Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Agreed. It used to be you would buy a ticket for a flight and "stand by" waiting to see if you could get on when someone else didn't show.
The ticket was sold at a discount and you hoped the flight didn't completely fill.

Apparently nowadays, the airlines figured out they could sell all the tickets at full price by lying to people instead.

Yup. As a student, I used to fly “stand by” all the time. Sometimes you had to wait a long time. It was the tradeoff for a cheaper ticket. Seemed fair.

Originally Posted by GordMay

If you have 'GTE' [for "gate"], instead of a seat number, on your boarding pass, it means you don't have a seat. The reason you don't have an assigned seat is because the flight was oversold.

What I don’t understand is how this is legal. I advertise a product. I happily take your money for it. Then, when you come to pick it up I tell you I don’t have it. How is this even legal .

OK, sorry for the tangential rant .

[transmitterdan]

[QUOTE=Mike OReilly;2823332]Why is this this best form Dan? What makes this better than a functioning democracy, or for that matter, an actual communist country?

[\QUOTE]


Mike,

A benevolent dictator is not encumbered by having to curry favor with constituents. She doesn’t need to plan for the next election so long term thinking is possible. And her benevolence prevents amassing wealth and power at the expense of the populace.

Kings and Queens were not often viewed as terrible by their subjects in the Middle Ages. It’s just that the beloved royalty examples don’t make for good story telling. In a dictatorship individual responsibility is highly prized and rewarded. As long as the dictator doesn’t take away freedom to choose the people will tend to strive to have productive & responsible lives. People are inherently good by nature unless they are physically threatened or lose hope of an ever improving standard of living.

Communism defies all laws of human nature. People will only work for the common good so long as that aligns with their own self interest. Communism requires most workers to give up their own self interest “for the common good”. A massive bureaucracy is needed to make low level decisions in a communist system because individual choices are impossible to manage efficiently. Communism is much less efficient than a dictatorship. Communism and it’s first cousin socialism will always fail over time no matter how well intentioned.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

A benevolent dictator is not encumbered by having to curry favor with constituents. She doesn’t need to plan for the next election so long term thinking is possible. And her benevolence prevents amassing wealth and power at the expense of the populace.

Kings and Queens were not often viewed as terrible by their subjects in the Middle Ages. It’s just that the beloved royalty examples don’t make for good story telling. In a dictatorship individual responsibility is highly prized and rewarded. As long as the dictator doesn’t take away freedom to choose the people will tend to strive to have productive & responsible lives. People are inherently good by nature unless they are physically threatened or lose hope of an ever improving standard of living.

Communism defies all laws of human nature. People will only work for the common good so long as that aligns with their own self interest. Communism requires most workers to give up their own self interest “for the common good”. A massive bureaucracy is needed to make low level decisions in a communist system because individual choices are impossible to manage efficiently. Communism is much less efficient than a dictatorship. Communism and it’s first cousin socialism will always fail over time no matter how well intentioned.

So… a “king” can give up her self-interest to work for the greater good, but "this defies all laws of human nature" when applied to a group of people . You’ll excuse me if I don’t accept your analysis.

Theoretically no government and no beaurocacy is required in a fully functioning communist state — which is as fantastical as believing in a benevolent all-powerful dictator.

I think you have a rather skewed perspective on absolute dictators like kings. Here’s a documentary that illuminates the subject :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYU...&frags=pl%2Cwn

[john61ct]

Yes no more standby that was from the days when pricing didn't vary so much.

The airlines learned they could make **lots** more money from last-minute (usually business) booking, so now buying non-refundable tickets far in advance is how to fly cheap.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Hmmm, I guess what we perceive once again depends on our own particular perspective (bias). What I see is a political right that has become far more extreme in its actions and beliefs. I link it back to the Tea Party, but it appears to be growing with the current Republican leadership. There appears to be very few voices of moderation on the right (from my perspective). The few that do speak up all mostly do so only when they risk nothing (like Congress people who are no longer running).

I do agree the voices of moderation on the left could and should be stronger in their push back against this Regressive Left. There are some, mostly in academia, but certainly not enough. We seem to be locked into a mass movement of pursuing impossible purity. Most people seem afraid to speak up out of fear of them too being labels racist, or mysoginist, or just plain “privileged.”

But I see the same blindness and unwillingness to act on the right. So I view this as part of a broader political malaise that seems to be infecting everyone. It’s not good.

I’m not familiar with the threat to criminally prosecute AGW deniers. This doesn’t sound like anything a reasonable prosecutor would consider — on what grounds? I can see going after industries which knowingly promulgate false information, as we did with tobacco companies, but surely denialism itself is easily protected under free speech laws.

