Certain subjects are immune to logic?

[thatguitarguy]

Originally Posted by tim3058

I would assume the DOE has the best available facts at their disposal. Others may just have discovered this report before I did.

Whatever facts the DOE had at their disposal at that time does not mean that anything in this report necessarily reflects the truth. The Bush administration was notorious for manipulating facts to result in a predetermined outcome.

[cfg83]

Frank -

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Carlos: perhaps I'm wired differently. Actually, I've felt that way all my life. It's like an outsider looking in. Like Spock.

I like to approach things rationally more than emotionally. Evidently that's unusual.

Heh, like your story about the used cars. I've been getting old and of questionable worthiness vehicles off Craig'slist lately. I guess it is a mix of logic/emotion: I evaluate what I can pre-purchase, mentally calculate how expensive parts will be, then gamble a bit and buy the P.O.S. with the feeling that I can handle it all and stay within/below budget.

But I wasn't thinking of any purchasing process when I started the thread. Although that's legit to discuss i.e. why choose an SUV or a Prius or whatever.

Ahhh, but you got the skillzzz to keep your cars running. It's a much bigger risk for me because I don't gots the skillzzz.

For example, I was practicaly stalking a used 2007 Saturn Ion with 23K miles on it. I determined that it would have all of the Chevy Cobalt GM Delta platform problems. It would have the steering problem, front control arm bushing problems, ignition switch problems, and other assorted issues. All of these seemed workable to me, with the only dangerous one being the steering issue. It was being sold by a dealer at private-party KBB price, so I figure the original owner panicked with the death of Saturn, traded for a Ford, and the dealer was unloading it. I Carfaxed it and it was clean as a whistle. If I were to buy one new, it was the exact model and features I would buy. On the emotional side, it was the first (of many last?) chances to get a white plastic-paneled car with suicide doors that was manufactured by UAW factory workers. It was used, so they weren't really benefiting, but I think you get the idea.

In terms of consumerism, I wasn't trying to go off topic, but it was the least politically charged example I could find that supports your hypothesis of human behavior.

I actually have a conscious consumerism stress relief mechanism. Sometimes when I've had a bad day, I go into a 99 cents store or a Big Lots and impulse shop. The idea is, even if I buy worthless junk, at least it's cheap medicine. I think it goes back to when I used to go to the Thrift store with my Mom.

CarloSW2

[tim3058]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3058
I would assume the DOE has the best available facts at their disposal. Others may just have discovered this report before I did.

Whatever facts the DOE had at their disposal at that time does not mean that anything in this report necessarily reflects the truth. The Bush administration was notorious for manipulating facts to result in a predetermined outcome.

But couldn't that response be extended to any discussion ruling out any facts, dissolving a logical discussion into an emotional one (I don't like the source so the facts must be false), which is what Frank Lee started the thread by (100% right-on) criticizing.

I'm all ears if someone has facts that contradict the DOE report, it was just my attempt to add fact-based logic to a thread (correctly) criticizing knee-jerk emotional responses.

[thatguitarguy]

Maybe I haven't made myself clear.

I'm not saying that any facts are false. I'm saying that whoever you are, if you predetermine what the end result will be, you can find legitimate facts that will support your predetermined outcome. And you can ignore all legitimate facts that contradict your predetermined outcome. That a predetermined outcome is based on hand-picked facts doesn't mean that it's not factual, but it certainly doesn't mean that it's the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth. And that doesn't make it emotional.

[tasdrouille]

Originally Posted by tim3058

The opening of ANWR to oil and gas development includes the following impacts:
• reducing world oil prices,
• reducing the U.S. dependence on imported foreign oil,
• improving the U.S. balance of trade,
•extending the life of TAPS [current alaskan pipeline] for oil, and
•increasing U.S. jobs.

What would the trade-offs be? Which aspects weight more, and from what perspective?

Remember folks, you can always find a source out there that will prove any point. What really matters is the general concensus amongst studies.

Originally Posted by cfg83

I have repeatedly heard that emotional responses are about 1000 times faster than rational thought.

I'd say this holds true for forum postings too. I often write and then ask myself the question whether or not I really need to post this, whether or not this will help someone or provide some insight. Incidentally, I also often delete messages just before hitting the submit button.

[thatguitarguy]

Originally Posted by tim3058

The opening of ANWR to oil and gas development includes the following impacts:
• reducing world oil prices,
• reducing the U.S. dependence on imported foreign oil,
• improving the U.S. balance of trade,
•extending the life of TAPS [current alaskan pipeline] for oil, and
•increasing U.S. jobs.

For starters, it should be obvious that these "conclusions" are predictions of the future, and any predictions of the future are not factual.

[chuckm]

Remember folks, you can always find a source out there that will prove any point.

I couldn't agree more! In my mind, this is a corallary to Barnum's Law (There's a sucker born every minute.)

What really matters is the general concensus amongst studies.

I have to disagree. What really matters is the truth. I'm not trying to split hairs here either. If you had polled the scientists of the 12th century, the "general consensus" would have suggested a flat earth.
Predicting the future is a messy business. Two groups, working from the same data, can arrive at vastly different results. Just look at the tsunami predicted for Hawaii after the Chilean earthquake. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii predicted major problems, while the prediction made by the Center for Tsunami Research in Seattle was much closer to the real result. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center was using the method and model that was generally accepted. What happened? Although they had the same data, they operated from different base assumptions (re: depth, wave speed, wave interval, dispersion, etc). The "general consensus" methodology appears to be deficient in this case.

Regarding ANWR, I have uninformed opinions, so I'll keep quiet. But on population controls, I'll say this: when someone comes to enforce their policy by forcibly cutting my n$%s off, I'll meet them with a shotgun. That's my emotional response. People are often for population controls until it gets personal. "Not in my backyard." Solar panels in the Mojave, anyone?

[tasdrouille]

Originally Posted by chuckm

I have to disagree. What really matters is the truth. I'm not trying to split hairs here either. If you had polled the scientists of the 12th century, the "general consensus" would have suggested a flat earth.

Truth must be proven. Few things in life can be considered absolute truth, most things rely on theories, which by definition have yet to be proven. The strenght, or acceptance of those theories depend on the general concensus.

What we believe true today that has not yet been proved might very well be false tomorrow, but that's all we have.

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by tasdrouille

Truth must be proven. Few things in life can be considered absolute truth, most things rely on theories, which by definition have yet to be proven.

Not sure if you're intentionally trying to push emotional buttons here, but if you're referencing scientific theories, there really is no way to explicitly and unquestionably prove a scientific theory true. Rather, there is a collection of evidence (test results, observations, etc) which will support a theory and if there's enough supporting data then it's accepted as true. But even then, it's not absolute truth since it's certainly possible (though in some cases not very probable) for someone to devise an experiment that either modifies or completely disproves the theory.

Gravity is considered a theory by the scientific community still, even though I'd guess most of us layfolk consider it absolute truth.

[Frank Lee]

Re: ANWR: I had a "sorta" preconceived notion about it but not a real strong opinion one way or the other before I looked into it. So I looked into it.

I found the DOE data, which is SUPPOSED to be objective (guitarguy: the new administration hasn't come out with any refuting data have they???). I also found info from both pro and anti drilling organizations. tim: what else can one do? I presume geologists are supplying the most accurate estimates possible based on the state-of-the-art science. Is there a better option?

The bottom line is, one can take the lowest and the highest resource estimates from all rational sides and reasonably assume the truth to be somewhere in the middle (that's what I do for everything I come across that has much ambiguity. At least that gives me a range to work with). Still with me? When even the HIGHEST estimate is compared to U.S. usage, if the oil were to be accessable at the rate we use it (I know, it ain't gonna happen, but this is just for illustrative purposes OK?) it would be gone in about 2 1/2 years. Yes. 2.5 years. MAX. All other values were lower. The obvious conclusion is that this whole ANWR thing being any sort of energy supply solution is a joke. I'm pretty sure I didn't inject anything predetermined into that.

And yet, the monkeys vote against a fact-based presentation 3:1.

chuck: re: pop control: My stance on that is it's not critical enough yet to go around cutting nads off. HOWEVER, it is clear that government policies subsidize excess (i.e. resulting in growth) reproduction while it is painfully clear there is no human shortage. I want all financial incentives to excessively breed to be removed, and see what effect that has before going more extreme.