start of a slope
ooo a slippery slope argument.
You know as a scientist I'm also bound by laws, if, like a lawyer, I assumed that anything not prevented by law was just hunky dory then there are a whole bunch of things I could do (legally) that would be morally indefensible.
I realise that lawyers are taught by other lawyers to believe that they should consider themselves simple tools of the law and not act as if they are human beings at all, but frankly I find that stance ridiculous.
And to return to the topic at hand if a lawyer finds themselves attacking the freedom of genuine investigative journalism by sending a bullying letter with no real substance to it, then again frankly, I'd have to wonder about the morality of that particular lawyer. And there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the letter was intended to intimidate the journalists into silence.
The law is a tool box, and a lawyer uses the tool that is needed to get the relevant job done.
I do understand your point, but it does sound a lot like saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
A parallel argument could be made in my profession that scientists should be allowed to research anything without regard to society or safety. I don't think such an argument is reasonable for scientists and I'm not certain it should stand for lawyers either.
Sorry way off-topic.
I’m suggesting a framework to make that much easier.
From personal experience in other debates (GMOs) there is not much point in spending your effort on the people who are ideologically opposed (equivalent to the deniers).
In order to change their minds you'd have to break their whole ideological framework - something that is difficult, tiring and IMO kind of a nasty thing to try to do to someone.
But you can spend your time and energy giving data to those in the middle - which is most folks. You give them data and if they need/want it help them understand how to interpret the data - not frame it for them but give them the language and explanations so they can understand for themselves.
If you do that - and if the data actually do support your position - then most folks can and will change their positions.
Again in my experience - arguing long and hard with the extreme deniers/opponents just makes everyone unhappy and changes nobody's positions.
For those finding themselves a little rage deficient this weekend.
Gah. That’s all I’m going to say. There’s just too much to rant about.
Joyce is just enacting for the Universities everything that National have enacted for all the other R&D funded by the taxpayers. Their logic is that we should be able to do more with less if we stop doing things that have no value (as defined by the dollar value of course).
It's Friday night drinks logic. Makes perfect sense after a couple of glasses of wine and especially if you never bother to look for any data to contradict.
Sadly it hasn't worked anywhere that such a directed research path has been followed but the logic looks good enough to avoid having to face the real issue for New Zealand R&D - which is that for the past 20 years successive governments have cut funding in real terms and loaded every research institute with a massive overhead of managers and businessmen intended to make the institutes more efficient. The net result is we have about half the funding in science that NZ needs to keep up with the rest of the world let alone lead it.
Until a minister finally stands up and says "this crap we've been trying for the last 20 years is all bollocks and we should just put more money in if we want more value out", then we're F*d.
I know lets run a series of meetings around the country and fly everyone around and talk about science as if we know what we're talking about then we can rename the funding agencies again and pretend we care about NZs future. Nobody will notice we haven't actually made a bit of difference until its time for some more meetings.
hmmm cynical today I guess
he climate changes we’re on the cusp of aren’t abnormal for Earth. they’re unprecedented for homosapiens.
That isn't quite right. The amount of temperature change has been seen before for the planet but not the rate at which that change is occurring. Such changes in the past appears to have occurred over a very long time frame - time for adaption to occur.
So yeah, the planet will cope and most folks are pretty certain there will be life on the planet (unless we go to full Venus-like hothouse) but there is not certainty that the life that exists will be able to support our civilisation.
Unfortunately I don’t think the MSM is not going to come to our rescue
I think you're right. And I do think the current batch of voices are making inroads. But it is depressing when we're faced with The Economist reporting a good news story about the reduction in carbon emissions as a result of GM crops with the headline "Frankenfoods reduce global warming"
We’d do well to support these folks as much as we can.
Any time - except raid night :).
Scientific knowledge is increasing rapidly, and none of us can be experts on everything. So we need resources to support accurate reporting of scientific issues, and we need to find ways to communicate the value, if not the infallibility, of scientific opinion based on scientific fact.
And also a recognition that we need lots of different kinds of this, because what works in communication for one group is boring as hell, or worse, obnoxious and aggravating to another group.
But we also need some help, in particular from the MSM. Because as much as we as scientist are really trying to make sense to our audiences, if the MSM insists on playing silly buggers with disinformation then there is very little we can do to counteract that.
Is it possible that Labour has this right? Isn't the point of MMP that you have multiple parties each closely representing a percentage of the population.
After the election you build a coalition.
bent wood hand rail
Oh my. How is he going to resolve the connection between the handrail and the treads? I love seeing the work of talented people.
Those stairs are a wonder, I can totally understand why each tread was a mission all of its own.