BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion

Subject: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 04:50 PM

Interest article by a philosophy prof. In Australia no less. But not called Bruce.

Patrick Stokes: You're not entitled to your opinion

Every year, I try to do at least two things with my students at least once. First, I make a point of addressing them as "philosophers" - a bit cheesy, but hopefully it encourages active learning.

Secondly, I say something like this: "I'm sure you've heard the expression 'everyone is entitled to their opinion.' Perhaps you've even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it's no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for."

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 05:05 PM

What in Christ's name are you on about now, Wackers?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 05:15 PM

Steve is right on this one.
WTF?

What you tell your students does themva diservice, as it is not logical.
People have the right to whatever they please to believe. It is when they promote it to others, sometimes unsuccessfully, that this entitlement to a personal opinion ends.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,giovanni
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 05:18 PM

Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

g

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 05:20 PM

Can you people read?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 05:31 PM

"Can you people read?"

Is that an opinion, converted into a question:)

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 05:56 PM

All the prof said was that you are entitled to the opinion that you can support with logic and rational explanation/argument.

I agree, that you are NOT entitled to try to force an opinion ON ME that you can not support with reason and can't explain other than "that's what I think."

Maybe those who object haven't looked for the reason in his argument?

Everyone should occasionally know how to politely request some others to withhold their unfounded/bigoted/biased/irrational "opinions."

John

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:13 PM

If one has an opinion, logically formed or not, (for example that a god exists), why would they not be entitled to hold it, and share it with those of similar belief (lets say in a church)? To me, the professorsv statement falls short.

Should folks choose to promote it beyond this "comfort zone" they should be prepared to defend it. This freedom seems to be the basis of many progressively freedom - loving societies.It is also what people call common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:18 PM

So it was the professor saying that, and you presented to as something people might consider, rather than you making some comment on what he said, which was how it was understood. using quotation marks or intakics with quotes avoids that kind of misunderstaning.

Opinions aren't things you have a right to or not. They are facts about what you think at any point of time, and can of course change. And they can be right or wrong, either objectively, or in the opinion of other people. Where to draw the line between "objectively" and "in the opinion of other people" is not always at all clear.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:22 PM

Moh,
You seem to uxe the word "fact" more lightly than I suspect many would.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:38 PM

Thank you John in Kansas for translating it... saving ME much time.

Oh well...I might as well go further. What she meant was... "for the purposes of this class, it being in Philosophy, just stating an opinion is not enough."

That concept ought to be in general use in many areas and on many issues, but humans being what they are, most will continue to have opinions they cannot coherently defend.

When I was a graduate teaching fellow in Philosophy, we assigned a short term paper to Phil. 101 students to get past huge multiple-choice exams as the only test.
On the first one, we thought we'd 'stimulate interest' by picking as the topic: "The Existence of God"... big mistake! I told them... and I told them... and I repeated... that what we wanted was some idea that they had read various materials and understood BOTH sides of the debate. They were NOT to just 'give their opinion' and spew the classic non-philosophic defenses. Out of 400 or so papers, we had maybe 30 that really got the point, and only 3-4 that were really, really good! The best paper was an African-American boy who 'noted' that he was, in fact, a Christian, but that he owed it to himself to understand the issues. He did fine!

I can't tell you how many sad papers I read (remember... this was Kansas) which were little more than a defense of their church and culture.

Opinions.... it makes no difference whether anyone says you are... or are not.. entitled to one, no one can stop you having one- but in some circumstances you can be graded on how you defend it!

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:39 PM

Ed, It is my opinion that you have not read the piece. No problem, people are busy.

Quick summary. The prof says "You're not entitled to your opinion " when the kids enter his class. He then says he teaches them how to analyze what people are saying and speaks a little about credibility.

The headline is no doubt designed to gain attention to get you to read the article.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:43 PM

> "Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it's no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for."

I was told something similar many decades ago, and I've repeated it to my own students.

The key words: "this room."

It's the sort of attention-grabber that's said in a class on elementary logic and/or practical reasoning. You'd be surprised how many eighteen- and nineteen-year-olds (not to mention sixty- and seventy-year-olds) will reply to any fact-based argument they just don't like by saying, "Well, my opinion is just the opposite, and I have a perfect right to it." Or, "Well, that's just your opinion."

You have a legal right in a democracy to believe anything you want. But in a classroom - or in a jury room - we'd all better be able to explain and support our opinions logically.

Otherwise the deciding argument always goes to whoever wields the biggest stick.

And for those who claim to believe that's what happens anyway: you'll have to explain and support that view beyond the customary "It's obvious. Don't be so stupid."

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:50 PM

Good one g,

Thanks for reading Jeri, JiK, McGrath and Bill D. I thought of you when I first saw the article Bill D. Coincidentally I saw this today. Bill and anyone who is interested, I would be interested in your take on it, since it is about philosophers and a very debatable term on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:53 PM

"
And for those who claim to believe that's what happens anyway: you'll have to explain and support that view beyond the customary "It's obvious. Don't be so stupid." "

Good one! Lighter! can I use "Well, my opinion is just the opposite, and I have a perfect right to it." Or, "Well, that's just your opinion."

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:53 PM

What I mean is that what you are thinking is itself a fact, nothing to do with whether its factually accurate about the world or whatever. The fact is that that is what you are thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 07:05 PM

You are correct, jts, I am guilty of your opinion on that:) I am used to the lead up to a link in an OP being a bit clearer, as I do nof open all links. Sorry about that.

I suspect one may question "what qualifies one as an expert?" Also, who and what are "pulling their strings" This seems fair to me.

I have attended many meetings where "local expertise" is ignored versus that of a with professional qualifications. I have also seen the views of "professionals used or skewed to market an initiative. Often professionals promote personal causes far beyond their professional information. We see itvall the time in criminal trials, where professionals are purchased tobpromote a cause.
Unfortunately, non professionals often do not have the know-how, nor resources, to negate this, and often use whatever power within their grasp to counter.

I recall a meeting where the local observations of fishermen was ignored in faviour of scientists who never left the labratory. Unfortunately, though the fishermen were eventually proven right, they could not present their observations in a manner scientists could fit in their models to access. Traditional first nations knowledge falls into this category- but, those in power do reach out to include it, where tgey arecrequired by law to reach out.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 07:19 PM

I recall a meeting held by a gaggle of professionals promoting thecestablishment of a no-take marine protected area. The local fishermen's, , concerned for their livlihood, were skeptical, and mostly opposed. After numerous overheads of maps, charts, statistics, and a convincing marketing case that fishermen would benefit over the longer term, a small elderly lady stood upcand asked "have yoy ever heard about the statistician that drowned ib a lake with an average depth of one foot?" It certainly had an impact on everyone present, including the professionals.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 07:21 PM

but what if your opinion is that the moon is made of blue cheese, and that all heretics who disagree are worthy only of death.

well of course you are entitled to your opinion.

if you support and finance terrorist groups to propagate your views, are you still entitled to your opinions - just not entitled to be in thrall to them.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 07:23 PM

A big case in point in the UK at the moment being the policies of the Environment Agency as an agent of flooding.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 07:31 PM

First thing that popped into my head as I read it was this:

I HAD rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran than that this universal frame is without a mind. And therefore God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.

Francis Bacon
In Bacon's day, one rather needed to end up with that sort of opinion. (same with Descartes, a few years later)...and remember, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600, (The Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy,) during the same years Bacon & Descartes were trying to get a handle on belief.


In the article, Plantinga says: ..."the universe seems to be fine-tuned, not just for life, but for intelligent life. This fine-tuning is vastly more likely given theism than given atheism."
*sigh* The man IS a Philosopher, and I don't get to conduct my own interview with him to ask if is aware of the assumption he makes... namely that 'fine-tuning' is already an anthropomorphic concept which, projected at **existence** suggests the "intelligent designer" answer. At this point, the argument breaks down into subjective attitudes...one side says, "I can't imagine anything as complex as the Universe happening without being designed.".... while the other side says: "I can't imagine anything as complex as the Universe being designed by any intelligence!"

So... my take on the article and the way they debate in it is that strict "atheism" (as in absolute denial of a remote, metaphysical 'cause') is silly and has no way to be tested.

Further on, Plantinga does a bit of (what *I* consider)¹ rhetorical playing with definitions of words like 'belief' and 'cause' and coming to conclusions similar to the psychological ones he attributes to others.

1-just my opinion...*grin*

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 07:52 PM

I recall quite well an incident in a sophomore economics class for engineering and other non-econ students, when the professor in charge "visited" to see how well the teaching assistant was doing.

I innocently stated an opinion, and "Professor Paul" jumped on it with both feet, and we "debated" the opinion for about a quarter of the class time.

The Prof and I were apparently the ony two there who realized we were having a discussion rather than an argument, and several classmates expressed concern that I'd "blown the course" by "arguing" with the Prof, but Professor "Paul," according to news reports, used some of my arguments in testimony before the Senate a couple of weeks later - without crediting me, of course. (He apparently realized that to state something in terms idiots could understand he needed to ask an idiot?) His testimony was significant in the Congressional Hearings, and a significant part of the reason why the US now (or at least for a while) has had an "inflation adjustment" for Social Security payments and for income tax "brackets."

Professor (Dr.) Paul Samuelson received the Nobel Prize for Economics a couple of years later.

[That "opinion" was really fun, even if all my classmates had forgotten the incident before I had a chance to brag about it.]

John

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 09:24 PM

Yeah, Bill, some of the same things went through my mind. When I read later that both interviewer and subject were at Notre Dame thing became clearer. Thanks. Thanks for the Bacon quote.

"The Prof and I were apparently the ony two there who realized we were having a discussion rather than an argument"

:-)

Sorry you were cut out of your share of the Nobel.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 09:38 PM

The philosophy professor is in error. Even in that room everyone is entitled to their opinion. But they aren't entitled to 'share' it in the class unless they can back it up.

Same argument could be made re. hateful and racist beliefs. Everyone's entitled to them.   But sharing them....that's another thing.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 09:47 PM

People have a right to an EDUCATED opinion. Nobody has a right to ignorance, sorry. It is your duty to think, not a privilege.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 10:18 PM

I hold the opinion that Larry's and Mrrzy's opinions are equally valid and correct.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 10:45 PM

"I dont think, therefore I dont exist?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 10:56 PM

"Two negative elements cancel each other out to give a positive statement"

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 11:56 PM

If I get you correctly, BillD, that second argument is, "I can't believe that an all knowing, all powerful Diety would have created a mess like this."

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:55 AM

The God or no God thing always seems to come down to "you can't prove it" "neither can you."

