bascule

Those of you defending economics as science: Can you name one falsifiable prediction made by "economic science"?

First, take the complement, then provide a proof-by-contradiction using the pumping lemma. Hope that helps.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623

And perhaps those are exactly the cases people have been blustering about Obamacare covering. What kind of f*cked up moral high horse do you have to be on to say that the state shouldn't cover abortion in that kind of case?

I mean seriously, I know this is a slippery slope, and I hate to use it, but Roe vs Wade aside abortion is presently an elective procedure. Why are you paying specific attention to one particular elective procedure conservatives find offensive. Why are you unconcerned about gender reassignment surgery, or boob jobs, or penile enhancements? I still see no reason other than to make a cheap point, or as Pangloss would put it, a cheap "partisan" point.

There's no better time than the present. I made a new thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=511100#post511100

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=511093#post511093 So what do you think, are economics a scientific field or not? I'm personally going to go with "god no". Economics is not empirical and relies too much on unpredictable human behaviors to ever have testable theories in the way you can in the hard sciences. I think the financial crisis proved very thoroughly that when you try to take scientific modeling and apply it to economics, what you end up with are not reliable predictions about the future.

I entirely agree. The Democrats need to get healthcare reform right, or it's going to be a political disaster for them. That may involve failing to reach out to those who would like to do it half assed.

john5746, Pangloss, The Bear's Key: Are you worried Obamacare will cover sex change surgeries? Why or why not? What about breast enlargements? Penis enlargements? Elective amputations?

There are a million partisan hotbuttons that are potential things Obamacare could cover that aren't covered by insurance presently. How about sex change operations? I find it ludicrous to bring these topics up with absolutely no mention of them coming out of the mouths of Democrats. Not to slippery slope you here, but there's all sorts of potential things the Democrats could do that the Republicans wouldn't like. Unless the Democrats have even mentioned in passing that they would like to do them, bringing them up is a total red herring. You might as well be bringing up that the Democrats are interested in making homosexuality mandatory.

Most code is not written in a manner which can be proven correct through model checking, let alone written in a language where model checking can be used to demonstrate formal correctness, and even when it is, who actually subjects their code to model checking? In practice very little code is provably correct.

Unless it's mentioned in the legislation, bringing it up is a red herring. If you have a problem with how the status quo regards abortion as a legitimate medical procedure, it's a problem with how the status quo regards abortion as a legitimate medical procedure, not a problem with the proposed legislation.

No, it didn't get resolved in post #27. You drug this out. Like, over the course of 5 posts. Seriously, are you kidding me? Let's examine a similar misunderstanding of opinion: Hey look at that, a one post turnaround, as opposed to dragging it out over the course of a half dozen posts. Seriously Pangloss, are you kidding me? No wonder there can't be any debate on single payer healthcare in America. The opposition cannot admit they're wrong and move on. It becomes a giant debacle, and I had to continually bombard you with criticism until you yielded and actually admitted you're wrong, kind of, still trying to shift the blame on me. You completely misinterpreted what I was saying and wouldn't admit it. That's putting it lightly. You put words in my mouth. Are you f*cking kidding me? You're saying this is a statement on rationing? This is a statement on universal coverage. It is not a statement on rationing. I don't know what distorted ass lens you're seeing my statements through. Perhaps a "partisan" one. How on earth is this a statement on rationing? Yet that's what you somehow turned this statement into, and it took a half dozen posts of you continuing to insist it was a statement on rationing before you finally admitted that it wasn't a statement on rationing. And you tried to frame it as me "clarifying" the statement to not be about rationing. You are a partisan hack, sorry. I weep for America. *headgib* *headgib* *headgib* The correct word is "asshole". See this thread on my opinion of self-ascribed "skeptics". Now's the point in the thread where you use your moderator powers to "win" the argument by giving me a warning. E-penis ftw! And honestly, if you use your moderator powers to silence me, I really don't think you deserve to be moderator of this forum. I really wish this thread could've been a sound, rational discussion of single payer healthcare, but you have instead injected it full of partisan invective and completely derailed it. I still await your apology. Admit you grossly misinterpreted my post as I did with ParanoiA and we can move on and have a sound rational discussion. Or you can bust out your epenis and prove this forum isn't a level playing field for political discussions. It's your choice.

That post was in regard to people who either can't get care because they don't have insurance or people who don't receive care because their insurers deny their claims. It has nothing to do with wait times. Do you see the word "wait", "rationing", "speedy", etc in that sentence? So, yes, strawman.

Life systems are macrostructures made out of many, many different types of molecules. There's no "chemical formula for life". Here's a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound However, just because something is made out of organic compounds doesn't mean it's alive. Living systems must exhibit cellular respiration. According to that logic everything in this universe is alive. No, you're committing a composition fallacy. Some elementary particles belong to life systems. The overwhelming majority do not. Just because some elementary particles are components of life systems does not make everything in the universe alive, any more than it makes everything in the universe a car because some elementary particles are parts of cars. There are many scientific fields based on the idea that living systems are made out of molecules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biology We don't know, although there are several theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis The atoms don't "decide". They are subject to external conditions. When plants draw minerals and water out of the ground, they are integrated into life systems and themselves become alive. Animals can then consume these plants and their compounds will be further integrated into additional life systems. There's nothing supernatural about it. It's simple chemistry. You might start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29 Living systems are made of one or more cells. Cells are made out of molecules. Molecules are made out of atoms. Therefore, living systems are made out of atoms. Simple as that.

qft

To reiterate my previous post: when did I ever say that single payer systems don't make people wait? That's a strawman. It would be really nice to discuss the topic at hand, not things I never said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-trial25-2009aug25,0,901567.story The business lobby has pushed the US Chamber of Commerce to hold a trial so as to determine whether the idea of anthropogenically forced climate change has merit. It's a modern day Scopes monkey trial. It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, especially after a verdict is rendered. This may have a lasting impact on US policy for years to come.

That's not what a red herring means. I invite you to read the definition of a red herring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28logical_fallacy%29#Red_herring Your original post: You brought up rationing, however rationing is no more a problem specific to single-payer healthcare systems than people dying while under care of the system is. It's irrelevant to the discussion. You are trying to divert the conversation from single-payer healthcare to rationing. It is therefore a red herring. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Pot. Kettle. Black.

I can't find pictures of their "old logo"

Who exactly is doing that (strawman)? I suppose according to JohnB (on a different thread entirely), wait times for NHS are substantially lower than they are here in the states. I'm sorry, I was only responding in kind to your red herring. Thanks for coming back at me with a strawman. That's really awesome of you. Why do you feel the need to point other people's "partisan" behavior constantly? You do realize you're just as "partisan" as the rest of us?

I'm sure the remark was a facetious stab at the fact that computer science spends far too much time concerning itself with theory and too little with practical application.

And that's the problem with bringing up rationing in regard to single-payer healthcare. It's a total red herring and a non sequitur. You could make the claim that single-payer healthcare is bad because people will die under a single-payer system. Is the implication that people don't die under the current private system?

I think we're talking past each other. This conversation is no longer productive.

Thanks for amending your remarks. Expound please? What point are you trying to make here? And to reiterate a point you conveniently ignored: I'm waiting...