted that does not strike me as even slightly credible.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42077
In reality, Charles is aware (has been made aware) that being the Monarch is a different job than his current position, carrying with it a necessary caution to not violate the Constitution, thus endangering the Monarchy. He can still speak out, but it will have to be with more care than his current habit of pestering Ministers and other gov't officials.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/19/becoming-king-not-silence-prince-charles-allies

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42078
So is citing Prince Charles's endorsement a valid or fallacious Appeal to Authority in your humble opinion Hawkins?
Neither

You really should study up on the appeal to Authority thing.

Wrong!
It's the fallacious one.
Charles is not any kind of authority on land management.
Dave's not citing Charles as an authority.

He's lording a predicted expansion in the use of HMG by the British crown over us unbelievers.
I'm just saying that (King) Charles is probably a more visible sales guy for holistic management than say... Dave Hawkins.
So is citing Prince Charles's endorsement a valid or fallacious Appeal to Authority in your humble opinion Hawkins?
Neither

You really should study up on the appeal to Authority thing.

Wrong!
It's the fallacious one.
Charles is not any kind of authority on land management.
Dave's not citing Charles as an authority.

He's lording a predicted expansion in the use of HMG by the British crown over us unbelievers.
I'm just saying that (King) Charles is probably a more visible sales guy for holistic management than say... Dave Hawkins.
This (retrospective) rationalization for why you posted that does not strike me as even slightly credible.
The only thing credible about this "(retrospective) rationalization for why [Bluffy] posted" is it's Bluffy that posted it.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42079
I thought Americans were supposed to be unimpressed by such things as being a "king".
I am American and am pretty unimpressed with kings.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42080
I didn't vote for him.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42081
I thought Americans were supposed to be unimpressed by such things as being a "king".
I am American and am pretty unimpressed with kings.
Kings, the original mafia.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42082
Dunno... Charles at his most likeable always struck me as a vaguely absentminded eccentric uncle that is really hard work if you sit next to him at family parties. At his most unlikeable he is horribly entitled and out of touch.  Not sure i'd pick him as a champion for any cause i cared about. But hey, better than nothing.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42083
But maybe I am just grumpy and uncharitable because he made me an hour late from work yesterday, so currently I feel nothing good comes from royalty.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42084
So is citing Prince Charles's endorsement a valid or fallacious Appeal to Authority in your humble opinion Hawkins?
Neither

You really should study up on the appeal to Authority thing.

Wrong!
It's the fallacious one.
Charles is not any kind of authority on land management.
Dave's not citing Charles as an authority.

He's lording a predicted expansion in the use of HMG by the British crown over us unbelievers.
I'm just saying that (King) Charles is probably a more visible sales guy for holistic management than say... Dave Hawkins.
The people uninterested in buying will become slightly less interested if Charles is selling though.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42085
Dave got nearly everything in the article wrong. It's not entirely his fault - the article gets several things wrong by implication - but even what the article gets right, Dave gets wrong.

It's impressive, really.

This.

It's almost the archetypal Hawkins post

- Hawkins clearly doesn't know what he is talking about

- his source doesn't say what Hawkins says it does (because Hawkins doesn't know what he is talking about)
l
- Hawkins understanding of how government works in the UK (and the other independent states that choose to share their Head of State with the UK) seems rooted in  the 18th century at the latest...it can be the only reason why he might think that Prince Charles is  viewed as an "authority" on anything in "England". In Hawkins head it's still  1776.


Priceless vintage Hawkins.
Thanks, superhoop. I hadn't even noted the use of "England".

Dave, if Charles becomes king of England, who will be king of Wales?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42086
While dropping my son off to work this morning, we got to chatting about Dave's endorsement of snappy-offyness as a sound ecological term, and his general aversion to words that make him worry that people other than him, the common people if you will, would find hard to follow.

He made the point that the problem is that language can be approached in a descriptive and a prescriptive way, and that this almost forces the use of words outside the general lexicon in scientific endeavors.

If we all approach language in a prescriptive way, then words would just mean what it says in the dictionary. If this was the case, then one of the uses of the word "literally" would not currently be something like "emphatically" or "totally". If we approach it in a descriptive way, then the meaning of a word is defined by the way people use it. In reality both the definition and usage of a word influence it's meaning, and besides, words can have multiple definitions in a dictionary.

So many words can be understood in various ways, and these uses can change over time. You really cannot have that in any sort of scientific setting: it could easily become ambiguous what you are actually talking about.

Just look at the way the YEC community struggles with the word "theory". If that word was not in common usage, where it means something closer to "hypothesis", they would never have gotten so confused about what scientists actually mean when they talk about the theory of evolution. The very lack of a reverse Swahili pig latin word has inadvertently rendered them unable to grasp what a scientific theory really is, the poor souls!

Surely it is your duty to keep the common run, who are less linguistically gifted than your good self, from accidentally making such mistakes by using words that are unambiguous, even if this means they are less commonly used?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42087
No, that's not my duty.  My duty is twofold ...

TRUTH. LOVE.

Always strive to be truthful no matter how tempting it is to lie even just a little bit.  Always try to love my neighbor - even you - no matter how unlovable.

If we do these two things ... but use words like snappy-offyness ... then we will do good for the cause of science.  (And business) (And community) (And family)

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42088
Oh brother.

The self-deception is strong with this one.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42089
No, that's not my duty.  My duty is twofold ...

TRUTH. LOVE.

Always strive to be truthful no matter how tempting it is to lie even just a little bit.  Always try to love my neighbor - even you - no matter how unlovable.

If we do these two things ... but use words like snappy-offyness ... then we will do good for the cause of science.  (And business) (And community) (And family)
How does this square with your false accusations threats and slander, Dave?
Like your accusations about people on this board being child molesters?
Threatening Pingu?
  • Last Edit: June 15, 2018, 03:31:40 AM by Zombies!
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42090
That's tough LOVE!
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42091
No, that's not my duty.  My duty is twofold ...

TRUTH. LOVE.

Always strive to be truthful no matter how tempting it is to lie even just a little bit.  Always try to love my neighbor - even you - no matter how unlovable.

If we do these two things ... but use words like snappy-offyness ... then we will do good for the cause of science.  (And business) (And community) (And family)


I see. So would it be safe to say that you feel that using terms like snappy-offyness rather than less ambiguous terms represents an ideological commitment to what we could call a higher, shall we say, truthiness, in your opinion?
  • Last Edit: June 15, 2018, 03:56:18 AM by vivisectus

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42092
No, that's not my duty.  My duty is twofold ...

TRUTH. LOVE.

Always strive to be truthful no matter how tempting it is to lie even just a little bit.  Always try to love my neighbor - even you - no matter how unlovable.

If we do these two things ... but use words like snappy-offyness ... then we will do good for the cause of science.  (And business) (And community) (And family)

Thus spoke Dave "I don't have to apologise to dicks like you- YOU should apologise to ME!" Hawkins.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42093
TBF, I don't think Dave understood most of what vivisectus said. Not the words so much as the point made.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42094
So I suppose dave loves the NCSE enough to not deprive them of the money they have rightfully earned (by terms of dave losing a bet), but never got due to some unspecificed issue? And he will be sending that check again?

Then again, I'm a child molester and baby killer, what do I know.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42095
No, that's not my duty.  My duty is twofold ...

TRUTH. LOVE.

Always strive to be truthful no matter how tempting it is to lie even just a little bit.  Always try to love my neighbor - even you - no matter how unlovable.

If we do these two things ... but use words like snappy-offyness ... then we will do good for the cause of science.  (And business) (And community) (And family)


I see. So would it be safe to say that you feel that using terms like snappy-offyness rather than less ambiguous terms represents an ideological commitment to what we could call a higher, shall we say, truthiness, in your opinion?
No just more understandable by a wider audience.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42096
TBF, I don't think Dave understood most of what vivisectus said. Not the words so much as the point made.

Oh, ye of little faith! Dave has a Phd in truth detection, remember. The truthiness or lack thereof just becomes apparent to his high-speed mind directly. It effortlessly penetrates the bulwarks of jargon thrown up by the kind of ivory tower, hoity-toity elitist technocrats and leaves just the kind of red-blooded, robust homespun truth that the real experts, the people getting their hands dirty on the bleeding edge of Christian land-stewardship research, already know.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42097
No, that's not my duty.  My duty is twofold ...

TRUTH. LOVE.

Always strive to be truthful no matter how tempting it is to lie even just a little bit.  Always try to love my neighbor - even you - no matter how unlovable.

If we do these two things ... but use words like snappy-offyness ... then we will do good for the cause of science.  (And business) (And community) (And family)


I see. So would it be safe to say that you feel that using terms like snappy-offyness rather than less ambiguous terms represents an ideological commitment to what we could call a higher, shall we say, truthiness, in your opinion?
No just more understandable by a wider audience.

But we just saw that often ambiguous terms actually make things less understandable. Not more.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42098
No, that's not my duty.  My duty is twofold ...

TRUTH. LOVE.

Always strive to be truthful no matter how tempting it is to lie even just a little bit.  Always try to love my neighbor - even you - no matter how unlovable.

If we do these two things ... but use words like snappy-offyness ... then we will do good for the cause of science.  (And business) (And community) (And family)


I see. So would it be safe to say that you feel that using terms like snappy-offyness rather than less ambiguous terms represents an ideological commitment to what we could call a higher, shall we say, truthiness, in your opinion?
No just more understandable by a wider audience.
You are confusing the precision necessary in science with the imprecision used in popular literature to communicate said science. The second almost always introduces ambiguity. That's a bug, not a feature.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #42099
No, that's not my duty.  My duty is twofold ...

TRUTH. LOVE.

Always strive to be truthful no matter how tempting it is to lie even just a little bit.  Always try to love my neighbor - even you - no matter how unlovable.

If we do these two things ... but use words like snappy-offyness ... then we will do good for the cause of science.  (And business) (And community) (And family)


I see. So would it be safe to say that you feel that using terms like snappy-offyness rather than less ambiguous terms represents an ideological commitment to what we could call a higher, shall we say, truthiness, in your opinion?
No just more understandable by a wider audience.

But we just saw that often ambiguous terms actually make things less understandable. Not more.

Also, if that is all you meant then your grandiose speech on your duty to truth and love seems a bit apropos of nothing.