Just for interest's sake

[Greg Boyles]

Of my harshest critics, with all your talk of scientific rigour etc, which of you have formal science qualifications?

 

I would just like to be assured that I am not facing off with a Bernard Salt type - self appointed and unqualified demographer.

[swansont]

You first. Not that it matters. A degree doesn't make arguments inherently right, and a lack thereof does not make them wrong. But posing the question is a step in the wrong direction.

[Greg Boyles]

You first. Not that it matters. A degree doesn't make arguments inherently right, and a lack thereof does not make them wrong. But posing the question is a step in the wrong direction.

 

If you don't have a science degree and are directly familiar with the scientific process then it is unreasonable to claim the status of gate keeper of scientific rigour. In that circumstance it would be more appropriate to word your doubt in these terms......."in my opinion your hypothesis is flawed" rather than "your hypothesis is invalid".

 

For that matter, on the issue of national debt and immigration, who of my fiercest critics have an economic degree?

 

 

 

Myself BSc University of Melbourne, Graduate Diploma in Computer Science Latrobe University.

 

 

 

That's why I carefully put forward my opinion about a link between debt/economic problems and immigration as a hypothesis.

 

Questioning immigration and population can be rather uncomfortable for anthropocentrists and the debates can get rather like the climate change debate.........

 

Many 'experts' claiming to be the gate keepers of valid climate science but few of them with any qualifications what so ever.

 

 

Edited August 11, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

Why does it take an economics degree to criticize you, but not take one to advance the thesis in the first place?

[DJBruce]

You do not need a degree to make a well thought out and logical argument, and that is what SFN is about.

[Greg Boyles]

Why does it take an economics degree to criticize you, but not take one to advance the thesis in the first place?

 

I don't mind being criticised at all.

 

But I do take exception to individuals who claim scientific superiority over me if they are not formally qualified and practicing scientists.

 

I very carefully and deliberately put it forward as an unproven hypothesis. I did not state that it is a proven fact that high immigration and large populations absolutely causes high debt and economic problems.

 

I don't object to anyone without relevant qualifications puting forward hypotheses out side their area of expertise. Or to them respectfully questioning any of mine.

 

But that has not been the tone of a few critics regarding my hypothesis has it?

 

The tone has been that they are experts and that I am a fool.

 

Therefore I would like them to disclose their formal academic quals so we might determine the validity of their proclaimed expertise.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

The tone has been that your hypothesis is wrong for reasons laid out in several posts. Counterexamples have been given. You admitted the basic premise was flawed anyway, which makes one wonder why the defensive posture is taken when criticism is posted.

 

As far as scientific qualifications go, mine are laid out in my profile. I don't advertise them in discussions because the validity of my points isn't directly affected by them and doing so is generally a distraction. I don't want people to think I'm right just because I can put some letters before/after my name, I want them to see I'm right because I made a sound argument.

[imatfaal]

My degrees are all in law (although tending towards the legal theory / political science side) - my colleagues in the law would be highly amused by your contention that only scientists are qualified to recognize and criticize an invalid or flawed argument.

[CaptainPanic]

A degree doesn't make arguments inherently right, and a lack thereof does not make them wrong.

I would go a step further: Making any claims based only on a degree is a Argument from Authority, which is a fallacy. Sorry to bring up this F-word ( )so much lately, but I think it is important.

 

It is up to the other people, the ones you're trying to convince, to accept your (fallacious) argument that you are right because you have a degree (or because you're some kind of authority in the field). People will accept it only because they have no better argument. The argument then actually does not work, but people simply trust you to be right.

 

But if the argument is challenged, the authority (or degree) is worthless. And claiming to be right based on being an authority (or quoting one) is still a fallacy.

 

And since the OP wants to know the degree of his critics, and even makes a suggestion of dismissing people who are without diploma (self appointed and unqualified) I fear that giving the information will only enable more fallacies.

 

Anyway, I am a chemical engineer with a MSc.

[Greg Boyles]

The tone has been that your hypothesis is wrong for reasons laid out in several posts.

