Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Ann Coulter: living down to her reputation
Posted by: Jon Henke on Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Ann Coulter has been in the news again, with predictably depressing results. Many on the Right seem willing to give her a platform, to rationalize or even defend her, as if a clever way with words excuses vile rhetoric. Coulter is, alongside Michael Savage and Ted Rall, the very bottom of the barrel of political discourse.

Case in point, in an interview at RightWingNews, Ann Coulter suggests that John Murtha is a candidate for murder...
John Hawkins: How about dashing off a quick sentence or even just a word or two about the following individuals... [John Murtha]

Ann Coulter: The reason soldiers invented "fragging."
Recall the anger on the Right when New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi recently suggested that Charles Schumer would "put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it." At Pardon My English, Steve wrote "Can you imagine the uproar in the press if a conservative official would have said this about Slick Willie?" While Coulter is no politician, she's certainly more prominent—and unapologetic—than Alan Hevesi. This will be a nice opportunity to test the Pardon My English thesis.

I predict the silence on the Right will be deafening. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I doubt that suggesting the murder of a Democratic Congressman will change things for those who have not already shunned her.

Divider



Other items of, if not equivalent offensives, but remarkable ignorance:

Coulter discusses Global Warming, as if it has no implications beyond personal comfort...
The temperature of the planet has increased about one degree Fahrenheit in the last century. So imagine a summer afternoon when it's 63 degrees and the next thing you know it's...64 degrees. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Run for your lives, everybody! Women and children first! Help! Where's FEMA, dammit?
Coulter discusses the theory of evolution...
John Hawkins: If you were to pick three concepts, facts, or ideas that most undercut the theory of evolution, what would they be?

Ann Coulter: 1. It's illogical. 2. There's no physical evidence for it. 3. There's physical evidence that directly contradicts it. Apart from those three concerns I'd say it's a pretty solid theory. [...] I would say teach them the one that has the strongest scientific basis to it, and if there's any time left over at the end of the day you could also teach them about the theory of evolution.
Two points:
  1. There is no empirical, positive evidence for either Creationism or Intelligent Design.


  2. As such, neither Creationism or Intelligent Design actually qualifies as a "theory".

I'm reminded of Isaac Asimov's comment on the debate: "Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I’ll condemn what she said. She tends to go a wee bit too far sometimes.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I fail to see the charm in a bomb throwing biatch.
If it weren’t for her being half way attractive (too much like a Saluki or Afghan-hound for my tastes) she’d have been history by now.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
If you don’t like her or what she says, why do you spend so much time talking about her?
 
Written By: whatever
URL: http://
Ann Coulter suggests that John Murtha is a candidate for murder...

John Hawkins: How about dashing off a quick sentence or even just a word or two about the following individuals... [John Murtha]

Ann Coulter: The reason soldiers invented "fragging."
No she doesn’t, Jon. She suggests that he brings the wrath of the soldiers upon himself. It is not at all the same thing as what Hevesi said. Hevesi seemed to suggest "putting a bullet between" Bush’s eyes was an admirable and, indeed, commendable thing. Coulter merely cited Murtha as a cause of mutinous actions. She didn’t suggest that he should be fragged.

Coulter pointed out that actions have consequences; Hevesi suggested an action as laudable. There’s a huge difference.

However contemptible or stupid (creationism has more science behind it?) the things she says might be, you should at least characterize them correctly.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Her first thought on Murtha was that he should be fragged....
I think that says it all.
Just because she tossed it into a military context, her first thought was still that he be dead.

Dress it up (dress her up) any way you like. She’s, at a minimum, a right side of the aisle version of Michael Moore.

Jon talks about her, I’d guess, precisely to demonstrate the grass isn’t any greener over here than it is over there when it comes to being nasty.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
If you don’t like her or what she says, why do you spend so much time talking about her?
Perhaps you and I have different definitions of "so much". Perhaps you only write about things you like. Perhaps you are merely avoiding the point.
No she doesn’t, Jon.
Riiight.