I liked his argument about the teapot. His arguments for theism seemed a little circular, but appropriate coming from a Catholic. "People report that they sense God, therefor God exists." At least I think that was what he was saying.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:21 AM

I don't think many people actually HAVE opinions these days, most "opinions" are just reflections of current media fashion, we seem to have lost the knack of thinking for ourselves.

If you do wish to advance your opinion, you should at least be able to back it with some factual evidence.

Faith is not an opinion.
There is little evidence to support the view that, "equality, democracy, freedom" as actually practiced in our society, have a positive effect.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 07:01 AM

I am curious-if I am entitled to that:
Where does the assessment on the last sentence you posted come from, Ake?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 08:10 AM

NO. There are many things that are not matters of opinion. Nobody is entitled to an opinion that 2+2=5. It's just plain wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 08:56 AM

from the article...


The problem with "I'm entitled to my opinion" is that, all too often, it's used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for "I can say or think whatever I like" - and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful.

And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

First, what's an opinion?

Plato distinguished between opinion or common belief (doxa) and certain knowledge, and that's still a workable distinction today: unlike "1+1=2" or "there are no square circles," an opinion has a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it. But "opinion" ranges from tastes or preferences, through views about questions that concern most people such as prudence or politics, to views grounded in technical expertise, such as legal or scientific opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 09:41 AM

> It's just plain wrong.

Sez you.

(Another line Jack can use.)

Anthropomorphism aside, the "fine-tuning concept" is essentially circular.

If the universe weren't conducive to intelligent life like ours, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. The "odds" of human life having arisen in a universe where human life exists are 100%.

The real question is, starting from scratch at the Big Bang (or the Equivalent, what would be the odds of human life arising somewhere wholly by chance?

That question is at present unanswerable. As theists claim, the answer could be one in infinity. Or, if the universe is old enough and big enough and natural processes are "few" enough, it could be very high, even inevitable, without a Creator. If, as it's starting to seem, "all of existence" involves a possibly infinite number of universes and Big Bangs, suddenly the odds are 100%.

But so little is known about the period (of any) before the Big Bang, or dark energy, dark gravity, wormholes, etc. (plus things not yet theorized or discovered), that even the idea of "odds" itself may be dubious in that context.

Science: You'll never know anything with 100% certainty, but with enough evidence and consistent analysis you can know things with practical certainty.

Religion: We know with 100% certainty what God wants us to know, because the bible, the clergy, and our inner feelings say so. We can't even agree on all of that, or be entirely consistent, but the inconsistencies don't much matter unless the above say they do.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 09:51 AM

"We know with 100% certainty what God wants us to know, because the bible, the clergy, and our inner feelings say so."


I don't believe that at all. I think that God gave us free will to
decide what we want to know and the tools and desire to seek.

Religion is almost always subjective. Philosophy and science are not supposed to be but in my observation, it often turns out that they are.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 10:58 AM

One of the problems with studying art at post-graduate level is the theory (i.e. texts about art) written by non-artists that's needs to be read. As a generalisation, art critics think they're philosophers and philosophers think they're art critics. Makes interesting reading, if you can cut through the opaque language they all use, but none of it is necessarily true...

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: MikeL2
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:10 AM

Hi

When I joined the Royal Airforce many years ago our drill sergeant told us on the first day....." Everyone here is entitled to his own opinion but not to express it !!!!

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:40 AM

Hi Ed.....It's an opinion, but I think I can back it with evidence which proves that under our present system there is no equality, no democracy and no real freedom.
That is not to say that I believe unrestricted equality, democracy and freedom to be wholly positive things.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:41 AM

Jerk the sailior is a TEACHER!!!!??????? god bless us and save us ....how did an half educated polltroon such as he get to teach anyone?..he must have bought his degree by mail order.He wouldn't get within an inch of my kids with his half baked judgmental philosophy

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:50 AM

& what, Mr Concerened*, may be your own qualifications for so contemptuously dismissive a summation of a fellow-poster?

I ask purely out of interest, in curiosity as to why you appear to think so peculiarly well of your own personality & attainments.

~M~

& why can't you even spell your own chosen forum-name correctly? Or, alternatively, what are we to extrapolate as to your indubitable superiority from this pertinaciously eccentric piece of mis-orthography?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:53 AM

"I think I can back it with evidence which proves that under our present system there is no equality, no democracy and no real freedom"

It is my opinion that you believe. It is also my opinion that no such proof exists.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:58 AM

It is my opinion that is what you believe.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:05 PM

Of course I should have specified "traditional, orthodox, divinely revealed religion." My characterization doesn't cover Deists, for example, or Buddhists. (My excuse is that I don't interact with any of them on a daily basis.)

Nobody said informed discussion (or "argument" as it is somewhat misleadingly called) was easy.

It is impossible to eliminate all subjectivity. One reason science works is because repeated experimentation and critical evaluation of results keeps subjectivity to a minimum.

> under our present system there is no equality, no democracy and no real freedom.

Not sure precisely which system you're under, but none of these things exist in nature either, in any form, which is one reason why it took a few million years before anybody even began to theorize about them.

Nor could they exist in absolute form in any plausible human society. "Real freedom," for example, seems to entail "jungle law." Not a good idea, if you ask me.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:06 PM

"Nobody is entitled to an opinion that 2+2=5. It's just plain wrong."

yes...but they WILL try

"As a generalisation, art critics think they're philosophers and philosophers think they're art critics. Makes interesting reading..."

I used to tell people, tongue in cheek, that one of the reasons I majored in Philosophy was that it was an excuse to 'meddle in everyone's business'. All one has to do is put "Philosophy of" in front of a discipline and offer opinions which make "interesting reading".
It's not 'quite' that bad... there are rules & conventions which separate formal studies from silly 'opinions' that someone decides to churn out. Philosophy of Science is a valuable way to understand the basic concepts ...from wikipedia- "Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. This discipline sometimes overlaps metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, for example, when it explores whether scientific results comprise a study of truth."
Compare this with this newsgroup where "silly opinions" are a dime a dozen. an example... and not one of the strangest!
Some real scientists go there for amusement... and some make the occasional effort to counter the really odd ones.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:08 PM

Come on!!!! MGM..cut and pasting is not smart, big or clever..if you are going to do that at least use the same type case....very c3 action even for a smart ass such as you..

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:13 PM

Who provides entitlement?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:15 PM

I agree lighter, that's why I qualified my remarks, "That is not to say that I believe unrestricted equality, democracy and freedom to be wholly positive things."

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:24 PM

Excellent opening article. Too bad people didn't read it to start the discussion. :)

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:25 PM

People are entitled to their opinions. Just the way things are. But remember that people are also entitled to shut up about it, too.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:38 PM

Bill, one of the notable conventions in art theory is to study other writers' theories and pick holes in them (academically of course!). Then spell out your theory, back it up and say why it's more applicable than the previous ones. That really works, especially if the previous writers are deceased, or, as a certain Peter Burger did ("Theory of the Avant-Garde", don't bother reading it), publish it in German and don't have it translated into any other language, and certainly not English! Well, not until ten years later...

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 12:57 PM

concie-pooze ~~ I have read your last post addressed to me; set it in the key of A-minor & sung it to the accompaniment of banjo, Anglo-German concertina, guitar, & autoharp; translated it into French, Italian, & Modern Hebrew; and can still make no sense of it whatsoever. What, pray, do you suppose me to have cut & pasted? And what has type-size to do with anything? Footnotes in reduced size are a perfectly normal aspect of printing style. In what way, and to what effect, do you imagine yourself to have responded to the animadversions I addressed to your previous impertinences?

What, in short, the hell are you on about, my good fellow?

Hmmm?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 01:14 PM

SRS, at the end of the article by Patrick Stoke, he says next time someone declares that they are entitled to their opinion, ask them why they say that.

This might be possible in a university environment, but elsewhere, one is asking to be 'shunned.'

And here, below the belt in mudcat, the question will lead to a vituperative swarming from the cowpie.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 01:41 PM

My opinion is that Sheffield Wednesday are the best football team in the world.

The facts say otherwise.

My opinion remains.

I don't need to convince anyone as it should be self evident.

Etc.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,ed t
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 01:52 PM

But, that is not "proper football", Musket-opiniononion.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 01:57 PM

There is no other description of football.

I am aware that we have contributors from the other side of the pond where grown men play rounders and football is a term where men chase a rugby ball wearing protection to stop them getting hurt in between breaks from TV adverts.

Mind you I am drifting from opinion to fact there.......

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 02:13 PM

You will one day recover from this delusion, Ian; and realise that your statement was perfectly accurate except that some strange glitch of doubtless extra-terrestrial origin made you type Sheffield Wednesday when your brain & fingers really meant Arsenal. Which is quite clearly not a matter of opinion. [Mind you, Emma supports Chelsea. How we contrive to remain married and reasonably content under the same roof I cannot imagine!]

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 02:44 PM

Oh, Musket, you mean soccer. Football: A game in the USA, where two teams try to move down a 100 yard field to the other team's goal by either passing the ball or running the ball given 4 downs to complete at least ten yards to continue the drive. It is a much more entertaining and better sport than the other football played in other countries, and the other football is only popular because they haven't been introduced to a real sport with physical contact and the lack of short-shorts. AL 90 AND MATTHEW ARE JUST A FEW ENGLISH RETARDS WHO CAN'T HANDLE A SPORT THAT INVOLVES TOUGHNESS, CONTACT, AND TACKLING. IT'S BASICALLY LIKE RUGBY BUT BETTER!AL 90: Hey mate, why don't we drink some tea and watch men run around in short-shorts kicking a ball for three straight hours. 

Matthew: Good idea chap, but I've found out a better sport also called football that's in America! It involves more than just kicking a ball! You actually do OTHER things too, and people get to knock the crap out of other people when you tackle them! 

AL 90: but hitting hurts and I like watching men in short- shorts. 

Matthew: Men in short shorts it is! Oh, musket,-you mean soccer. I found anothercdefinition on the Urban dictionary:

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:00 PM

Keep in mind people in North American that England is a very old country. Many of the buildings are faced with brick. There are few opportunities to watch paint dry. That is why they watch soccer, call it football and argue about the definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:23 PM

EdT-You've forgotten one of the most appealing part of American Football, and that is that it requires a lot of expensive stuff. This includes helmets, shoulder plating, and other lesser(but equally expensive) sorts of armor (what you in the UK call armour), as well as sophisticated headsets and microphones(often installed in the helmets) . Of course, nothing is really worthwhile (and American) unless it incorporates drugs and drug paraphernalia, and football uses both clandestine performance enhancing drugs, and the ever popular steroid injections for injuries.