Well laid out reasons based upon their interpretations of contemporary economic theory that not all economists agree with, i.e. that population growth, through immigration or fertility, always leads to net economic gain. Therefore any hypothesis that population growth does not necessarily lead to net economic gain is flawed and not worth considering further. The same sorts of arguments used by the faithful to discount instances where science reveals their faith to be absurd.

 

I also think that Captain Panic's assumptions about what you can reasonably assume from comparisons of per capita immigration is simply wrong.

 

As he or some one elses stated, it is a kind of average. And we all know that averages are or can be of limited value in determining the real world state of the thing being measured.

 

Average wage of a nation is fairly meaningless. But number of people in a series of income brackets gives you a far more useful indication of the economic well being of the populous.

 

But even that can be misleading. John Howard probably looked at that sort of data when he made his proclamation that "Australians have never been better off" when he saw that the number of people in the higher wage brackets was greater than 10 years ago, or what ever, and immediately jumped to the conclusion that his unstated policy of population growth had improved the wages of a great many Australians. But to his surprise, I am sure, he found himself at the end of derision from many quarters.

 

Perhaps to get an even more accurate picture you could include the average mortgage repayment and transport costs in each income bracket. Perhaps John Howard would not then have made his foolish proclamation that eventually lost him an election (out of touch with the electorate).

 

Statistics are often 'spun' and misused. And I posit that Captain Panic is misusing per capita immigration by taking it out of context of other relevant information.

 

Counterexamples have been given. You admitted the basic premise was flawed anyway, which makes one wonder why the defensive posture is taken when criticism is posted.

The only thing that I perhaps admitted is that I had not fully enunciated the reasoning behind my hypothesis.

 

 

As far as scientific qualifications go, mine are laid out in my profile. I don't advertise them in discussions because the validity of my points isn't directly affected by them and doing so is generally a distraction. I don't want people to think I'm right just because I can put some letters before/after my name, I want them to see I'm right because I made a sound argument.

I had assumed that you have some sort of formal quals due to the general tone of your criticism swansont. I have my doubts about Captain Panic, and one or two others, perhaps.

 

We might disagree but I do feel that I can more calmly debate the issues with you. Less so with Captain Panic.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[imatfaal]

I have my doubts about Captain Panic, and one or two others, perhaps.

 

We might disagree but I do feel that I can more calmly debate the issues with you. Less so with Captain Panic.

my emphasis

 

I guess that's me Capt - proud to be lumped in with you!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But I do take exception to individuals who claim scientific superiority over me if they are not formally qualified and practicing scientists.

How exactly does one claim "scientific superiority," and when has that happened on SFN?

[Greg Boyles]

How exactly does one claim "scientific superiority," and when has that happened on SFN?

 

Sorry but perceive this tone in some of Captain Panic's posts.

 

I don't feel that Captain has been considering my criticisms over the way he has been using per capita immigration, mereley dismissing them as invalid.

 

Perhaps we both need to take bex and have a lie down before continuing the debate.

[swansont]

The only thing that I perhaps admitted is that I had not fully enunciated the reasoning behind my hypothesis.

 

Your original premise was pretty simple:

 

Europe and the USA have major debt and economic problems in common.

 

Australia's debt and economic problems are no where near as big.

 

Europe and USA also have virtually uncontrolled mass immigration from Africa and Mexico respectively.

 

Australia has a very much small immigration intake.

 

I wonder how closely uncontrolled mass immigration and debt and economic problems are linked.

 

Clearly third world immigrants require significant welfare and services when they first arrive in a western country. The more immigrants the bigger the bill to the government.

You are linking raw immigration numbers with economic problems.

 

That's very different from

 

a population threshhold, unique to each country and related to its ecological productive capacity of the country and its resource base, beyond which the economic productivity decreases and welfare dependance in western countries or poverty level in third world countries increases for most individuals.

 

The first is all about immigration numbers and numbers alone. Nothing at all about thresholds or capacities. Adding those qualifiers changes the argument quite drastically, and still doesn't address the main point of contention about normalized vs raw numbers.

 

 

 

I had assumed that you have some sort of formal quals due to the general tone of your criticism swansont. I have my doubts about Captain Panic, and one or two others, perhaps.

 

We might disagree but I do feel that I can more calmly debate the issues with you. Less so with Captain Panic.