 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Her first thought on Murtha was that he should be fragged....
I think that says it all.
Where does she say "should"? If so, y’all are right and she should be roundly condemned.
Riiight.
I’m glad to hear you admit that (although you got a few extra "i’s" in there);)
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
For a counter point, check this lengthy post at:
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/06/defending_ann.html

Evidently the left isn’t the only weenies with less cojones than Ann Coulter.
 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
While Coulter is no politician, she’s certainly more prominent—and unapologetic—than Alan Hevesi. This will be a nice opportunity to test the Pardon My English thesis.
No it isn’t, Jon. Alan Hevesi is a repeatedly elected official who has held various statewide offices in New York for years. He is in a position of some tangible power and, as such, is potentially capable in some manner of acting on his convictions as a representative of the people.

Ann Coulter, as popular as her rantings and ravings may be (and for the life of me I cannot understand why they are - but I digress) is the punditocracy equivalent of your Insane Uncle Eddie. She is grudgingly tolerated and basically ignored by most although surely causing a bit of heartache for some close associates. Her words are her own and do not impute anywhere else. And spare us any silence=acquiescence arguments because I can certainly nail all three of you for any number of issues that I felt were important and you didn’t.

Apples and Kumquats.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
the·o·ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

————————————————————-

Um, not a ’creationist’ myself, per se (though I do believe in a creator), BUT...

creationism is certainly "a set of statements devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that is ’widely’ accepted..."

How exactly does it NOT fit the definition?

REM absence of evidence is not evidence of absense

QUERY evidence evolution is NOT divinely directed

NED
 
Written By: NewEnglandDevil
URL: http://
While Coulter is no politician, she’s certainly more prominent—and unapologetic—than Alan Hevesi.


And both are accountable.

One at the bookstore/radio station/tv station, don’t like her words, don’t buy the book, change the station, complain to the managers.

The other is a public servent, and is accountable at the voting booth.

And, "bad" speech should be countered with "good" speech. It’s the nature of our culture.

The right has their rhetorical bomb-throwers, the left has theirs.

Of course, last I checked, Ann wasn’t sitting next to a former President during the Republicans last convention...

She is often over the top, but that is her style, and it is sometimes to make a larger point.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
I agree that Coulter is at the "bottom of the barrel of political discourse".

I don’t, however, agree with your dismissal of Intelligent Design.

Couldn’t one just as easily argue:

1. There is no empirical, positive evidence for that mankind came about through an undirected process of natural selection.

2. As such, the undirected process of natural selection does not qualify as a "theory".

It’s that undirected part that proponents of Intelligent Design are most concerned with: discovery.org:
Questions about Intelligent Design
(read answers to #1 and #2). The undirected part is a major part of the evolutionary curriculum taught today, but I don’t find it to be any more scientific (read: provable) than Intelligent Design.
 
Written By: krouskop
URL: http://
I dont know about this incident, but there’s been some criticism of Coulter from the right recently.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
creationism is certainly "a set of statements devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that is ’widely’ accepted..."

How exactly does it NOT fit the definition?
There are a variety of shortcomings that prevent creationism from being a ’theory’. Chief among them is the fact that it cannot be falsified.
I dont know about this incident, but there’s been some criticism of Coulter from the right recently.
Yes, my dispute is not with those who criticize her or with those who ignore her, but with those who defend her or give her a platform.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
’should’
Ah...semantics....
John Hawkins: How about dashing off a quick sentence or even just a word or two about the following individuals... [John Murtha]

Ann Coulter: The reason soldiers invented "fragging."
Okay, she didn’t specifically say he should be dead, she preferred a euphemism for it.

’The reason soldiers invented "fragging" ’.
Fragging generally associated with killing someone who is perceived to be a liability, usually to survival, though that’s not the only reason plausible.

Her first thought is the issue. She’s not discussing it in the context of soldiers, she’s giving an off the top of her head response about an individual.
She is clearly saying he’s worthy of being fragged. As I said, you can choose to dress it up any way you like, after all, she did.



