Government by opinion polls, that's sort of what we have had in the UK for the last eight years. In truth the UK is governed by headlines, which is what usually determines the outcome of the polls. The government is left to decide how best to keep as many people happy as possible to gain election, which is just another opinion poll. The problem with this system of government can be summarised in the following poll questionnaire:
1 Would you like the government to give you $1billion Yes/No
2 Would you want the government to give everybody $1billion Yes/No
The polls would come in and you would either bankrupt the government or overrule the results of question one.
Your methodolgy is to be opinion poll orientated, but allow pragmatism. So you would ignore a poll like the one above on the grounds of pragmatism. This infers that polls are worthless, because you will do what you think is pragmatic, so rather than taking poll, we should first ask you what you think is pragmatic, then if you think it is pragmatic ask the public what they think. You will find yourself swamped with questions of pragmatism, and the public swamped with polls, which is not pragmatic so it is more pragmatic to devolve the decision making to a committee or “cabinet”as it is sometimes known, then they will need to have departments full of people assessing the pragmatism of the ideas. To offset the need for constant polls, the public would elect a representative to make decisions on their behalf, and they could sit together to discuss and debate ideas in the mature method you require. The openness you seek would be tempered by national security and practical issues such as cost. The rules could be outlined in a Freedom of Information act, so that we all know where we stand.
You end up where we are, even to the point where you claim to be acting for the good of the people and not for your own agenda. What you are missing is details of the way you intend to get ideas to people and of allowing stupid people or busy people or couldn't give a fig people to participate. So it appears that your fantasy will remain a fantasy, as mine and many others have done.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Guardian: Why Creationism is wrong
No scientist can refute the theory that god created the world 3 seconds ago, with all evidence to the contrary built in, as a test of faith. Why god would do this is bit beyond scientific reason, but is within the scope of religious philosophy. One could move the timescale a bit and say god created the universe about six billion years ago, complete with all the physical laws, but still we are left with “so what”. So really there is no debate, if you believe in a creator god then, you believe that god created stuff. If you don't then go didn't. The Creation/Evolution debate is the merging different spheres of knowledge, I know that some rugby players are religious but I don't think it works to have a priest offering tactics based on Ezekiel's raising of the dead. Equally many scientists are religious, but know where the limitation of each sphere lies.
The best explanation of our existence based on the current evidence is evolution, that may change, but for now like all scientific explanations it works. Why religion feels the need to undermine science, by trampling all over its ground, is because science is damaging religion. Science has been successful, very successful, at blowing away myths and misunderstanding. Science backs itself to be tested and adjusts when it is wrong; making it more right than it was before. So as science has become more prevalent many people have found it hard to hold on to their faith, and now religion is fighting back. Religion deliberately misunderstands science, as religion is trying to show that the theory of evolution is weak, and so may be wrong, but religion will fail in its argument because it can only provide the alternative theory of “ta-daa”. Where religion will find success, however, is undermining some people's faith in science. Many people have no understanding of scientific methods, and religion is working on the underlaying worry that scientists “don't know everything”; and they don't. So scientists are left floundering because they try to tackle the argument on their usual terms and religion doesn't care about the result of that argument. The way for science to argue would be to insist that they can teach scientific theory's in church time, perhaps every church sermon should begin with an explanation that most images of christ are incorrect, as the nails would be in the wrist not the hands, that he and his mother were probably darker in complexion. Show that the bible was not written in a weekend but was collected by real people in a politically motivated way. Science doesn't need to be afraid of religion offering a theory or two, nor should it be annoyed. Science just needs to do it's normal thing but pursue it into the religious sphere, but that would scare the scientists more that the religious.
The best explanation of our existence based on the current evidence is evolution, that may change, but for now like all scientific explanations it works. Why religion feels the need to undermine science, by trampling all over its ground, is because science is damaging religion. Science has been successful, very successful, at blowing away myths and misunderstanding. Science backs itself to be tested and adjusts when it is wrong; making it more right than it was before. So as science has become more prevalent many people have found it hard to hold on to their faith, and now religion is fighting back. Religion deliberately misunderstands science, as religion is trying to show that the theory of evolution is weak, and so may be wrong, but religion will fail in its argument because it can only provide the alternative theory of “ta-daa”. Where religion will find success, however, is undermining some people's faith in science. Many people have no understanding of scientific methods, and religion is working on the underlaying worry that scientists “don't know everything”; and they don't. So scientists are left floundering because they try to tackle the argument on their usual terms and religion doesn't care about the result of that argument. The way for science to argue would be to insist that they can teach scientific theory's in church time, perhaps every church sermon should begin with an explanation that most images of christ are incorrect, as the nails would be in the wrist not the hands, that he and his mother were probably darker in complexion. Show that the bible was not written in a weekend but was collected by real people in a politically motivated way. Science doesn't need to be afraid of religion offering a theory or two, nor should it be annoyed. Science just needs to do it's normal thing but pursue it into the religious sphere, but that would scare the scientists more that the religious.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Dlibert Blog: Could Science Eliminate Religion?
I am all in favour of education and an understanding of science. I want the world to know of the benefit of tolerance and compassion. However I am not sure you will achieve your goals with this method, here's a few reasons why I think you will fail.
You forgot to mention that the most dangerous religious people live in the USA and run it's government, which indicates to me you have not fully understood that which you wish to defeat . You assume that people just wander around picking up ideas and think about them, most people go with what they know or are told by authority figures. If someone does come across a new idea, it would require some evangelical work on you part to ensure the success of the book, as evangelicals of other faiths will spend a lot of time dismissing it. You also seem to assume that faith is always bad, if you examine history many good acts have been carried out by people carrying some faith or religion, so you need to be sure your method will not undermine the good as well as the bad. Many people choose their religion after careful thought and examination of all the evidence you intend to provide and s would not be swayed by your ideas. For some the religious way of life is simply preferable to the non-religious life.
