Well not really, but it looks like she's not enough of a rabid anti-science pinhead to satisfy the folks over by Answers in Genesis.
Is She Really a Creationist?
Answers in Genesis
Synopsis: She has not definitely come out and denounced the theory of evolution as a godless lie.
Read the whole thing. Nothing new about Palin, but a harrowing insight into the way these guys think.
Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred
Dayton, Ohio’s Nutter Center—which AiG once rented for a major origins debate/conference...
I think all she ever actually said is that she would not mind the teaching of ID alongside evolution in school.
But the rabid Left invariably believe what they want to believe...
Can we keep the focus on science here, please?
Cheers
Whoops, sorry!
I just get carried away defending that fair lady's honour..!
Quite, because the teaching of fantasy alongside science is absolutely nothing to worry about. In a representative democracy what a politician believes is irrelevant, what they plan to implement is. Palin can believe whatever she wants, but if she is not prepared to fight for the separation of reality and fantasy in science class (and the exclusion of the latter), her stance on education looks disastrous.
If science and reality are the preserve of the "rabid Left" then count me in. To support a loony creationist just because she has pro-gun right-wing politics seems insane to me.
Question: is Mrs Palin's alleged creationism worse than Mr Obama's protectionism - both these stances fly in the face of robust and current scientific knowledge. Yet we think it's OK for Obama to reject the Theory of Comparative Advantage on the basis of dogma but not for Mrs Palin to question the Theory of Evolution on the basis of dogma?
The left may reject creationism but they also reject the fact that (cp) free markets deliver better outcomes than managed markets. I think, in terms of politics that latter is more important than the former.
Perhaps the left measures the outcomes differently?
Ooo la la now there's a comparison and a half! Here was me thinking there was far less consensus and more debate re free markets, NHS, keynesian subtleties (although maybe not whole hog), and milder issues such as EU trade agreements than say gravity, hell there's probably more sensible debate surrounding gravity than evolution (bearing in mind advanced physics ain't my strong pont!).The left may reject creationism but they also reject the fact that (cp) free markets deliver better outcomes than managed markets. I think, in terms of politics that latter is more important than the former.
*Where's me bloody box of squishy tomatoes gone?*
Find me a serious economist who rejects the Theory of Comparative Advantage? This is the basis for supporting free trade rather than managed trade.
On markets, I hedged a bit (hence 'cp'), but in general the evidence is that overall outcomes - GVA, GDP, health measures, life expectancy, well-being, etc. are better secured in a free and open trading environment.
Hear, hear.
Ok I've done a little reading and learning and I'd love to learn more about the Theory of Comparative Advantage. But first - what does (cp) mean? I took the quote perhaps more literally than it was meant in regard to free markets in general (hence my response re the slightly more subtle areas).Find me a serious economist who rejects the Theory of Comparative Advantage? This is the basis for supporting free trade rather than managed trade.
On markets, I hedged a bit (hence 'cp'), but in general the evidence is that overall outcomes - GVA, GDP, health measures, life expectancy, well-being, etc. are better secured in a free and open trading environment.
Anyway....
Where does Obama reject the Theory of Comparative Advantage, or show his allegiance to a group declaring it 'wrong'? I mean something beyond inference simply because what was infered could be another whole debate.
Secondly, what qualifies an economist as a 'serious' economist? You said elsewhere that peer review not only couldn't be trusted but you seemed to suggest they were wholly off course:
If peer review and consensus cannot be trusted what tool do you use to compare the Theory of Comparative Advantage with evolution?And as for peer review - outside pure science one of the most exploited and abused processes and in need of real reform. Too much peer review simply results in mushy conformity, the rejection of work that doesn't conform with received wisdon/political correctness and the ostracising of sceptical and challenging academics.
With those two bits of info I'll have a poke around, maybe I'll even wave the white flag - or maybe not.
Last edited by Floppit; 11th September 2008 at 06:59 PM.
Ceteris paribus - all other things being equalwhat does (cp) mean?
The Theory of Comparative Advantage:
http://stevesuranovic.blogspot.com/2...advantage.html
http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch40/T40-0.php
It explains amongst other things why trade makes the pie bigger and shows how protectionism must be damaging to the economy. Obama has opposed extension to the WTO through the Doha Round (something he sort of shares with Bush but not McCain) that would remove more barriers to trade.
There are a lot of us kinda economists (I am a development economist of sorts but the econometrics - the hard science of the subject - makes my head hurt a little) - serious economists are the subject's equivalents of those brave boffins at CERN. But unlike physics there are loads of people who have a little knowledge of economics - or at least the language of economics (we all think we understand inflation, exchange rates and interest rates, for example but are a bit woolly on marginal utility, the (false?) labour theory of value and the theory of incentives (don't ask)).
My rudeness about peer review relates to the risks associated with very narrow subject fields which abound in social science subjects - if there are only ten people actively researching a given subject the idea of a blind review is a bit of a fiction. However, that was something of a deliberate wind-up - peer review is better than no peer review even in sociology.
My question was about whether we should worry about the denial of evidence by politicians in areas such as economics. My suggestion was that ignoring theory on trade with a great deal of solid research supporting that theory is at least a dangerous (and perhaps more so) as denying theory on evolution. And far more politicians (including Bush) have taken anti-trade stances in the pursuit of votes - remember Ross Perot and the 'giant sucking sound' of jobs going to Mexico?.
I make no claim to any special insight, I merely point out that politicians and science make uncomortable bedfellows.
Ahhh... I don't speak Latin so I won't feel too embarassed not to understand it's abbreviations.
I'm genuinely quite curious about the The Theory of Comparative Advantage, I struggle to read a great deal of material online as my little munchkin keeps any study in short chunks but lately I have delved a little into economics and enjoyed it. I studied 2 modules of it over a decade ago but at the time didn't pay any more attention than I had to, it was enough to remember strong debate re the softer edges of free markets (such as using market forces in the NHS) which was what initially left me rather suspicious that the whole free market thing was a done deal.
For fun and learning I'd still like to respond to your challenge of finding a serious economist that questions The Theory of Comparative Advantage, however finding one 'like the brave boffins....' might prove a tad challenging on Google. Will you throw me a bone, a couple of old journals of good repute?
The whole peer review thing might make for a stonking thread in it's own right. I must admit I never stumbled across subjects with so few researchers but my not having seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, however I do know such a situation is not the norm outside of science. I'm no expert but I've dabbled enough in the humanities to know there's plenty of solid debate - albeit in amongst some claptrap at times (don't even get me on Freud!!).
Again, I wonder whether it would be better in it's own thread rather than to contest a strong similarity to the denial of evolution? After all politicians will often do things for the vote they know are wrong but that doesn't make them incapable of basic reasoning or unwilling to engage in it - I would argue denying evolution does. I may not agree with it but I can see very sound reasoning for a politician to do very harmful things IF it will get them re-elected and secure their own future power and wage packet.My question was about whether we should worry about the denial of evidence by politicians in areas such as economics. My suggestion was that ignoring theory on trade with a great deal of solid research supporting that theory is at least a dangerous (and perhaps more so) as denying theory on evolution. And far more politicians (including Bush) have taken anti-trade stances in the pursuit of votes - remember Ross Perot and the 'giant sucking sound' of jobs going to Mexico?.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks