PZ Myers. 2005 Dec 12. Bad journalism on Cobb County. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/bad_journalism_on_cobb_county/>. Accessed 2006 May 24.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Monday, December 12, 2005
Bad journalism on Cobb County
Chris Mooney finds fault with some bad journalism. He picks on this one sentence…
Like others who adhere to a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, Rogers, a lawyer, believes that Earth is several thousand years old, while most scientists, basing their estimates on the radioactive decay of rock samples, say the planet is billions of years old.
…which is clearly screwed up. Lawyer Rogers is basing her opinion entirely on dogmatic acceptance of ancient religious texts that contradict reality, yet her opinion is presented as if it were a reasonable alternative to that of scientists who base their ideas on legitimate evidence. Mooney rewrites the bad sentence and improves it greatly, but still, the problem is deeper than one sentence—the premise of the whole article is flawed.
It's about dueling neighbors in a Georgia suburb. The differences on evolution are treated with the same seriousness as the fact that people disagree on who to vote for, whether to open the County Board of Commissioners with a prayer, or what brand of car to drive. It's all a mere difference of opinion, you know. Marjorie Rogers is presented as someone trying sincerely to find the truth, when what she's actually doing is swaddling herself in ignorance and trying to force a similarly benighted state on the kids in her school district.
Sparked by her son's interest in dinosaurs, Rogers read several books casting doubt on evolution science, including "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells and "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson. Once she saw the textbooks under consideration, she was appalled.
Where's the critical evaluation of these books? The reporter presents it as if she had done her homework, when what she'd actually done was dig up some bad creationist pseudo-scholarship that reinforced her biases. When you read about her objections, you don't see any counterpoint to balance her raving nonsense.
"Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species," she read from one during an interview.
"That offends me," she said. "That has no business being in a science textbook. That's religion."
She points to another passage, in "Biology: Concepts & Connections," that she says is irreverent. The passage suggests that had human knees and spines been "designed" for our bipedal posture, rather than borrowed from four-legged ancestors, they probably would "be less subject to sprains, spasms and other common injuries."
Finding fault with the design of humans exasperates her.
"That's slamming God," she said.
Both of those passages are correct. There's nothing exceptional in the biology of human beings; every organism on the planet has its own unique suite of characters, and we can see how those characters are derived from its nearest relatives. We also see that many of those properties of all animals are cobbled together in a less than optimal way from ancestral states. We are good enough. We are not perfect.
Even within her own religious tradition, there are people who find nothing sacrilegious about that. Isn't everything on earth supposed to be the product of one god's hand, in her belief? Doesn't Christianity preach that every person is flawed, incomplete, and corrupted? When she goes to church and is told that we are all sinners, does she march up and bitch-slap the minister for insulting god?
If being apprised of the simple facts of reality is "slamming God", I think the problem lies with her simple-minded view of her God, not reality.
The reporter missed the real story. That people have different opinions is not newsworthy; that neighborhoods are infested with meddling kooks and journalists don't even notice…now that's an interesting story. I'd like to see a report on how 'objective journalism' has somehow been transformed into 'credulous journalism'.
-
"News media panders to the ignorant and uninformed! Film at 11!"
Yes, that *is* a big story. I'm not holding my breath for the media to tell it, however.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 07:59 AM -
I just heard another "balanced" he said/she said report on IDC in Kansas on BBC radio.
#: Posted by coturnix on 12/12 at 08:34 AM
-
One small quibble: you can see the problem with "Humans are fundamentally not exceptional" in the way you rewrote it into "There's nothing exceptional in the biology of human beings". The statement also has an omitted universal. Whether or not humans are fundamentally exceptional in any way is a religious question. The textbook should have said, "Human biology is fundamentally not exceptional".
#: Posted by on 12/12 at 08:50 AM
-
I disagree. What is 'exceptional' about human beings? We have developed certain capacities to a greater degree than other animals, and we have diminished others, but we aren't in any way outside the general principles of biology. If anyone is going to say that we're 'exceptional'—in the sense of, "Hey, here are some properties of human beings that violate all the general rules of what we're saying applying to all other life on the planet"—then they're going to have to provide evidence for it.
#: Posted by PZ Myers on 12/12 at 08:55 AM
-
I think the point of the story is it is trying to illustrate the views of the people who are driving this creationist controversy right now (and, let's face it, are running the country at this moment). I do have a problem with the paragraph about the lawyer, but other than that it reads fine as an examination of beliefs in Cobb County. This is not an article about evolution, but about the attitudes of the people in a county that made news by putting stickers on textbooks. After all, what does anti-gay resolutions and prayers to Jesus at council meeting have to do with the merits of a scientific theory? I'm not sure shooting the messenger helps in this instance. (And yes, I confess I'm a report myself, but not for the Post -- I would get paid better.)
#: Posted by on 12/12 at 08:58 AM
-
I think GraemeW has a good point. If the textbook quote of "Humans are fundamenally not exceptional" is accurate, then the writer crossed the line from science into philosophy. One cannot prove or disprove the truth of such a statement. It's 'truth' depends on the metaphysical system in which one is working.
#: Posted by on 12/12 at 09:20 AM
-
Reporters are trained to cover the controversy, not to resolve it. While there is some merit to taking that stance as a profession, I think journalists also have a duty to telling the truth about an issue. There is no doubt that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution is a proven fact, and reporters should dutifully note that instead of eliding over it time and time again.
#: Posted by on 12/12 at 09:27 AM
-
So what HalF and Graeme W are saying is that, in a BIOLOGY textbook, the statement has to be modified so the children understand that it is in reference to biology and not some existential truth being expounded. That's absurd. Poor religious people--always having their fantasies and faith-based beliefs challenged by facts. Maybe we should just stop even trying to explore the world around us, because we might come across something that contradicts what religions teach. And we don't want some poor, unsuspecting religious child to run across the observations that call into question their brainwashing.
#: Posted by on 12/12 at 09:49 AM
-
The two most charming and endearing corollaries that emerge from evolutionary theory couldn't possibly spark less than a tear in the eye of any feeling, intelligent human being:
Every organism on earth is related to every other.
We are each of us the result of an unbroken lineage that extends 4 billion years into the past.
The sentiments proclaim it all - every species we eradicate is tantamount to a murder of our kin. Every living thing is here because its ancestor survived to reproduce. I can't understand how the sentiments of religion could possibly compare to the power of these ideas.
"synapsis" what a great captcha. Thanks!#: Posted by Wayne on 12/12 at 09:57 AM -
"When she goes to church and is told that we are all sinners, does she march up and bitch-slap the minister for insulting god?"
You just don't get stuff like this on the DI site.#: Posted by moioci on 12/12 at 10:01 AM -
Slamming God?
I'd like to hear what she thinks of cancer, Down's syndrome, blindness, deafness, cerebral palsy, MS, arthritis, and so forth.
Perfectly designed, my ass.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 10:16 AM -
David, as someone who went to journalism school, I can assure you reporters are not "trained to cover the controversy." That is a convenient myth that has been touted among politicos to discredit news stories that don't echo their beliefs. I've seen both liberals and conservatives use it, although more of the former only because conservatives cling to the "liberal media bias" myth instead.
As someone who writes about politics, although only for a small newspaper, I've rarely seen an issue where one side has all the evidence in support of it. Most debates about policy usually come down to political philosophy, and usually all sides have facts to bolster their claims. Much of the "he said/she said" journalism results in that alone. The world is much grayer than some people who hold strong political beliefs would like to acknowledge.
But there are definitely a few issues where one side clearly has all the facts on their side. And yes, evolution is one of them. So what are reporters to do when covering creationism? They should point out there is no real evidence for it, and that was the ultimate fault of this article in not making a more decisive statement to that effect.
But what Rogers' believes, and how she came to that belief, is also a fact. The reporter is simply conveying that information so people who don't hold those views understand where she is coming from. He was not "pandering" to a certain group, but as a reporter he was right not to make a value judgment about her beliefs -- that's for the readers to make.