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Chief among them is the fact that it cannot be falsified.
Of course it can be falsified. Just because we don’t have the technology or means to do so right now does not mean it cannot be falsified. If the aliens that dropped us off here come back tomorrow, they’ll tell you... (just to make the point - nothing more)

NED
 
Written By: NewEnglandDevil
URL: http://
Ah...semantics....
Yeah, well, when the entire statement is only five words long, you should pay attention to semantics.
Okay, she didn’t specifically say he should be dead, she preferred a euphemism for it.
No. There is no euphemism here.
Her first thought is the issue. She’s not discussing it in the context of soldiers, she’s giving an off the top of her head response about an individual.
She’s not discussing in the context of soldiers? WTF? Of the five words, "soldiers" is one them and "fragging" is a military term. That’s 40% of everything she said; 50% if you ignore the article "the".
She is clearly saying he’s worthy of being fragged.
Again, no. She says nothing about worthiness. She makes no statement concerning "should".

You all read into the statement because you find her contemptible. Fine. Hate her all you want, I really don’t care. Just get the actual words right and pay attention to what she says.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Actually Jon, just to pick nits, you said:
I predict the silence on the Right will be deafening.
ChrisB’s comment shows that criticism of Coulter from the right exists, and not just from marginal bloggers.

With that said, Coulter is certainly the right’s version of moonbat.
 
Written By: Bill W.
URL: http://
Of course it can be falsified. Just because we don’t have the technology or means to do so right now does not mean it cannot be falsified. If the aliens that dropped us off here come back tomorrow, they’ll tell you... (just to make the point - nothing more)
No, this wouldn’t falsify Creationism. If these aliens were to come back tomorrow, this would not disprove that God created us *BEFORE* the aliens dropped us off.

Evolution, in constrat, is falsifiable. Example - finding human skeleton in the Cambrian layer would devastate the theory of evolution, since evolution predicts that Cambrian species and humans did not live during the same time.
 
Written By: Jay
URL: http://
If these aliens were to come back tomorrow, this would not disprove that God created us *BEFORE* the aliens dropped us off.
Um... I believe it would if they showed us how THEY created us, for instance (we wrote this code, you call it DNA)... I guess I didn’t take it far enough for you...

NED
 
Written By: NewEnglandDevil
URL: http://
Soldiers - errr yeah.
So, you’re saying I’m to read a five word statement, off the cuff, first thought, as...
John Hawkins: How about dashing off a quick sentence or even just a word or two about the following individuals... [John Murtha]

Ann Coulter invented mode:

"well John, you know Murtha has spent a great deal of time implying the American Military is unprepared for the Iraq war, and that it’s put a strain on our troops there, and some of them are accused by him of murder and other atrocities, so it comes to my mind that my quick sentance would be - ’That American soldiers coined the term Fragging specifically for men like John Murtha’ though in no way should anyone think that I’m implying that John Murtha is worthy of being fragged, I’m really saying that I can understand why some of our soldiers would like to see him fragged, but I’m not using a euphemism for killing of course, it’s just the word, fragged."
Let’s throw a similar statement out there - not what she said of course, but along the same lines -
"Give us a quick sentence, or just a word or two about, children"
"The reasons soldiers invented spears".


She knew he wanted a bomb, and she obliged, that’s her bread and butter.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Give us a quick sentence, or just a word or two about, children"
"The reasons soldiers invented spears".
Well YEAH, how else ya gonna Barbeque’em?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
So, how should a right wing rhetorical bomb-thrower have put her feelings about a political leader (and Marine(ret.)) who opportunistically throws our soldiers to the wolves for political points...

How do you think soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere feel about Mr Murtha???
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Bayonets?

And I don’t hate her, I don’t have time for that.
I just wish she’d tone down the rhetorical attacks. It doesn’t DO anything positive except keep her listeners happy and make her a buck.

She’s marginalized whatever productive messages she might have had.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
How do you think soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere feel about Mr Murtha???
Was he asking her how the soldiers felt about Murtha?
Was he asking her to speak for the soldiers?