Of course, cost-wise, this is just the beginning--no American Football game (and in fact, nothing truly American) is really complete without air support; helicopters, airplanes, and, increasing, drones, provide ongoing surveillance of games and game related activity.

This satisfies the most important maxim of American Culture, and that is that nothing is worthwhile unless it requires lots of expensive stuff.

And, for you UKers who feel left out, take heart, there are plans to have the SuperBowl at Wembley. And it won't be cheap!

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Stu
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:42 PM

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for."

I like this. I'm going to use this in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:53 PM

1. Britain invented association football. As usual the USA stole the word and asserted it meant something quite different. Look at their use of the word "quite" for example.

2. No. You are only entitled to an opinion that is either or both of backed by facts as distinct from hallucinations and supported by sound as distinct from irrational or erroneous argument. Asserting the converse is the backbone of much idiocy (like Jerk - it's quite alarming if he is indeed a teacher).

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 04:03 PM

Richard, I'm willing to give you a pass on the snooty. Please don't call people names.

"1. Britain invented association football. As usual the USA stole the word and asserted it meant something quite different. Look at their use of the word "quite" for example.

2. No. You are only entitled to an opinion that is either or both of backed by facts as distinct from hallucinations and supported by sound as distinct from irrational or erroneous argument. Asserting the converse is the backbone of much idiocy(like Jerk - it's quite alarming if he is indeed a teacher)"

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty.

Be aware of what personal information you decide to share within the forum. It is public, you are making statements in public here. Unlike Facebook, we don't even pretend to offer privacy.

We care about your safety but we are not in the business of protecting you. Your kind and civil behavior is your best protection.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 04:09 PM

Watching paint dry = watching Coronation Street
:)

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,concerend
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:00 PM

Here it is MGM.."& why can't you even spell your own chosen forum-name correctly? Or, alternatively, what are we to extrapolate as to your indubitable superiority from this pertinaciously eccentric piece of mis-orthography?"
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I am not your good fellow, by the way sexist pig...

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:43 PM

Is that you em?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:56 PM

This is actually a rather silly thread (my opinion).   We're all entitled to think whatever we want.   It's when we start pretending that those thoughts are any more than 'just thoughts' that we get into trouble and sometimes create harm (and sometimes create something of lasting worth).

An opinion is just a thought.   

Now once we start blathering on about it, tramping on others opinions, or spewing hate........then the debate can begin.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:06 PM

That isn't the thread I started Larry. Did you read the article?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:49 PM

and just curious, what does 'concerend' mean? Nothing spelled that way in MY dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 07:34 PM

French for not able to spell?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 07:58 PM

concerginity - Concert + Virginity = Concerginity:
when you lose your virginity at a music concert.
(Urban dictionary)

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 08:14 PM

Fair enough, Jack.

The presenter states: If "everyone's entitled to their opinion" just means no one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.

But if "entitled to an opinion" means "entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth" then it's pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred"

It's an important distinction-----because the 2nd interpretation really has nothing to do with somebody having the 'right' to any opinion, but rather, whether we need to believe it....or even rate it as worth arguing against.

And of course we all have that right.

Personally, I like to wonder where a particular opinion comes from........I tend to be more excited about exploring the process as to how we form opinions rather than emphasizing wrong vs right.

But that's just me.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 09:00 PM

Both your points are on the money.

I think the author makes a slightly different one. He'd telling his students that for them it is wrong to let themselves off the with "I am entitled to my opinion." So they are not going to be allowed to do that in his class.

He is also telling us, the audience for the article. That he thinks it is wrong when the media turns opposing, unsubstantiated opinions as if they were equally as valid as scientific findings.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 09:07 PM

"...I tend to be more excited about exploring the process as to how we form opinions rather than emphasizing wrong vs right. "

Oh indeed! It is fascinating to explore that.... but it's a very hard thing to do. Much of it is obviously from family/culture/church...etc.

There is also new research about 'some' tendencies coming from a particular brain chemistry. People tend to rationalize where their own opinions come from in the attempt to justify them. It is really hard work to look within one's self and sort out the trends of one's own beliefs. (It is much easier to offer 'opinions' about how others think.. ☺)

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Janie
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 09:08 PM

Pretty interesting thread to read so far. Often fun and often thoughtful. More than a few folks posting with a sense of context, having either read the link or if not, still mostly thoughtful rather than reactionary. Less about personality conflicts and judgments.

Appreciate it.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 09:11 PM

""Kicking against the pricks: vaccine sceptics have a different social orientation AuthorsAbstract

Background: In any country, part of the population is sceptical about the utility of vaccination. To develop successful vaccination programmes, it is important to study and understand the defining characteristics of vaccine sceptics. Research till now mainly focused either on the underlying motives of vaccine refusal, or on socio-demographic differences between vaccine sceptics and non-sceptics. It remained till now unexplored whether both groups differ in terms of basic psychological dispositions. Methods: We held a population survey in a representative sample of the population in Flanders, Belgium (N = 1050), in which we investigated whether respondents' attitude to vaccination was associated with their basic disposition toward other community members or society in general, as measured by the Triandis and Gelfand social orientation scale. Results:We found that sceptics and non-sceptics have a different social orientation, even when several variables are controlled for. More specifically, vaccine sceptics scored significantly lower on both horizontal individualism and horizontal collectivism, indicating a lower disposition to see others as equals. Conclusion: These findings need confirmation in the context of different countries. Such insights can be valuable to optimize the design of effective communication strategies on vaccination programmes.""

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:37 PM

Hi, Ake. The only handle I use on this site is Guest. No name to go with it. FYI.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 12:35 AM

Ed T....that's a fascinating study and conclusions. My guess is that there are a couple different 'clusters' of anti-vaccine people.   Some might be people who are generally suspicious--they may be either on the extreme left or the extreme right---of anything mainstream, including mainstream medicine.    And another one might be those who just 'follow the crowd'.....and it's maybe the 'crowd' of who shares their particular (often religious) ideology.

The former probably do a lot of their own research. I've met many of them who can provide a lot of 'evidence' (even if much of that evidence has been debunked by those who have faith in 'peer supported' studies).   

Me? I really don't have much of an opinion on that topic. I did choose to go with the vaccinations.   But if someone could give me some credible supporting evidence for the opposite....I'm open.

So the author's example of "No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven" doesn't really resonate with me.

But that really is a side topic, isn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 12:48 AM

Here is WHAT?, Ms concerened or concerend [apols for having mistaken your orientation, but liable to happen to those who use ambiguous nicknames -- & your spelling of your own misspelt handle is not even consistent, did you know?].

Anyhow, I still don't see what I am supposed to have cut & pasted, which was the assertion of yours I was challenging. In what way do you perceive

"& why can't you even spell your own chosen forum-name correctly? Or, alternatively, what are we to extrapolate as to your indubitable superiority from this pertinaciously eccentric piece of mis-orthography?"

as any sort of cut & paste. From what do you suppose me to have cut & pasted it?

Better change your assumed moniker to confudse or conefused of some such, perhaps.

Do go on, though; you are beginning to provide quite a source of entertainment with your confisuons.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Janie
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:34 AM

If only most of us cultivated the capacity to both recognize and be amused by our own confusion to even half the extent we are prepared to be amused (and/or offended) the the confusion of others.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 04:12 AM

The first and last time I had a flu vaccine, I got the flu. The very next day.

That's a fact. From that, I could have easily formed an opinion that flu vaccines are bad news, but would I have been right to do so?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:09 AM

Jerk - your last comment to me reads like "wind your neck in or else". Threats as a defence to being called on your idiocy?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:46 AM

Richard, you seem to be a thoroughly unpleasant individual.

What part of "stop name calling" don't you understand?
Jack has brought some common sense and civility back to the thread, don't make yourself look worse by attacking him.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:06 AM

"So... my take on the article and the way they debate in it is that strict "atheism" (as in absolute denial of a remote, metaphysical 'cause') is silly and has no way to be tested."

I would see what you describe in that sentence as antitheism Bill, which is what JtS and others have Cheistened "Militant Atheism".

There is a big difference between not believing in something and actively opposing it.

Looking back over my life, I don't believe I have ever met an antitheist, but I have many friends who are Atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:42 AM

"Oh, Musket, you mean soccer."

I don't suppose you yanks know this, but "Soccer" is a slang abreviation of the name "Association Football", which grew out of the original game of "Football" while Americans' national sport was massacring Indians (OOPS! sorry, Native Americans).

As for American football, it seems to be a version of Rugby league, a British sport played by REALLY tough hombres who wouldn't be seen dead in shoulder pads and armour.

Your footballers are just too Dallas for me, their shoulder pads rivalling those of the Ewing women.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 07:07 AM

PJ
Maybe an alternative approach would be to assess the possibilities before making a conclusion?

If you check out the science of vaccines (that is, if you did not), you may be better prepared to make an assessment. It may be best to factor in the liklihood that you were infected by a flu that was not covered by the annual flu mix in your area (online disease centres detail flue vaccine protection and which bugs are spreading), that your immune system was compromised, that you were infected by a cold (that had symptoms similar to a flu), or the virus you had was a mutated version of the flu.Flu vaccines are dead viruses that limit the impact of future symptons, not completely eliminate the symptoms, if you are infected.

Fortunately, with the internet, there are many resources now available, for those wishing to make an informed conclusion-in one direction or another.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 08:07 AM

My informed conclusion is that "everyone's entitled to their opinion" is bad English.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 08:42 AM

Sound science 

"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science."
-- Henri Poincaré
"Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis best suited to open the way f1or the next better one."- Konrad Lorenz
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Albert Einstein

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 10:09 AM

> "Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science." -- Henri Poincaré

A true but not quite sufficient conclusion, and accidentally drawn from a false analogy.

There is minimal similarity between facts and stones, houses and science.

Not to mention those houses I've heard of that are made of wood.

Actually a mere collection of facts without the application of sound reasoning is *never* valid science: it's just a collection of facts that go nowhere or in the wrong direction.

But if you already know what science is, the quote is certainly appealing.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 11:26 AM

"drawn from a false analogy."

Lighter, I think that you and I have very different ideas about what an analogy is. In my mind an analogy can't be true or false an analogy is an illustration. A translation into concepts hopefully familiar to the reader.

Keeping in mind that the quote it probably translated from another language

what if Henri Poincaré had said "the material of science is facts"

or science is constructed from facts?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 11:28 AM

However, the link Ed T provided goes on to illustrate in detail and with examples what science is, and what is involved in application of the scientific method. It is good reading.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 11:37 AM

Don't worry Akenhateon, you have always struck me as thoroughly unpleasant, a promulgator of race bigotry and homophobia.