Again, this is an article about the attitudes and beliefs of a county that put stickers on school textbooks. T the reporter should be rightly criticized for softballing the evidence about the age of the earth, but other than that, the criticism here is really just a case of shooting the messenger.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 10:38 AM -
I can appreciate that they are supposed to cover the controversy, but they keep overlooking the real controversy: that some people believe idiotic things, and they have political clout.
I keep hearing that the lack of exceptionality in humans is some kind of weird philosophy or religion. Can anyone give me an example of something 'exceptional' in human beings? And I don't mean anything along the lines of "their brains are 3-3.5 pounds in size"; I mean something that lacks all antecedents or differs in some way other than degree.
You may notice that even the Discovery Institute is careful to avoid implying anything "irreducibly complex" separates man from monkeys; while they may personally think there's something magical about humanity, even they know that they've got no evidence supporting it.#: Posted by PZ Myers on 12/12 at 10:40 AM -
Oh, I shoot the messenger here all the time. If we don't criticize the press, how will they ever learn to dodge the bullets?
#: Posted by PZ Myers on 12/12 at 10:42 AM
-
PZ, which, if any animals do you consider moral actors.
#: Posted by on 12/12 at 10:50 AM
-
Ants. Look at their consistent pattern of self-sacrifice for the greater good of the nest.
(Seriously, what is a "moral actor" and how do we determine whether one is one? Is there something special in human beings that allows them to be a "moral actor" that all other species palpably lack?)#: Posted by PZ Myers on 12/12 at 10:58 AM -
PZ, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you shouldn't criticize the media. In fact, I think we in the news business are better off because you do. I'm just saying some of the criticism here is misplaced because the reporter is only conveying what Rogers believes and how she came to that belief (or what she told the reporter, anyway). It's not an article about the strengths of the science -- although, again, the reporter failed in making a more decisive statement about the sceince.
About the real controvesy, we in the newspaper business can't go around making value judgments about people's beliefs, but we can write about how they came to them and how they influence policy. I would be more critical of the article if it were about the actual merits (or lack of) on intelligent design rather than the attitudes that helped shape the decision to put stickers on textbooks.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 11:03 AM -
I suppose one thing that makes humans "exceptional" is our ability to shuffle around memes. One developing collection of memes is genetic engineering, which includes the possibility of controlling our genome... well, controlling it with greater precision than, say, fruit flies trying to make themselves appear tall to their rivals, so they can get laid. (...of course, the old fashioned way is generally considered more fun, but I digress.)
But that's just my opinion. Some of you might be turned on by tricky tentacle dances, instead.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 11:12 AM -
Mass news outlets are constrained by mass attitudes.
Maybe you'll get better newspapering just before we go out of business entirely, which may not be that far off, given circulation trends.
Tom Wolfe got it exactly right in 'The Right Stuff' when he wrote about the press as the Genteel Beast.
After campaigning with my editor to eliminate the daily horoscope, without success, I once talked him into publishing a request to readers -- horoscope, science or superstition, stay or go?
Response: zip.
The horoscope continues to run.
I recently wrote a column making fun of creationists (using as my kicker the SCML gene -- thanx professer!), and while several anticreationists told me they liked the column, none of them told MY EDITOR they liked it. Sigh.
A.J. Liebling used to say there's no point in having schools for journalists until we first have schools for publishers.
Complain all you want around here. It'll get you nowhere.
If Downie is bombarded with short, pungent, scornful letters about bad biology reporting, he'll do one of two things: improve the reporting or stop reporting about biology entirely.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 11:28 AM -
> which, if any animals do you consider moral actors.
I've yet to read it myself, but "Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals" by Frans de Waal seems to have a lot to say about this.
Amazon book review: "In Good Natured Frans de Waal, ethologist and primatologist, asks us to reconsider human morality in light of moral aspects that can be identified in animals. Within the complex negotiations of human society, a moral action may involve thoughts and feelings of guilt, reciprocity, obligation, expectations, rules, or community concern. De Waal finds these aspects of morality prevalent in other animal societies, mostly primate, and suggests that the two philosophical camps supporting nature and nurture may have to be disbanded in order to adequately understand human morality."#: Posted by on 12/12 at 11:30 AM -
I think certain scientists need an attitude adjustment. There would be no "debate" if certain scientists didn't overstep their mandate. Science predicts, it doesn't invent. A Theory just a way to make a prediction. Sometimes it seems like Scientist think they invented something because they can predict it's behavior so well.
#: Posted by on 12/12 at 11:32 AM
-
Walter, excuse me, I don't mean to pick on you. But if someone quoted in an article states that Argentina is only 20 miles away from the Texas border, would you defend any paper that printed that without correction, or added that "geologists say that the two are really farther apart," because the article is only intending to convey what the dingleberry (let's be honest) being interviewed believes, and how s/he came to that belief (or what s/he told the reporter), and it's not an article about the strengths of geography?
I mean, what is journalism about, then? What is the point of journalism if nothing is correct or incorrect, or if the correctness of facts are not the point of the article? Is the point then to just say anything that might interest an audience, no matter the validity of what is being said? Must journalism perpetuate itself at all costs, so that nobody loses his or her job in an economy like ours (which has gone from serious manufacturing to the production of cheese doodles, to the creation of more marketing reps, to turning everything, even science, into a matter of public relations)? Because I agree that the reporters aren't solely responsible for our loopy economy, but some things are still wrong, no matter how well it sells. And hell, ain't that the real "story?"#: Posted by Kristine Harley on 12/12 at 11:34 AM -
"About the real controvesy, we in the newspaper business can't go around making value judgments about people's beliefs, but we can write about how they came to them and how they influence policy."
Bullshit. And I say that as a journalist. People "in the newspaper industry" constantly make value judgements about people's beliefs. That's how you decide whether a story is credible, whether it's fit to print, and what angle to take, even before you write the story.
America is in the shocking situation of having nearly half its population believe utter nonsense about basic facts of science, and American journalism must accept some of the blame for that. Every time the "debate" about the age of the earth or evolution vs creationism is presented as a matter of opposing belief systems, many otherwise reasonable Christians will side with the fundamentalists out of religious sympathy. Every time these stories are reported it needs to be emphasised in the firmest possible terms that these facts are as solid as anything in science.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 11:36 AM -
Can anyone give me an example of something 'exceptional' in human beings?
Our websites, of course! And the fact that we have the means and the will to destroy the earth, out of some deluded sense that it's hopelessly "evil" and "corrupt." Somehow, we came up with the unique idea that if we reject this world, we'll be handed a better one, like a kid who screams and whines until his parents take away the plate of brussels sprouts and bring a bowl of ice cream.
More seriously, this is a good example of how much of the creationist argument is based on not understanding what words mean (and an unwillingness to learn, as typified by Ms. Rogers' refusal to look at the explanatory phrase "because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species").#: Posted by Phila on 12/12 at 11:40 AM -
Science predicts, it doesn't invent.
Typed that on a computer, did you?#: Posted by Phila on 12/12 at 11:45 AM -
Can anyone give me an example of something 'exceptional' in human beings?
Can you give us examples of other organisms that you consider exceptional? If you consider nothing exceptional, then it'll be really hard to give you an example.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 11:54 AM -
"Can you give us examples of other organisms that you consider exceptional? If you consider nothing exceptional, then it'll e really hard to give you an example."
I think that is PZ's point. There are no 'exceptions'. We are animals. We have traits. Ants are animals and they have a different set of traits. Yet, we do share some traits with other animals. We have unique traits too, but they aren't magical. They can be explained by the theory.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 12:19 PM -
He was not "pandering" to a certain group, but as a reporter he was right not to make a value judgment about her beliefs -- that's for the readers to make.
And how exactly do they do that without having enough information, but instead only an unqualified statement of opinion?
PZ, which, if any animals do you consider moral actors.