Geeze, you guys are giving her a ton of credit for her off the top of the head observation don’t you think?
Quick thought, remember? and it was just nasty.

let’s try something a little different -
John Hawkins: How about dashing off a quick sentence or even just a word or two about the following individuals... [John Murtha]

Ann Coulter invented mode: Totally lost any credibility over Haditha
OR
Shouldn’t assume because he has a Silver Star
he knows what he’s talking about.
OR
Should stop flogging our troops for his own gains

I’m somehow hoping our guys would actually have a little more class than to say they’d like to frag the man, even if some of them might be thinking it.
Why am I feeling that wouldn’t be their ’first quick sentence’ about him though?

However Keith, you’re right, she’s just doing her job - as Jon said, she’s just living down to her reputation.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
It doesn’t DO anything positive except
... give the left the vapours...
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Well, that too.

While I occasionally enjoy watching them hyperventilate when one of their scared oxen are gored it’s not always the answer.

I guess I mean...what’s the point of preaching if you only ever intend the choir to be the recipients of your message?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
So apparently somewhere along the way you missed that she’s a humorist.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
krouskop writes:
I don’t, however, agree with your dismissal of Intelligent Design.
You should; it isn’t science. That has been determined by Bush 43-appointee, Republican federal district Judge John E. Jones III in this comprehensive Opinion issued last December after a lengthy trial in PA. Do read the whole thing and learn why, after both sides put on their best evidence and experts, ID resoundingly lost its claim to be science.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Coulter is an ironist. A comedian. General Patton in a blonde bombshell suit. This is her schtick. You guys are taking her way to seriously. Think Andrew Dice Clay. And she doesn’t deserve the Andrew Dice Clay treatment. And of course neither did Andrew.

:peter
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
"It doesn’t DO anything positive except keep her listeners happy and make her a buck."

Bingo! We have a winner! Sort of like the Rev. Jackson, without the sanctimony and lip biting. If she learned to use subtlety, nuance and vague, easily deniable generalization, she would lose customers and be just another boring political pundit. There are some out there that say the same type of things, just not as brash and open.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Sort of like the Rev. Jackson, without the sanctimony and lip biting.
You forgot, and without the extortion...
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Um... I believe it would if they showed us how THEY created us, for instance (we wrote this code, you call it DNA)... I guess I didn’t take it far enough for you...
Lame, but true. By this absurdly lax standard, Creationism (along with nearly every other half-baked idea I can think of) is falsifiable, provided we are patient enough to rely on visits from aliens to guide our scientific efforts.

The bigger problem which you are overlooking is that Creationism is not testable. In contrast, you can test the predictions of evolution in many ways - make phylogenetic trees using DNA alignments or morphological data, and see how the species arrange on the tree exactly as evolution predicts. You can look at archaeological data and observe how fossils in the oldest strata are less complex, and as you move to new strata you see the emergence of newer and more complex species exactly as evolution predicts.

Here’s a little background reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Scientific_method
 
Written By: Jay
URL: http://
I don’t, however, agree with your dismissal of Intelligent Design.

Couldn’t one just as easily argue:

1. There is no empirical, positive evidence for that mankind came about through an undirected process of natural selection.

2. As such, the undirected process of natural selection does not qualify as a "theory".

It’s that undirected part that proponents of Intelligent Design are most concerned with: discovery.org:
Questions about Intelligent Design (read answers to #1 and #2). The undirected part is a major part of the evolutionary curriculum taught today, but I don’t find it to be any more scientific (read: provable) than Intelligent Design.
It never ceases to amaze me how gullible wingnuts are. Intelligent Design is a thinly veiled strategy dreamed up by an Evangelical lawyer to interject religion into science and mitigate the influence of "methodological naturalism" (i.e. science) on society. Read this and try not to agree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

The U.S. National Academy of Science, the worldwide scientific community, and Bush’s own scientific advisor, to name just a few, have all affirmed that ID and Creationism are not scientific concepts and that have all accepted the theory of evolution.

