tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26145735.post5267447197712605740..comments2024-03-28T03:32:52.949-07:00Comments on unapologetic conjecture: Mea CulpaBenjamin Gormanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15690290533167718706noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26145735.post-41972518632331328712010-09-01T23:52:22.082-07:002010-09-01T23:52:22.082-07:00Neil,
On gay marriage, my only shift is that I hav...Neil,<br />On gay marriage, my only shift is that I have been wrong to be so vitriolic towards those who oppose it. I still think it's moral, consistent with the value of the separation of church and state, and in the best interests of children of gays, parents of gays, neighbors of gays, and anyone who lives in a country with gay and lesbian couples, as well as the gay and lesbian couples themselves. I don't think I can go so far as "thanks, we'll wait". I'm just realizing that calling a bigot a bigot, even when it's accurate, is not only rude behavior that speaks ill of my character and volumes about my lack of self control, but also does nothing to forward a cause that's only a matter of time.<br /><br />As for global warming, my feelings are more complicated. I didn't get the impression that Levitt and Dubner were trying to say that global warming is no big deal, as Lomborg seemed to before his recent conversion. What swayed me more toward geo-engineering was the logical inconsistency of some of the most alarmist of my fellow environmentalists. On the one hand, they will tell you that the situation is now so dire, and CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for so long, that even if we were to halt all emissions immediately, we'd be in for a disaster. On the other hand, they'd say that we should be spending our time and energy on reducing emissions, no matter how slowly. That seems to be a lot of time and effort devoted to a solution they've already conceded is insufficient. Levitt may not have crunched the numbers correctly (or may have had an overly narrow scope of data), but he's crunched more numbers than I have, and has interviewed people who have done a lot more work in this field than I have. Though those experts may have disputed the modeling mechanisms we have, and the emphasis on CO2 over methane, for example, nothing they said persuaded me that these people don't also see this as a crisis. But I'd previously felt that the only solution was in our collective willingness to cut our own CO2 emissions, and I'd felt quite hopeless because I was very cynical that people could be motivated to do so by anything other than a large degree of human suffering, probably their own. In that case, according to everything I'd read, it would be too late to avoid disastrous results. This gave me hope that, even if people put their heads in the sand as long as they can and the developed world keeps pumping out emissions until the death toll comes to our own shores, it still will not be too late for the human race. That's cold comfort to the millions suffering from the effects now, and the millions who might die before we start making real investments in geo-engineering (or, more accurately, reverse geo-engineering), but it's still a more hopeful place than where I was at before. That might just mean I was at an unrealistically hopeless place before reading the book, but I'll take a small step in a hopeful direction where I can find one, even if it means I have to admit I was wrong. <br /><br />By the way, I'm struck by how childish and petty both Dubner and Kolbert come across in the exchange you posted. Very disappointing. Maybe they weren't so bad in context, but snarking about each other's credentials rather than disputing the facts... lame.Benjamin Gormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15690290533167718706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26145735.post-26029878320415100942010-09-01T23:44:40.328-07:002010-09-01T23:44:40.328-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benjamin Gormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15690290533167718706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26145735.post-16893978659447483722010-09-01T10:50:47.104-07:002010-09-01T10:50:47.104-07:00Ben,
Thanks for walking the talk. However, you m...Ben,<br /><br />Thanks for walking the talk. However, you might need to explain about the road to your tipping point; it can not have been due solely to Leavit and Dubner.<br /><br />As economists (Leavitt at least is), they succeed at number crunching by narrowing the scope of the data to fit a question. In other words, economists start with the conception that, "all things being constant ..." That fragments the larger context, in order to produce counterintuitive data. Rigorous analysis prevents analysis from tracking back to the original big picture. Using data means having a theory in which the data make sense. For economists, that theory must be localized and small, missing the big point. Data do not speak; analysts do.<br /><br />And analysis, in the end, requires a will to believe. At some level, perhaps, our understanding is religious; we can not "get behind" ourselves to know exactly why we believe as we do. Belief provides the ultimate ground for identity; we can question what we believe, just not that we believe.<br /><br />At least with gay marriage, your "new" point of view cleaves nicely into Booker T. Washington's call for accommodationalism. "Lay down your buckets" updated into "thanks, we'll wait." WEB duBois, Marcus Garvey, Langston Hughes and Malcolm X challenged that disposition. MLK lived its rebuttal.<br /><br />As for climate science, as even Bjorn Lomborg has now joined the call for immediate action, conceptual ideas of geo-engineering are abstract and utopian (exactly what liberals are accused of proposing - which is why a carbon tax is the conservative option!) For example, here is one take, relative cogent and not complete unhinged, on their latest book:<br />http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/14/superfreakonomics-science-review-elizabeth-kolbert-degree-from-yale-in-literature/<br /><br />Good luck with the cognitive dissonance. That means you embrace life-long learning. Your son needs to experience that, as do your students. Just do not let one set of data, framed however it is, control your keel.<br /><br />NeilNJLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09481876972731527995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26145735.post-88453670409971867872010-08-22T23:08:56.316-07:002010-08-22T23:08:56.316-07:00Yeah, you probably can't talk about prostituti...Yeah, you probably can't talk about prostitution. But maybe you could do a lesson on black-market DVDs wherein students set a price-point for the theatrical experience of a few popular movies, then you introduce the idea that there are pirated copies of greatly reduced copies for sale and see how that affects the price, the really high quality copies online and see how that affects the price. Then, the movie leaves the theaters and is released on DVD and you set the price again. Make one person the film studio, another the theater owner, another the pirate who has to worry about getting caught by the police, and another a low level employee at the studio trying to figure out just how much to sell the DVD to the Russian Mob for, knowing he could get caught and lose his job as well as getting sued, or could get cheated by the Russian Mob. As everyone makes their decisions, everyone else has to recalculate. Might be fun and illustrate it well.Benjamin Gormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15690290533167718706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26145735.post-13040864530535038202010-08-22T21:51:47.779-07:002010-08-22T21:51:47.779-07:00I appreciate your closing hopes for grandchildren....I appreciate your closing hopes for grandchildren. I caution you in regards to talking with Craven about the findings on global warming; he is not too fond of their presentation. I am also glad you enjoyed Super Freak; I just wish I could find a way to effectively use it's brilliant lesson in supply and demand.Mr. Thissellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15601238372832698616noreply@blogger.com