Try reading some recent research on animals ranging from birds to monkeys. Here is a hint, some birds that are known for collecting shiny objects understand theft and trust, so drive away those that are untrustworthy, because they are thieves. Given a prisoner dilema type situation, even a monkey can figure out that helping the other monkey get some food means *they* will get some occationally, even if the tray the food is in isn't always theirs, but neither will eat if they don't work together.
If anything makes humans unique, its our ability to rationalize idiotic decisions to act in ways that undermine both our own and everyone else's survival, something the supposed non-moral actors you think animals are *don't* generally do, because the rest of their kind won't put up with them doing it.#: Posted by Kagehi on 12/12 at 12:33 PM -
Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species
This is just a vague, poorly written sentence. I hope that the surrounding context explains what characteristics are being considered under the notion of exceptional/unexceptional. Even PZ agrees:
...every organism on the planet has its own unique suite of characters...
So we're all exceptional. If we can express X and not X and claim them both to be true, then the sentence is basically meaningless.
I object to this sentence on aesthetic grounds.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 12:39 PM -
Is there something special in human beings that allows them to be a "moral actor" that all other species palpably lack?
The soul. Really, that seems to me to be what this entire argument boils down to.
That this takes the discussion out of the realm of science is irrelevant. I don't think that most of the population makes a cut-and-dried distinctions between matters of fact and faith. Or rather, matters of their faith are, ipso facto, fact. Else, why have faith in them?#: Posted by Narc on 12/12 at 12:50 PM -
I think that is PZ's point. There are no 'exceptions'. We are animals.
That would be considered a form of nihilism, wouldn't it?#: Posted by on 12/12 at 12:59 PM -
That would be considered a form of nihilism, wouldn't it?
Only if you consider animals to be without essential value. Not everyone would agree with you on that.#: Posted by Raven on 12/12 at 01:06 PM -
Finding fault with the design of humans exasperates her.
"That's slamming God," she said.
Translation: Humans are so perfect, we must have been designed by God. What? We're not perfectly designed? Why would you dare to insult God like that?
Some people are just stupid.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 01:21 PM -
Have y'all seen Charlie Pierce's article about "Idiot America?" It's a screed at ID and much more, concluding there's a segment of the population which will believe anything if it's on TV often enough.
#: Posted by Linkmeister on 12/12 at 01:58 PM
-
PZ, which, if any animals do you consider moral actors.
Many species have developed costly alarm-call signals or similar behavior in which an individual risks self-sacrifice to alert the group to a predator (or to signal to the predator that it has been spotted). Heck, even the lowly stickleback's reciprocal scouting behavior can be said to be "moral" in a game-theoretic sense.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 02:05 PM -
Kristine, that's OK, I set myself up for getting picked on, and I'm definately not doing a good job communicating my thoughts. I'm not saying that newspapers should never be in the business of presenting facts or trying to find the truth. What I'm saying is that in our stories, we should juxtapose beliefs with hard facts and point out when they run contrary to the evidence.
I'm against making blanket statements like "That is incorrect" about beliefs because while beliefs may be wrong-headed and untrue, they're personal viewpoints, and I think it is the journalist's job to explain why people believe the way they do even in the light of overwhelming evidence. (Plus, if a reporter has to point out something that should be glaringly obvious, then he or she isn't doing the job.) Doing otherwise smells a little too much like alternative weeklies in cities, where many "stories" are really nothing more than glorified op-ed columns that gloss over the downsides of the viewpoints they're promoting.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 02:12 PM -
That would be considered a form of nihilism, wouldn't it?
Er, no. To say that we are animals has exactly no normative consequences except for those sad people who apparently have to believe that we are *not* animals in order to keep themselves from enacting their abbatoir fantasies. Of course, I expect that those are the same people who (merely by way of example, and of course without reference to any public figures) torture frogs, vivisect cats, or offer apologia and applause for the torture of of the untermenschen who dare to cross the path of the righteous.
One hopes that NSM is not in that group, but given past comments showing a distinct lack of compassion, the hope is not as strong as one would like it to be.#: Posted by paperwight on 12/12 at 02:13 PM -
Doing otherwise smells a little too much like alternative weeklies in cities, where many "stories" are really nothing more than glorified op-ed columns that gloss over the downsides of the viewpoints they're promoting
Shorter Walter: "Views differ on shape of planet" is good journalism.#: Posted by paperwight on 12/12 at 02:21 PM -
That would be considered a form of nihilism, wouldn't it?
No. There's no logical reason why animals can't evolve culture and moral values, or write symphonies, or worship Gods, or do whatever you think they need to do in order to be something other than "nihilistic."
IIRC, Aquinas said "All truth is God's truth," and it's hard to see how any honest religious person could disagree with that. If you want to be religious, you're intellectually obligated to start seeing the natural world as revelatory in itself, instead of insisting against all evidence that it conforms to some imaginary blueprint. If you can't or won't do that, don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously.#: Posted by Phila on 12/12 at 02:40 PM -
I just didn't want to hop on Walter for something that is bugging me in general, which is that the United States has become based on a concept of a verbally-based reality--and this affects science reporting, but it also affects everything else. By a verbal reality, I mean that movies have essentially become blow-by-blow descriptions of action with special effects added (watch a movie from the 60s and you realize how frenzied the so-called dialogue has become in films today), that television news is essentially radio with an attractive talking head (shown talking), with a few clips from the "field" thrown in (that, if you watch them with the sound off, really show nothing), that rumor and innuendo are reported as "fact," and that these contrived "controversies" drive the headlines. It works, it generated audiences, and holy toledo, it's not happening by accident. (Audience think that they see what they hear!)
We've gone from a nation that had strong labor unions to one that has to "create jobs," which means make people do things that don't need doing (because not enough people can make enough money doing things that we need to do, like teaching, being cops, being scientists, being firefighters, being a good gumshoe reporter, etc.) to a nation that essentially pays people (Coulter, O'Reilly, Rush) the big bucks to yell at us, and then tricks us into believing that democracy means yelling back in an e-mail, or on talk radio, rather than voting. Well, guess what, eventually even these conservative blowhards have found less and less to say about politics--so let's make science political.
It's not surprising that in this atmosphere, the world becomes whatever the American media say it is, that global climate change becomes dubious if we wish it away, that evolution suddenly becomes "unscientific" while supernaturalism becomes "scientific," and everything is up for debate, which is just a verbal fistfight. The "debate" has become the news story format, to the point that I'm not sure what people think is real anymore. "Balance" has become such a buzzword that people look shocked when I tell them, "The truth is biased toward one side."#: Posted by Kristine Harley on 12/12 at 03:00 PM -
NSM seems to have a fixed conception of what "animal" means: that which is other than human. When your definitions are flawed, your arguments are going to be flawed.
As for animals that are moral actors, In the Company of Crows and Ravens is a pretty interesting book, as is Helpers at Birds' Nests. These aren't examples of morality in the human sense, but they seem to work for the birds in question, which is all one could reasonably ask. Act utilitarianism isn't an ideal that ducks need to live up to, any more than post-hatch brood amalgamation is an ideal that humans need to live up to.
The point isn't that there's nothing that sets human beings apart from other animals; the point is that there's no evidence that that difference isn't or couldn't be produced by evolution. And unless I'm misunderstanding, that's the sense in which "exceptional" is used here: something requiring a mechanism entirely different in kind from those which we see in animals.#: Posted by Phila on 12/12 at 03:11 PM -
The key point of Christian theology is that human beings are fundamentally not exceptional -- it is by the grace of God that we are saved.
It is the story of Jesus that uncommonly wonderful things can come from extremely humble beginnings.
To this Christian, evolution is quite a reification of my faith. Those who eschew evolution do the faith a grave, grave disservice.
Odd, ain't it, PZ? Your position is closer to traditional Christianity than the creationists. What a world.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 03:16 PM -
Moral actors? Have you never seen a tiny sparrow defend her nest against maruading ravens? A more noble defense of home cannot be made. Have you never seen a dog, willing to lay down its life in defense of its human master -- a different species, even?
