A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Andrew



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 10th 19, 10:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,372
Default Andrew

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 12:08:11 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 9:45:45 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 9:01:33 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 4:16:53 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 7:21:12 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:41:31 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 1:23:24 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 6:10 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Andre Jute
Economics isn't difficult: it is the commonsense activities of individuals considered in aggregate.


???

If the query is about the tagline to my sig, many economists with real life experience in business are moving away from the first two great commandments of classical economics, viz that all individuals in every market are fully informed and fully rational in every decision. That is clearly not so. We don't need to go further afield than RBT for an example.

Of course we don't go as far as Krugman, who is so Post-Modern, he's totally unmoored from reality, indeed he's unattached to anything he said yesterday or the day before, though in a few days he'll probably spout the same weirdness as he did a couple of weeks ago. In fact, he's so cyclically insane, we should make him an honorary member of RBT.

Andre Jute
Sane since I was 13. I wonder how I managed that.


Krugman is indeed unhinged and he was even before Trump
Derangement Syndrome.


I must quibble that although many individual investors are
frequently wrong, and provably so, the wisdom of crowds is a
real thing and an amazingly reliable economic indicator. Nor
infallible, but amazingly prescient usually.

I agree. However, the mob is never right. The trick is to distinguish the mob from the crowd.



Andre Jute
I can't believe the foolishness of historians who equate the French and American Revolutions. The French wanted to raise a ravening mob of murderers, the American Founding Fathers created the Electoral College and other enduring institutions specifically to defend minorities against the mob.


No one understood it better than Burke:

https://www.alibris.com/Reflections-...77?matches=601

An excellent short read and starting at just 99 cents.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Thanks, Andrew. I know it, and in fact have it (free from Project Gutenberg) on iBooks to read on my treadmill, but first I want to read Thomas Carlyle History of the French Revolution again, to which Burke makes a suitable coda. At the moment I'm working my way through Stephen Meyers Darwin's Doubt, which may be the most important book of the century so far, and Carlyle is next. He's an agreeable stylist and a meticulous historian, so I won't be rushing the pleasure.


Pffff (blowing out coffee). Darwin's Doubt the most important book of the century so far?

The only thing more important than where we came from is where we're going. Any ideas?

Yikes, an ID book?

Have you actually read it? I haven't finished it but I'm far enough to know that his dissection of all the other theories is fair-minded and persausive.


No, I've only read the reviews -- and I will admit my prejudices, which a (1) whenever I finish a book that involves religion or philosophy chasing science, or vice versa, I feel like I've wasted my time. The book may illuminate some current controversy, but that controversy is usually gone in ten years or has mutated like a virus into a different controversy. It started out as creationism, mutated into intelligent design and will be something different in five years -- maybe go back to ancient astronauts or the Illuminati. Meanwhile, the actual scientific community plods along with evolution. One hopes for primary work that really proves something rather than a curated, retrospective review of prior research with a new gloss. (2) I'm not against God or intelligent design, but really, if you were an all-powerful God, would you create a Trilobite? Why not a dog or a Swedish bikini model. The God envisioned by these people is so lame.

-- Jay Beattie.


Jay, I don't think that you realize the problems with Darwin. While improvement of the species certainly is possible in the time since Darwin we have never witnessed speciation due to evolution.

Just the human genome itself would require about several thousand mutations per second since life first appeared on Earth to have reached the present point of development. The numbers are simply far too large for Darwin's theories to ever work on the large scale necessary.

So you can either believe that the impossible happened or that there was intelligent design behind it.


I totally agree! And the intelligent designer is the Hindu god Ganesha, who sort of looks like a Trilobite, if a Trilobite were a human-elephant hybrid. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/54/22...b54aed3427.jpg

I actually think we were designed by a committee, and the temp-guy who came on at the last minute did Australia. That place is filled with natures out-takes, most of them poisonous. The temp-guy sketched out a duck-billed platypus on the back of a napkin as a joke and then sent it down to production on the day he was fired as a FU to the big boss. "Meh, put it in Australia" -- God.

-- Jay Beattie.
Ads
  #22  
Old August 10th 19, 10:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,452
Default Andrew

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 5:45:45 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 9:01:33 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 4:16:53 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 7:21:12 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:41:31 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 1:23:24 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 6:10 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Andre Jute
Economics isn't difficult: it is the commonsense activities of individuals considered in aggregate.


