[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Platt Holden]

> [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? 

As you know, I agree with those who don't see a threat "we have 
created" to the environment.  

> 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.

Why surprised? You'll find me a lovable, little fuzzball with a heart 
of gold. :-)

> [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?

Not according to Wikipedia. But what does it know? 

> [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.

You seem to have just put forth an  Absolute Truth.

> > [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. 

You have to know the truth in order to lie about it. All the 
intelligence services in the world believed Saddam had WMD. Now they 
have been found. 

> [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.

Geez. If I believed every conspiracy and cover up story on the Web I'd 
believe Clinton had more than a hundred people murdered to cover up his 
drug dealings in Arkansas.  

> [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.

So? Does the fact that millions risked there lives to vote mean 
anything  to you?

> [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. 

There's plenty of disagreement. Those who claim otherwise, like Al 
Gore, lie.

> [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.

Talk to your Congressman who passes budgets, imposes taxes and 
authorizes wars.

> [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.

Yeah, lets be sure to extend our Bill of Rights to those whose sole 
purpose in life and reason for being is to kill us all. Insane.

> 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.

How about the decision to allow local governments to kick you out of 
your home in order to sell it to a private developer?

> [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.

The U.S. gives more taxpayer money away to foreigners than any country 
in the world, and most of it goes down the tubes, never reaching the 
poor and destitute but instead lining the pockets of local politicians. 

> [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.

John Kerry had comprehensive proposals for everything, but I don't recall
that one. What did he propose that Bush hasn't done? (Not that anybody 
really cares.) 
 
> [Case]
> >He promoted fear to erode the civil liberties of our people.
> 
> [Platt]
> (Case note: No answer for this one...)

Platt note: Right. I meant to answer, "Like Gore promotes fear to erode 
the civil liberties of our people."

 [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.

I don't want to get into an argument about the virtues and vices of 
George Bush, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. That's for another web site. 
Suffice to say we both have our reasons for thinking as we do about 
politics and those involved in it.