Stories of animals doing wonderful things for their own species and for others abound in nature. This reinforces my impression that creationists have little to no experience in the natural world.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 03:23 PM -
#53555: paperwight — 12/12 at 02:13 PM
To say that we are animals has exactly no normative consequences except for those sad people who apparently have to believe that we are *not* animals in order to keep themselves from enacting their abbatoir fantasies
The only abattoir fantasies I have come from a Monty Python skit. (“Did you say knives? Yes, rotating knives”). Besides, I think scientists routinely torture frogs, vivisect cats, in the name of learning. I had a course in College, Biology for the non-major and we did torture frogs and dissect a (dead) cat. Religion had nothing to do with it.
#53561: Phila — 12/12 at 02:40 PM
No. There's no logical reason why animals can't evolve culture and moral values, or write symphonies, or worship Gods, or do whatever you think they need to do in order to be something other than "nihilistic."
I’m not sure what you mean here. But as far as we know, animals can’t do any of these things because they haven’t got the hardware.
If you want to be religious, you're intellectually obligated to start seeing the natural world as revelatory in itself, instead of insisting against all evidence that it conforms to some imaginary blueprint. If you can't or won't do that, don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously.
Again, I lost you.
#53567: Phila — 12/12 at 03:11 PM
And unless I'm misunderstanding, that's the sense in which "exceptional" is used here: something requiring a mechanism entirely different in kind from those which we see in animals.
You could be right that I misread what he meant.
I said nihilism because it seemed to fit in with “we humans are no different” Meme. That is, if you stop there. Humans are different beyond that.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 04:03 PM -
I’m not sure what you mean here. But as far as we know, animals can’t do any of these things [evolve culture and moral values, or write symphonies] because they haven’t got the hardware.
Really? What hardware (by which I assume you mean specific brain anatomy) do humans have that other animals don't?#: Posted by Raven on 12/12 at 04:07 PM -
We've gone from a nation that had strong labor unions to one that has to "create jobs,"
Kristine, you make some good points, but seen from the outside, the US never have had particularly strong labour unions. Certain work fields have had them, but as a general rule, the anti-Communism through the 20th century made it impossible for any union to actually make it.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 04:13 PM -
Really? What hardware (by which I assume you mean specific brain anatomy) do humans have that other animals don't?
I think our expanded frontal lobe gives us these abilities. For example, It's like a dogs sense of smell. There are many things a dog does behaviorally that we can't do because we haven't got it's abilities. It's hardware.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 04:22 PM -
For example, It's like a dogs sense of smell. There are many things a dog does behaviorally that we can't do because we haven't got it's abilities. It's hardware.
I am reminded of an old joke about dogs which ends in the punchline "because they can", but that's neither here nor there.
But you are not arguing that humans cannot smell, just that we don't do it as well as dogs do. That is a quantitative difference, which is different from your earlier argument that humans were qualitatively different from other animals. In other words, olfactory abilities and resultant behaviors are on a spectrum, on which we're at the "less abundant" end, and dogs are at the "more abundant" end.
If you are arguing that because our frontal lobes are larger, there is a quantitative difference in these "moral" behaviors weighted this time in favor of humans, and thus such a spectrum for these abilities as well, then we actually agree on this. But that is not what you asserted before, when you asserted that humans were fundamentally (i.e., qualitatively) different.#: Posted by Raven on 12/12 at 04:37 PM -
We've gone from a nation that had strong labor unions to one that has to "create jobs," which means make people do things that don't need doing (because not enough people can make enough money doing things that we need to do, like teaching, being cops, being scientists, being firefighters, being a good gumshoe reporter, etc.)
Strong unions “limit jobs”. How can they insure good wages otherwise? I hear it’s very hard to become an electrician. It may be fun to say what jobs are needed and what jobs aren’t but in a market based economy the jobs offered are the ones needed.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 05:01 PM -
If you are arguing that because our frontal lobes are larger, there is a quantitative difference in these "moral" behaviors weighted this time in favor of humans, and thus such a spectrum for these abilities as well, then we actually agree on this.
I'm glad we can agree on something and I've heard the joke you speak of. ;) It seemed to me the discussion on this thread was going in a different direction when I made that assertion.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 05:13 PM -
Not only is there protomorality in other animals, I think it is fair to say that the animals closest in relation to us (the chimpanzees) are the closest in morality to ourselves. This is precisely what one would expect evolutionarily, I suppose. There are also some interesting remarks in Michael Ruse's Taking Darwin Seriously about such matters. He points out that if we were intelligent termites, we'd probably have some religion or ethical code with a "thou shalt eat your neigbour's dung" as a crowning principle.
Worth thinking about. (Though I think his conclusions about epistemology go overboad, I might add.)#: Posted by Keith Douglas on 12/12 at 05:15 PM -
"If the textbook quote of "Humans are fundamenally not exceptional" is accurate, then the writer crossed the line from science into philosophy."
PZ's answer to that misconception seems to be much too weak, as several commenters shows here. Not only must you show why the default answer is wrong. ("Humans are nonexceptional, since they obey the same biology as all others.")
And it seems to me the principle of 'extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence' should be applicable due to that commonality of biology.
But as several commenters say, we know that animals may show the same basic capabilities for moral behaviour, memes (passing on imitations), technology and language, so we have positive evidence for the rightness of nonexceptionality too.
"The truth is biased toward one side." LOLOL!#: Posted by on 12/12 at 05:44 PM -
Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species
"You're all individuals!"
"Yes, we're all individuals!"
"You're all different!"
"Yes, we're all different!"
"Um. I'm not.."#: Posted by on 12/12 at 07:11 PM -
"Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species,"
There is no need to qualify <i>fundamentally not expceptional</i> from biologically not exceptional since the description was provided in the context of evolution. No need to wonder about philosophy, or if humans are exceptional in some other context. In the context of the text book, the <i>mechanism<i/> of evolution is the same for humans as it is for all other life on the planet. In that respect humans are quite ordinary, typical and unexceptional.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 10:05 PM -
Strong unions “limit jobs”. How can they insure good wages otherwise? I hear it’s very hard to become an electrician. It may be fun to say what jobs are needed and what jobs aren’t but in a market based economy the jobs offered are the ones needed.
Nonsense. It's much more complex than that - Denmark have very strong unions, and yet the unemployment in Denmark is much lower than in other countries.#: Posted by on 12/12 at 11:12 PM -
'She points to another passage, in "Biology: Concepts & Connections," that she says is irreverent. The passage suggests that had human knees and spines been "designed" for our bipedal posture, rather than borrowed from four-legged ancestors, they probably would "be less subject to sprains, spasms and other common injuries."
Finding fault with the design of humans exasperates her.
"That's slamming God," she said.'
Does that remind anybody else of Candide? Specifically, this woman seems to believe in Dr. Pangloss' proof of the world's perfection.#: Posted by on 12/13 at 02:51 AM -
"in a market based economy the jobs offered are the ones needed."
Which is why we have no worries whatsoever about having enough doctors to care for the aging Baby Boomers, right?
... wait.#: Posted by on 12/13 at 03:28 AM -
Christopher cites the "slamming God" bit and is reminded of Candide. My own free association was different:
Sergeant Lumley inspected his kipper narrowly. ... He forked a large portion into his mouth without pausing to remove the bones, and was obliged to spend a painful minute rescuing them with his fingers. "Tcha! It beats me why Godamighty wanted to put such a lot of bones into them things."
[Police Constable] Eagles was shocked.
"You didn't oughter question the ways of Godamighty," he said.
"You keep a civil tongue in your head, my lad," retorted Sergeant Lumley ... "and don't go forgettin' what's due my position."
"There ain't no position in the eyes of Godamighty ... If it pleases 'Im to make you a sergeant, that's one thing, but it won't do you no good when you comes before 'Im to answer to the charge of questionin' 'Is ways with kippers."
