Fire Hydrant of Freedom

Follow #iranelection on twitter.com  to listen in on the direct tidbits of communication that is coming out of Iran.  In a half hour there were 21K plus comments coming in.  There is a "cyberwar" going on as well.  The Iranian government is trying to block communications to social media.  There are claims that they have succeeded.  But the above number of "twitters" seems to say otherwise.  People outside of Iran are setting up proxy servers to allow Iranians to get to twitter.com anonymously.  They are also using bitorrent to send huge numbers of videos and photos.   There are also Denial of service attacks that are being sent to Iranian government network sites.  Denial of service attacks pummel the site with requests until it crashes.  This means that the government computer techs will have their hands full just being functional themselves. 

Social media is powerful because its much easier to send out information than it is to stifle it in this media.  Information can be conveyed instantaneously and it can cerate unification of large numbers of people where in the past uprisings could be dispelled by preventing communications outside of the affected area.

For a good read on this topic try:  "Here Comes Everybody" by Clay Sharkey.


Karsk

I found this article on MSNBC:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27526528/. 

The gist of this article is that the Obama campaign itself  has forever changed the way that campaigns will be run. The effort was a grass roots effort.  It was funded primarily by individual citizens.  It made use of the internet in ways heretofore unimagined. 

It started me thinking about ways that the world is changing.  We argue so much about the ideological differences that people have and yet at a larger scale things can change in ways that almost remove the need to argue.

What if the power of lobbying organizations is forever diminished by the technological advancements that allow individuals working together to have a truly democratic say in how things go?

Karsk

The real difference between liberals and conservatives by Jonathan Haidt

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html


"Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we're left, right or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies morality and emotion in the context of culture. He asks: Why did humans evolve to have morals -- and why did we all evolve to have such different morals, to the point that our moral differences may make us deadly enemies? It's a question with deep repercussions in war and peace -- and in modern politics, where reasoned discourse has been replaced by partisan anger and cries of "You just don't get it!"

I think the concepts in this video relate to a lot of things that have been discussed on this forum including why a tribe is appealing.


The audience is  attending a conference called TED (Technology, Education, Design?)


Karsk

What makes a good leader? 
What should be the qualifications of the President?  The Vice President?

When I was in high school, I had the good fortune to have an English teacher that also taught a course in logic.  At grade 10, I had my first exposure to both formal and informal logic.  One of the things that has stuck with me over the years has been an appreciation for the informal fallacies of logic.  This does not mean that my arguments are necessarily more logical, only that I was exposed to the concepts of a course in logic.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/9301/Fallacy-Logical-Informal-Fallacies.html

http://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Books/Logic.htm

From the above site:

"The Misuse of Appeal to Laughter: Diverts attention from the central issues and stifles serious thought and analysis.   "Anyone who accepts the conclusions of my opponent would also be forced to accept the view that the tail wags the dog."

The Appeal to Pity (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam): Replaces relevant evidence for a conclusion with a bid for the sympathy of an audience.   "John deserves a 'C' in this class since his parents have sacrificed to send him to college and he will not graduate if he receives a lower grade."

The Appeal to Reverence: Replaces relevant evidence for a conclusion with a bid for respect for traditions.   "We must beware of foreign entangling alliances since Washington, the founder of our nation, warned us against taking such a course of action."

The Bandwagon Fallacy: Appeals to an interest in following the crowd and doing as they do rather than to adequate evidence justifying a conclusion.   "You ought to buy a small European sports car as all members of the smart crowd now own one of these cars."

The Common-Folks Appeal: Appeals to attempts to secure acceptance of a conclusion by the speaker's identification with the everyday concerns and feelings of an audience rather than on the basis of adequate evidence.   "I'm sure that you will recognize that I am more competent than my opponent. When I was in high school I had to get up at four-thirty every morning to deliver papers. In college I was barely able to make C's and had to do janitorial work in order to make ends meet to put myself through school. Therefore, I would make a better Congressman."

Appeal to the Gallery (Argumentum Ad Populum): Seeks acceptance of a point of view by an emotional reaffirmation of a speaker's support of values, traditions, interests, prejudices, or provincial concerns shared widely by members of an audience.   "As you union members know, I am a champion of the labor movement, and seek to eliminate exploitation of the common worker by big business. Therefore, you know you can trust my judgment when I say that this agricultural legislation will be good for the country."


Much of political rhetoric makes use of arguments that are based on informal fallacies.  For example, to nullify an argument by placing it in a disreputable larger category is one example the informal fallacy of logic called "Name Tagging"

"Name-Tagging: Assumes the attachment of labels to persons or things constitute evidence for conclusions about the objects to which the labels are applied."  How many of the above short  list of fallacies can you identify from the recent conventions?


Its amusing to listen to political speeches with an ear tuned to pick up informal fallacies of logic.  Quite frankly that includes some of the arguments put forth on these boards.

Do you think that it is reasonable to purposefully recognize when informal fallacies are being used and to point them out as a means of furthering a discussion?  In other words, if someone is making an argument based on such premises is it a requirement of reasoned discourse to point it out?

Perhaps this is a bit of a rhetorical question.

So I will broach another topic...what constitutes proof?  How do you know when something is true?  How do you distinguish between opinion and fact?  What is a fact?

This kind of "thinking about thinking" is important.  For example, highly persuasive, emotional argument (name calling for example) is not about the truth yet much political rhetoric and even argument that occurs between colleagues is filled with this and other fallacious arguments.  If the average person is not educated in fundamentals of argument then it is harder to find the truth is it not?

When you listen to politics is it possible to identify people who are trying to find the truth versus people who are trying to win?  Is winning what matters?  Do the ends justify the means?  If political speeches become so bent on persuasion that they freely invoke informal fallacies and this is considered to be acceptable, is this not an example of the ends justifying the means?

Perhaps I have been watching too much CNN!  As usual, I offer my thoughts in the interest of open discourse.

Karsk




 

I agree.

Too many words in my previous response eh? I can do that!


My point is simply that we cannot exclude a constant self evaluation of our own beliefs and ideologies, holding them up to an even more rigorous standard than we do when evaluating others.

I think that people forget to do this.  Over time they begin to react out of well worn habit to different positions. Formalized this lack of self evaluation (or evaluation of our own ideas) is what allows rigid thinking such as fundamentalism, bureaucratic mindsets, martial arts that are theoretically based rather than reality based and so on to creep into being.

I think I am talking about the Knightly virtue of Humility, which must be infused as a glue throughout all the other virtues.

________

When I referred to "education that combats ideologies of all sorts "  I  really meant  that I want to see kids taught to debate, question, and think for themselves.  The more people are given the skills that they  need to think through complex ideas and beliefs on their own to come to a conclusion that is based on the bedrock of their own understanding and the less they just buy into an ideology the better.  Its probably idealistic to think that everyone is actually capable of doing this.  But with this as the fundamental principle, folks not so inclined to think deeply will still be existing in a milieu where this is the accepted thing to do.

The cool thing about the foundation of the United States is that it is based on premises that ground us firmly in such bedrock. 

Crafty,

First response:

We probably have to define ideology more specifically or at least clarify what each of us means.   When I refer to ideology or "being ideologically based" here, I mean specifically belief systems where the main justification for the  belief is "that is what WE believe in".   By definition, being ideologically based means that you first make a decision to believe a certain set of beliefs and THEN you go about justifying your beliefs and not the other way around. 

The real definition of ideology is more broad than this. Wikipedias definition:

"An ideology is an organized collection of ideas. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society. The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought."

So I am probably incorrect in using the term as I am using it....with a negative connotation.  I like the way "being ideologically based" rolls off the tongue I guess.

I think that the ideology upon which the US was founded REQUIRES us to be responsible and intelligent individuals. What I grew up with was a requirement to look at our own beliefs directly and with a critical eye first before ever presuming to have the moral authority to judge someone else.  So yeah, I think that we should constantly evaluate our own ideologies even to the point of starting over if necessary.  First think for yourself and teach your children to think for yourself. THEN decide if you agree. Not the other way around. (Blindly agree then justify it with all manner of rationalization).  I am not sure how well this concept is understood these days...

The Declaration of Independence actually requires us to evaluate our own behaviour and revolt if the government strays from the original concept. It requires us to be intelligent and critical of our own belief systems:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


Response to your second comment:

Where did you get that definition?

After thinking a bit and doing some reviewing  I am pretty sure that your description of secular humanism is not accurate.  My favorite quick and dirty source, Wikipedia states the following about secular humanism and this jives with what I remember from university:

"Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance focusing on the way human beings can lead good and happy lives."

Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:[2]

    * Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
    * Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
    * Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
    * Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
    * This life – A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
    * Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
    * Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

A Secular Humanist Declaration was an argument for and statement of belief in Democratic Secular Humanism."