Why not actually read what Jerk said.

"Be aware of what personal information you decide to share within the forum. It is public, you are making statements in public here. Unlike Facebook, we don't even pretend to offer privacy.

We care about your safety but we are not in the business of protecting you. Your kind and civil behavior is your best protection."

It's a bad approximation of "Cute kid. Be a real shame if something happened to him on the way home from school, know what I mean?"

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 11:37 AM

Yes Bill

The link Ed T provided goes on to illustrate in detail and with examples what science is, and what is involved in application of the scientific method.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 12:58 PM

> an analogy can't be true or false an analogy is an illustration.

I think we agree on the meaning of "analogy." Analogies, however, are commonly used in two distinct ways; one is legitimate, one isn't. I admit to having a little bit of fun by pretending I thought P's presumably illustrative example was actually intended to persuade.

It's fallacious to argue by analogy to "prove" something not known. An argument by analogy spotlights certain similarities between X and Y, then claims on that basis alone that X and Y *must* be similar or identical in other ways. Example: The universe in some ways resembles a watch. Everybody knows a watch required a watchmaker to make it. Therefore, the universe required someone like a super watchmaker to make it.

There's a problem with this too-familiar but unsound argument. The universe resembles a watch only in certain ways. In other ways it does not. (No pesky asteroids in watches, for example.) How can we know the universe resembles a watch in the very specific, crucial way that the analogy claims? We can't. All it leads to is a "maybe." But maybe the universe more closely resembles a sedimentary rock. Does a sedimentary rock require someone to put it together? No. That proves nothing about the universe either, but it does suggest that neither argument leads to a reliable conclusion.

Thinking with analogies (rather than *arguing* with them) can lay a basis for more investigation and brilliant discoveries. But known, extensive, and detailed similarities are needed before any analogical argument becomes plausible. And mere plausibility is still short of even the tentative but pragmatic knowledge that science provides. Both the watchmaker and the sedimentary rock analogies of the universe are, strictly speaking, "plausible," but neither comes close to being proof.

But Poincare' was probably *illustrating* by analogy. The difference is significant. It's legitimate to use analogy to facilitate someone's understanding of something that *is* known, because you're not trying to prove anything new.

For example, your heart works like a pump. I'd find that to be a very helpful analogy if I personally knew nothing about the circulation of blood. The similarity between the two is well established. On the other hand, I might have to be reminded as well that the heart is not precisely a pump: the differences are equally significant. (You wouldn't want to inject a rust treatment into your chest to clear out rust, for example.

Facts aren't stones, science only sort of resembles a house, cholesterol deposits and rust are crucially distinct.

Arguing by analogy can be very seductive, partly because it so closely resembles mere illustration by analogy. Lawyers and politicians love it.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:21 PM

"Professor (Dr.) Paul Samuelson received the Nobel Prize for Economics a couple of years later."

and that was the rest of the story. g'day



Thank you John!!
that was for me by far the most entertaining albeit succinct story I have ever read by you. A fraction of my appreciation for your brief memoir is due to the fact that my wife is an economist and I have been exposed to many ideas and economic models, many of which have been taken to the Hill over the last 20 years.


As you may recall I spent a protracted period of my career as a hypnotist, off the shelf inventor, cosmologist and acquired many examples of evidence for the sixth sense. All the while plagued by the curse/gift of the Cassandra effect, migraine and dyslexia, each with their costs and benefits. I have had to rely upon experiential learning foremost and make visual associations and mental pictures which again has its costs and benefits much as a blind person tempers other senses. I shared 15 years worth of describing these experiences here as a chronicle as well as gleaning different points of view to very real experiences that were seldom accepted as being true. All in all it made for good discussion/argument.
To me my opinion is my experience.

Of all the supporters and detractors to my concepts the most singularly most negative and needlessly mean on a personal level was Jack the Sailor. However with this thread I see the foundation in which Jack often attaches his overall POV and that I did not argue my case to the criterion or satisfaction of Jack's standards.


More than once I have had to abandon a POV that would not work or help understanding. This evolved to a multi perspective approach which I call Perspectivism. It has been a godsend to me particularly in the field of cosmology. No doubt it has existed and been invented by hundreds of philosophers throughout the ages. Some egoists may have even named it after themselves.

How I used it {Perspectivism) to solve one of the longest lasting conundrums called Inflation Theory is in a paper I wrote recently.



(my off the shelf invention of today - corrugated poly urethane plastic sheets at right angles for prefab housing {it bears enormous loads and good insulation- I've tried it!}

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:27 PM

PS
It is my opinion that I farthest when standing on the shoulders of giants.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:42 PM

>>>From: Donuel - PM
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:27 PM

PS
It is my opinion that I farthest when standing on the shoulders of giants.<<<

It is moy opinion that you have mistakenly inserted an "h" in "farthest". And the archaic "est" at the end is not required.

Or did you you leave the word "see" in the sentence? ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 02:14 PM

"Of all the supporters and detractors to my concepts the most singularly most negative and needlessly mean on a personal level was Jack the Sailor. However with this thread I see the foundation in which Jack often attaches his overall POV and that I did not argue my case to the criterion or satisfaction of Jack's standards."

I had no idea that you felt this way. I'm sorry if I was unkind to you. In my defense, unkindness in the absence of personally attacks was accepted, even encouraged to a degree on this forum at the time.

I can't remember a specific example of myself being needlessly mean. Trying to shame you into shutting up was something that was common practice here and if you had said things about "Perspectivism" or similar, I probably would have been "mean".

And yes you are very perceptive and 100% that something like "Perspectivism" would have to be very well supported indeed for me not to question it.

OTOH, now that I know that your ideas are much more idiosyncratic than I umagined. I am inclined to say. If it works for you do it. That is an attitude I have adopted towards religion (or the lack thereof) in the last few years, honed with the help of some critics and cemented by mindless criticism. I think your beliefs are as good for you as mine are to me.

Again I have to congratulate Max for the rule change.

I'm sorry for the previous post it is just a "fart" joke.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:29 PM

Oops,i meant
It is my opinion and experience that I can see farther when I am lifted upon the shoulders of giants.


Lighter, your above/below analysis of analogies hit home. I've noticed the pitfalls of analogies in science are at least two fold.
One; They betray the personal experience of the author whose past experience may have great significance to him alone or to fewer rather than more people.
Two; An analogy can oversimplify and in so doing can create more implied lies than truths.

Truths, ah there's the rub. One of your own wise men, Joe Offer, brought to light the fundamental failings of truth. He said sic
" there truths without number and can lose their meaning in the mix. I would rather concern myself with honesty than any proclaimed one and only truth."

He said it better than my memory's interpretation, yet what he said is true, no pun intended. For example in rabbinical studies a particular law may have over six hundred exceptions for specific circumstances. It is as if for every truth there is an anti truth each with similar energy.
In politics truth is more a function of who can lie most effectively.
In law it is asked "how can justice be done if the truth can not be determined by a judge or jury of one's peers?"

While honesty will not always have the weight of a factual truth it is more easily judged. Honesty feels more human than truth. Honesty has its feet of clay but is always more recognizable than the naked truth or even the truth in sheep's clothing.
If you were to give me honesty or give me truth, I would prefer honesty any day.


Jack the Sailor, The sand box has lots of sand and some of it is idiosyncratic, its a mess and of course it gets everywhere but there is a bit of safety discussing avant gard ideas and facts in BS. I should hasten to add that I don't delve into the idiosyncratic with the exception of talking about the old days here which are mostly out of sight. I should not assume that you have not had similar experiences or even a total Cassandra crises but have forgotten.
btw Cassandra was a mythical person who had foreknowledge but was always frustrated in her inability to change the outcome. In my case there is a video recording of me at the Buffalo FBI office attempting to explain that I had devised a method of foiling future hijacking attempts and how this somehow was very very important for America to undertake. I recall feeling all the attitudes and questions were centered on their perceived threat from me. I failed to communicate effectively that I felt a real patriotic duty to prevent future hijacking disasters. It took some degree of courage to march down there at 33 years of age and look like some kind of nut despite having a viable anti hijacking plan.
Later I painted a 16 sq.ft. painting of two skyscrapers on fire which I still have photos detailing the airplane and souls rising from the disaster along with other recognizable events in a city by the sea.
I sold it on ebay and 5 years later 9-11 occurred. The new owners of the painting called me in shock after the attack but I felt embarrassingly desensitized.
After the event I did ask myself if the coincidences of foreknowledge is just that. Or is time and my perception of it outside current physics in a way that does not coincide. Is it just self delusion that causation and time direction seem to be fluid and sometimes bounce backwards? Everyone experiences some sort of 7 second flexibility in looking ahead but years? Doubtful. Also with witnesses I have seen events defy old physics. A better explanation was required.

I cast a jaundiced eye on mystics, I am disgusted by TV faith healers, and the whackos who claim to channel without a cable box, I experienced 7 religions but remain an atheist. Having been presented with these certain experiential questions, I was inspired to do more research and study. It led to a path past naval intel, the CIA and others until I eventually left that public quest on my wedding day.
I continue the cosmology but that's it for the most part.

Despite suffering the universal eye roll for talking about it, in my final analysis, the 6th sense does exist, dimensional physics and recent discoveries in cosmology and the LHC are revealing a new physics, not yet united but will soon be within our grasp of rudimentary manipulation.

That I was compelled down the path of a different drummer I do not regret. Trying to teach others what odd rhythms I learned there has proved frustrating indeed.

Simply put I prefer dogs to chimpanzees because dogs see what you are pointing at, but chimps do not.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:35 PM

Chongo, Please believe me, I was not referring to you. individually that is.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:55 PM

I prefer dogs to Chongo. :-D

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: gnu
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 07:56 PM

"You are only entitled to what you can argue for."

Is that your's JtS? For it is a brilliant quote. If so, you have earned a place in philosophy and history.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 07:57 PM

Bitches..

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 08:00 PM

Opinions are like assholes: everybody got one.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 08:02 PM

"Anyway, back at the ranch, Tonto, posing as a door, got his knob shot off"

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 08:51 PM

No Gnu. Not my quote.

But I friended the person who put the link to the article on my news feed in Facebook!

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 08:52 PM

I hope you forgot the "r" Mr. Bridge!

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Mrr at work
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:43 PM

I wish I could remember who it was I'm quoting when I say you are only entitled to an educated opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:52 AM

bible stops bullet 

Spooky Action at a Distance

Donuel, there are possible explanations for your "Twin Tower" experience. One is chance, as with the bus driver and the biblecstory in the above link.

However, quantram theory, though poorly understood, opens possibilities that one object and event can impact , and be intertwined with, another. I provide a link that gives some brief details of this possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:24 AM

And another thing.

When we have quite finished confusing football with something the colonies dreamt up trying to remember what we taught them about rugby....

I also mentioned rounders. A game played by young girls in school playgrounds. I notice you changed the name of that and had men play it. Bill Bryson has been trying to get us interested in it ever since.

See? Opinions and facts. Which are we entitled to?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:41 AM

Royal Shrovetide Football

Royal Shrovetide Football is played on the streets of in Ashbourne, Derbyshire UK. To the uninitiated, it may seem like some sort of street riot, but it is actually an ancient annual sporting event where local villagers divide themselves into two teams based on where they live relative to the Henmore Brook - 'The Downards' and 'The Uppard's'.

The game begins when a ball is thrown into the center of the town and then the players attempt to get the ball to the goals, which are positioned three miles apart. There are not many rules really - you are not permitted to kill anyone or make use of a motor vehicle to carry the ball - that's about it.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:45 AM

Three-Sided Football

Danish artist Asger Jorn invented the sport of three-sided football, a variation of the sport of soccer, though with three teams instead of the usual two. Jorn used the game to explain his notion of triolectics, his refinement on the Marxian concept of dialectics, as well as to just confuse us all with big words and unusual concepts. The game is played on a hexagonal pitch.

The winning team is not the one who scores the most goals, but the team which concedes the least number of goals. The first known game was organized by the London Psychogeographical Association at the Glasgow Anarchist Summer School in 1993, and a few other games have been played since.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:30 AM

No. Above, Jerk, you say you prefer dogs to Chongo. I prefer bitches to dogs, sexually (assuming we are talking about human ones - I do not get very sexually enthused about quadrupeds, despite jocular references to sheep)

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:03 PM

The problem with Stoke's analysis is that it requires any thinker to delegate his/her thoughts to others without questioning whether their expertise is based on sound information.
Anyone can construct an "argument" based on their "factoids", a system of persuasion that is often used to cow others by authoritarian and rigid pronouncements.

An opinion can be expressed with knowledge and experience and this is valuable, however putting pundits on a pedestal demeans the creative thought processes that inform
valid information.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:26 PM

> The problem with Stoke's analysis is that it requires any thinker to delegate his/her thoughts to others without questioning whether their expertise is based on sound information.

Quite the opposite, don't you think?

Even experts can sometimes be wrong. On an issue about which one personally knows nothing, the wisest course, if the issue is urgent, is to go with the best-credentialed experts with the best track records.

If the whole body of qualified expert opinion is more or less evenly divided, all you can do is to suspend judgment. But in that case, the experts themselves will agree that opinion is divided and call for further study.

Chance and human weakness suggest that a tiny percentage of credentialed experts in any field will be cranks (or crooks) no matter what. These are the ones that the totally uninformed and unpersuadable will always turn to for quotes.

In matters of specialized knowledge, which includes all fields of science and medicine, the majority doesn't "rule." It's simply that the vast majority of experts is far more likely to be correct than a tiny (and usually inevitable) minority of dissenters.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:43 PM

"From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:30 AM

No. Above, Jerk, you say you prefer dogs to Chongo. I prefer bitches to dogs, sexually (assuming we are talking about human ones - I do not get very sexually enthused about quadrupeds, despite jocular references to sheep)"

I am sorry to have tried to joke with you.

I am also going to be kind to the forum and not try to untangle what you just said.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:55 PM

A few years ago I attended a meeting between scientists and fishermen. Onecscientist was questioned when at the podium explaining some new research.

A fisherman stood up and said, why should we trust you now, when you were here two years ago, explaining something that was proven wrong? At that time we told you that you were wrong, from our experience, buf you dismissed our knowledge and advice".

The scientist said, " yes, I was eventually proven wrong, but my science was based on all kinds of reliable data and your position was only based on your opinion. He said, even though I was wrong, and you were right, my process was based on good data and peer reviewed scientific processes. The liklihood of you being wrong was greater than me being wrong, even though you were right"

The fisherman sat down and began to scratch his head in confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:04 PM

That would be a Fisheries Canada government scientist? And the "reliable data" would be self reported catches by foreign fleets and the big trawler fleets?

The scientists who said there would be plenty of cod until the greatest fishery in the world "inexplicably" collapsed?

:-D

"Government scientist" is a different animal from a working scientist.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:02 PM

> "Government scientist" is a different animal from a working scientist.

A subspecies of "corporate scientist."

But let's not confuse people.

Unreliable data and reliable data are two different animals as well.

One thing that makes public issues so difficult is that the data - especially in politics and the law - is usually a mix of reliable and unreliable. It's often hard to tell which is which. And, like advertising, those two fields especially are given to "spin" (i.e., cynical distortions, misrepresentations, and lies - but "spin" sounds like harmless fun!)

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:47 PM

Jts,lighter:
Correct that it was a government scientist. But, it was related to opening up a previously unfished lobster area. Unlike ocean finfish (that jts refers to),these scientists rely on their own estimates, based on their own research on the health of the various year classes available to the fishery. The error was scientists erroniously felt that signs of ample lobster with eggs attached could be directly linked to the future health of the resource- they now know it is much more complex than that.

I did not note anything in your op that indicated a subset of "experts"? I am puzzled why would you suggest that (all) government scientists (there are many fields) are not "working scientists" and that (all) deal with unreliable data? That generalization itself, if I understand it right, is suspect, and likely unreliable.

I suspect all (scientists) experts have one form and various levels or another of personal and outside forces that could influence their research and results. Before I assess their research, I normally want to know where the research $ comes from.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:39 AM

Experience teaches that "government scientists" only get to stay on the payroll (and indeed to have their advice followed) so long as they say what the rulers want them to.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:51 AM

Good news Bridge!

Your disapproval of quadrupeds sexually is not a disease I would wish on my worst enemy.

However, I may be able to broker a solution...

The farm next to us rears sheep and has, granted as a pet, a sheep that was born with three legs. She is called Jake, and if you want, I can put a good word in for you?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 09:05 AM

RB
You swayed a fairly broad brush with your opinion-statement about your "experienc" with government scientists RB. Could it be your experience is limited, versus broad-based:)?

While it may be true for some, maybe even most government paid scientists (btw, a lot of private and university research is also funded by government).

However, IMO,there has been much unique and cutting-edge science accomplished by government scientists who often stay at work far beyond what would be a maximum financial benefit period (many even remain fopcused on their research as emeritus scientists, and and not paid, because their passion for science).

Could anyone logically classify government scientists, like those in NASA, and those unearthing ocean secrets, (science that has little current commercial value, so private scientists mostly don't do it), as second rate?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 09:08 AM

"You are NOT entitled to your opinion"

Remember that next election.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 10:21 AM

"Call Out [Bully] the Climate Change Deniers" Obama's Organizing for action.

"under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation's newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public's "critical information needs." Those "needs" will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government's standards could face an uncertain future under the CIN Study.

Hmmmmmmmm. It couldn't possibly be Fascism, could it?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 10:49 AM

Sawzaw, I note that that the CIN study has been cancelled due to "public outrage" I don't think that "backing down" or "public outrage" are options in fascist society. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us.


Sorry, Ed, obviuously they are scientist and they are working. But when they are setting and explaining fisheries policies, they are working as bureaucrats and spokespeople. NASA has scientists and engineers and bureaucrats and spokespeople. Some times the latter two have degrees in science. But their field of work is politics.

Ed T, perhaps you detected some bitterness in my discussion of "finned" fish "science." Would it surprise if I said that the government "scientists" involved in the collapse of the fishery appeared to be making their decisions based on politics?

BTW, I think that Iceland's government scientists appear to be giving much more sound advice to their government. Though it is clear that the authorities in Iceland tend to listen to the fisherman as well.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 10:50 AM

The FCC has backed off and will reword certain questions. Cost of the study is over $500,000 so far.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 12:01 PM

""Sorry, Ed, obviuously they are scientist and they are working. But when they are setting and explaining fisheries policies, they are working as bureaucrats and spokespeople. NASA has scientists and engineers and bureaucrats and spokespeople. Some times the latter two have degrees in science. But their field of work is politics.""

Don"t quite get the statement jts? Fish scientists, as with any other field of science, should not be confused with management/managers, who interpret (aka skey) fish science into action, often for political, economic or any other non science reason.

There are many other fields of government science, and folks with many degrees (for example PHDs)that would never compromise their published work for non science reasons (thery publish in science journals (etc), under the same peer review procedures, as other non-government scientists.

""Ed T, perhaps you detected some bitterness in my discussion of "finned" fish "science." Would it surprise if I said that the government "scientists" involved in the collapse of the fishery appeared to be making their decisions based on politics?""

""No bitterness detected, jts. My observation (some close to direct, the research many scientists conducted and which research was promoted in the mix - and used by managers within and outside science was influenced by political forces (some within science, not all external to science). However, some of it was just "bad science" failing to recognize (and trying to capture) all the signals, in a climate of "a bottomless supply of fish". Normally their is a "cushion" in place to fact or unknowns. The smaller the cushion, the greater the liklihood that factors not known or considered has a high potential to have a serious impact, at some point. Poor information on removals (some from discards and hygrading (sp) of catch resulted in a high number of fish going overboard that never factored into the statistics. Foreign fleets misreporting catches are also confounding factors. Combine this with a few years of poor survival, due to unfavourable environmental conditions, and the die is cast for the "unexpected" top occur. Fish scientists have their own trawl surveys that should have picked up poor survival of early year classes. They goofed up in some manner, and the result. They also failed to seriously consider into account the minority science viewpoint (for internal political reasons within science, the minority viewpoint did not reinforce what managers wanted to hear). Perfect storm type of scenario.

The main downside is while systems are in place in science to minimize the potential for the same thing to occur,there was little accountability or reflection on the failures- to zero in on what ocurred and why. IMO. it all seems like the situation that occured inside the RC church as to the sexual scandal- but, this was within science itself.   

""BTW, I think that Iceland's government scientists appear to be giving much more sound advice to their government. Though it is clear that the authorities in Iceland tend to listen to the fisherman as well"".

Like I indicated earlier, my observation is that, as a result, things have changed a lot since then for the better in all locations, as has technology to assist in gathering better and broader information on the fish and ecosystem factors. Note that I refer to groundfish science, fisheries science for other species (such as shellfish) differs to a large degree. I suspect that most countries use similar stock assessment techniques and advances for their stock assessments. I also feel they are also subject to the same forces, and challenges, and could still fall prey to a "perfect storm" scenario-though less so than in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 12:11 PM

From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 12:01 PM

Are you Ed T?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Ed t
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 12:54 PM

Sorry jts, last post was mine- I switched computers and had "lost "me cookies".

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 01:06 PM

Iceland moved to protect its stocks with a long line fishery rather than a dragger fishery long before the North American collapse.

Every fisherman that I knew at the time knew a collapse would come. FPI knew it. National sea knew it. The foreigners knew it. That's why there was a gold rush to get as much of the resource as possible before it was all gone.

Everyone knew it wasn't sustainable. Everyone wanted to maximize their share. It doesn't take a scientist to know that if you vacuum up all the breeding stock, their won't be any babies. I learned this in grade five geography and watching Land and Sea.

The westerners wanted to make trade deals with Europe. The big Nova Scotia fish companies wanted short term profit. The government scientists backed them up.

The attitude expressed by the scientist below is the attitude that was shown by Fisheries Canada at the time. They claimed to have "science" on their side. Science controlled by politics, is IMHO, sometimes veers from lofty ideals.

"The scientist said, " yes, I was eventually proven wrong, but my science was based on all kinds of reliable data and your position was only based on your opinion."

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 01:16 PM

"You are not entitled to your opinion" is in itself only an opinion which invalidates the premise by invalidating itself. "You are not entitled to your opinion", if it is based on an opinion is therefore false.

An appeal to authority is one of the classical logical fallacies.


The reliance on data is spurious because in most cases it turns out inevitably to be wrong, especially in the realm of science, subject to revamping when new information comes out. An opinion can be based on educative information not endorsed by prevailing ideas that are considered to be valid. Many ideas that we have today that are proclaimed, dogmatically, are not shared by scientists, humble in their recognition that we really don't know as much as we claim. A case in point, in cosmology, what are black holes really? Or "Those that think they understand quantum physics don't understand quantum physics."

I think we are entitled to our opinions if we are willing to revamp them in light of new information that is logical, sensible and scientific.


We don't have to rely on authoritative punditry which is often of questionable value.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 01:42 PM

It is my opinion that it impolite to insert one's opinion about a thread when one clearly has not read the original post, the link on that original post or any of the relevant discussion about it.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:11 PM

Sometimes suppositories can clear that up.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:13 PM

jts
I indicated for some time that there are "internal politics inside" every science organization, government or not. Science managers (who are scientists, but work as managers) have "pet ideas" and pet scientists who get funding and who lead research.

It is interesting that you say "everyone knew" Often people say things like that after the fact. My recollection from many newspaper articles is the mood at the time among fishermen and fishing companies was that groundfish stocks were so strong that they could never be "wiped out" And, they "mocked" the few scientists who gave warnings that urged caution. There are no "heros", or "innocents" in this story (though some prefer to rewrite history). I personally talked with onboard observers who confirm the "head-office, Klondike-like attitude of those in conrol of the fishing vessels (the guy in the wheelhouse was clearly not in control).

Corporately owned and controlled Canadian groundfish trawlers (it was a Canadian over-harvesting issue, not a foreign one) were managed under "Enterprise allocations, close to today's ITQ's. This situation did not involve the local fisherman out of the local port. The corporate headquarters folks had control; of the vessels and market orders and plant production to meet. The captain operating the trawlers had little say in the fishing operation (though some were saddened by what they did). If the captains got into mostly small fish, they were told not to stop fishing and move, they were told to hi-grade, (throw massive amounts of the small ones overboard and keep the larger ones). Under-reporting the catch that went overboard was massive(information important for the type of assessments done by groundfish scientists). The incentive to under-report was that it could impact fishing closures, and deduct from vessel and company quotas.   

Iceland was lucky to have access to a "higher-price-for-quality product market in Europe (such as Denmark, where they know quality, and pay more for it). Longline fish clearly provides a higher quality product- one reason they promoted longlining over mid-water trawling at an early point. Canadian Companies (Nat Sea and FPI) were not in the quality market, but the lower quality/high volume frozen fish block market (replacing wet trawlers, for breaded product). This the use of big seaworthy trawlers (especially in more remote waters) that catch huge amounts of fish for onshore processing (creating jobs, pleasing politicians and communities).

National Sea does not catch much fish any more. They have learned there is more $ in buying it from others, buying up popular labels, and processing it in various world locations (such as China) and selling it worldwide. They are still the worlds largest cod processor, getting their fish from the huge Barents and Bering seas   cod stocks (check the huge stocks out on Google), fished by Russian, Scandinavian and USA trawlers.

BTW, the Canadian longline fishery evolved very early, mostly from Nova Scotia, where it still exists. The main fish caught is the higher value and more numerous haddock (rare in northern waters). These fish are mainly for the fresh market. Stocks on Georges Bank have recovered to a remarkable size. Small trawlers still catch bigger amounts, mostly sold to the frozen breaded haddock fish market. All fleets fish from quotas, are closely monitored, and areas are quickly closed to must avoid high-grading, small fish and bycatch (especially recovering cod).

Longlines are clearly more selective than mid-water trawls. However, their use have conservation issues of their own.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:23 PM

> An appeal to authority is one of the classical logical fallacies.

You're thinking of the *blind, unwarranted, or unshakeable* appeal to authority and nothing else: Fred Flintstone says my kid should take vitamins. I like Fred Flintstone! What's more, he's in vitamin commercials. He's an authority. He must know what he's talking about!

Sure, anybody can turn out to be wrong or crazy or crooked or somewhere in between. But we're dealing in probabilities here. Unfortunately, that's all we've got.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:28 PM

"It is my opinion that it impolite to insert one's opinion about a thread when one clearly has not read the original post, the link on that original post or any of the relevant discussion about it."

I agree with this, however, my conclusions are based on having read Professor Stoke's arbitrary and inconsistent statements and disagree with his findings that he bases on "opinion" rather than educative information.

Again, the "Appeal to Authority" one of the classical logical fallacies apply here.

Everyone who set themselves up as an authoritarian figure stands on an eroded platform.
Humility and openness are the real tools of heuristic thought, not vituperative pronouncements.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:45 PM

It is my opinion that it impolite to insert one's opinion about a thread when one clearly has not read the original post, the link on that original post or any of the relevant discussion about it.

Hmmm. Well, herein lieth your difficulty, Wacko. Imagine the following scenario:

*Obsessive bloke, well-known for starting thread after thread on his latest hobby horses, starts yet another tiresome thread, with some link or other which, tenuous though it be, lets him, opportunistically, fire up yet again, tangentially, one of aforementioned hobby horses.

*Other blokes who don't care much for tiresome-thread-initiator-in-question respond with a degree of derision.

*Obsessive thread-initiator immediately accuses his antagonists of "clearly not reading his link" etc.

*Antagonists in question have read his links (of course), but refuse to join in with Tiresome One's undignified attempted yo-yo-ing "you-didn't-read-it-yes-I-did-no-you-didn't-yes-I-did-it's-CLEAR-you-didn't-piss-off-Wacko". It's like this, Jack. You accuse me of not reading your links and you have disqualified yourself until the end of time from finding out whether I did or I didn't. That's your silly game, not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:18 PM

"I agree with this, however, my conclusions are based on having read Professor Stoke's arbitrary and inconsistent statements and disagree with his findings that he bases on "opinion" rather than educative information. "

I don't think so. Because what you have said indicates no understanding of the contents of the article. Also the points you bring up have been discussed and answered at least a couple of times in this thread.

Maybe you can write Patrick Stokes a letter.
Maybe some else would like to explain it to you.   

It won't be me.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:30 PM

Steve,

Your rants are becoming less and less coherent.

Stringsinger, in my opinion, has no understanding of the link or the discussion which has occurred on this thread. It is my opinion that he has not read the article or the thread, there are other, less flattering possible explanations for his post. But pontification without education (reading the durned thread.) Is by far the most likely

This is how I can back up that opinion with facts and logic.

>>
"You are not entitled to your opinion" is in itself only an opinion which invalidates the premise by invalidating itself. "You are not entitled to your opinion", if it is based on an opinion is therefore false.<<

The above is circular nonsense. The nature of the article is clear and has been discussed thoroughly, the points he brought up have been addressed twice. Why doesn't he know that? He hasn't read the thread or the article.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:02 PM

And I see you've just started yet another pointless thread. We do have to ask ourselves whether your penchant for giving us link-reading homework is a sensible call on our time. Actually, no, we don't have to ask ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:11 PM

Ed, Did I say that everybody knew? I meant to say that I knew, the fishermen I knew knew, the big processors knew and the foreign fishers knew.

The thing about long liners vs Draggers is that you don't scoop everything up and throw half of it away and you don't bury and disturb fish roe and other crucial parts of the ecosystem that live on the bottom.

We saw those articles in the media. We saw who was buying the ads in the media "Arrr, Billy come into me lighthouse en ave a look at me addock!". The thing about fisheries economics is that unless one entity controls the entire resource, it is in no stakeholder's interest to conserve. If you let the little fish grow there is a very high probability that you are enriching your competition.

You seem to be working in this field or else are very well informed. Sounds like things have improved since 1989, when I left Newfoundland. That is encouraging to me. I live in the USA now and the intersections between government, commerce and science have very different overtones.

Good luck up there in the North Atlantic. My dad looks out his window in the spring and sees many harp seals. Until recently a single seal was unheard of in my lifetime and his. Last I heard the government scientists were still saying that the seals don't eat the fish......

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:15 PM

"From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:02 PM

And I see you've just started yet another pointless thread. We do have to ask ourselves whether your penchant for giving us link-reading homework is a sensible call on our time. Actually, no, we don't have to ask ourselves. "

First of all, thank you for not calling me names on the post I quote here.

I have a simple response to your concern. Don't read it. But if you are going to talk about the content of the thread. Please have some manners, read the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:58 PM

fishermen and scientists 

the devil and the deep blue sea

j ts, I have lived by the ocean all my life, have fished some as a youth, and worked with and know many fish scientists, fishing industry representatives, fishermen and animal rights and conservation folks.

As to seals, there is considerable differences among scientists, when it comes to seal diets (greys, and the more northern harp, the more abundant) and the impact they have on commercial marine fish. A book came out a few months ago on grey seals (link above) that you may find interesting,as it summarizes some of the complexities- though I realize few greys are found off Newfoundland (more to the south). The other link gives you a sense of the current mood of this cooperation.

The 80s and 90s were rough times for the relationship between fishermen, fish corporations and government in Canada. There is much cooperation today, and disputes are rare to sed in the news.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:06 PM

I have a simple response to your concern. Don't read it. But if you are going to talk about the content of the thread. Please have some manners, read the thread.

