No. of Recommendations: 3
Man is that weak! Nothing like an assertion that it *does* add up which is missing any real addition ... or even figures to add! The closest they come is a "suppose" one gets more growth from this ... an idea notably lacking in any but anecdotal evidence, especially considering the idiosyncratic nature of most of economic history ... not totals, no counter totals, just a big "it works!" affirmation. Nice to have friends like that, I suppose, but one can hardly expect to convince anyone who is not already convinced.

Why, I do believe there is a pattern here!

I wonder, Duma, do you ever try to think how the other side thinks? I find this a very instructive exercise. For example, I am a long term foe of people who create "genetic clock" models and then pronounce their results True even though there is a large body of fossil evidence that points to something else. I understand the lure of the model and how interesting the idea is ... but, unlike them, I also recognize the need to deal with the totality of the evidence and to provide biological meaning before one has *anything*.

There is something similar here. I get how your value system can mean that your think Obama stands for everything you don't ... although I also see how that view is supported by very selective and often contorted or even false data ... but data that purports to be real, as long as one is willing to believe the source. But, there are a couple of things that keep me from giving these positions more legitimacy. I say that because there are some discussions in which I have been involved where the difference is not quality of evidence as much as it is a difference in values. A simple, non political example being lumpers vs splitters in taxonomy ... same facts ... different interpretation.

There are two things that keep me from extending the same courtesy of respect here.

One is that we are *not* dealing with the same data. You present "data" and it is either highly selective or mpre opinion than data. I present data, often verifiable, often summarizing a larger body of data and you act like it has no meaning, typically in a way that suggests you have reacted to the site without even looking at the data.

The other is what you consider "evidence". You will cite an isolated poll or some opinion piece as if it *proved* something, while dismissing anything you don't like as meaningless. To be believable, one needs to incorporate any new data into the model. I don't feel challenged on this front from you very often because there is so little actual data presented ... e.g., the current example where your citation had only some vague speculation, not any real numbers. Once in a long while, there is some new information' although, frankly, this mostly comes from someone else, e.g., the unbalanced and illogical Medicare reimbursement to hospitals.

This is why I don't see much of a discussion here. It is a monologue and some counter arguments. With B there is somethings more of the semblance of exchange, but at bottom, the same things are happening there.
Print the post  

Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement