What’s a newspaper reader to do about global warming? Forget it? Punt? Hide under the bed? What?
First off, what’s a “newspaper reader”? Let’s just say he’s a “lunch-bag” type.
So, why care about lunch-bag types, they don’t know nuthin anyway? Well, for one thing lunch-bag types make up most of the 300 million or so citizens of the U.S.!
I’m confused. Do we or don’t we have “global warming”? And, if we do (and I for one believe it), how much of it is actually due to humans’ burning fossil fuels? Apparently even the “ scientific experts” feel it necessary to politicize the matter by “fudging” the data.
At least that is what one understands from the reprinted Tampa Tribune essay (12-6-2011) “Gambling on the theory of global warming,” by J. Gurwitz.
Gurwitz makes cute (tongue-in-cheek?) reference to “Pascal’s Wager,” and therefore one “solution,” since we don’t really know, is that there is global warming and that humans are the main cause of it.
Now, if we come to those conclusions, there is a solution -- it only costs some $37 trillion! (Uh huh)
But, then Gurwitz ends his essay wondering if “…shouldn’t such a costly wager be based on fact, not on a scheme…?
This lunch-bag type can only agree.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Mistakes People Make
It is a typical human mistake to finish reading a book (be it about medicine, or physics, or the human brain, or what-have-you) that the reader finds compelling; it may even appear to contain the “end all” of information on that particular subject.
Almost always, the mistake is the end all part.
That book or essay or whatever, however well written, however solid may seem the information contained, it is but a “chapter” in Mortimer Adler’s “Great Conversation” that has been going on across generations for all of human history.
The “lumpers” and “splitters” among us may try to combine or divide things concerning a given subject so as to make it more easily understandable, or to try to explain its evolution over the eons, but those efforts are merely potential aids.
Another mistake we humans have made through the ages, and occasionally continue to make to this day, is to burn or otherwise try to expunge books, essays, etc. because one finds the information in them somehow objectionable; usually, but not always, according to the local mores or beliefs of the time. When this has happened, valuable contributions to the Great Conversation have sometimes been lost forever.
The Greeks, the Romans, Europeans, other civilizations, have tried to do this from time to time throughout the centuries. It is a human mistake! One does not have to accept anyone’s assertions about anything, but it is a mistake to try to eliminate them.
Almost always, the mistake is the end all part.
That book or essay or whatever, however well written, however solid may seem the information contained, it is but a “chapter” in Mortimer Adler’s “Great Conversation” that has been going on across generations for all of human history.
The “lumpers” and “splitters” among us may try to combine or divide things concerning a given subject so as to make it more easily understandable, or to try to explain its evolution over the eons, but those efforts are merely potential aids.
Another mistake we humans have made through the ages, and occasionally continue to make to this day, is to burn or otherwise try to expunge books, essays, etc. because one finds the information in them somehow objectionable; usually, but not always, according to the local mores or beliefs of the time. When this has happened, valuable contributions to the Great Conversation have sometimes been lost forever.
The Greeks, the Romans, Europeans, other civilizations, have tried to do this from time to time throughout the centuries. It is a human mistake! One does not have to accept anyone’s assertions about anything, but it is a mistake to try to eliminate them.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
The Use and Misuse of Information
It is not surprising that "things" which just happen day-to-day are made use of by us humans when they support our positions. But, sometimes such are used inappropriately, I think.
When one's "team" or individual wins a game, it is understandable that one might "crow" a little to other sportsminded friends. But it is often inappropriate to use that win as proof that that team or person is better than another. That's a simple example (thinking here particularly of professional baseball, football and tennis, but it goes for most other sports).
Much more complicated is the situation when one hears speeches or finds articles which support, say, that human energy activities are mainly responsible for "global warming." Al Gore, a political giant of the day, who is certainly not himself an "expert" in this field, has come out strongly with this sentiment on more than one occasion. Of course, he has some authoritative researchers, who conclude the same thing. And, most of current and very wide ranging and expensive government activities (both Federal and State) take this position for gospel, and thus use it as a given, with no allowance (to use a euphemism) for anyother authoritative evidence.
Then there is the "other side" as stated above, also authoritative researchers in the field of world-wide climate change, who maintain that it is premature to wholly take this position, while admitting (possibly even most of them do) that human activities probably do have appreciable effect. So it is not a matter of whether or not, it is a matter of proportion: long term human energy contributions to global worming on one side, and long term natural causes on the other.