See what you miss when you decline to join in the AGW thread circuses? NOT! Actually, this last one is actually still going for some reason, and seems to have a somewhat improved tone. But as you rightly point out, that comment too may come down to my own particular perspective!

The threatened criminal indictments, as well as other threatened & actual civil suits, subpoenas, etc. by govt and private entities, were modeled on the tobacco suits, namely that the oil cos. and their allies have committed fraud in misleading the public about the dangers of CC. The Competitive Enterprise Institute was also targeted, among other advocacy groups. There was a lot of talk of using RICO statutes as the basis for the investigations and potential prosecutions, a statute that grants civil & criminal enforcement powers to the federal & state govts. In US law, there are both civil & criminal components to fraud & negligence, usually dependent on the willfulness of the actors. And while one side's legitimate fraud investigation may be another's political persecution, the reason it engendered so much alarm -- and maybe why it was abandoned a year later -- may be its high potential for what the Supreme Court long ago recognized as the "chilling effect" on free speech. This is also why the Court has always had such a negative view on "prior restraints," namely the use of the courts to try and prevent the publication of articles & books that allegedly defame or pose national security threats. Such use of the actual or threatened power of courts & govts to curtail opinions that are disfavored run too much of a risk of deterring free speech, whether they are acted upon or not.

The point we're discussing has nothing to do with the merits of the CC issue, but about the issue of free speech. There's a different thread for the former. I know you know that, but others may not, and we don't want this thread to go there.

Some overview:

https://www.newsweek.com/should-clim...secuted-378652

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/3...orneys-general

Press release from the state AGs:

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-s...general-across

Not just oil cos. targeted:

https://cei.org/content/one-year-lat...s-fallen-apart

Heartland's take on it:

https://www.heartland.org/topics/cli...sts/index.html

Public outcry for criminal sanctions against deniers skeptics:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/...te-connection/

Other Legal Actions Criticized For Stifling Free Speech:

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-...120-story.html

Some liberal pushback (only one I could find):

https://www.motherjones.com/environm...imate-deniers/

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

.. I’m not familiar with the threat to criminally prosecute AGW deniers. This doesn’t sound like anything a reasonable prosecutor would consider — on what grounds? I can see going after industries which knowingly promulgate false information, as we did with tobacco companies, but surely denialism itself is easily protected under free speech laws.

Unfortunately, there were some advocating criminalizing denialism.

Calls to punish global warming skepticism as a criminal offense have surged in the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but it hasn’t discouraged climate scientists like Judith Curry.
☞ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ent-for-skept/

The Washington Post generously calls it “ignorance.” But it's high time to start taking this pointed refusal to prepare, this refusal to observe the basic tenets of science seriously — and call it what it is: Negligence. Criminal negligence, even.
☞ https://theoutline.com/post/2202/cli...=1&zi=ywyxj5zs

In June, I took note of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D-R.I.) op-ed “urging the U.S. Department of Justice to consider filing a racketeering suit against the oil and coal industries for having promoted wrongful thinking on climate change, with the activities of ‘conservative policy’ groups an apparent target of the investigation as well.”
☞ https://www.newsweek.com/should-clim...secuted-378652

“The first amendment is there for a reason,” says Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “I think that imposing criminal penalties for anti-scientific views would be a step in a very dangerous direction.”
☞ https://www.motherjones.com/environm...imate-deniers/

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

.. I’m not familiar with the threat to criminally prosecute AGW deniers. This doesn’t sound like anything a reasonable prosecutor would consider — on what grounds? I can see going after industries which knowingly promulgate false information, as we did with tobacco companies, but surely denialism itself is easily protected under free speech laws.

Unfortunately, there were some advocating criminalizing denialism.


☞ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ent-for-skept/

☞ https://theoutline.com/post/2202/cli...=1&zi=ywyxj5zs

☞ https://www.newsweek.com/should-clim...secuted-378652

☞ https://www.motherjones.com/environm...imate-deniers/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yup. As a student, I used to fly “stand by” all the time. Sometimes you had to wait a long time. It was the tradeoff for a cheaper ticket. Seemed fair.



What I don’t understand is how this is legal. I advertise a product. I happily take your money for it. Then, when you come to pick it up I tell you I don’t have it. How is this even legal .

OK, sorry for the tangential rant .

You're forgiven. I think the way the airlines get around it is by supposedly not "forcing" anyone to give up their seat, but by inducing them to do so by reimbursing them with ever increasing amounts of money as may be needed to recoup the previously purchased seat(s). Assuming the valid ticket holder gets to the gate on time . . . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Unfortunately, there were some advocating criminalizing denialism skepticism.