???

If the query is about the tagline to my sig, many economists with real life experience in business are moving away from the first two great commandments of classical economics, viz that all individuals in every market are fully informed and fully rational in every decision. That is clearly not so. We don't need to go further afield than RBT for an example.

Of course we don't go as far as Krugman, who is so Post-Modern, he's totally unmoored from reality, indeed he's unattached to anything he said yesterday or the day before, though in a few days he'll probably spout the same weirdness as he did a couple of weeks ago. In fact, he's so cyclically insane, we should make him an honorary member of RBT.

Andre Jute
Sane since I was 13. I wonder how I managed that.


Krugman is indeed unhinged and he was even before Trump
Derangement Syndrome.


I must quibble that although many individual investors are
frequently wrong, and provably so, the wisdom of crowds is a
real thing and an amazingly reliable economic indicator. Nor
infallible, but amazingly prescient usually.

I agree. However, the mob is never right. The trick is to distinguish the mob from the crowd.



Andre Jute
I can't believe the foolishness of historians who equate the French and American Revolutions. The French wanted to raise a ravening mob of murderers, the American Founding Fathers created the Electoral College and other enduring institutions specifically to defend minorities against the mob.


No one understood it better than Burke:

https://www.alibris.com/Reflections-...77?matches=601

An excellent short read and starting at just 99 cents.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Thanks, Andrew. I know it, and in fact have it (free from Project Gutenberg) on iBooks to read on my treadmill, but first I want to read Thomas Carlyle History of the French Revolution again, to which Burke makes a suitable coda. At the moment I'm working my way through Stephen Meyers Darwin's Doubt, which may be the most important book of the century so far, and Carlyle is next. He's an agreeable stylist and a meticulous historian, so I won't be rushing the pleasure.


Pffff (blowing out coffee). Darwin's Doubt the most important book of the century so far?


The only thing more important than where we came from is where we're going. Any ideas?

Yikes, an ID book?


Have you actually read it? I haven't finished it but I'm far enough to know that his dissection of all the other theories is fair-minded and persausive.


No, I've only read the reviews -- and I will admit my prejudices, which a (1) whenever I finish a book that involves religion or philosophy chasing science, or vice versa, I feel like I've wasted my time. The book may illuminate some current controversy, but that controversy is usually gone in ten years or has mutated like a virus into a different controversy. It started out as creationism, mutated into intelligent design and will be something different in five years -- maybe go back to ancient astronauts or the Illuminati. Meanwhile, the actual scientific community plods along with evolution. One hopes for primary work that really proves something rather than a curated, retrospective review of prior research with a new gloss. (2) I'm not against God or intelligent design, but really, if you were an all-powerful God, would you create a Trilobite? Why not a dog or a Swedish bikini model. The God envisioned by these people is so lame.

-- Jay Beattie.


Uh-uh. This isn't "some current controversy", this has been burbling along since Darwin's time. Darwin himself was aware of the problem of the animals of the Cambrian Radiation having no ancestors in the fossil record. You understand, Darwin didn't want to publish, don't you; he was forced to publish by someone else coming up with the same theory of evolution. The big reason Darwin wasn't ready to publish was the problem with the Pre-Cambrian, the missing fossils. Darwin admitted in his book that there were no antecedent fossils and that he hoped they would be found by digging deeper. Quite literally from Darwin's own time, there was serious discontent in the palaeontology community with the holes in Darwin's theory, and it didn't stand long before it was replaced by neb-darwinism, which is the version which larger and larger numbers of developmental biologists are now saying isn't the answer either. BTW, nothing to do with religion, whatever you read in the paper or on the net or TV -- those clowns just can't get anything right. These scientists are being driven to intelligent design in the most profoundly non-religious sense imaginable because none of the other theories can demonstrate the causa vera of the sudden arrival of so many large and complex animals in the Cambrian apparently whole and all at once.

You should keep up to date, Jay, not for the sake of being current on evolution theory, but because this is a true revolution in science, happening before your eyes. It's been growing like a boil, starting with Darwin himself, and now it has come to a head, and the whole profession is in turmoil and in a slow burst. See also my posts to Tom.