Murder Must Advertise by Dorothy L. Sayers
So you see, it's not just knees. Kippered herring have their rights, too. But Milton ran out of time when he ought to have been justifying God's ways with kippers to man.#: Posted by Porlock Junior on 12/13 at 03:47 AM -
Which is why we have no worries whatsoever about having enough doctors to care for the aging Baby Boomers, right?
We really don't have to worry. Unless you're saying you know of a reason that people will pass up good paying jobs in the future? Please let us know what it is.#: Posted by on 12/13 at 07:51 AM -
Well, hey, here in the UK, people have been passing up well paid jobs as dentists and nurses for years. AS a result we have a permanent shortage. Not to mention that most teachers are closer to retirement than college, and they are having trouble recruiting new ones.
Or in other words, its far more complicated than market fundamentalists would have us believe.
And relatedly, if your going to starve to death then you will likely take any job on offer. But if you are less likely to do so, people will frequently try and get the job they want. But what if the market is not offering their kind of job?
So much for freedom.
As for Doctors, do you want to be treated by one with 1 years doctoring education, or with 6 years? Theres a natural bottleneck that cannot be overcome, unless perhaps you can work out how to Taylorise the job. And when you do that, you'll realise how it is that so many alternative therapies are popular- its because people like to spend time talking about things with their doctors.#: Posted by on 12/13 at 08:01 AM -
It is more complicated, I agree. My preference is to let the market decide.
But what if the market is not offering their kind of job?
So much for freedom.
My first reaction would be "too bad, so sad". Yes, there could be a dearth of said jobs. But what's your solution? Create a job with no funds available to pay the wages?#: Posted by on 12/13 at 08:36 AM -
It is more complicated, I agree. My preference is to let the market decide.
That would be the same market that provides financial incentives to for-profit insurers and HMOs to deny necessary care to patients, yes?
Right now, insurance is based on populations, because determining individual risk for specific conditions is not sufficiently reliable. However, as we learn more about the human genome, and the links between genotypes and phenotypes, we are approaching the day when we can reliably assign a cardiovascular risk, a cancer risk, and other risks to individuals themselves, based on their genetic makeup.
When that day comes, and the insurance market refuses to insure individuals who are genetically at demonstrably high risk for expensive treatment for these conditions, are you satisfied to just let the market write them all of them off as "uninsurable" because they get in the way of profits and leave it at that?
I'm hoping for a little more analytical depth in your response than just "too bad, so sad".#: Posted by Raven on 12/13 at 10:48 AM -
In regard to health care, ultimatly you want everyone to get the health care they need. I hope that's the goal at least.
Trouble is, most aspects of health care require a great deal of resources. The training required to accuratly diagnose the wide variety of ailments our human flesh is heir to is time comsuming and expensive. Purchasing and maintainting specialized equipment and more effective treatment regimens also require investment. The rewards may be great, but the resources need to be invested first.
Medical insurance is a means to spread the cost of these resources across a large number of citizens. (The costs of innovation are not directly paid by the insurance companies, but the money paid for medical care by insurance companies is spent on maintaining and improving medical care.) The other main source of money for medical research is through grants, but it appears to me that grant money is often directly applied to developing new medical procedures and products, not in maintaining the current level of service.
So the insurance market, in each company's attempt to garner subscribers, is going to continue to pressure the care-givers to reduce the resources used to maintain the current level of service. In fact, they may even accept a degragation of service in order to provide a more attractive price to their customers. The individual insurance companies will also try to reduce the insurance costs to the majority of subscribers by eliminating those subscribers who are high uses of resources. Competition will also reduce the resources available for investment in new procedures. This seems to be a problem caused by, not fixed by, market pressures.
Preventing an insurance company from discriminating between customers by an act of law will only provide incentive for insurance companies to break that law. So long as there is competition in the insurance market, there will be pressure on insurance companies to provide the lowest cost to each consumer. Thus, information about individual consumers will continue being collected, whether it's legal or not.
Eliminating competition by fiat is not a good solution either. This would enable insurance companies to create a profit, but the insurance companies may choose not to invest in maintenance or development of medicine. This is true whether the insurance is provided by corporations or run by the government.
Is there a solution? I don't know. It's likely going to have to be some sort of compromise involving a regulated free market.
However, the basic idea of spreading the costs of medical treatment and research over most of society in order to benefit all of society is a very good one.
My $0.02
-Flex
P.S. For something completely different, maybe a peer reviewed grant donation website could be started. Where once the proposal has passed through a peer review process, private citizens could donate towards the research. Any researcher being funded in this way would have to be careful with the funds, what stikes the public fancy this year may not next. I don't have enough money available to give away to make even a small impact in the usual grant funds. (I could be wrong, but the hundred dollars I could contribute on an irregular basis sounds like it wouldn't make a difference to a researcher.) But there may be enough people willing to directly fund science experiments that some real research may be accomplished. I would insist on peer reviewed proposals simply because my understanding of the details of any field is meager enough to prevent me from accurately judging the value of the proposed research. -F.#: Posted by on 12/13 at 02:43 PM -
That would be the same market that provides financial incentives to for-profit insurers and HMOs to deny necessary care to patients, yes?
I think the health care market (in the US) as it stands now, is part market and part government controlled. It’s hard to point to any failure and say it’s caused by market forces because it’s not pure. As for denying care to patients, even “universal” coverage is guilty of that. There’s only so many resources to go around. How will it be allocated? Some will lose out.
When that day comes, and the insurance market refuses to insure individuals who are genetically at demonstrably high risk for expensive treatment for these conditions, are you satisfied to just let the market write them all of them off as "uninsurable" because they get in the way of profits and leave it at that?
No, I hope it doesn’t get to that. But people needing health care is a market, after all. There may be different ways to satisfy the demand than relying on the current paradigm.
I remember reading about doctors in the US who don’t have malpractice insurance. It wasn’t that they couldn’t get it, it’s just that it was too expensive. Not from any wrong doing on their part either. They can’t be part of hospitals with out Malpractice insurance. You know what they’re doing? Charging 20- 30 dollars (cash) for office visits and having the patients sign waivers. Guess who’s able to afford office visits now? This couldn’t have been done under a government controlled system. It can’t innovate like a market can.#: Posted by on 12/13 at 03:53 PM -
"We really don't have to worry. Unless you're saying you know of a reason that people will pass up good paying jobs in the future? Please let us know what it is."
Oh yes, I DO know of a reason. I actually know of several.
Have you heard of the concept of a "barrier to entry"? Markets naturally will create them, as they increase the profits of those already in the market, by reducing competition.
A doctor requires several years of medical school to acquire the necessary skills. This requires a LOT of money. People who want to make money do not always have enough money to spend to become a doctor, or a lawyer, or any other high-paying job.
And yes, we don't have a pure market. We never will, because pure markets mean the limited number of people in a position of advantage will control everything - and if it's not profitable to allow the majority enough food to eat, then people starve.
A pure market is antiethical to democracy.#: Posted by on 12/13 at 05:55 PM -
Licensing, inspection requirements, taxes and fees, bureaucratic red tape, and monopolies are just some of the ways governments can prevent someone from entering a market. Yes, businesses try to create barriers to increase profits. But governments create barriers on a whim.
We never will, because pure markets mean the limited number of people in a position of advantage will control everything - and if it's not profitable to allow the majority enough food to eat, then people starve.
You must have mistyped that first part, governments try to control everything.
I can only think the second part of that means you’ve taken leave of your senses.
I’m trying to imagine that world where markets allow people to starve. Where it’s profitable to allow the majority to starve, no less. And the business have set it up so no one can grow food. And only the rich can afford food. I can’t imagine it. You’ll have to help me out here.
A market is where people buy goods and services. It could be a market place or just a general description of the industry. (Automobile market, health care market, food market) So, you’re saying it’s in a markets best interest to shut buyers out of it?
I think you see boogey men where none exist.#: Posted by on 12/13 at 11:22 PM -
Re: Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species.
"Nate said: So what HalF and Graeme W are saying is that, in a BIOLOGY textbook, the statement has to be modified so the children understand that it is in reference to biology and not some existential truth being expounded."