I always read your links, Wackers (though I wouldn't believe that if I were you). But, Wackers, you're on the interwebby thingie now, darling. Anyone can talk about anything they like whether they've done your set homework or not. Too bad, feller. You don't get to tell me or anyone else what to talk about any more than I can tell you not to lie about me or misrepresent me. We are both, of course, free to tell the world about each other's shortcomings as we see them. I know you hate that because yours are like everyone's dirty linen. As for me, I enjoy the fun, and my linen's not pristine.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:49 PM

Steve, it sure isn't lying to say that you are rude.

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty.

Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 09:08 PM

http://www.fisherycrisis.com/seals/sealsncod.htm

Lotsa views around.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 09:35 PM

Yep, unsupported opinions abound guest. According to Debbie the seal lover, the seals aren't eating the cod the fishermen want to catch. She does point out that they feed on the tomcods. But her logic does not seem to close on the fact that 2 year old small cod, when allowed, grow up to be older, larger commercially viable cod.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:08 AM

You summed it up Guest, there are many views/opinions, which this thread is about. There are plenty of folks and organizations promoting viewpoints (for a various vested reasons), with little valid science to back them up. I don't believe the person in the site you list has any science background at all? Selecting poorly researched theories and hand picking one convenient research perspective (versus all) to back up a desired result, is a "sketchy" process, IMO.

As I indicated, from reading the science papers, the jury is out on whether seals eat significant quanities of commercial species or not during their various life phases and migrations. Different approaches have been used to learn more. But, all have confounding factors that get in the way.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:29 AM

"Ed, Did I say that everybody knew? I meant to say that I knew, the fishermen I knew knew, the big processors knew and the foreign fishers knew. "

Jts, sounds like quite a few in the industry:)

No offense intended - but, knowing something after the fact, and speculating on a broad issue from a limited (versus a broad) perpective , hardly seems like a firm basis to claim (or, suggest) that someone "knew" what was occuring overall at thectime, or how events would eventually unfold. During this period, there were also many similar people in the industry stating the opposite, and different perspectives. I would wager a search of news articles of thenperiod would show these varied views.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 10:46 AM

JTS, from what I read, like Canada, Iceland's fishing fleet includes trawlers and longliners,the "small vessels" (I assume near shore fleet), includes the majority of the hook-and-line fleet.

I believe a Canadian company, National Sea Products (involved in the northern cod fishery decline) owns the main fish processing company in Iceland.

Unlike in the fishing history of Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia (and much of the Maritimes)the inshore fleet is made up of smaller inshore day boats. Few of these use gill nets to catch groundfish anymore, preferring hooked longlines. The larger trawler fleet is mostly a "thing of the past". Some of the smaller fishermen-owned "longliner vessels" use longlines and or trawls to fish most frequently on the far-from-shore shelf and bank areas.

Like in Iceland, the trawls of today have various escape routes and devices for escaping small fish, and tows are shorter to avoid allowing the fish to be captured. The gear (doors) are lighter, and have less floor impact, likely far less than other gear, like the scallop drags used on Georges Bank by Canadian and USA fishing fleets.

Below are a few links to Iceland's fishery that I found.



Island fleet structure


Iceland"s fishery

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 10:55 AM

Oops. me on last post;(

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:09 AM

Thanks GUEST, points noted.

Ed, I'm saying that I knew at the time because I did,

Same with the fisherman I knew, I know they knew because they told me. WELL BEFORE THE COLLAPSE HAPPENED They were taking 64' boats with otter trawls out to the Grand Banks and Georges Bank they and their captains had years of experience and could read their sonar as well as we can read and understand the thermostat in our houses.

That is why your description of your lobster "scientist" hit home for me.

I'm giving the dragger captains and foreign captains at least that much credit. Evidence that they knew is in your description of the dumping and under reporting vis a vis their quotas. They knew that the regulations were a joke. They took what they could to look out for their own families. On a sinking ship with no credible leadership it is every man for himself.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:25 AM

OK Ed. No doubt you have made some great points about the current industry. I never said NAT sea was stupid. They are clever business men and are quite able to maximize the profit to be gained from the local industry/regulatory mix. On the contrary, I am saying it would have been stupid of them to be the only major stakeholder conserving the resource.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:28 AM

This is anecdotal so likely of little use. However . . .

I had the pleasure of visiting the Rock back in the early 1980s. A friend who fletched fish for FPI saw even then that the bellies of the fish were getting wormier as time passed and then the stocks dropped off fairly sharply. Within a few years FPI closed some plants, a moratorium was placed on cod and then various conservation/anti-fur groups jumped on the seal harvest (which had been going on for at least two centuries) and seals proliferated. As did the cod. Seal and cod have co-existed for millenia. The only factor we tend to remove from the equation is human activity. The likely fact is that humans are overfishing the oceans.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:57 AM

Seal, cod, white bears, Orca and other predatory whales, and sharks shared those waters. The only predator of seals remaining in any numbers is Man.

Cuteness based seal loving fundraisers would end even that. To what end?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:14 PM

I hear you Jack. If stupidity got us into this mess, why can it get us out.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:15 PM

Forgot my old 't there, sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:42 PM

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for."
Says Professor Stokes.

What credence should we give to these "arguments"? When it comes to physical laws determined by science, then it seems reasonable that these "arguments" have value. Subjects such as philosophy, political theory and theology espoused by so-called authorities have no real weight as a legitimate determining of their veracity and this is particularly true of those who argue so pedantically about such peculiar and arbitrary mythology presented in the bible.

Anyone with horse sense can argue conclusively with their opinion if what is being presented is barrage of erstwhile data that is spurious, being presented as "fact", today.

An opinion by honest people can be tempered by personal experience, a valid form of
determining entitlement to an opinion. The opinion may be deemed right or wrong depending on the prejudgment of the listener.

For an authoritarian mindset, information, compiled and espoused by so-called "authorities" is accepted unquestionably and this applies to any Professor by the name of Stokes.

So many of this kind of punditry is a kind of fad that attempts to belittle any kind of
viewpoint not held by the pundit and frames a kind of authority that is indeed questionable.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:03 PM

Jts: (don't take offense of the piece below, as I am not saying you said anything related)

Some folks claim that the solution to the "tragedy of the commons" is more private ownership of the resource and fewer fishermen. Most areas have fewer fishermen, and unfortunately less economic spin off to local communities, once relying on the local fish resource. Those who remain, face high costs, to maintain common services. Added to this are ITQs, which allow fishermen to sell and concentrate these resource to corporate interests.Some folks are lucky to get jobs as "hands" fishing the resource their grandparents used to have a share of. Some areas do not allow concentration of the resourcers into the hands of a few. Some have made moves to shared local "community quotas", based on catch history. (This is something we should discuss in more detail later, if you are interested)

As to the conservation benefits a few (for example, corporations) controlling the resource, look what happened to the fish off northern Nfld. (with a early form of ITQs,involving a very few corporate interests). It was not the fishermen you mentioned, operating the boats who made the decisions to "keep fishing and dump massive amounts of fish overboard" (with obvious impact on the local communties they lived in). It was the people in the "far away" corporate offices, who had more concern for filling today's fish orders, rather than conserving tomorrows resource.

Maybe the "local folks" would not have done better if in control, maybe they would have? But, what happened is a poor reason fora conclusion that a scenario with fewer (corporate) owners make more sense for conserving the fish resources. - note I am not saying that you said that, jts)

Maybe this deserves a thread of it's own, as I am sure we could discuss it in a more focused way, without taking away from the OP?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:58 PM

Ed, I don't need to discuss this any more. Frankly the only way I think that the Grand Banks and Georges Banks stocks can recover is for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to join the USA and for the Navy to sink any vessel with a foreign flag and fishing gear that crosses the continental shelf.

Oh yeah and polar bear farms, and orca farms, and walled villages.

As long as the resource is not controlled by a single entity with the strength and will to protect it, that resource is doomed.

That's just my opinion. I don't have time to defend it.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 04:32 PM

Your choice jts, fella.

Hopefully, you are not going off "half-cocked with those wet-behind-the ears ideas? - as you left out a hunk of Cdn real estate and ocean frontage in the wish.

While you may have exited southward to "corporate-consumerland", don't hold your breath for a big migration of polar bears to join you in the UZ-US of A, except for the annual migration of "white shoe" snowbirds in the coldish winter. Trust me, the polar bears are staying put, 'cause it is just too "wacky fur 'em". :)

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 04:40 PM

Y'all always forget US of America has its own polar bears. We bought them from Russia. Sarah Palin can see 'em from her front yard.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 05:36 PM

LOL, jts

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 08:44 PM

As much as I detest Sarah Palin, she didn't say she could see Russia from her front porch.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/seealaska.asp

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:16 PM

As I recall she implied that she had foreign affairs experience because on an uninhabited Alaskan island hundreds of miles from her house a person on a clear day could see an uninhabited Russian island thousands of miles from Moscow.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:19 AM

flu modeling 

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:58 AM

Not according to Snopes. Read the link.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 07:20 AM

'"Henceforth, invocations of Sarah Palin frequently employed the line "I can see Russia from my house," rather than the words she actually spoke, "You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska."'

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 09:28 AM

The one on the left said, "I can see Russia from my house.

I'm pretty sure it was a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 09:28 AM

Or was it the one on the right?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 10:03 AM

Link forbidden, jts?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 12:20 PM

"It is my opinion that he has not read the article or the thread,"

According to Professor Stokes, you are not entitled to this opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:57 AM

There is a huge difference between having an opinion and seeking to have it thrust upon society.

Even just keeping to these threads, we have recently seen;

An opinion that creationism should be taught as a subject to chidren.

An opinion that gay people are responsible for the prevalent HIV rates.

An opinion that people who have nothing to do with religion have a stance in one way or another to back up not having enything to do with religion.

An opinion that pocket watches are worth collecting.

An opinion that the somewhat secular majority of people in The UK are in fact religious.

An opinion that sending waves of men over the top in WW1 was an example of good leadership.

An opinion that banjos should be played in public.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:18 AM

An opinion that bagpipes should not be listed as musical instruments, but instruments of torture:)

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:55 AM

Bodhrans. You forgot bodhrans.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 08:01 AM

POP QUIZ:

Why should anybody accept your authority when you tell them not to accept authority? What makes you such an authority? If you're not, why should anybody accept your authority?

And how do you back up the opinion that you're entitled to your opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 09:00 AM

>>An opinion that the somewhat secular majority of people in The UK are in fact religious.<<

A very common thing on this forum is where two or more people are arguing but not the same points.