Andre Jute
I've seen whole professions and disciplines under stress before, but nothing like this
  #23  
Old August 10th 19, 10:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,965
Default Andrew

On 8/10/2019 4:18 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 5:45:45 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 9:01:33 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 4:16:53 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 7:21:12 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:41:31 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 1:23:24 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 6:10 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Andre Jute
Economics isn't difficult: it is the commonsense activities of individuals considered in aggregate.


???

If the query is about the tagline to my sig, many economists with real life experience in business are moving away from the first two great commandments of classical economics, viz that all individuals in every market are fully informed and fully rational in every decision. That is clearly not so. We don't need to go further afield than RBT for an example.

Of course we don't go as far as Krugman, who is so Post-Modern, he's totally unmoored from reality, indeed he's unattached to anything he said yesterday or the day before, though in a few days he'll probably spout the same weirdness as he did a couple of weeks ago. In fact, he's so cyclically insane, we should make him an honorary member of RBT.

Andre Jute
Sane since I was 13. I wonder how I managed that.


Krugman is indeed unhinged and he was even before Trump
Derangement Syndrome.


I must quibble that although many individual investors are
frequently wrong, and provably so, the wisdom of crowds is a
real thing and an amazingly reliable economic indicator. Nor
infallible, but amazingly prescient usually.

I agree. However, the mob is never right. The trick is to distinguish the mob from the crowd.



Andre Jute
I can't believe the foolishness of historians who equate the French and American Revolutions. The French wanted to raise a ravening mob of murderers, the American Founding Fathers created the Electoral College and other enduring institutions specifically to defend minorities against the mob.


No one understood it better than Burke:

https://www.alibris.com/Reflections-...77?matches=601

An excellent short read and starting at just 99 cents.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Thanks, Andrew. I know it, and in fact have it (free from Project Gutenberg) on iBooks to read on my treadmill, but first I want to read Thomas Carlyle History of the French Revolution again, to which Burke makes a suitable coda. At the moment I'm working my way through Stephen Meyers Darwin's Doubt, which may be the most important book of the century so far, and Carlyle is next. He's an agreeable stylist and a meticulous historian, so I won't be rushing the pleasure.


Pffff (blowing out coffee). Darwin's Doubt the most important book of the century so far?

The only thing more important than where we came from is where we're going. Any ideas?

Yikes, an ID book?

Have you actually read it? I haven't finished it but I'm far enough to know that his dissection of all the other theories is fair-minded and persausive.


No, I've only read the reviews -- and I will admit my prejudices, which a (1) whenever I finish a book that involves religion or philosophy chasing science, or vice versa, I feel like I've wasted my time. The book may illuminate some current controversy, but that controversy is usually gone in ten years or has mutated like a virus into a different controversy. It started out as creationism, mutated into intelligent design and will be something different in five years -- maybe go back to ancient astronauts or the Illuminati. Meanwhile, the actual scientific community plods along with evolution. One hopes for primary work that really proves something rather than a curated, retrospective review of prior research with a new gloss. (2) I'm not against God or intelligent design, but really, if you were an all-powerful God, would you create a Trilobite? Why not a dog or a Swedish bikini model. The God envisioned by these people is so lame.

-- Jay Beattie.


Uh-uh. This isn't "some current controversy", this has been burbling along since Darwin's time. Darwin himself was aware of the problem of the animals of the Cambrian Radiation having no ancestors in the fossil record. You understand, Darwin didn't want to publish, don't you; he was forced to publish by someone else coming up with the same theory of evolution. The big reason Darwin wasn't ready to publish was the problem with the Pre-Cambrian, the missing fossils. Darwin admitted in his book that there were no antecedent fossils and that he hoped they would be found by digging deeper. Quite literally from Darwin's own time, there was serious discontent in the palaeontology community with the holes in Darwin's theory, and it didn't stand long before it was replaced by neb-darwinism, which is the version which larger and larger numbers of developmental biologists are now saying isn't the answer either. BTW, nothing to do with religion, whatever you read in the paper or on the net or

TV -- those clowns just can't get anything right. These scientists are being driven to intelligent design in the most profoundly non-religious sense imaginable because none of the other theories can demonstrate the causa vera of the sudden arrival of so many large and complex animals in the Cambrian apparently whole and all at once.