There is good evidence, it seems to me, that finds "natural causes" as responsible for most of global warming. Thus, caution, at least, should be used before our political leadership not only takes the former side for gospel, but commits huge amounts of money and policy changes to it.
All of this said, I certainly agree that efforts should be made to mitigate the probable human contribution to global warming, but go at it in such a way that at least allows due credence for the other side's position in this crucial long term matter -- at least until the "real experts" come to a mostly homogenous conclusion.
Lately, for example, even we lay people in this field are reading that "particle physicists" have for some time elsewhere, but also presently are making use of the huge French/Swiss "particle accelerator" to mimic some cosmic energy effects that would support the view, if "positive," that natural causes (in the cosmos) contribute the most to what we are measuring, namely an appreciable tendency for the past hundred years or so for our earth's surface to be gradually warming. That much is not in real dispute.
After all, we are not talking here about ephemeral and inconseqential day-to-day matters such as whose team is better!
Dallas Tuthill, M.D.
When one's "team" or individual wins a game, it is understandable that one might "crow" a little to other sportsminded friends. But it is often inappropriate to use that win as proof that that team or person is better than another. That's a simple example (thinking here particularly of professional baseball, football and tennis, but it goes for most other sports).
Much more complicated is the situation when one hears speeches or finds articles which support, say, that human energy activities are mainly responsible for "global warming." Al Gore, a political giant of the day, who is certainly not himself an "expert" in this field, has come out strongly with this sentiment on more than one occasion. Of course, he has some authoritative researchers, who conclude the same thing. And, most of current and very wide ranging and expensive government activities (both Federal and State) take this position for gospel, and thus use it as a given, with no allowance (to use a euphemism) for anyother authoritative evidence.
Then there is the "other side" as stated above, also authoritative researchers in the field of world-wide climate change, who maintain that it is premature to wholly take this position, while admitting (possibly even most of them do) that human activities probably do have appreciable effect. So it is not a matter of whether or not, it is a matter of proportion: long term human energy contributions to global worming on one side, and long term natural causes on the other.
There is good evidence, it seems to me, that finds "natural causes" as responsible for most of global warming. Thus, caution, at least, should be used before our political leadership not only takes the former side for gospel, but commits huge amounts of money and policy changes to it.
All of this said, I certainly agree that efforts should be made to mitigate the probable human contribution to global warming, but go at it in such a way that at least allows due credence for the other side's position in this crucial long term matter -- at least until the "real experts" come to a mostly homogenous conclusion.
Lately, for example, even we lay people in this field are reading that "particle physicists" have for some time elsewhere, but also presently are making use of the huge French/Swiss "particle accelerator" to mimic some cosmic energy effects that would support the view, if "positive," that natural causes (in the cosmos) contribute the most to what we are measuring, namely an appreciable tendency for the past hundred years or so for our earth's surface to be gradually warming. That much is not in real dispute.
After all, we are not talking here about ephemeral and inconseqential day-to-day matters such as whose team is better!
Dallas Tuthill, M.D.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Something to Ponder
Lee Roy Selmon died in his fifties yesterday (9-4-2011) of a massive stroke. He was in the Football Hall of Fame and became famous in the Tampa Bay area because of his former prowess as a Bucs football player. During the decades since his active football days, he progressively and favorably impressed all with his humility and honest willingness to serve his community.
I certainly agree with the community-wide assessment of Lee Roy Selmon, but I also believe that he was the same gentleman before, during, and after his football days.
I just wonder if he could have become such an influential icon if he had not been a football star?
Dallas Tuthill
I certainly agree with the community-wide assessment of Lee Roy Selmon, but I also believe that he was the same gentleman before, during, and after his football days.
I just wonder if he could have become such an influential icon if he had not been a football star?
Dallas Tuthill
Monday, October 18, 2010
WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE
I cannot remember when I was not for equal rights for women - even as a young man.
Recently was looking into the History of Women's Suffrage and of course the names of Anthony and Stanton were prominent, along with others. But these women both died in the early years of the 20th Century, years before the 19the Amendment which finally gave women the right to vote in any state of the nation.