As for 1 and 2) - there are whole LIBRARIES of evidence that man evolved from lower species through a process of undirected evolution. And even if there weren’t this huge mountain of evidence (and, again, there is), evolution would still qualify as a theory, since it can be tested, and ID/creationism would not, because they cannot be tested.
 
Written By: Jay
URL: http://
Pity, in so many venues she appears it’s taken as viable political commentary, not satire, not humor.

From the other side then -
Is Al Franken still a humorist over there on Air-Amerika, or is he something-else these days. He USED to be a comedian (not a very good one, but hey...).

If she’s a comedian, I’d say she’s more of a female Don Rickles? (eeek, and now I have to poke out my mind’s eye to get rid of that image)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
GODLESS title "hijacked" by Ann Coulter: Christian-right celebrity and author to release book on 6/6/6 which conflicts with established book by the same name. Atheist author Drew Stepek prepares for literary "Holy War."

Los Angeles, CA, May 16th, 2006

Author Drew Stepek, whose book entitled GODLESS has been registered with the Library of Congress since 2001 and who has owned the popular web destination www.godless.com since 2000, has just been informed that Ann Coulter will release a book with the title GODLESS on June 6th, 2006.

Although principle dissuades Drew Stepek from taking legal action against Coulter, he feels Coulter’s book perverts and sucks the love out of religion and the open space of the Godless, which is free of prejudices and the burdens of myth. Stepek’s book is about the death of God in our society and how it leads an individual down a path of self-destruction, whereas Coulter’s book is a stab at the Democratic and Liberal society of the Godless.

"If I wrote a book called BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN for the purpose of promoting hatred of gay people," Stepek says citing the popular gay novel, "I think that it would represent a perverted violation of the original literary work."

Drew Stepek’s GODLESS (ISBN# 0978602412) will be released as a second edition by ALPHAR publishing on June 6th, 2006, the same day as Coulter’s GODLESS (ISBN# 1400054206) is being released by Crown Forum. Both books will be available in bookstores and online. Although an underground success in atheist and eating disorder communities, Stepek has never before officially released GODLESS to the mass public. For more information about Stepek’s novel, look to www.godless.com.
 
Written By: Godless
URL: http://www.godless.com
there are whole LIBRARIES of evidence that man evolved from lower species through a process of undirected evolution
There is no proof that the process was undirected. Just as I can’t prove that the process was directed, nor can you prove it was undirected.

That you take the statement as fact on faith is encouraging to me, as it demonstrates you have capacity for same.

PS - I never meant to imply that Creationism or ID are scientific. I was simply noting that they fit well within the bounds of the definition of theory.

NED
 
Written By: NewEnglandDevil
URL: http://
Show me a rabbit skeleton from ten million years ago. I’ll give up on evolution right there.
 
Written By: Logan
URL: http://amonggiants.blogspot.com
There is no proof that the process was undirected. Just as I can’t prove that the process was directed, nor can you prove it was undirected.
Scientific proof does not demand the complete epistomological elimination of all of the infinite alternative explanations.

Evolution provides an elegant, parsimonious explanation that does not require the ongoing "direction" of God. If you posit such ongoing intervention, the onus is on you to provide provide evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you do not have any evidence, your claim is resected with Occum’s razor.

I drop an apple, and it falls to the ground. Prove that God didn’t stop the apple in mid-air for 1e10-100000000 seconds, take a bite, and replace the bite 1e10-100000000 seconds later. One cannot presently prove it didn’t happen, but to science, the claim that God might have taken this bite is so abtract and untestable as to be scientifically meaningless.
That you take the statement as fact on faith is encouraging to me, as it demonstrates you have capacity for same.
I do have a capacity for faith, but I have no more faith in Evolution than a prostitute has in her John. I would abandon Evolution whorishly without a tinge of guilt if it stopped delivering the goods (making testable predictions, and having those prediction borne out by observation). To reuse my example, I would reject Evolution immediately if we found a human skeleton in the Cambrian layer.
PS - I never meant to imply that Creationism or ID are scientific. I was simply noting that they fit well within the bounds of the definition of theory.
Perhaps this is the basis of our misunderstanding - I am speaking here of what constitutes a scientific theory. The Discovery Institute is claiming ID is a scientific theory. So of course this is the sort of theory I am talking about.
 