You should keep up to date, Jay, not for the sake of being current on evolution theory, but because this is a true revolution in science, happening before your eyes. It's been growing like a boil, starting with Darwin himself, and now it has come to a head, and the whole profession is in turmoil and in a slow burst. See also my posts to Tom.

Andre Jute
I've seen whole professions and disciplines under stress before, but nothing like this


Simple.
Jay's right, He touched Earth with his noodly appendage:

https://i1.wp.com/godofindia.com/wp-.../ganesh-45.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #24  
Old August 10th 19, 10:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,452
Default Andrew

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 8:08:11 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 9:45:45 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 9:01:33 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 4:16:53 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 7:21:12 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:41:31 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 1:23:24 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 6:10 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Andre Jute
Economics isn't difficult: it is the commonsense activities of individuals considered in aggregate.


???

If the query is about the tagline to my sig, many economists with real life experience in business are moving away from the first two great commandments of classical economics, viz that all individuals in every market are fully informed and fully rational in every decision. That is clearly not so. We don't need to go further afield than RBT for an example.

Of course we don't go as far as Krugman, who is so Post-Modern, he's totally unmoored from reality, indeed he's unattached to anything he said yesterday or the day before, though in a few days he'll probably spout the same weirdness as he did a couple of weeks ago. In fact, he's so cyclically insane, we should make him an honorary member of RBT.

Andre Jute
Sane since I was 13. I wonder how I managed that.


Krugman is indeed unhinged and he was even before Trump
Derangement Syndrome.


I must quibble that although many individual investors are
frequently wrong, and provably so, the wisdom of crowds is a
real thing and an amazingly reliable economic indicator. Nor
infallible, but amazingly prescient usually.

I agree. However, the mob is never right. The trick is to distinguish the mob from the crowd.



Andre Jute
I can't believe the foolishness of historians who equate the French and American Revolutions. The French wanted to raise a ravening mob of murderers, the American Founding Fathers created the Electoral College and other enduring institutions specifically to defend minorities against the mob.


No one understood it better than Burke:

https://www.alibris.com/Reflections-...77?matches=601

An excellent short read and starting at just 99 cents.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Thanks, Andrew. I know it, and in fact have it (free from Project Gutenberg) on iBooks to read on my treadmill, but first I want to read Thomas Carlyle History of the French Revolution again, to which Burke makes a suitable coda. At the moment I'm working my way through Stephen Meyers Darwin's Doubt, which may be the most important book of the century so far, and Carlyle is next. He's an agreeable stylist and a meticulous historian, so I won't be rushing the pleasure.


Pffff (blowing out coffee). Darwin's Doubt the most important book of the century so far?

The only thing more important than where we came from is where we're going. Any ideas?

Yikes, an ID book?

Have you actually read it? I haven't finished it but I'm far enough to know that his dissection of all the other theories is fair-minded and persausive.


No, I've only read the reviews -- and I will admit my prejudices, which a (1) whenever I finish a book that involves religion or philosophy chasing science, or vice versa, I feel like I've wasted my time. The book may illuminate some current controversy, but that controversy is usually gone in ten years or has mutated like a virus into a different controversy. It started out as creationism, mutated into intelligent design and will be something different in five years -- maybe go back to ancient astronauts or the Illuminati. Meanwhile, the actual scientific community plods along with evolution. One hopes for primary work that really proves something rather than a curated, retrospective review of prior research with a new gloss. (2) I'm not against God or intelligent design, but really, if you were an all-powerful God, would you create a Trilobite? Why not a dog or a Swedish bikini model. The God envisioned by these people is so lame.

-- Jay Beattie.


Jay, I don't think that you realize the problems with Darwin. While improvement of the species certainly is possible in the time since Darwin we have never witnessed speciation due to evolution.

Just the human genome itself would require about several thousand mutations per second since life first appeared on Earth to have reached the present point of development. The numbers are simply far too large for Darwin's theories to ever work on the large scale necessary.