And none of that matters. If you feel an argument is flawed, attack the argument. You don't attack the person. (In case that's not clear, calling Captain Panic out here was not appropriate) I don't see where anyone asked you for your qualifications before engaging you in discussion, or dismissing you based on that information.

[jackson33]

Of my harshest critics, with all your talk of scientific rigour etc, which of you have formal science qualifications?

 

I would just like to be assured that I am not facing off with a Bernard Salt type - self appointed and unqualified demographer. [/Quote]

 

Greg, what's interesting to me, over these 3-4 illegal immigration threads, is that you I believe live in Australia, Captain Panic, lives in the Netherlands and people from the US are dissecting your post. There is no question, again "illegal" immigration in the US has become a political tool and very costly, in Europe where migration has been the practice, illegal not the problem and it's difficult for most poor folks to even get to Australia, three totally different scenarios.

 

Frankly, I don't care if you all have Doctorate Degrees, I don't think their's anything comparable between the three, OTHER than the cost migration has been to societies, literally drawing the poor into their society to cover up ageing populations, do the menial labor, pamper those needing pampering and currently here in the US, to get their vote. If you throw in the Muslim Culture factor, especially in Europe, you have another situation and cost can be greater, socially and monetarily.

 

Briefly then, I agree with most what all you say, but your arguing with Americans with a definite left wing political bias for their understanding of something they seem to know little of and it's very brief history in the US, at least as is, today. IMO...

[DJBruce]

Greg, the issue I find with your argument is that you like to speak in unsupported opinions, and that when people confront you with valid studies you ignore them instead of either admitting that they show that your hypothesis may very well be false, or rebut those studies. Also the one time you have provided evidence for your point the sources were dubious secondary sources, that relied an even more dubious research.

 

Aslo although it doesn't matter, I really have no credentials as I am still at university.

Edited August 11, 2011 by DJBruce

[Greg Boyles]

Your original premise was pretty simple:

 

 

You are linking raw immigration numbers with economic problems.

 

That's very different from

 

 

 

The first is all about immigration numbers and numbers alone. Nothing at all about thresholds or capacities. Adding those qualifiers changes the argument quite drastically, and still doesn't address the main point of contention about normalized vs raw numbers.

 

 

 

 

And none of that matters. If you feel an argument is flawed, attack the argument. You don't attack the person. (In case that's not clear, calling Captain Panic out here was not appropriate) I don't see where anyone asked you for your qualifications before engaging you in discussion, or dismissing you based on that information.

 

OK 'swansont' then I admit that I did not spend enough time in my original post explaining my position which led to some people, who don't have the same educational and vocational background as me, jumping to wrong conclusions about it.

 

I will make efforts not to assume that people can see where I am coming from based on a minimal description of my position in future.

 

Greg, what's interesting to me, over these 3-4 illegal immigration threads, is that you I believe live in Australia, Captain Panic, lives in the Netherlands and people from the US are dissecting your post. There is no question, again "illegal" immigration in the US has become a political tool and very costly, in Europe where migration has been the practice, illegal not the problem and it's difficult for most poor folks to even get to Australia, three totally different scenarios.

 

Frankly, I don't care if you all have Doctorate Degrees, I don't think their's anything comparable between the three, OTHER than the cost migration has been to societies, literally drawing the poor into their society to cover up ageing populations, do the menial labor, pamper those needing pampering and currently here in the US, to get their vote. If you throw in the Muslim Culture factor, especially in Europe, you have another situation and cost can be greater, socially and monetarily.

 

Briefly then, I agree with most what all you say, but your arguing with Americans with a definite left wing political bias for their understanding of something they seem to know little of and it's very brief history in the US, at least as is, today. IMO...

 

They are all linked Jackson if you take a step back and look at the global picture.

 

Third world over population combined with western appropriation of third world resources is causing individuals to spill out of the third world and seek a better life in western countries where all the globes resources are ending up.

 

That then increases over population in western countries and is leading to some social and political instability and economic problems in many western countries.

 

Greg, the issue I find with your argument is that you like to speak in unsupported opinions, and that when people confront you with valid studies you ignore them instead of either admitting that they show that your hypothesis may very well be false, or rebut those studies. Also the one time you have provided evidence for your point the sources were dubious secondary sources, that relied an even more dubious research.

