[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Case]

[Platt]
Evolution has already made something better, the human brain, so that 1) the
big rock can be diverted from hitting earth, or 2) a number of humans can
escape from the big rock prior to it being hit and continue human life 
elsewhere in the cosmos. 

[Case]
And that I would grant as a worthy purpose for our species: We are a kind of
planetary immune system. We could ward off threats to our environment. I
applaud your suggestion but you do realize that we would have to begin to
deal with the threat we have created in our own right? We could... I don't
know... sign the Kyoto treaty? 

We would also have to develop the collective will to stop cuts in our space
program and join with other countries to conduct a thorough search of the
heavens of potential incoming threats. I am surprised at you Platt. We are
in 100 percent agreement about this.

[Platt]
As for "punctuated equilibrium" it came from the fertile imagination of
Stephen Jay Gould and has nothing whatsoever to do with big rocks hitting
the earth or mass extinctions. (Gould is yet another example of a unique
individual coming up with a new idea to advance human knowledge and
contribute to the evolution of life.) 

[Case]
Big rocks from space are exactly the kind of thing that punctuates
equilibrium. Remember the T-Rex?

[Platt]
You are talking about scientific theory as opposed to, say, art theory. 
And even "testable" is not the current popular criteria for a valid 
scientific theory. The criteria now is Popper's "falsifiability." 
Finally, any scientist will tell you that the Test of Time is 
irrelevant because all scientific theories are "provisional."

[Case]
Why yes, I am talking about a scientific theory and so is Al Gore. And when
Popper talks about "falsifiability" he is talking about testing the null
hypothesis. That is we test to see if the idea is false. If it is not we get
to test it until we find it to be false. Until then we provisionally accept
it as true. So when a Theory like Evolution has been tested non-stop for
more than a 100 years and has not been found false it earns a capital T. All
meaningful truth is provisional. To say otherwise would be to call it
Absolute Truth. It is then not science. It is dogma. No amount of reason. No
amount of testing. No amount of evidence to the contrary can stand against
Absolute Truth. I find Absolute Truth to be of the lowest kind of Quality.

> [Case]
> You called my guy a charlatan. I called yours a sock puppet. I would be
> really interested in why you would call Gore a charlatan. 
> 
> I am happy to tell you why I think Bush is the second or third most evil
> man to hold the oval office:

> He caused us to invade a sovereign nation  on the basis of out right 
lies.

[Platt]
That statement is an outright lie.

[Case]
Several retired Generals, host of former CIA employees and the former head
of the CIA who resigned over it say it is truth. Intelligence officials in
UK and the former head of the Senate Intelligence committee are also in
agreement that evidence used to support the invasion of Iraq was phony or at
least over blown. Administration official twisted arms and facts to support
their own political agenda. 

[Case]
> He and his father used nuclear weapons on the battlefield.

[Platt]
When and where?

[Case]
Our tanks and the A-10 attack fighter planes fire depleted uranium shells.
This has been linked to toxic effects on soldiers from the Gulf War. Here is
a site detailing Gulf War weapons and their usage. Details on their current
use are a bit sketchy since it could be considered a matter of national
security but his site offers some information:
http://www.iicph.org/docs/du_qa.htm.

Here is an article on the lack of effort to clean up this crud:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2946715.stm.


[Case]
> He is forcing medieval peoples to accept a way of life that is abhorrent
to them.

[Platt]
Millions of them freely elected their new government.

[Case]
And they voted for a party lead by an Iranian cleric.

[Case]
> He is refusing to seriously address ecological problems that
> threaten the lives of our children and  grandchildren.

[Platt]
Controversial scare scenario.

[Case]
The controversy is political not scientific. The scientific community has
been saying that this problem exists for more than 30 years. There is no
disagreement among the people who study this and it is a very scary
situation. 

[Case]
> He is borrowing money that will burden the future of our
> progeny. (Although given the reason before that I guess this one makes
> sense.)

[Platt]
Congress authorizes government expenditures and raises the debt limit.

[Case]
Congress is obliged to fund the programs it and the administration agree
upon. We are currently pouring more that $300 billion down the tubes for a
senseless war. As I recall Clinton left Bush with a surplus, go figure... If
these are going to be our priorities as a nation we should have the courage
to fund them through taxes not pass the buck to the unborn.

[Case]
> His has appointed people to our supreme court who have already
> begun making rulings that will seriously damage this republic for years
> to come.

[Platt]
Like giving our rights as citizens to terrorists who want to kill us?

[Case]
Our country at least until recently was founded on the notion of due
process. This is the heart and soul of what our men at arms die to defend.
If people are suspected of wrong doing: charge them. If they are guilty:
try, convict and sentence them. When we bend these rules out of expediency
is sinful beyond measure.

But I was thinking more specifically about the recent decision to deny
public employees the right to express their concerns about the work place.
Whistleblowers who speak out about violations of the public trust should be
applauded not discouraged.

I am even more concerned about the whole matter of states rights. While I
agree that there has been too much federal intervention in state matter this
intervention is a result of willful neglect by any states in the matter of
civil rights not to mention funding of public works and public schools. No
good can come of returning to the past in this respect.

[Case]
> While prosecuting a seemingly personal war against Iraq he has ignored
genocides in other parts of the world.

[Platt]
Ignored? What do you want him to do, send in troops?

[Case]
Well humanitarian assistance might got a long way. Support for international
efforts maybe? Extra funding for the Red Cross and Salvation Army?
Something... anything to help would be nice.

[Case]
> He has done nothing to address the threat nuclear weapons from the former
Soviet Union falling into the hands of God knows who.

[Platt]
Done nothing? What do you want him to do, invade Russia?

[Case]
I recall John Kerry offering up a comprehensive proposal for addressing
this. We could start with that. I even bet a little cultivation of
international support would help. I suspect the Russians would gladly sell
of give us the stuff to get it off their hands.

[Case]
>He promoted fear to erode the civil liberties of our people.

[Platt]
(Case note: No answer for this one...)

[Case]
> Now why is Gore a charlatan?

[Platt}
I'll take the first and last accusations you made about Bush. Gore  
promotes fear to erode the liberties of our people and out right lies.

[Case]
Name one specific lie that Gore has been accused of. Show any fact he has
distorted to promote fear. How has anything Al Gore said in his entire
career been used to erode our civil liberties? Do you have the slightest
clue what the man is talking about? He acknowledges that he and his family
were wrong to grow tobacco after it was shown to be been harmful. I see
nothing but personal regret and personal pain that it took his sister's
death to show the family the light. When you ask for leaders of personal
character and a strong sense of public duty and then belittle Principled men
like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, you do yourself and your "cause" no service.