The probabilistic difficulty is worse even than that, Tom. Forget humans, which are a large, complex afterthought to upright apes which are already impossible to explain, and let's just stick to the large animals in the Cambrian Era. It turns out, if you work the numbers, that protein A seeking protein B will have to do it blindfold in a genetic space larger than all the atoms in the cosmos, littered with ineffectual rubbish proteins, and that's just to make one cell. It will take more than all the time since the Earth was created (about 3.8bn years).

So you can either believe that the impossible happened or that there was intelligent design behind it.


There's also the ever-fainter possibility, which this whole scientific field, starting with Darwin, have been hoping will come true, that somewhere, someone will still find a layer of Pre-Cambrian fossils related to the de novo animals of the Cambrian, but most have given up hope of it, and many think the soft-shelled animals perfectly preserved in Pre-Cambrian layers in China is the straw that broke the camel's back.

I feel sorry for those guys. They've known for a century and a half that their central premise is shaky, and for three quarters of a century since Watson & Crick that that their theory is increasingly unlikely, and for over thirty years that it is untrue, and yet new theories must use the premises of the old, discredited science because they have nothing else. It's a similar problem to the one in another branch of paleo studies, dendrochronology (where all the crookedness, dishonesty, greedy stupidity, and pure malice of the global warming hoax were committed), except that the Neo-Darwinians aren't crooks or malicious.

There's an excellent short introduction to Stephen Meyer's book about what is wrong with Neo-Darwinism by David Gelernter of Yale in the Claremont Review at
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

Enjoy!

Andre Jute
The cutting edge
  #25  
Old August 10th 19, 10:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,677
Default Andrew

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:29:04 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
Snipped
For a few annoying technical reasons I'd skip the current
Centaur 11 and pay a few $$ extra for Potenza. Nice system.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


What are those annoying technical reasons?

Cheers
  #26  
Old August 10th 19, 11:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,334
Default Andrew

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:25:33 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/10/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 7:21:12 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:41:31 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 1:23:24 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 6:10 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Andre Jute
Economics isn't difficult: it is the commonsense activities of individuals considered in aggregate.


???

If the query is about the tagline to my sig, many economists with real life experience in business are moving away from the first two great commandments of classical economics, viz that all individuals in every market are fully informed and fully rational in every decision. That is clearly not so. We don't need to go further afield than RBT for an example.

Of course we don't go as far as Krugman, who is so Post-Modern, he's totally unmoored from reality, indeed he's unattached to anything he said yesterday or the day before, though in a few days he'll probably spout the same weirdness as he did a couple of weeks ago. In fact, he's so cyclically insane, we should make him an honorary member of RBT.

Andre Jute
Sane since I was 13. I wonder how I managed that.


Krugman is indeed unhinged and he was even before Trump
Derangement Syndrome.


I must quibble that although many individual investors are
frequently wrong, and provably so, the wisdom of crowds is a
real thing and an amazingly reliable economic indicator. Nor
infallible, but amazingly prescient usually.

I agree. However, the mob is never right. The trick is to distinguish the mob from the crowd.



Andre Jute
I can't believe the foolishness of historians who equate the French and American Revolutions. The French wanted to raise a ravening mob of murderers, the American Founding Fathers created the Electoral College and other enduring institutions specifically to defend minorities against the mob.


No one understood it better than Burke:

https://www.alibris.com/Reflections-...77?matches=601

An excellent short read and starting at just 99 cents.


Thanks, Andrew. I know it, and in fact have it (free from Project Gutenberg) on iBooks to read on my treadmill, but first I want to read Thomas Carlyle History of the French Revolution again, to which Burke makes a suitable coda. At the moment I'm working my way through Stephen Meyers Darwin's Doubt, which may be the most important book of the century so far, and Carlyle is next. He's an agreeable stylist and a meticulous historian, so I won't be rushing the pleasure.



Pffff (blowing out coffee). Darwin's Doubt the most important book of the century so far? Yikes, an ID book? One hopes for so much more from the century. Try this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/193771537X/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

-- Jay Beattie.



Not a bad choice though I might suggest Jobst Brandt instead.

I'm currently reading de Jasay's collected works; astounding
insight and clarity. Underappreciated thinker IMHO.