It is precisely because it is in a biology textbook that it should be modified. It is, if accurately quoted, poorly written and makes a philosophical claim that science is unable to decide. It crosses the line from methodological naturalism into philosophical naturalism.
I'm a philosophical naturalist and personally agree with the statement. But there are other philosophical systems that would interpret the fact of common descent differently.
I think PZ's rephrasing of it to "nothing exceptional in the biology of a human" is much to be preferred. It sticks to the facts and allows others the freedom to decide how to incorporate those facts into their own philosophical views.#: Posted by on 12/13 at 11:23 PM -
Read up on regulatory capture sometime.
Also, yes, it is in the interests of some markets to shut out some buyers.
A pure market only works if a couple conditions hold.
These conditions include:
1) All participants have the same amount of information. (Not skills, but information.)
2) All participants are fully rational.
3) Prices are fully elastic.
4) There are no barriers to entry.
Not a single one of those conditions holds in reality.
There are always barriers to entry.
And you can't envision a situation wherein it would be impossible for the average citizen to grow food? What if all the fertile land were already owned, and wasn't for sale for the price the average citizen had to pay?
Now yes, I was being a bit hyperbolic - but it remains true that IF such a situation were to the advantage of the people with the majority of the money (which is a hyper-minority of the population, remember, and probably always will be due to the power curve nature of the high end of the money distribution), then it would happen.
And it's definitely not in their interests for everyone to be able to eat - it's also not in their interests for everyone to be able to work. Unemployment forces the price of labor to the commodity level, which means all the power is in the hands of the few who have capital.
And if you think it's in the interests of, say, the fast food industry to allow everyone to eat, you're insane.
Governments regulate, yes, but regulation isn't the only barrier to entry.
There are plenty of markets you couldn't enter without advertisement. There are also markets that couldn't exist without regulation - how, precisely, would radio survive as a market without governmental protection against interference?
I also find it comical you seem to think an uncontrolled market achieves a state of near-perfection, while simultaneously believing evolution, which has the advantage of neither having to achieve perfection to fit the criteria of "working" nor the disadvantage of having obvious failures in the past. (Ever hear of robber barons? Is there a reason you don't live in a third world country with no functional government at all, if governments can do no good?)#: Posted by on 12/14 at 01:47 AM -
"It crosses the line from methodological naturalism into philosophical naturalism."
I do not see any observational difference between the two statements (same evolutionary mechanisms vs same biological mechanisms).
Neither is about philosophy since they are both readily observable.
By the same token they are both true. So if one wants to say that human differs in some essential aspect, one has a lot of work to do, ie come up with strong and reaptable experiments with positive results. The chance for that is IMO nil.#: Posted by on 12/14 at 10:37 AM -
I can always use a new economic term. I was familiar with the concept of “regulatory capture” but wasn’t aware they had a term for it. Interesting that you brought it up because that could be used to argue both our points. You say capitalists are evil because they thwart the regulation, I can say government regulation is evil because it lends itself to thwarting. When you regulate an industry you’ve got to have insiders to know what policies to set. What would you know about the flux capacitor market if Doc Brown didn’t help you out?
I’m not against all regulation. I think it should be limited.
I don’t know what orifice you got your list to describe how a “pure” market works, but it’s wrong. I think it’s a straw man. I can think of a “pure” market, it’s called a “flea market”. Do all participants have the same information? Not needed. All participants are fully rational? Unless you count the cat-lady selling catnip as fully rational. Prices are fully elastic. You should see the dickering. No barriers to entry unless you can’t afford the stall fee.
And if you think it's in the interests of, say, the fast food industry to allow everyone to eat, you're insane.
You’re still stuck on that.
There are also markets that couldn't exist without regulation - how, precisely, would radio survive as a market without governmental protection against interference?
You got me there. But this market is special because you have a limited public resource, radio frequency bandwidth, that needs to be allocated. This is one way to do it.
I also find it comical you seem to think an uncontrolled market achieves a state of near-perfection, while simultaneously believing evolution,
No, I don’t think they’re nirvana, but I don’t think they should be over-regulated.
(Ever hear of robber barons? Is there a reason you don't live in a third world country with no functional government at all, if governments can do no good?)
Be careful about buying in to the “Robber baron” meme. The term was used to sell newspapers. It wasn’t 100% accurate. Third world countries do have governments don’t you know. They are extremely corrupt.#: Posted by on 12/14 at 12:39 PM -
"There are also markets that couldn't exist without regulation - how, precisely, would radio survive as a market without governmental protection against interference?"
Why can't you substitute 'regulation' with 'policing' here? If someone owns a piece of bandwith in one area, interference should be interpreted as damaging property.
The difference would be, I think, that you need no specific regulation and less bureaucracy. Instead you need a market, records of ownership and giving the judicial system more resources (which could be payed by a market fee/tax). It would also constitute a move from central to distributed managing, which should mean smaller, faster and potentially more democratic structures.#: Posted by on 12/14 at 06:37 PM -
Torbjorn: And who, precisely, decides who should own a frequency in the first place?
Nature: Yes, I'm aware that (some) third world countries have governments. Did you notice the word "functional"?
Also, yes, a flea market is a pretty good instance of a pure market.
And actually, on the scale of a flea market, most participants are comparatively rational, in the technical economic sense. Nobody's compelled to participate, for one thing.
That said... do you really think you can apply the principles of a flea market, to, say, the computer hardware industry? I mean ... come on, now.
And you completely missed my point with regulatory capture. My point is not that "capitalists are evil" - indeed, I think that within the limits of the system, the actual participants are not evil at all, although they are quite selfish. My point with regulatory capture is that given how the influence of money weakens regulations ... how much worse would the influence of money be WITHOUT regulations?#: Posted by on 12/14 at 08:18 PM -
It is easy to think of markets that select against people eating.
The eviction of the Highland crofters to make way for sheepwalks is one; slave markets are another.
And the African slave trade in the early 18th century was as pure a market as any flea market ever was.#: Posted by on 12/14 at 09:55 PM -
do you really think you can apply the principles of a flea market, to, say, the computer hardware industry? I mean ... come on, now.
The computer hardware industry is a very competitive market. You can tell that by the high number of participants even though most have razor thin profit margins. I can’t think of many exclusive regulations that effect it. It’s a global market. Computer hardware per se is a wide market that includes computers, memory, hard drives and peripherals. What are the barriers to entry for this market? Nothing particularly special as I see it. It’s a very technical industry. Someone would have to have determination and capital. The capital they can borrow from banks or venture capitalists. The determination is their own. I’m not saying it’s easy, but the evidence of the constant influx of participants means these barriers are often surmounted.
…how much worse would the influence of money be WITHOUT regulations?
WHAT would the money influence if there were NO regulations? You know what I’m getting at? So instead of regulations, the market vendors have all this extra money. I would think they would use the money on their businesses or give it back to the shareholders.
Have you read up on regulation of the trucking industry? ( History of Trucking regulation ) It gave the ICC “ the authority to regulate motor carriers and drivers involved in interstate commerce by controlling operating permits, approving trucking routes, and the setting of tariff rates. The theory was that this prevented large shippers from receiving an unfair trade advantage due to lower freight costs from volume discounts.” Part of the theory was concerned with “economy of scale” that every other industry uses. Now that the industry is non-regulated (in these areas) has this perceived “unfair” trade hurt anyone? I think this is similar to your concerns.#: Posted by on 12/14 at 11:35 PM -
It is easy to think of markets that select against people eating.
The eviction of the Highland crofters to make way for sheepwalks is one; slave markets are another.
It was very interesting reading up on the Highland crofters. I don’t think you can blame that on markets though. There was the potato famine at that time, influx of soldiers from the wars, trade barriers. I don’t want to be seen as lax on slavery in this crowd, but I can’t see how a starving slave can be marketed very well.#: Posted by on 12/14 at 11:54 PM -
Sotek, I am puzzled by your question: "And who, precisely, decides who should own a frequency in the first place?"