Your quote above illustrates that well.

If A. Is railing against the "god botherers" and says "the vast majority are rational." (implied meaning not "God botherers") and B. finds through opinion polls that the great majority claim to believe in God or some other spiritual unproven entity. Then A is forced to either question polling as an information gathering method, or make up an idiosyncratic definition of "rational", rather than concede that he may have been a little hyperbolic and we are off to the races.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:25 PM

Clear as mud, Wackers. Do you never re-read your posts and think to yourself "how might I be more polite to my readers and save them from a lot of mental processing? Ought I to check what I've written and edit the bloody thing to make it at least a little more intelligible?"

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 11:03 PM

Did it ever occur to you to show the slightest in of manners Mr. Shaw?

Has it occurred to you that you are not my intended audience?

Has it occurred to you that I do not care what you think of me?

Has any of the following EVER occurred to you?

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty.

While anonymous Guest postings are permitted at Mudcat, you will garner much more good will by using a consistent "handle".

Be aware of what personal information you decide to share within the forum. It is public, you are making statements in public here. Unlike Facebook, we don't even pretend to offer privacy.

We care about your safety but we are not in the business of protecting you. Your kind and civil behavior is your best protection.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:29 AM

Here! I'm the one who uses the word rational!

I haven't been on this thread have I? Can't be arsed to check, so happy to be wrong on that and that alone.

Come on Jack, even I can concoct a survey asking, are you a Christian or a church going Christian?

At the risk of sounding crude for the first time ever, a mate of mine, back when we were teenagers was trying to chat up a group of girls to no avail. After a while, he came back to us, bought a round and said he didn't fancy any of them anyway. We nodded whilst drinking, as you do when comforting a mate.

Meanwhile, one of the girls, a delightful young lady of whom I'm sure it would be charming to partake of a glass of Chardonnay with of an evening, shouted over to him, making sure we all heard. "I'm defending you! She said you aren't fit to fuck a pig, and said you are!"

A salutary lesson in how to phrase choices.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:52 PM

I agree with the article. Saying you are not entitled is a way of making people support, defend and therefore verify the truth of their opinion.

Otherwise you have someone claiming the West Bank is no bigger than Washington DC, the most densely populated place on earth and other people trying to defend the claim rather than admit the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:32 PM

Or you have some jackass getting the West Bank mixed up with Gaza and having the whole thing arsed up on that basis alone?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:41 PM

Thank you for playing. Again you have it wrong.


Washington DC and Gaza have about the same density. Washington DC is less than 1/7 the density of Monaco.

Washington, D.C. misses the 10,000 mark as it has a population density of 9,316.4 as of the 2000 U.S. Census.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density


Population Density per Square Mile of Countries
Country        Population        Land area (sq mi)        Density per sq mi        Country        Population        Land area (sq mi)        Density per sq mi
Macau S.A.R.         453,125        6        73,350        Macedonia         2,050,554        9,928        207
Monaco         32,543        0.8        42,143        Croatia         4,494,749        21,829        206
Singapore         4,492,150        241        18,645        Egypt         78,887,007        384,344        205
Hong Kong S.A.R.         6,940,432        382        18,176        Cambodia         13,881,427        68,154        204
Gibraltar         27,928        2        12,056        Ukraine         46,710,816        233,089        200

Country            Population            Land area
                            (sq mi)        Density per sq mi
Gaza Strip         1,428,757        147        9,713        


French Polynesia         274,578        1,413        194

Read more: Population Density per Square Mile of Countries | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934666.html#ixzz2v1Kulr19

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:30 PM

"Come on Jack, even I can concoct a survey asking, are you a Christian or a church going Christian? "

If people say they are Christian who are you and I to argue?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:36 PM

Did it ever occur to you to show the slightest in of [sic] manners Mr. Shaw?

I'd say it was good manners to refrain from posting garbage so unintelligible that even a professor of grammar would get a headache from it. Here, for aficionados to savour, is some of it again, verbatim:

If A. Is railing against the "god botherers" and says "the vast majority are rational." (implied meaning not "God botherers") and B. finds through opinion polls that the great majority claim to believe in God or some other spiritual unproven entity. Then A is forced to either question polling as an information gathering method, or make up an idiosyncratic definition of "rational", rather than concede that he may have been a little hyperbolic and we are off to the races.

Don't bother explaining it, Wackers. After all, I'm not your "intended audience" (you pompous prick!). "Audience". Bwhahahahaha!

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:52 PM

Not my intended audience.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:10 AM

Time's up on the pop quiz.

No takers?

The questions are trickily phrased, but if for those who can't handle them, I'd recommend some other thread.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:18 PM

Why should we do a test for nothing. At least a gold star should be offered.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:22 PM

Why be so trickily?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:12 AM

Good one Jack. We are all Christians then.

zzz

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 11:19 AM

Musket my friend, If you say you are. You are. IMHO.

I have to say.. If I were asked whose behavior is more Christian, yours or Ken Ham's. I would unequivocally say yours.

"What is a Christian?" is a very loaded question.


Trying to trick your neighbour into arguing nonsense with their neighbours about pseudo-scientific and worse (for a ministry) pseudo-biblical nonsense is about as far away from the teachings of Jesus as I can imagine.

But of course is opinion polling or any other classification I can think of he is a Christian. If he knows that he is lying and doing it for personal glory and fame then he is a rational non-believer.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 11:30 AM

Or maybe you're scared....

PS: The questions are posed trickily because that's how life poses so many questions.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 11:50 AM

From: Lighter - PM
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 08:01 AM

POP QUIZ:

>>Why should anybody accept your authority when you tell them not to accept authority?<<

Because most people accept the advice that they want most to hear.


>>What makes you such an authority? <<

I have a post graduate degree from PU (Philosophy University)
in Ideocentric Expertology I am a PU IE PHD.


>>If you're not, <<

I just said that I am.

>> why should anybody accept your authority?<<

Because I have an uncanny ability to play with big words. AND because this is the Internet and people should believe everything they read on the Internet. AND because I cross my heart and hope to die? AND Because I double dog dare ya not to accept my authority. AND because If I am not, you can put a cannon ball in a straw man and bowl me over.

>>And how do you back up the opinion that you're entitled to your opinion?<<

You don't really have to back that up. Most people just believe that they are entitled. Glory!! People think they are entitled to honest politicians and to roads and services without paying taxes. It is beyond simple to convince them that they are entitled to even the silliest opinion. If they want to be entitled.

To answer that last one seriously.. I don't believe that I am entitled to my opinion at all in a discussion. I try to back my opinion with reasoned argument, when my statement isn't meant to be humor. I also sometimes challenge people to defend their opinions as Donuel has politely pointed out.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 11:51 AM

I want my star! But looking at my last post, I don't expect more that a participation ribbon.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 12:07 PM

Given the current angle of the Sun, and my size, I probably cast a bigger shadow than most on Mudcat. When mental forces are exhausted, size frequently matters, thus the source of my authority (but, as a defence, I will not expose my back-up source/power to impose my authority).

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 12:54 PM

Cooking sherry again Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

Cooking meth again Musket?

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:34 PM

1.
Anyone who says "don't trust authority" is saying that his own authoritative advice is worthless. Paradoxically, if you accept it you have to reject it.

So let's turn to experience instead. When you call a plumber or see a doctor, you're betting they know more about your plumbing or medical problem than do you or your philosophy-professor cousin. Since people with special training and knowledge ("authorities," "experts") know more about certain subjects than the rest of us, they're less likely to be wrong, or as badly wrong, about those things.

But there's always the chance that they're wrong after all. So be skeptical of a supposed authority whose track record you know nothing about, especially one that some non-authority recommends.

Though you can lose either way, it's smarter to pick an expert who's done more and whose previous opinions have usually turned out to be justified.(This is called "common sense.")

(Why should you accept my authority? You shouldn't: possibly I'm a just a computer program designed to delude. But consider the likelihood that most genuine authorities will be mostly right most of the time. If your experience tells you that all authorities are quacks except you, there's no logical way I can dissuade you.)


2.

It's the nature of human mind to form opinions. Natural processes are the source of your entitlement. If you don't believe it, that's an opinion right there, and you're wrong. You'd probably change plenty of opinions under torture, but you'd still be naturally "entitled" to them, even if the Inquisition's opinion were otherwise.


I authorize interested parties to design and make their own participation ribbons at home. Wear them proudly.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:04 PM

Hmmmm

I think my answer was better than yours, so if it is all the same to you. I'm giving myself and gold star.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:05 PM

Odd you should mention gp doctors. I have two (kinda got them through family history)..

One is younger, and tends to push the newest pill for everything.My feeling is he relies on his past medical training and whatever the drug salesmen tell him.I dont get the feeling he ever reads medical journals, as he isvjust too rushed. His receptionist told me once the averege visit is 3 minutes.

The otherw (oddly is both an engineer and gp), only prescribes medication after careful consideration. And, before he does so, he is on his computer checking the latest medical journal info on the medication. When prescribing, he always says the medications around longer are normally safer, as they stand the test if time. He spends an average of 15 to 20 minutes with each patient (observation from waiting).

Which doctor s opinion would you suspect trust more?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:31 PM

*

I would trust the one with the free samples.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:29 PM

The choice, Ed, is so obvious that I suspect a trap.

You won't catch me giving medical advice. But if the choice of two doctors were mine and they had identical specialties and full diplomas from recognized medical schools and belonged to prestigious professional organizations, and if you're not hiding something from us, naturally I'd pick the older, more experienced, more thoughtful, seemingly better informed, more cautious physician.

But we're still talking about odds, not guarantees.

Jack, a gold asterisk is not a gold star.

So you can wear your asterisk if you want.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:30 PM

Is that a star, or a Sheriff's badge, jts:)

No trickly stuff, lighter- that is my choice. Unfortunately, not everyone has the option to make this choice.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:04 PM

It's a sheriffs badge now gentlemen. Kindly check yer shootin irons with the deputy at the bar!

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:18 PM

"Thank you for playing. Again you have it wrong."

Who has it wrong? I never made such a claim.

I pointed out that it was wrong.

"Oh??? Then why have the Palestinians been hearded like cattle into what amounts to be concentration camps... The West Bank has the highest density of any place in the Middle East... That is a "concentration camp", Brucie... You don't have to have the gas chambers to have a concentration camp..

Hey, ya'll... Ya' ever looked at satilite picture of the West Bank??? I don't give a flyin' fig if ya'll wanta play games about how packed it is.... It is packed with people.... When you think of it's size... Ahhhhh, no bigger than the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, it is one very packed and "concentrated" population center."