One can only speculate whether the author's amazing insight, clarity,
etc., is simply because the reader agrees with him :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

  #27  
Old August 10th 19, 11:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,372
Default Andrew

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 2:18:56 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 5:45:45 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 9:01:33 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 4:16:53 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 7:21:12 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:41:31 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 1:23:24 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 6:10 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Andre Jute
Economics isn't difficult: it is the commonsense activities of individuals considered in aggregate.


???

If the query is about the tagline to my sig, many economists with real life experience in business are moving away from the first two great commandments of classical economics, viz that all individuals in every market are fully informed and fully rational in every decision. That is clearly not so. We don't need to go further afield than RBT for an example.

Of course we don't go as far as Krugman, who is so Post-Modern, he's totally unmoored from reality, indeed he's unattached to anything he said yesterday or the day before, though in a few days he'll probably spout the same weirdness as he did a couple of weeks ago. In fact, he's so cyclically insane, we should make him an honorary member of RBT.

Andre Jute
Sane since I was 13. I wonder how I managed that.


Krugman is indeed unhinged and he was even before Trump
Derangement Syndrome.


I must quibble that although many individual investors are
frequently wrong, and provably so, the wisdom of crowds is a
real thing and an amazingly reliable economic indicator. Nor
infallible, but amazingly prescient usually.

I agree. However, the mob is never right. The trick is to distinguish the mob from the crowd.



Andre Jute
I can't believe the foolishness of historians who equate the French and American Revolutions. The French wanted to raise a ravening mob of murderers, the American Founding Fathers created the Electoral College and other enduring institutions specifically to defend minorities against the mob.


No one understood it better than Burke:

https://www.alibris.com/Reflections-...77?matches=601

An excellent short read and starting at just 99 cents.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Thanks, Andrew. I know it, and in fact have it (free from Project Gutenberg) on iBooks to read on my treadmill, but first I want to read Thomas Carlyle History of the French Revolution again, to which Burke makes a suitable coda. At the moment I'm working my way through Stephen Meyers Darwin's Doubt, which may be the most important book of the century so far, and Carlyle is next. He's an agreeable stylist and a meticulous historian, so I won't be rushing the pleasure.


Pffff (blowing out coffee). Darwin's Doubt the most important book of the century so far?

The only thing more important than where we came from is where we're going. Any ideas?

Yikes, an ID book?

Have you actually read it? I haven't finished it but I'm far enough to know that his dissection of all the other theories is fair-minded and persausive.


No, I've only read the reviews -- and I will admit my prejudices, which a (1) whenever I finish a book that involves religion or philosophy chasing science, or vice versa, I feel like I've wasted my time. The book may illuminate some current controversy, but that controversy is usually gone in ten years or has mutated like a virus into a different controversy. It started out as creationism, mutated into intelligent design and will be something different in five years -- maybe go back to ancient astronauts or the Illuminati. Meanwhile, the actual scientific community plods along with evolution. One hopes for primary work that really proves something rather than a curated, retrospective review of prior research with a new gloss. (2) I'm not against God or intelligent design, but really, if you were an all-powerful God, would you create a Trilobite? Why not a dog or a Swedish bikini model. The God envisioned by these people is so lame.

-- Jay Beattie.


Uh-uh. This isn't "some current controversy", this has been burbling along since Darwin's time. Darwin himself was aware of the problem of the animals of the Cambrian Radiation having no ancestors in the fossil record. You understand, Darwin didn't want to publish, don't you; he was forced to publish by someone else coming up with the same theory of evolution. The big reason Darwin wasn't ready to publish was the problem with the Pre-Cambrian, the missing fossils. Darwin admitted in his book that there were no antecedent fossils and that he hoped they would be found by digging deeper. Quite literally from Darwin's own time, there was serious discontent in the palaeontology community with the holes in Darwin's theory, and it didn't stand long before it was replaced by neb-darwinism, which is the version which larger and larger numbers of developmental biologists are now saying isn't the answer either. BTW, nothing to do with religion, whatever you read in the paper or on the net or TV -- those clowns just can't get anything right. These scientists are being driven to intelligent design in the most profoundly non-religious sense imaginable because none of the other theories can demonstrate the causa vera of the sudden arrival of so many large and complex animals in the Cambrian apparently whole and all at once.

You should keep up to date, Jay, not for the sake of being current on evolution theory, but because this is a true revolution in science, happening before your eyes. It's been growing like a boil, starting with Darwin himself, and now it has come to a head, and the whole profession is in turmoil and in a slow burst. See also my posts to Tom.

Andre Jute
I've seen whole professions and disciplines under stress before, but nothing like this


And many disagree. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annal...-darwins-doubt https://www.nationalreview.com/magaz...-nature-works/ From the National Review, no less.

This isn't a revolution in science. It's just argument based on existing scientific works created by others. It is a retrospective review spun as support for ID which, BTW, could be true. I'm not saying it isn't, and in fact, my money is on ancient alien H1Bs. Clearly, the guy who designed the Trilobite had a sense of humor and kind of a 1930s art deco design aesthetic.

-- Jay Beattie.




  #28  
Old August 11th 19, 01:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,452
Default Andrew

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 11:14:12 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 2:18:56 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 5:45:45 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 9:01:33 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 4:16:53 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 7:21:12 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:41:31 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 1:23:24 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 6:10 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Andre Jute
Economics isn't difficult: it is the commonsense activities of individuals considered in aggregate.


???

If the query is about the tagline to my sig, many economists with real life experience in business are moving away from the first two great commandments of classical economics, viz that all individuals in every market are fully informed and fully rational in every decision. That is clearly not so. We don't need to go further afield than RBT for an example.

Of course we don't go as far as Krugman, who is so Post-Modern, he's totally unmoored from reality, indeed he's unattached to anything he said yesterday or the day before, though in a few days he'll probably spout the same weirdness as he did a couple of weeks ago. In fact, he's so cyclically insane, we should make him an honorary member of RBT.

Andre Jute
Sane since I was 13. I wonder how I managed that.


Krugman is indeed unhinged and he was even before Trump
Derangement Syndrome.


I must quibble that although many individual investors are
frequently wrong, and provably so, the wisdom of crowds is a
real thing and an amazingly reliable economic indicator. Nor
infallible, but amazingly prescient usually.

I agree. However, the mob is never right. The trick is to distinguish the mob from the crowd.



Andre Jute
I can't believe the foolishness of historians who equate the French and American Revolutions. The French wanted to raise a ravening mob of murderers, the American Founding Fathers created the Electoral College and other enduring institutions specifically to defend minorities against the mob.


No one understood it better than Burke:

https://www.alibris.com/Reflections-...77?matches=601

An excellent short read and starting at just 99 cents.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Thanks, Andrew. I know it, and in fact have it (free from Project Gutenberg) on iBooks to read on my treadmill, but first I want to read Thomas Carlyle History of the French Revolution again, to which Burke makes a suitable coda. At the moment I'm working my way through Stephen Meyers Darwin's Doubt, which may be the most important book of the century so far, and Carlyle is next. He's an agreeable stylist and a meticulous historian, so I won't be rushing the pleasure.


Pffff (blowing out coffee). Darwin's Doubt the most important book of the century so far?

The only thing more important than where we came from is where we're going. Any ideas?

Yikes, an ID book?

Have you actually read it? I haven't finished it but I'm far enough to know that his dissection of all the other theories is fair-minded and persausive.

No, I've only read the reviews -- and I will admit my prejudices, which a (1) whenever I finish a book that involves religion or philosophy chasing science, or vice versa, I feel like I've wasted my time. The book may illuminate some current controversy, but that controversy is usually gone in ten years or has mutated like a virus into a different controversy. It started out as creationism, mutated into intelligent design and will be something different in five years -- maybe go back to ancient astronauts or the Illuminati. Meanwhile, the actual scientific community plods along with evolution. One hopes for primary work that really proves something rather than a curated, retrospective review of prior research with a new gloss. (2) I'm not against God or intelligent design, but really, if you were an all-powerful God, would you create a Trilobite? Why not a dog or a Swedish bikini model. The God envisioned by these people is so lame.

-- Jay Beattie.