About religion and secular humanism:  "Secular humanism is a broad philosophic position and not limited to be simply a statement about belief or non-belief in God. Accordingly, secular humanism can not be equated with nontheism, atheism, or agnosticism. Although many non-theists, atheists, and agnostics adhere to the tenets of secular humanism, this is not intrinsically the case.[5]"


---

Just like any belief system, over time what starts out as being kinda simple, straightforward and reasonable gets morphed into something else if the critical mind is lulled into sleep.  I think that you are referring to something that may have warped over time and got called secular humanism.   But I know that modern psychology and counseling was strongly influenced by specific psychological theories that are probably more pertinent here.  One was behavioral psychology (Skinner). Another was Humanistic psychology (Carl Rogers).  Skinner believed that all behaviour could be explained as a function of stimulus, response and conditioning.  Rogers espoused a way of counseling that was in some ways a reaction to Behaviorism and the prior psychoanalytic theory of Freud.  Both eroded the idea that behaviour was built into us.

From Wikipedia again:

"There are several factors which distinguish the Humanistic Approach [Rogerian] from other approaches within psychology, including the emphasis on subjective meaning, a rejection of determinism, and a concern for positive growth rather than pathology."

These concepts of subjective meaning and rejection of determinism (no biological basis for behaviour) infused themselves into many aspects of counseling and education.  These ideas strongly influenced feminism as well which is what GM was referring to I think.  At one point any suggestion that there was a biological basis to behaviour was met with censure and resistance to the point where proponents of a biological basis of behaviour were at risk.  I was there in the university environment at that time and saw this repeatedly.

The belief in a relativistic truth and the malleability of behaviour to social influence still influences lots of places but this is not nearly as strong as it used to be.  With improved methods of analyzing the brain and genetics, the biological basis of behaviour has gained in strength as well as a more eclectic approach to helping people that accounts for cultural backgrounds, spiritual metaphor, and even a return to psychoanalytic approach in the guise of what is called self psychology.

In conclusion I am trying to make several points:

1. I don't think that secular humanism is the source of what our are objecting to.
2. Psychological theory in the 60s, rather than secular humanism per se strongly influenced people in education and this in turn influenced university teaching and opened the door for radical feminist ideologies.
3. I did not mention this earlier but Feminism was also strongly influenced by some specific philosophers...Foucault comes to mind as one.  Somewhere in the philosophy influenced is a link to Marxist thought.  Its too late for me to find references regarding this tonight so I may need to clarify or rescind point 3 later.  Your last quote reminds me a little of this which is why I am mentioning it now.

Karsk

As I read the past few posts, including my own, I began to think about how "facts" and statistics are widely available these days and how it is not sufficient to produce large volumes of information in order to make a point.  What is the point of the past few postings?  Also when trying to figure out the truth amidst the piles and piles of second source information that abounds in the media...if I really want to know I generally always go to the source material upon which the information is based. To actually see the initial papers and to evaluate the methods directly is the only way to determine the efficacy of the secondary information that exists.   Secondary information almost takes on the reliability level of heresay.

Christina Hoff Sommers wrote and important book called "Who Stole Feminism" where she returns to the source material and provides many examples of where the original source work is either inadequate or grossly miisquoted and yet false conclusions are widely disseminated throughout the media.  This book really reminded me that you have to listen with a very critical mind to all things.

At any rate:

1. Rachel's post about girls achieving parity in math scores says   something to the effect:  "in this one recent study comparing math skills of girls and boys, the AVERAGE scores of girls and boys on certain fundamental skills tests that do not emphasize higher math skills very much are relatively equal.  One implied fact is that this is different from before.

2. My post asked if the differences seen were due to boys average scores declining or girls increasing.  I then went on to add additional statistical information from the census bureau comparing girls and boys across a variety of metrics.  My implication is that there seems to be evidence that boys have significant problems that need to be addressed.

3. GM added that regardless of average scores in such tests, the spread of scores between girls and boys differs. So even if the average scores are the same,  the spread of scores for boys is greater than for girls with more dunderheads but also more geniuses appearing at either end. This then would explain why there are still more boys in higher level mathematics and physics positions.   


Have I summed this up correctly?

I need to check sources of this statement but it is true that in general there are fewer men in college and in graduate schools than women.  Examining this in more detail seems to be important for many reasons. This goes above and beyond gender parity issues.

Personally I think that discussions around disparities between groups are interesting and useful but such information need not be divisive. For issues that I care about, I would rather keep trying to dig through the morass of secondary information to find original sources that drive the media hearsay.

What I want is to have all our kids in good shape. Gender is not an issue in this sense.  Still it is useful to look at the differences between boys and girls so as to best provide for their needs.