Einstein had faith that there was a unified theory, many scientists still hold this faith, yet there is no unified theory. In fact there is some evidence that a desire to find a unified theory is simply a manifestation of human form, and is comparable to our desire for a god. To truly eliminate religion you would need to truly understand the human psyche, something science has not achieved yet. So until you have an answer to the problem of human misery, and can guarantee success, I don't think you will eliminate religion.
You forgot to mention that the most dangerous religious people live in the USA and run it's government, which indicates to me you have not fully understood that which you wish to defeat . You assume that people just wander around picking up ideas and think about them, most people go with what they know or are told by authority figures. If someone does come across a new idea, it would require some evangelical work on you part to ensure the success of the book, as evangelicals of other faiths will spend a lot of time dismissing it. You also seem to assume that faith is always bad, if you examine history many good acts have been carried out by people carrying some faith or religion, so you need to be sure your method will not undermine the good as well as the bad. Many people choose their religion after careful thought and examination of all the evidence you intend to provide and s would not be swayed by your ideas. For some the religious way of life is simply preferable to the non-religious life.
Einstein had faith that there was a unified theory, many scientists still hold this faith, yet there is no unified theory. In fact there is some evidence that a desire to find a unified theory is simply a manifestation of human form, and is comparable to our desire for a god. To truly eliminate religion you would need to truly understand the human psyche, something science has not achieved yet. So until you have an answer to the problem of human misery, and can guarantee success, I don't think you will eliminate religion.
Monday, May 22, 2006
BBC Bashing
I don't personally listen to either BBC Radio One or Two, but I still dislike this stupid BBC bashing that keeps cropping up. There is a constant idea that a nationally owned company, being successful and making money for the entire nation is bad, and that privately owned companies are good.
The report says that the two radio stations should be sold off because they hamper the commercial sector. So how will having them in the commercial sector help? Only if they think being commercial will damage the service they currently offer to the listeners, leading to a decline in audience. In particular they will have to use adverts, which is one of the key reasons they are popular, I think this is what they mean by "level the competitive playing field".
What it will also do is prevent the BBC maximising any commercial funds it can raise on the back of the radio stations success, which the BBC could put in to reducing the licence fee.
The report says that the two radio stations should be sold off because they hamper the commercial sector. So how will having them in the commercial sector help? Only if they think being commercial will damage the service they currently offer to the listeners, leading to a decline in audience. In particular they will have to use adverts, which is one of the key reasons they are popular, I think this is what they mean by "level the competitive playing field".
What it will also do is prevent the BBC maximising any commercial funds it can raise on the back of the radio stations success, which the BBC could put in to reducing the licence fee.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Dilbert Blog:Those Crazy Terrorists
I posted similar comments to Scott some time ago.
What worries me most on these comments is the opinion that Arabs/Mulims are often considered sub-human maniacs, and that America and Europe could not possibly cause misery for millions of people.
We know Saddam was bad, but was the bombing of Baghdad good. Even if the ends are justified the means, the "Shock & Awe" bombing would be terrifying for those who live there. Even if the motives of Israel are pure, does it alleviate the suffering of so many Palestinians?
What worries me most on these comments is the opinion that Arabs/Mulims are often considered sub-human maniacs, and that America and Europe could not possibly cause misery for millions of people.
We know Saddam was bad, but was the bombing of Baghdad good. Even if the ends are justified the means, the "Shock & Awe" bombing would be terrifying for those who live there. Even if the motives of Israel are pure, does it alleviate the suffering of so many Palestinians?
Monday, May 15, 2006
USA and Immigration
In a shock move George Bush has placed the army on the Mexican border, and not because he thinks it is Iran. Using his Native American name Talking Bull the President said, "When we migrated in to this country across the Bering Straits from China we let some people go further in to Mexico and we did not expect to see them again". Confusing him self he added "When we stole these territories from the Mexicans in the 19th century we never imagined they would still consider it home". The American people have put up with immigration for too long, despite being a second generation President myself I think we should stop it now.
BBC Attacked by Tories
The Conservative party has complained that the BBC is stifling small local companies like the Tory party. They barked "how are USA companies supposed to form a monopoly when the BBC is so popular throughout the world?". They ranted on , "If the BBC doesn't stop soon they will make so much money that they don't need the licence fee, then how will we control them?". As an example, the BBCs dominance is stopping small garage start ups from filming Eastenders for download over the internet. The Labour party also agree that the BBC is politically biased.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Dilbert Blog: Income Gap
Here in the UK most voters are in the middle, neither rich or poor. Due to their wild aspirations, they all think they will be rich tomorrow, and many believe they are rich today. So they are convinced they must be protected from the feckless poor, and given every opportunity to accumulate vasts sums of money.
For years pollsters couldn't understand why their polls weren't working, people said they wanted more spent on health and education yet kept voting for tax cuts. In they end the pollsters decided people must be lying to them! People publicly are altruistic but in the privacy of the ballot box ask for more money for themselves.
As for the US, I hear stories about intimidation of people engaged in voter registration drives and in recent elections preventing poorer districts form getting to the polling both.
If you really wanted to start a poor persons party, rob from the rich and and all that, how would you go about publicising your cause?
For years pollsters couldn't understand why their polls weren't working, people said they wanted more spent on health and education yet kept voting for tax cuts. In they end the pollsters decided people must be lying to them! People publicly are altruistic but in the privacy of the ballot box ask for more money for themselves.
As for the US, I hear stories about intimidation of people engaged in voter registration drives and in recent elections preventing poorer districts form getting to the polling both.
If you really wanted to start a poor persons party, rob from the rich and and all that, how would you go about publicising your cause?
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)