Uh-uh. This isn't "some current controversy", this has been burbling along since Darwin's time. Darwin himself was aware of the problem of the animals of the Cambrian Radiation having no ancestors in the fossil record. You understand, Darwin didn't want to publish, don't you; he was forced to publish by someone else coming up with the same theory of evolution. The big reason Darwin wasn't ready to publish was the problem with the Pre-Cambrian, the missing fossils. Darwin admitted in his book that there were no antecedent fossils and that he hoped they would be found by digging deeper. Quite literally from Darwin's own time, there was serious discontent in the palaeontology community with the holes in Darwin's theory, and it didn't stand long before it was replaced by neb-darwinism, which is the version which larger and larger numbers of developmental biologists are now saying isn't the answer either. BTW, nothing to do with religion, whatever you read in the paper or on the net or TV -- those clowns just can't get anything right. These scientists are being driven to intelligent design in the most profoundly non-religious sense imaginable because none of the other theories can demonstrate the causa vera of the sudden arrival of so many large and complex animals in the Cambrian apparently whole and all at once.

You should keep up to date, Jay, not for the sake of being current on evolution theory, but because this is a true revolution in science, happening before your eyes. It's been growing like a boil, starting with Darwin himself, and now it has come to a head, and the whole profession is in turmoil and in a slow burst. See also my posts to Tom.

Andre Jute
I've seen whole professions and disciplines under stress before, but nothing like this


And many disagree. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annal...-darwins-doubt


Their reviewer's final paragraph gives away his bias: "The book’s best, most honest moments come in the concluding chapter, in which Meyer travels to see the famous Burgess Shale in person. His son goes ahead on the trail but then suddenly freezes, stricken with vertigo after peering down the mountainside. Meyer likens his son’s paralysis to modernity’s despair at materialism, its shock at the prospect that the universe is utterly indifferent. Meyer writes frankly, saying that his quest is to give people back their sense of meaning and purpose. Here, at last, Meyer is not pretending to be a scientist."

https://www.nationalreview.com/magaz...-nature-works/ From the National Review, no less.

Actually, I was directed to Meyer via the Gelentter piece in the Claremont Review by a much more favourable piece in National Review in the last few weeks. Of course, I can't now find...

This isn't a revolution in science. It's just argument based on existing scientific works created by others. It is a retrospective review spun as support for ID which, BTW, could be true. I'm not saying it isn't, and in fact, my money is on ancient alien H1Bs. Clearly, the guy who designed the Trilobite had a sense of humor and kind of a 1930s art deco design aesthetic..


I'm always open to amusing explanations of baffling matters. But H1B is a trigger word.

Andre Jute
We'll see in five or ten years who's right
  #29  
Old August 11th 19, 04:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 582
Default Andrew

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 09:45:42 -0700, jbeattie wrote:

(2) I'm not against God or intelligent
design, but really, if you were an all-powerful God, would you create a
Trilobite?


Experiminet?
The rational answer was that it was a life form that would survive in the
current environment.

Why not a dog
Dogs don;'t do ocean smining so well, nor are they herbivoures.

or a Swedish bikini model.


You need to view the series Red Dwarf for that. It was the reason why
"Holly" the all powerful ships computer "brought back" Rimmer rather than
Kochanski as Dave's companion.


The God envisioned by these people is so lame.

Yep.
  #30  
Old August 11th 19, 04:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 582
Default Andrew

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:08:09 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 9:45:45 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
The
God envisioned by these people is so lame.

-- Jay Beattie.


Jay, I don't think that you realize the problems with Darwin. While
improvement of the species certainly is possible in the time since
Darwin we have never witnessed speciation due to evolution.


Such a extremely short time scale during which the human plague has
destroy bioclimes in extraordinary number.mainl

Just the human genome itself would require about several thousand
mutations per second since life first appeared on Earth to have reached
the present point of development. The numbers are simply far too large
for Darwin's theories to ever work on the large scale necessary.

So you can either believe that the impossible happened or that there was
intelligent design behind it.


Your projection gets flimisier and flimisier ecah qrgument you add.
No was does it support and Dog thesis.
Nor does it preclude all the other theories.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A la lanterne with Andrew Muzi! Andre Jute[_2_] Techniques 2 January 20th 13 02:29 AM
For Andrew Muzi [email protected] Techniques 3 January 9th 10 12:47 AM
Andrew Curran Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_] UK 11 September 21st 09 10:44 AM
Andrew Muzi are you ok? [email protected][_2_] Techniques 36 September 4th 09 01:56 PM
Andrew Heckman Gets Hip Rebuilt! Cycle America Rides 3 April 7th 04 03:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.