☞ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ent-for-skept/

☞ https://theoutline.com/post/2202/cli...=1&zi=ywyxj5zs

☞ https://www.newsweek.com/should-clim...secuted-378652

☞ https://www.motherjones.com/environm...imate-deniers/

Sorry, but it's both more accurate and "nice."

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

So… a “king” can give up her self-interest to work for the greater good, but "this defies all laws of human nature" when applied to a group of people . You’ll excuse me if I don’t accept your analysis.

Theoretically no government and no beaurocacy is required in a fully functioning communist state — which is as fantastical as believing in a benevolent all-powerful dictator.

I think you have a rather skewed perspective on absolute dictators like kings. Here’s a documentary that illuminates the subject :

Mike,
You haven't heard of the discussion of the possibility of prosecution of "deniers", and also in the above post you describe a Monty Python skit as a documentary?


Cambridge Dictionary's description of a documentary:


documentarynoun [ C ]
us ​ /ˌdɑk·jəˈmen·tə·ri/
​ a film or television or radio program that gives information about a subject and is based on facts



You really DO need to get out more often.

[weavis]

Guys... a cough. ahem.

Just a reminder that this is a cruising forum. intellectual humility might be of help from here on in...

[Mike OReilly]

Thanks Gord/Ex, I honestly had not heard of this before. And yes, I do try and stay out of climate change threads here. There seems to be little point in going over the same road, over and over.

Originally Posted by Exile

...The point we're discussing has nothing to do with the merits of the CC issue, but about the issue of free speech. There's a different thread for the former. I know you know that, but others may not, and we don't want this thread to go there.

Exactly right. Whether I agree with AGW denialism or skepticism (the two are not the same), I certainly would never advocate for any voices to be legally silenced.

Originally Posted by senormechanico

You haven't heard of the discussion of the possibility of prosecution of "deniers", and also in the above post you describe a Monty Python skit as a documentary? You really DO need to get out more often.

You’re a funny guy .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

You're forgiven. I think the way the airlines get around it is by supposedly not "forcing" anyone to give up their seat, but by inducing them to do so by reimbursing them with ever increasing amounts of money as may be needed to recoup the previously purchased seat(s). Assuming the valid ticket holder gets to the gate on time . . . .

Yes, and this is entirely rational.


If they never oversold any flights, then every flight would be x percent empty, because statistically x percent of people with tickets don't show up.


The practice of overselling flights is good management and actually reduces ticket costs for all of us.



If they miss the target with respect to a given flight and end up with more people wanting to fly than there are seats, then they just "bribe" someone to take a different flight. It's still profitable for everyone, including us.

[GordMay]

Let me re-state what I said, in post #434:
If you don’t have a specific seat number on your boarding pass, you don't have a seat, and can be simply “bumped” (no bribe, no nothing).
Dockhead explained the Airlines' position very well.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Exactly right. Whether I agree with AGW denialism or skepticism (the two are not the same), I certainly would never advocate for any voices to be legally silenced.

Unfortunately there are many who do, and it's not just by marshaling the power of the govt and its courts. Accusations of moral deficiency, shaming, shouting down, threats, labeling based on political preference and religion. It's all here, and it's happening now. And that's one of several reasons why I find use of the term "denialism" both inaccurate and not "nice." For starters, there is nobody within the community of climate scientists who "deny" the basic theory behind AGW. Some (a minority) are merely skeptical about the degree of harm theorized by others. I would agree, however, that there are some who are not climate scientists who "deny" the existence of AGW altogether.

Even so, "denier," "denial" and "denialism" are commonly associated with those who deny the Holocaust, along with those who were persecuted for resisting the Spanish Inquisition. Many of the latter were forebears, of course, of those who were actual victims of the Holocaust, so maybe you can see why the term is rather loaded if not offensive. Many believe this is no coincidence, and that it has been adopted deliberately by advocates for AGW to cast a wide net that covers anyone who may be skeptical of more mainstream positions, thereby embarrassing them into silence. So while it may simply be used by you and others as a neutral (and partially accurate) descriptor for those outside climate science who deny the existence of an issue that science agrees is real (notwithstanding legitimate controversy over impacts), many believe it is being used as a means to silence all critics of a heavily politicized issue.

Here's another attempt to stifle free speech, this time in the form of a "prior restraint," but this example shows that it can be wielded by both sides in the AGW debate or any other. None of this is healthy, regardless of which side of any issue one happens to occupy. Which is why Western democracies tend to err on the side of more speech to reach truthful outcomes not less, even if it means there will be people who will have to endure opinions they do not agree with.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...o-steve-milloy