 

Aslo although it doesn't matter, I really have no credentials as I am still at university.

 

One of the studies I provided ended up being from dubious secondary sources. No such criticisms were made about the other studies/articles I provided.

 

As far as I can see the only evidence my opponents have provided to support their claim that immigration into the US is sustainable that it always brings net financial gains for the Americans are the per capita immigration figures themselves. And I do not regard that as adequate supporting evidence of their position.

 

 

 

 

 

I think the main problem from the beginning of this debate is as follows.

 

To most with science quals, and particularly in biological sciences, the concept of ecolgical limits for the human population and our economies is self evident and requires little explaining.

 

Where as to many with economic and business quals or experience, such a concept is totally foriegn and outside their world view.

 

From the outset I have clearly made the mistake of assuming that everyone or most in this forum can see what I see simply because it is a science forum and that I do not have to fully elaborate on the reasoning.

 

I will try not to make that mistake again.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

OK 'swansont' then I admit that I did not spend enough time in my original post explaining my position which led to some people, who don't have the same educational and vocational background as me, jumping to wrong conclusions about it.

 

No, no, no. Don't you DARE try to shift any of the blame on this. Your original thesis was poorly formulated and demonstrably false, and denigrating the people who criticized you is not acceptable.

[jackson33]

They are all linked Jackson if you take a step back and look at the global picture.

 

Third world over population combined with western appropriation of third world resources is causing individuals to spill out of the third world and seek a better life in western countries where all the globes resources are ending up.

 

That then increases over population in western countries and is leading to some social and political instability and economic problems in many western countries.[/Quote]

 

Greg keep in mind, I think in many way's your correct, end results of migration, immigration or as in the US illegal immigration, can and does cause economic harm to an economy.

 

I am looking at the Global picture, seeing many differences. Taking Australia, with about a 5% unemployment rate, stringent legal immigration policy, limited access, with a strong NATURAL RESOURCE economy, that is almost solely being used/supported by a Country growing 10% annually, China with 1.5B people and a controllable 23 million citizens of its own, is simply not comparable to Europe. An accepted 8-10% normal uneployment rate, with legal migration between States containing over 500 million people, virtually no natural resources or the US with a traditional daily mingling of populations of Mexico/Canada, not to mention millions visiting for many reasons annually.

 

"Political instability" IMO is a result of the economy and is often caused from cultural clashes, but at least what's always been normal, second generation immigrants have melded into the society. Where I think we agree, is that if that melding is not accomplished, as in Europe with the Muslim Culture or parts of the US where demographics don't require it, then the economy can be greatly harmed. A good economy on the other hand, especially in an "ageing population" is almost required, in turn the stability based on balance.

[Greg Boyles]

Greg keep in mind, I think in many way's your correct, end results of migration, immigration or as in the US illegal immigration, can and does cause economic harm to an economy.

 

I am looking at the Global picture, seeing many differences. Taking Australia, with about a 5% unemployment rate, stringent legal immigration policy, limited access, with a strong NATURAL RESOURCE economy, that is almost solely being used/supported by a Country growing 10% annually, China with 1.5B people and a controllable 23 million citizens of its own, is simply not comparable to Europe. An accepted 8-10% normal uneployment rate, with legal migration between States containing over 500 million people, virtually no natural resources or the US with a traditional daily mingling of populations of Mexico/Canada, not to mention millions visiting for many reasons annually.

 

"Political instability" IMO is a result of the economy and is often caused from cultural clashes, but at least what's always been normal, second generation immigrants have melded into the society. Where I think we agree, is that if that melding is not accomplished, as in Europe with the Muslim Culture or parts of the US where demographics don't require it, then the economy can be greatly harmed. A good economy on the other hand, especially in an "ageing population" is almost required, in turn the stability based on balance.

 

Roughly 3-4 months ago we had a delegation of CSIRO climate scientists head off to the federal parliament at Canberra, and a media conference, to tell Australians that personal opinions on climate change are NOT equivalent to a scientific consensus.

 

About bl00dy time that at least part of the scientific community was prepared to get their hands politically dirty and make a stand.

 

About time for the same thing to happen as far as this over population issue goes.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Greg Boyles