Alan Greenspan: Iraq war largely about oil

[jryan]

I didn't say that. And I really don't think you can construe what I did say as an insult. It certainly wasn't intended that way.

 

Again, that wasn't my intent and you clearly missed my point. I wasn't trying to pigeon-hole you, I was trying to point out why you may be frustrated, and that reason had nothing to do with your ideological viewpoint, but rather your butting of heads with other people. The specific ideologies involved are just backdrop to that problem.

 

But that isn't what you said. And for the record, I wasn't offended by what you said, because I know enough to know that most people make the same mistake repeatedly. What you did was the norm. My point to iNow was that HE took offense when I said the same thing to him.

 

It goes back to the golden rule, which I obviously don't always follow, but when you are not intending to offend someone don't make associations that you yourself would find offensive. It would be like me saying that an AGW proponent is just spouting Al Gore talking points... even though we both know it is very possible to believe in AGW but disagree with Al Gore.

 

... hold please while I read your longer post....

 

Ok... here goes...

 

Really? That's interesting, because I came here to listen to what other people had to say. I already know what I think, what I don't know is what you think.

 

I'm certainly not here to listen to myself talk! (Contrary to popular opinion!!!)

 

So you don't post your opinions on this forum?

 

Well again, I realize it may not seem that way to you at the moment, but I don't approve of personal attacks, and I'm doing everything in my power to stop and prevent them. Sometimes I'm less successful at that than I would like to be, and I've even been known to participate now and then. But that is my intent -- I want this to be an hospitable place for open discussion.

 

At it may seem like you are succeeding during the periods when many in my boat abandon the site in frustration. But it is never felt like a very hospitable place, I can assure you.

 

But no, I don't think people who are in the minority should post things they don't believe just so they can fit in. I often find myself stating my opinion and then simply shutting up because repeating myself just to get the last word is a waste of my time and the time of others. I also tell myself that opinions are like a-hole's -- everybody's got one. What's the point of arguing opinions?

 

All discussion is opinion. You seem to be arguing against the necessity of this forum all together. Maybe just replace it with a bunch of links to studies that you trust best represent the reality of a given line of scientific study. Nobody will state their opinion, or dare to justify why they hold the opinion they do.

 

I know that isn't what you are saying... but a forum without opinion, or discussion of how these opinions were formed, seems rather pointless to me, whether the forum is about science or Hello Kitty.

 

So I focus on exposure to evidence, interpretations of that evidence, pointing out fallacious reasoning and hypocrisy in certain ideological groups, and so forth. It seems to me to be a much more valuable use of my time than telling somebody they're wrong (not that I don't end up doing that quite a lot, but it isn't my purpose).

 

And opinion is what you get after interpreting the evidence. And science, and even evidence, are often wrong. For instance, recently there was much to do about a discovered asteroid that was going to pass very close to the Earth. Alarms started going up about how this asteroid could get so close without us detecting it, and the potential effects...

 

Turns out it was a deep solar satelite that was programmed to do a close pass of Earth.

 

At one point we believed that our opinion of this "asteroid" were correct.

 

What I see is science that is becoming indistinguishable from politics, and a steady evaporation of the healthy humility of science and a rise in absurd belief that we ever know enough about anything to stop questioning.

 

But that's just how I see it (since you asked). I imagine there are other ways to look at it.

 

Unless you have access to levels of information that border on omniscience, your beliefs will always be opinion. And stating your beliefs will always be an opening for debate. Stating opinion without expectation for debate is naive.

 

I definitely don't think this sub-forum is a "breeding ground for partisanship". If anything it's the opposite -- more like a clearing house for misconceptions, and if it's a breeding ground for anything it's "finding the middle ground", something I think we actually do pretty well here. That's the legacy I'm trying to accomplish in my tenure here as moderator. Whether I'm successful at that is up to each member to decide.

 

I wasn't just talking about this subforum. I was more talking about all subforums in which the science is tightly attached to politics. I wouldn't guess that the Mathematics forum gets this heated.

 

But most of our members who've posted in Politics deliberately and consciously avoid specific familiar ideologies. That's one of the things I like about this board -- it may have a leftie bias, but it's refreshingly receptive to well-constructed (and politely phrased) logic. For me it's the best of all possible words (hence my handle) -- a crop of liberals that actually (usually) acknowledges your point when you're right and they're wrong. Ever try to win an argument at Democratic Underground or MoveOn.org? Are you KIDDING?

 

You are better than MoveOn.org... ummm... congrats? You are also far more informative than the "Loose Change" forum... since we are into damning with faint praise.

 

And the funny thing about your "insular and partisan" comment is that there are a few people here who agree with you -- they think it's too conservative! In fact we probably have more members here who think this board is too conservative than we have members who think it's too liberal. But you know what? The fact that some people think it's too conservative and others think it's too liberal tells me we're probably doing it about right.

 

All that says is that you have situated yourself in the middle of two groups. It doesn't say anthing about where those two grouops fall on the actual liberal/conservative continuum. If science is indeed more liberal leaning as you assert then you would have to assume that the political bell curve here would also be skewed left.... so the ones saying you are too liberal could be moderate and the ones saying you are too conservative may be Noam Chompsky.

 

My belief that your arguments are being exposed to the "cold light of day" here has nothing to do with board consensus or its generally liberal lean. It has to do with the specific arguments you are exposed to and how you react to them. But I'm not going to harp on this because I feel like I'm kicking you while you're down, which is really not my intent. I was just trying to help you out with a little insight as to why you keep breaking down in these discussions. For you to dismiss it as pure trolling on iNow's part is missing most of the picture.

 

You may THINK that is the case, but you and I would disagree. You are not kicking me when I am down. I am not so tied to this forum that I feel specifically hurt by any of this. But I do feel I have to point out to you that your attempt to placate the situation if fairly off base, and doesn't help.

 

I think that's a very insightful comment and it reminds me of why I enjoy reading your posts. I hope you work through this and stick with us.

 

Wow, so heart felt!

 

Contrary to popular belief, this is nothing that I have to work through. Or that I have to work though... or I have to work through.. depending on where you want to put the emphasis. That's like me saying "I hope you can work through your sites problems so that you can continue to be graced with my presence."

[Pangloss]

Well that post is a good example of the kind of thing you do that puts you at loggerheads with certain people here. You clearly misconstrued and misrepresented most of what I said. Let's see...

 

I did NOT say your views are no different from O'Reilly's... I wasn't saying I don't post my opinions here... I'm sorry you don't find it hospitable (but I see insufficient evidence for a policy change)... all discussion is NOT opinion... I specifically welcomed your opinions... I'm perfectly happy with your "damned with faint praise", since I don't see it that way... I'm perfectly happy being situated between two groups, and I see them as more relevant and reflective than you do... and I'm not trying to "placate" the situation. And frankly your whole point IS that we have to change our behavior in order to continue to be graced by your presence.

 

But since you don't want this discussion to continue, I will happily oblige, especially since I've accomplished my purpose anyway -- giving you a chance to air your grievances in public and giving me a chance to make it clear to everyone here where I stand with it (which in the end, frankly, is more important than your grievances anyway). So it's over. If you want to discuss it further, you can return to PMing me.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Pangloss