Karsk

Some statistics about Boys that I think are important ...also from the Boys Project Website:

For every 100 girls that are conceived 115 boys are conceived.
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3840.html

For every 100 girl babies born there are 105 boy babies born.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/06statab/vitstat.pdf

K-12 Education
For every 100 girls enrolled in nursery school there are 112 boys enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 girls enrolled in kindergarten there are 116 boys enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 girls enrolled in elementary grades there are 107 boys enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 girls enrolled in ninth grade there are 101 boys enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 girls enrolled in tenth grade there are 94 boys enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 girls enrolled in eleventh grade there are 109 boys enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 girls enrolled in twelfth grade there are 98 boys enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 girls enrolled in high school there are 100 boys enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 girls enrolled in gifted and talented programs in public elementary and secondary schools there are 94 boys enrolled.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_055.asp

For every 100 girls who graduate from high school 96 boys graduate
(NCES, unpublished tabulation.)

For every 100 girls suspended from public elementary and secondary schools 250 boys are suspended.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_144.asp

For every 100 girls expelled from public elementary and secondary schools 335 boys are expelled.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_144.asp

Special Education
For every 100 girls diagnosed with a special education disability 217 boys are diagnosed with a special education disability.
http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm

For every 100 girls diagnosed with a learning disability 276 boys are diagnosed with a learning disability.
http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm

For every 100 girls diagnosed with emotional disturbance 324 boys are diagnosed with emotional disturbance
http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm

For every 100 girls diagnosed with a speech impairment 147 boys are similarly diagnosed.
http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm

For every 100 girls diagnosed with mental retardation 138 boys are diagnosed as mentally retarded.
http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm

For every 100 girls diagnosed with visual impairment 125 boys are visually impaired.
http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm

For every 100 girls diagnosed with hearing impairment 108 boys are diagnosed as hearing impaired.
http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm

For every 100 girls diagnosed with deafness 120 boys have deafness.
http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm

For every 100 girls with orthopedic impairment 118 boys have orthopedic impairment.
http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm

For every 100 girls with other health impairment 127 boys have other health impairment.
http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm

For every 100 girls with multiple disabilities 189 boys have multiple disabilities.
http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm

For every 100 girls that are deaf/blind 98 boys are deaf/blind.
http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm

Higher Education
For every 100 women enrolled in college there are 77 men enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 women enrolled in the first year of college there are 79 men enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 women enrolled in the second year of college there are 71 men enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 women enrolled in the third year of college there are 75 men enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 women enrolled in the fourth year of college there are 94 men enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 women enrolled in the fifth year of college there are 65 men enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 women enrolled in the sixth year or more of college there are 78 men enrolled.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2004.html

For every 100 women living in college dormitories there are 87 men living in college dorms.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html

For every 100 American women who earn an associateís degree from college 67 American men earn the same degree.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_262.asp

For every 100 American women who earn a bachelorís degree from college 73 American men earn a bachelorís degree.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_262.asp

For every 100 American women who earn a masterís degree from college 62 American men earn the same degree.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_265.asp

For every 100 American women who earn a first-professional degree 107 American men earn a first-professional degree.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_271.asp

For every 100 American women who earn a doctor's degree from college 92 American men earn the same degree.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_268.asp

Other Indicators
For every 100 females ages 15 to 19 that commit suicide 549 males in the same range kill themselves.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK1_2002.pdf

For every 100 females ages 20 to 24 that commit suicide 624 males of the same age kill themselves.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK1_2002.pdf

For every 100 girls ages 15 to 17 in correctional facilities there are 837 boys behind bars.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html

For every 100 women ages 18 to 21 in correctional facilities there are 1430 men behind bars.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html

For every 100 women ages 22 to 24 in correctional facilities there are 1448 men in correctional facilities.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html

For every 100 women living in military quarters there are 642 men living in military quarters.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html

For every 100 women ages 18 to 24 years living in emergency and transitional shelters there are 86 men living in similar shelters.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html

For every 100 women ages 18 to 24 years living in-group homes there are 166 men of the same age living in-group homes.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html

 The above post is basically saying that the prosperity that we have had is due to the positive growth economics theory.  I have 2 comments about this.

1.   There is evidence that our present unprecedented economic success is based not on the economic theory but the fact that we entered an age where we had started to use vast stores of oil as an energy source.  Its not the theory that generated prosperity, its the presence of resources.   If we imagine a day when someone works out a "magic" solution such as unlimited cheap energy (fusion or whatever) everyone everywhere would breath a sigh of relief

2.  There is a recent article in Scientific American that points out that present economic theory was modeled after Helmhotz equations on the conservation of energy.  In this article it basically reiterates the point that present day economic theory is flawed for not accounting for the impacts of resource extraction as part of the system.  This seems to point a finger at positive growth economics.

I keep finding articles like this.  Most of them come from people with training in both economics and science.


The article:


Scientific American Magazine -  March 17, 2008

The Economist Has No Clothes
Unscientific assumptions in economic theory are undermining efforts to solve environmental problems
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes&sc=rss

By Robert Nadeau

The 19th-century creators of neoclassical economics—the theory that now serves as the basis for coordinating activities in the global market system—are credited with transforming their field into a scientific discipline. But what is not widely known is that these now legendary economists—William Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras, Maria Edgeworth and Vilfredo Pareto—developed their theories by adapting equations from 19th-century physics that eventually became obsolete. Unfortunately, it is clear that neoclassical economics has also become outdated. The theory is based on unscientific assumptions that are hindering the implementation of viable economic solutions for global warming and other menacing environmental problems.
The physical theory that the creators of neoclassical economics used as a template was conceived in response to the inability of Newtonian physics to account for the phenomena of heat, light and electricity. In 1847 German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz formulated the conservation of energy principle and postulated the existence of a field of conserved energy that fills all space and unifies these phenomena. Later in the century James Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann and other physicists devised better explanations for electromagnetism and thermodynamics, but in the meantime, the economists had borrowed and altered Helmholtz’s equations.

The strategy the economists used was as simple as it was absurd—they substituted economic variables for physical ones. Utility (a measure of economic well-being) took the place of energy; the sum of utility and expenditure replaced potential and kinetic energy. A number of well-known mathematicians and physicists told the economists that there was absolutely no basis for making these substitutions. But the economists ignored such criticisms and proceeded to claim that they had transformed their field of study into a rigorously mathematical scientific discipline.

Strangely enough, the origins of neoclassical economics in mid-19th century physics were forgotten. Subsequent generations of mainstream economists accepted the claim that this theory is scientific. These curious developments explain why the mathematical theories used by mainstream economists are predicated on the following unscientific assumptions:

The market system is a closed circular flow between production and consumption, with no inlets or outlets.
Natural resources exist in a domain that is separate and distinct from a closed market system, and the economic value of these resources can be determined only by the dynamics that operate within this system.
The costs of damage to the external natural environment by economic activities must be treated as costs that lie outside the closed market system or as costs that cannot be included in the pricing mechanisms that operate within the system.
The external resources of nature are largely inexhaustible, and those that are not can be replaced by other resources or by technologies that minimize the use of the exhaustible resources or that rely on other resources.
There are no biophysical limits to the growth of market systems.
If the environmental crisis did not exist, the fact that neoclassical economic theory provides a coherent basis for managing economic activities in market systems could be viewed as sufficient justification for its widespread applications. But because the crisis does exist, this theory can no longer be regarded as useful even in pragmatic or utilitarian terms because it fails to meet what must now be viewed as a fundamental requirement of any economic theory—the extent to which this theory allows economic activities to be coordinated in environmentally responsible ways on a worldwide scale. Because neoclassical economics does not even acknowledge the costs of environmental problems and the limits to economic growth, it constitutes one of the greatest barriers to combating climate change and other threats to the planet. It is imperative that economists devise new theories that will take all the realities of our global system into account.

Hi all,

This pod cast popped up on one of my professional newsgroups.   



"Beyond Economic Growth
April 14, 2007      Total time: 57:03
Speaker: Joshua Farley, Assistant Professor, Community Development and Applied Economics at the University of Vermont and Fellow with the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics.

Here, Farley challenges the view that continuous economic growth on a planet with finite resources is possible or even desirable, particularly in the wealthy countries. He asks the question, "Is it the magic of the market or the magic of fossil fuels (which we're rapidly depleting) that has driven economic growth and consumption?" He discusses why the market economy has failed to account for declining ecosystem services, the life support services of the planet, suggesting that economic growth actually has the opportunity costs of eliminating or severely degrading the ecosystem services that belong to the commons. He goes on to suggest that the scale of the economy and just distribution have to take precedence over the neoclassical economic focus of allocation of scarce resources and offers some solutions to replace the conventional economic paradigm with a sustainable economy based on ecological economics."

http://www.themadisoninstitute.org/audio/Josh_Farley_final.mp3


I thought I would offer this to see what you think about it.

Karsk

I originally posted this under the topic "Are there Knights"



A bit of a preface,  I work as a wildlife biologist.  Every once in a while I will hear comments about how male lions are useless.  This is often in the context of a social commentary.  I like to show this video that I found some time ago.  Its kinda fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI8bnx2KXro

I posted this in the topic heading  "Are there Knights?"  because there is something about the energy of this video that reaches way down inside.  It validates something that matters to me. 

Karsk