In Europe frequencies and areas are starting to be traded of sorts, especially for mobiles. I thought that was true in other parts too, actually I thought US started it, so not uncommon.
Usually it is a bidding process, usually first time managed by the state (or an appointed body) who owned the earlier monopoly. It is regulated, often to a certain number of players, probably to guarantee quality and amount of service, and avoid a new monopoly, the first time (first couple of times) around.
I don't see why it can't develop into a free market in time (and be better for it). Do you?#: Posted by on 12/15 at 06:50 AM -
You wouldn't be defending slavery, Nature. The market behavior of the slave market is market bahavior.
In fact, the 18th century slave trade is a perfect example of how markets work in the absence of regulation and of accounting for all costs.
Because the cost of producing the product was never born by the traders (as, for example, the cost of producing an old-growth forest or oil is never born by the logger or the driller), then it made sense for the slavedriver to starve and discard his property whenever feeding him was more than the cost of acquiring a new slave. This is why whole shiploads of slaves were occasionally destroyed in transit; something you seldom see with shiploads of Hondas on the way to California in these 'overregulated' times.
You seem to have confused Ireland with Scotland. The enclosures, in any case, began not only before the potato famine but before potatoes.#: Posted by on 12/15 at 11:44 AM -
Also, flea markets are a really lame example. They don't have any producers.
If you're going to foist off some ideological view of an economy, try to include producers.#: Posted by on 12/15 at 01:36 PM -
Also, flea markets are a really lame example. They don't have any producers.
I was talking about markets not an economy. A "flea market" is a market in it's basic form. It’s interesting that you consider a producer important here. What is a producer?
(as, for example, the cost of producing an old-growth forest or oil is never born by the logger or the driller)
So you’re saying the logger should be paying the trees for their wood? Or the ground for it’s oil? “Cost” is what you pay to people. The “old-growth” forest is a resource the logger has to pay lumberjacks to cut.
then it made sense for the slavedriver to starve and discard his property whenever feeding him was more than the cost of acquiring a new slave. This is why whole shiploads of slaves were occasionally destroyed in transit…
Huh? You’re clearly no entrepreneur. Can you show me this “shiploads destroyed” information?#: Posted by on 12/15 at 02:46 PM -
"WHAT would the money influence if there were NO regulations? You know what I’m getting at? So instead of regulations, the market vendors have all this extra money. I would think they would use the money on their businesses or give it back to the shareholders."
Or they'd use the money to sell at a loss and drive competitors out of business before going to monopolistic rates.
Or they'd use the money to bribe police to get competitors arrested for the sort of crimes even a Libertarian thinks the police should be able to arrest people for. (And then bribe judges and so on to force a conviction ... if that's even necessary, and the simple arrest doesn't destroy the competitor's business).
And yes, those are 'using their money on their business' in the same way advertisement is.
And then there's the situations where regulation could SAVE money. If drug companies were banned from advertising prescription medication directly to consumers, they'd save that advertisment money - and have no market share loss, because they wouldn't be losing market share to competitors still advertising.
It's a Nash Equilibrium that's Pareto Dominated by another alternative. And the only way to get there is by an external force creating disincentives.
And then there's the issues of hidden externalities that are the true bane of the free market - but Harry seems to be covering that pretty well.#: Posted by on 12/15 at 03:23 PM -
Torbjorn: Yes, it's /turning into/ a free market.
But, as you yourself just admitted... it started out by being sold by the government.
And is being regulated to keep monopolies from happening.
This contradicts my point that a market with no regulation is bad ... how, precisely?
I don't deny markets have their good points. They do. But they also have their bad points, and a pure market has some grave diseconomies, even ignoring the non-monetary things that a pure market can't hope to achieve.#: Posted by on 12/15 at 03:28 PM -
A market without an economy is a useless thing, I think.
Only people from the U. of Chicago who worship markets without concern for the people in them would care.
And, yes, Sotek got my point even if Nature didn't. Markets don't know how to evaluate all the costs, so a perfectly functioning market can also simultaneously be destroying its economy. (See Aegean islands.)
For detailed information about disposing of slaves, see Hugh Thomas, 'The Slave Trade.' This is one of the greatest commentaries on markets ever written.#: Posted by on 12/15 at 03:32 PM -
Harry and Sotek, why don't you two just get a room? ;)
Harry: I’m not from the U of Chicago.
Sotek: you’re showing immaturity by using jargon that doesn’t apply. I’m not impressed.
I was prepared to have a all-out discussion on this topic but I don’t think this is the place.#: Posted by on 12/16 at 01:15 AM -
If you think advertisement is not a Nash Equilibrium, I'd love to hear your reasoning.
If you think that not /needing/ to advertise is not Pareto-dominant for companies, I'd REALLY love to hear your reasoning.
And hidden externalities are the flaw of markets, and I'd really like to hear your reasoning why they're not a problem.
PS: Misusing jargon isn't being immature, it's being inaccurate.#: Posted by on 12/16 at 03:06 AM -
"The enclosures, in any case, began not only before the potato famine but before potatoes."
Thats right Harry. I only found that out recently myself; theres a lot of history they dont teach you in Scotland. The landlords were enclosing all the way through the 18th century, and people were pushed off productive fertile farmlands onto marginal land. This happened a lot in the Western Isles of Scotland. The potato actually helped the survival of people in the marginal areas after the enclosures, since it was such a good source of food. Not a balanced diet, but enough for people to scrape by on, until the blight arrived.
I like the way Natureselectedme (using which criteria?) completely missed the point about costs of creation of oil. And the fact is that it being a non-renewable resource is not priced into it. Extraction of natural resources seems to me to be a small problem in economics, but then I need to go and read more about it.#: Posted by on 12/16 at 06:01 AM -
Sotek,
"Yes, it's /turning into/ a free market."
Okay.
"And is being regulated to keep monopolies from happening."
It is, maybe initially, regulated, probably because the market replaced a monopoly. This isn't the ususal situation for a market start.
"and a pure market has some grave diseconomies,"
I don't know much about this, but are hoping to learn. I see that Harry, you and guthrie discusses these situations, for example when a market trade nonrenewables.
"even ignoring the non-monetary things that a pure market can't hope to achieve."
As I understand it, a market is good at that it is doing, and it is pretty selfregulating (with some help from courts) and local (distributed). No system has been able to replace it.
The discussion if one should supplement/regulate markets, and how much the market will loose function due to that, is of course complex. I think I leave that to you guys this time. I am glad that you discuss it, I am eager to learn.#: Posted by on 12/16 at 12:36 PM -
Gee, guthrie. I'd have thought that the Gaelic revival movement would have been all over the factors that depopulated the Highlands.
Nature, I don't suspect you of actually being part of the U. of Chicago, just of parroting the naive Hayek/Friedman ideology.
I like markets, sort of, but the idea that they promote or require liberty -- as the Chicago School would have us believe -- is ridiculous. The existence of SLAVE markets proves that Friedman's base assumption cannot be correct.
Markets are like natural selection: They reward survivors. That is the only value they recognize.
Since I can recognize more values than mere survival, I do not worship markets.#: Posted by on 12/16 at 01:53 PM -
Torbjorn: Non-renewable resources are an instance of market failure, yes. Expensively-renewable resources are another such instance (old-growth forests), although those will, once the supply is more limited than we'd tend to desire, tend to start correcting themselves.
Another instance would be ATM surcharges - where increased prices mean it's more desireable (from an economic standpoint) to go there.
Yet another is pollution - industrial plants had a strong tendency to dump waste into rivers and suchlike until regulation imposed hefty fines.
A perfect free market would be one where all externalities were made explicit by regulations - for instance, if dumping waste required payment equivalent to that required to clean it up.
This would, however, still have problems. It would find local optima with no difficulty - but would have a strong difficulty making long-term positive movement.
For instance, consider the internet. It almost certainly would never have happened if the market had been left to its own devices - the market didn't even pick it up until it'd been around for a few decades.
So that's one flaw with a free market - it needs a non-market influence to have long-term direction.
There's one other flaw I feel markets have.
Specifically, they violate a principle of social contract theory - when there's an imbalance, they tend to favor those who have more over those who have less. Social contract theory (which is a moral philosophy, for anyone who isn't aware) would say that imbalances should favor those who have less over those who have more - and I find it very hard to disagree with that.
Thus, I feel markets need an influence to correct that - such as minimum wage laws. (Which I also feel have an overall positive influence, taking the principle of Reaganomics that sounded plausible, and applying it to people who'd actually follow it, but.)#: Posted by on 12/16 at 02:05 PM -
I like the way Natureselectedme (using which criteria?) completely missed the point about costs of creation of oil. And the fact is that it being a non-renewable resource is not priced into it.
Well I’m glad I was able to provide you some enjoyment.
I’m curious about costs of creation of oil. What do you mean? Nobody created the oil.
It’s. Just. There.
It doesn’t do anyone any good where it is. It has to be brought up to be used. What is the cost for being a non-renewable resource? How will that be priced into it? When it becomes scarce the price will increase and alternatives will be found.
Earlier I mentioned history of trucking regulations. People like you thought that without the ICC, trucking will just not work. But more importantly, won’t be fair. The ICC set the routes and rates. After they got rid of the ICC, trucking went on. Is it fair? Does it matter?#: Posted by on 12/16 at 02:41 PM -
Nature, I don't suspect you of actually being part of the U. of Chicago, just of parroting the naive Hayek/Friedman ideology.
Someone who actually doesn't agree with Friedrich A. Hayek? How interesting! You don't agree with The Road to Serfdom?#: Posted by on 12/16 at 02:56 PM -
I don't think markets have anything to do with freedom. Period.
Because if they did, there couldn't be SLAVE markets, could there?
We will never know for certain, but the first market was almost certainly in women. The second, more than likely, in useless gauds like ocher. And the third, slaves.
Not a promising beginning, if that's the way it was.
Also, it is incontrovertible that markets cannot -- or at least in all history have not -- produced certain highly desirable social goods. Like highways.
Your trucks would never have existed except for a socially coerced and regulated imposition of paved roads on markets that did not want them and destroyed the first few thousand attempts to have them.
There's what market worship leads to: a barefoot, hungry, pregnant slave walking somewhere.
You can keep it.#: Posted by on 12/16 at 06:09 PM -
Well, for one thing Harry, nobody can call you ambivalent on markets.
You’re not joking around here, are you? In an earlier comment you said you worked as a journalist.
I’m sorry but I can’t decide what you mean by markets.(assuming you’re serious) The word you’re using doesn’t fit your contempt. My definition of a market is where people trade goods and services.
I think the first market would have been in food because that’s a basic necessity
Also, it is incontrovertible that markets cannot -- or at least in all history have not -- produced certain highly desirable social goods.
Since I’m not sure what you mean, I have to use my definition of market to rebuff this.
In the United States at least, markets have been responsible for great social good.
The goods and services obtained in markets have freed society from a hand to mouth existence. Every person in society doesn’t have to grow food, build shelter, or write newspapers for themselves. We trade for what we need using markets.
There's what market worship leads to: a barefoot, hungry, pregnant slave walking somewhere.
I couldn’t disagree with you more.#: Posted by on 12/17 at 12:18 AM -
Sotek, I hadn't completely read your comment in #53896.
You lay out your theory quite well, not obfuscated with jargon.
I disagree with most of it (of course!) but at least I can see your reasoning. You place heavy requirements from social contract theory.
I’ll comment on one thing:
Social contract theory (which is a moral philosophy, for anyone who isn't aware) would say that imbalances should favor those who have less over those who have more - and I find it very hard to disagree with that.
This is a dangerous goal in the wrong hands. In the name of correcting an imbalance grave atrocities have been committed. When someone gets it in their head that they are doing something for society the individual is a mere nuisance to be disregarded.
.#: Posted by on 12/17 at 01:17 AM -
"certain" highly desireable goods, Nature.
You seem to keep missing key words. Do you have some sort of vision problem? Maybe you need to use larger fonts?
I mean, it'd be interesting to have a discussion (if you really are willing to, contrary to your previous claim), but only if we can all manage to read what the other people are saying, as opposed to what they're not saying.#: Posted by on 12/17 at 03:07 AM -
Nature, no, you misunderstand what social contract theory says.
It does not say there shouldn't be imbalances. Of course there should - a person with a college degree should generally be making more money than a burger flipper.
What social contract theory says is that when there are structual imbalances - that is, one group gains over another group - those imbalances should be in favour of the group who is at a disadvantage.
One of the classic examples of this is the graduated income tax, where the more money a person has, the higher a percentage of their income they pay.
I'm aware there are people who argue this is unfair - but can you imagine anyone, ever, arguing that it should be inverted (that is, that the poor should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes)? I can't.#: Posted by on 12/17 at 03:17 AM -
Soltek,I think my fonts are fine, thank you very much.
Yes, Harry did say certain but he ended it with barefoot, hungry, pregnant slave walking somewhere which seems to have expanded his original point. Plus, he used a highway as his example of things that a market can never do, which is silly. Markets don't prevent people from cooperating in other areas of their lives. It's just work. People still go home at night.#: Posted by on 12/17 at 10:04 AM -
Silly? OK, direct me to a map of a road network somewhere that was created by market forces.
Markets can, sometimes, generate things many people want. But they don't always.
Markets can do only what markets do. If you, like Friedman, want to check your brains at the door and declare that 'value' is defined by what markets produce, be my guest.
I can imagine other values. Barefoot, pregnant slaves are not the only outcomes of markets, but they are one of them.
Sotek, I can think of people arguing that the poor should pay more. That was the situation in the ancien regime, where the peasants, who had nothing, paid all the taxes.
The aristocracy argued that, as the warriors who defended society, they 'paid' their share of social duty in blood; and the clergy said they 'paid' in spiritual coin.
We do not have to accept that they were sincere.#: Posted by on 12/17 at 12:00 PM -
Nature: If you claim the fact that highways won't happen purely from markets isn't a weakness of markets...
... then you're restricting the SCOPE of markets - which is exactly what I advocate for.
Markets are the correct solution to some problems. They are hopeless when applied to other problems.
When markets are allowed to rule unchecked (As many self-proclaimed "libertarians" would claim is good), then the natural result is that things begin to be sold by people who have no right to sell them, and things begin to be bought that should not be for sale at all - like justice.
Harry: True. Allow me to revise my previous statement from "But can you imagine anyone, ever, arguing that it should be inverted?" to "But can you imagine anyone, in this day and age, arguing that it should be inverted?"#: Posted by on 12/17 at 04:23 PM -
NSM:
"Is it fair? Does it matter?"
Precisely. Now, those are more ethical and value laden questions. What do they have to do with markets?
Haryy- what Gaelic revival? I went to school through the 80's and 90's and dont recall it. I had to deliberately go and read books of personal and, how shall I put it, emotional and biased accounts of the clearances to get an idea of what went on and what was behind it all.
POssibly the clearances are not the sort of thing that the reverend Blair wants to hear about.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 03:56 PM -
Hmmmm. I had thought there was an effort to teach Gaelic back in the '60s. I did not realize it had died out.
The echoes of that are still heard, faintly, way out here in the North Pacific, where there are plenty of Scottish bands, even caber tossing.
The revival of Hawaiian, now pretty strongly developed, began without any government support, against strong government opposition. But the indigenes persevered and we now have schools (called 'immersion schools') that teach solely in Hawaiian. Dance (the central cultural artifact of Hawaiian life) is extremely strong. At the annual Merrie Monarch Festival, commercial television attempts to put the chants into context for English speakers.
Most of us still don't speak more than a few words of Hawaiian, but the revial is real enough for all that.
The Scots must be backsliding.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 10:00 AM