Maybe I missed something that is prominent, but recently I watched a movie on a disc which depicted the lives of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, among others. These women, and others, staged a kind of civil disobedience before the White House (Wilson was President at the time, toward the end of WW I) protesting the lack of women's suffrage in the U.S.
They were never violent themselves apparently, but the movie graphically showed, among other things, their being jailed more than once, and later going on a hunger strike. They were physically brutalized, including being subjected to a crude kind of forced feeding. I couldn't believe it! The women "won" in the end, but this had to be Hollywood making it up, I thought.
Much to my surprise when I "googled" these names, I found that what the movie depicted actually happened! So far as I know -- which is little enough -- such never happened to Anthony or Stanton in the 19th Century. They were certainly flawed women in some ways perhaps, but they were very, very brave for decades, and their work was finally effective to be sure. Still, physical torture they did not have to endure!
So, I suppose people more knowledgeable than I about all of this know of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, but I doubt that the so-called "man-in-the-street" knows -- especially these days. But he should!
Further, I doubt very much that the 19th Amendment would have come about when it did without the incredible courage of these two women!
How could intelligent and educated men, especially the leaders, be so dumb for so long?
Recently was looking into the History of Women's Suffrage and of course the names of Anthony and Stanton were prominent, along with others. But these women both died in the early years of the 20th Century, years before the 19the Amendment which finally gave women the right to vote in any state of the nation.
Maybe I missed something that is prominent, but recently I watched a movie on a disc which depicted the lives of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, among others. These women, and others, staged a kind of civil disobedience before the White House (Wilson was President at the time, toward the end of WW I) protesting the lack of women's suffrage in the U.S.
They were never violent themselves apparently, but the movie graphically showed, among other things, their being jailed more than once, and later going on a hunger strike. They were physically brutalized, including being subjected to a crude kind of forced feeding. I couldn't believe it! The women "won" in the end, but this had to be Hollywood making it up, I thought.
Much to my surprise when I "googled" these names, I found that what the movie depicted actually happened! So far as I know -- which is little enough -- such never happened to Anthony or Stanton in the 19th Century. They were certainly flawed women in some ways perhaps, but they were very, very brave for decades, and their work was finally effective to be sure. Still, physical torture they did not have to endure!
So, I suppose people more knowledgeable than I about all of this know of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, but I doubt that the so-called "man-in-the-street" knows -- especially these days. But he should!
Further, I doubt very much that the 19th Amendment would have come about when it did without the incredible courage of these two women!
How could intelligent and educated men, especially the leaders, be so dumb for so long?
Friday, August 6, 2010
Philosophy versus Philosophy
Have noticed that "philosophy" means different things to most people.
On the one hand, philosophy, as the word is used commonly, seems to mean "whatever one thinks about most anything: politics, how one should live one's life, etc.
On the other hand, "philosophy" is a college-level subject, and as "academics" would have it, serious and expressed thought has been given to it by various geniouses (Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, etc.) ever since Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, right down the present day. Every college worthy of the name has its philosopher(s) and they give lectures, write essays, write books, and in general argue (often quite vociferously, and sometimes arrogantly it seems to me) with their like-minded brethren about the minutiae of the genre. Some of it is quite "transparent" and intuitively understandable, but often it is obtuse, and hard to follow -- especially if one is not familiar with the jargon that goes with it.
Philosophy in the latter sense means, of course, "love of learning." However, in practice this covers a lot of ground, and can get -- for most of us "unwashed" -- quite opaque. The various theories of the apprehension of human knowlege can be quite "difficult." These guys love to call each other "great thinkers," even when they disagree. And, somehow (I am not really sure how) academic "philosophers" are supposed to eventually make a diffence in the "real world." Sometimes I think they just like to hear themselves talk, and write, especially when they have "tenure."
Anyway, most of this goes on over the head of the "man-in-the-street." Still, guys like Locke, Paine, and others, apparently did stimulate "Our Founders" to come up with -- among other things -- our "Declaration of Independence," and later on, in 1787, our Constitution of the U.S.
Problem is that, as one would expect, the Constitution was a compromise! You know, each black (regardless of gender) was 3/5ths of a "man," etc. And, even with the Bill of Rights (which, for just one example, Hamilton did not feel we needed), and subsequent "amendments," our government has gradually, and for the past 80 years or so not so gradually, become bigger and bigger until we have things we are calling "Tea Parties" that have erupted across the land. According to this common brand of "philosophy," we just can't afford the lengths to which our "entitlement society" has now gone. However, I suspect -- just suspect, I don't know for sure -- that most of these people involved in the "Tea Parties" would accept what DC is offering if we could afford it. I base this suspicion on the fact that, for just an example, Social Security is one of the most popular "products" of our government these days.
In any case, that's what I call trying to "treat the symptoms, not the disease."
Dallas B. Tuthill, M.D.
On the one hand, philosophy, as the word is used commonly, seems to mean "whatever one thinks about most anything: politics, how one should live one's life, etc.
On the other hand, "philosophy" is a college-level subject, and as "academics" would have it, serious and expressed thought has been given to it by various geniouses (Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, etc.) ever since Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, right down the present day. Every college worthy of the name has its philosopher(s) and they give lectures, write essays, write books, and in general argue (often quite vociferously, and sometimes arrogantly it seems to me) with their like-minded brethren about the minutiae of the genre. Some of it is quite "transparent" and intuitively understandable, but often it is obtuse, and hard to follow -- especially if one is not familiar with the jargon that goes with it.
Philosophy in the latter sense means, of course, "love of learning." However, in practice this covers a lot of ground, and can get -- for most of us "unwashed" -- quite opaque. The various theories of the apprehension of human knowlege can be quite "difficult." These guys love to call each other "great thinkers," even when they disagree. And, somehow (I am not really sure how) academic "philosophers" are supposed to eventually make a diffence in the "real world." Sometimes I think they just like to hear themselves talk, and write, especially when they have "tenure."
Anyway, most of this goes on over the head of the "man-in-the-street." Still, guys like Locke, Paine, and others, apparently did stimulate "Our Founders" to come up with -- among other things -- our "Declaration of Independence," and later on, in 1787, our Constitution of the U.S.
Problem is that, as one would expect, the Constitution was a compromise! You know, each black (regardless of gender) was 3/5ths of a "man," etc. And, even with the Bill of Rights (which, for just one example, Hamilton did not feel we needed), and subsequent "amendments," our government has gradually, and for the past 80 years or so not so gradually, become bigger and bigger until we have things we are calling "Tea Parties" that have erupted across the land. According to this common brand of "philosophy," we just can't afford the lengths to which our "entitlement society" has now gone. However, I suspect -- just suspect, I don't know for sure -- that most of these people involved in the "Tea Parties" would accept what DC is offering if we could afford it. I base this suspicion on the fact that, for just an example, Social Security is one of the most popular "products" of our government these days.
In any case, that's what I call trying to "treat the symptoms, not the disease."
Dallas B. Tuthill, M.D.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
NPR RADIO -- FREE!
Read recently in the Tampa Tribune the results of an interview with Vivian Schiller, President and CEO of NPR. One of her "answers" was simply not true.
Ms. Schiller stated, "...It is at the heart of our mission that we will make our content available to people for free." That is false.
NPR was started years ago by the U.S. Federal Government, and it still subsidizes NPR. Our Federal Government does not have any money that it did not secure from taxpayers, in one way or another. Federal Government subsidies come from money so obtained. I am a taxpayer.
I like PBS, especially the "classical music," and have it on (radio) most all day, every day. For many years I donated substantial amounts of money to PBS yearly, but for several years now I have not. I believe PBS content is sufficiently good -- as their proponents keep telling us -- that PBS could now stand on its own without goverment subsidy.
When PBS "cuts this cord to mother," I will again donate to the cause yearly, not before.
D.B. Tuthill, M.D.
Ms. Schiller stated, "...It is at the heart of our mission that we will make our content available to people for free." That is false.
NPR was started years ago by the U.S. Federal Government, and it still subsidizes NPR. Our Federal Government does not have any money that it did not secure from taxpayers, in one way or another. Federal Government subsidies come from money so obtained. I am a taxpayer.
I like PBS, especially the "classical music," and have it on (radio) most all day, every day. For many years I donated substantial amounts of money to PBS yearly, but for several years now I have not. I believe PBS content is sufficiently good -- as their proponents keep telling us -- that PBS could now stand on its own without goverment subsidy.
When PBS "cuts this cord to mother," I will again donate to the cause yearly, not before.
D.B. Tuthill, M.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)