Written By: Jay
URL: http://
So apparently somewhere along the way you missed that she’s a humorist

OK, so what’s the joke? Fragging John Murtha? That’s the joke? Well har dee har har. Very funny.

Combined with her jokes about bombing the New York Times Building, assassinating Bill Clinton and poisoning Justice Stevens she’s a real laugh riot, eh?
 
Written By: Pug
URL: http://
Ann Coulter’s a comedian? Man, the Right sure has a low bar for humor. I personally never considered hinting that someone’s murder would be appropriate to be a source of humor, but then, I guess the Right has to take what it can get.
It is, however, funny that you guys often compare Coulter to Moore—as if Moore went around spewing the kind of vicious venom that is Coulter’s stock in trade. What he’s done to piss off the Right is criticize the Prez. That, to the Right, is the equivalent to the crap coming out of Coulter’s mouth? Seems like you guys are missing both humor and logic.
 
Written By: just4today
URL: http://
Ted Rall has made the odd outrageous comment, and Michael Moore has been guilty of at most some distortions. Yet, in the current demand for equivalence, you compare them to Coulter, who continues to lie, misquote, plagiarize and libel. She does these things all the time. Savage is just insane.
 
Written By: Rob G
URL: http://
Ted Rall is in no way equivalent to Coulter or Savage. That is just BS.

Yes, Rall’s satire is biting, and sometimes caustic, in tone.

But...
Please give me any quotes you can find where Rall calls for anyone’s death (as Coulter does repeatedly), or has said an outright lie.

Show me the money! (i.e. quotes).

I challenge anyone out there to list some Rall "death-wish" quotes equivalent to Coulter’s.

I will come back here in a day or so to see if anyone has found any.

The gauntlet is down.

Now, who out there is gonna’ pick it up?
 
Written By: nikto
URL: http://
"So apparently somewhere along the way you missed that she’s a humorist."

Strange, she isn’t funny in the least. It must be an acquired taste just like crap.
 
Written By: kwc57
URL: http://
"Um... I believe it would if they showed us how THEY created us, for instance (we wrote this code, you call it DNA)... I guess I didn’t take it far enough for you..."

See, the problem with the "Creationism is falsifiable" shtick is that the discussion doesn’t end with the aliens. So, they created us. Who created them? etc., etc., ad infinitum. Creationism IS unfalsifiable, and therefore precisely NOT the equivalent of science.
 
Written By: huckupchuck
URL: http://huckupchuck.blogspot.com
There is no proof that the process was undirected. Just as I can’t prove that the process was directed, nor can you prove it was undirected.
*Yawn*

Well, if it’s impossible to test - one way or the other, then from a pragmatic and scientific point of view, Ockham’s Razor is clearly germane.

Whether the good ol’ Razor is also germane from a philosphical point of view is, of course, a matter of taste more than logic...

And by the way, when we’re on the subject of what constitutes ’science,’ the point is not so much Popperian falsifyability as it is predictive power. What does cretinism predict? What does Austrian economics predict?

The answer to both questions, in case anyone’s wondering, is nothing whatsoever - in point of fact, the Austrian pseudoeconomists over at the Mises Inst. (the economic equivalent of the Disco Inst. mentioned earlier) admit as much:
Do we have to test these economic propositions continuously against observations? And does it require a never-ending trial and error process in order to find out the range of application for these propositions and to gradually improve our knowledge, such as we have seen to be the case in the natural sciences?

It seems quite evident—except to most economists for the last forty years—that the answer to these questions is a clear and unambiguous No.
And so the Austrians, much like the Cretinists, consign themselves to the realm of quaint, philosophical musings...

- JS
 
Written By: JS
URL: http://se-hore-og-tale.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider