Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

You’re right, in theory DH. This maximizes resource use (seats on the plane). What this definitely does is maximize profits. It doesn’t necessarily reduce ticket prices.

For evidence I present Air Canada’s major competitor: Westjet. They state clearly they do not oversell, yet their prices are almost always the same or cheaper than Air Canada on the same routes.

But all of this ducks the question: how is this legal? How can a company offer a product for sale that they don’t actually have to sell? How can they take my money, sometimes weeks in advance, and then not deliver? Is there any other aspect of our economy where this is allowed to happen? I can’t think of any, but maybe others can.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You’re right, in theory DH. This maximizes resources (seats on the plane). What this definitely does is maximize profits. It doesn’t necessarily reduce ticket prices.

For evidence I present Air Canada’s major competitor: Westjet. They state clearly they do not oversell, yet their prices are almost always the same or cheaper than Air Canada on the same routes.

But all of this ducks the question: how is this legal? How can a company offer a product for sale that they don’t actually have to sell? How can they take my money, sometimes weeks in advance, and then not deliver? Is there any other aspect of our economy where this is allowed to happen? I can’t think of any, but maybe others can.

Similar ticket prices btwn airlines may simply reflect different amounts of overhead, incl. what each may have paid for their last fuel purchases. Younger start-ups have the advantage of lower overhead for pilot/crew salaries, for example. Keeping airplanes full reduces costs by increasing efficiency. The airline does have your seat to sell. It may require them paying somebody else to vacate it, but you'll either get your seat or you'll be adequately compensated. The airlines are simply comparing the cost of not filing their airplanes with the cost of paying people to vacate when their flights are overbooked.

[Mike OReilly]

Exile, I appreciate your argument against the term “denier.” It may, indeed, be a loaded term. If so, I’m happy to use something else that does the same job. It is not the same as skepticism though. And you’re right, no credible climate scientist falls into the denialism camp. There are some skeptics, and even more who are critical of the real impact of “A” in AGW. All this is good science. Denialism is not science. It is largely political.

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.

This is a bit more nuanced though. Laws and State authority should almost never be used to silence ideas or voices, but surely you would agree that people have the right to excercise their own free speech in opposition to critics of AGW.

"Accusations of moral deficiency, shaming,” even "labeling based on political preference and religion” are not pleasant, but I would say are an excercise in free speech. But I agree that "shouting down, threats,” are not protected speech.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Similar ticket prices btwn airlines may simply reflect different amounts of overhead, incl. what each may have paid for their last fuel purchases. Younger start-ups have the advantage of lower overhead for pilot/crew salaries, for example. Keeping airplanes full reduces costs by increasing efficiency. The airline does have your seat to sell. It may require them paying somebody else to vacate it, but you'll either get your seat or you'll be adequately compensated. The airlines are simply comparing the cost of not filing their airplanes with the cost of paying people to vacate when their flights are overbooked.

Sure, there are any number of unknown possibilities that none of us know about. I offer Westjet as evidence to show Air Canada’s practice is not necessary to maintain lower seat prices. Westjet is not a young startup. It has been operating in the market for decades now. In Canada it competes nearly route for route.

I could carry on, but this really is a tangent to the thread, and I don’t want to push it further.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Exile, I appreciate your argument against the term “denier.” It may, indeed, be a loaded term. If so, I’m happy to use something else that does the same job. It is not the same as skepticism though. And you’re right, no credible climate scientist falls into the denialism camp. There are some skeptics, and even more who are critical of the real impact of “A” in AGW. All this is good science. Denialism is not science. It is largely political.

Thanks for considering this with an open mind. It's become part of the common usage surrounding the AGW debate, and I suspect more people than not don't even realize its political baggage and other negative connotations. Maybe more than anything, it simplistically & falsely divides the AGW issue into two camps, so it distorts the actual science and, perhaps even worse, creates another one of these "us vs. them" divides as discussed previously.

This is a bit more nuanced though. Laws and State authority should almost never be used to silence ideas, but surely you would agree that people have the right to excercise their own free speech in opposition to critics of AGW.

Yes, of course. And the remedy is not to advocate for the govt to step in. It's just important to recognize that not only are these sorts of tactics dishonest and operate to distort the underlying issue, but they themselves suppress free speech from the opposing side. The only remedy is again more speech, this time in an effort to expose these sorts of tactics and try and get the debate re-centered on the actual issues.

"Accusations of moral deficiency, shaming,” even "labeling based on political preference and religion” are not pleasant, but I would say are an excercise in free speech. But I agree that "shouting down, threats,” are not protected speech.

Not sure if "shouting down" is legally actionable, but it's general disapproval from all sides usually makes it self-correcting. A verbal threat can potentially rise to the level of an assault which obviously enjoys no constitutional protection. As you pointed out earlier, there are limits to free speech, whether it's the oft-cited example of shouting fire in a crowded theater, slander/libel, or speech that has the intended or actual effect of inciting immediate violence. So-called "hate speech" gets tricky because it can be subjective and runs the risk of casting too wide a net. The US Supremes have set a high standard for it, but there have been a number of EU countries who have outlawed certain types of speech from those who oppose the recent waves of (very controversial) immigration. Some of these people, including politicians, have been prosecuted and even jailed. And not surprisingly, Germany has strict laws against speech advocating Neo-Nazi activities and ideology, although I would imagine there are limitations.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Sure, there are any number of unknown possibilities that none of us know about. I offer Westjet as evidence to show Air Canada’s practice is not necessary to maintain lower seat prices. Westjet is not a young startup. It has been operating in the market for decades now. In Canada it competes nearly route for route.

I could carry on, but this really is a tangent to the thread, and I don’t want to push it further.

From a customer's perspective, I think it frankly sucks. Then again, I hate flying, resent how the airlines cram so many people into their planes, and try and avoid it as much as possible these days. At the same time, I've heard incidents where people have happily received large sums of cash to simply wait for the next plane.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

... But all of this ducks the question: how is this legal? How can a company offer a product for sale that they don’t actually have to sell? How can they take my money, sometimes weeks in advance, and then not deliver? Is there any other aspect of our economy where this is allowed to happen? I can’t think of any, but maybe others can.

Once they have your money, it's actually to their slight advantage if you don't show (less weight, less peanuts) - even if they don't re-sell your seat to a "standby".

[GordMay]

Laughter & Humility
Did laughter make the mind?
A psychological relief valve and a guard against despotism, laughter is a uniquely human (and collective) activity.
Something that sets us apart from our ancestors and primate relatives, and should be of special interest to anthropology, is our unique propensity to laugh.

Fascinating ☞ https://aeon.co/essays/does-laughter...-consciousness

[tp12]

Dockhead is right regarding pricing of tickets. The vast majority of airlines do the overbooking thing and, if they didn't, they'd make less money per flight and have to charge more. The fact that other airlines don't do it, but charge the same as airlines that do, only shows that they wouldn't sell tickets if they charged more because plane tickets is a cost sensitive market. Any airline who doesn't do that is carrying a higher cost base than one that does but they can't really afford to charge more for their tickets unless they have some sort of value add that customers are happy to pay more for.

If they offer it as part of a 'customer focused, customer first' differentiation or a premium offering they could get away with it but not otherwise.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Laughter & Humility
Did laughter make the mind?
A psychological relief valve and a guard against despotism, laughter is a uniquely human (and collective) activity.
Something that sets us apart from our ancestors and primate relatives, and should be of special interest to anthropology, is our unique propensity to laugh.

Fascinating ☞ https://aeon.co/essays/does-laughter...-consciousness

Interesting paper Gord (as always). I haven’t read it all in detail, but I am immediately wary of any notion that says XX capability is uniquely human. We’ve heard this line over and over: from the use of tools and complex communications, to empathy for other species and of course our capacity for general intelligence.

With each benchmark we later find other species doing the same thing. We discover we’re not that special.

There seems to be a need, in some, to set human animals apart from other animals; to make us “unique.” It seems to parallel the evolution of our place in the Universe.

We went from being the centre of everything, with all the heavens revolving around us (and of course, directly overlooked by the creator of all), to now where we understand we’re just one speck of perfectly normal dust in a ‘nowhere-special’ part of the known Universe.

… but at least we can laugh about it .

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

With each benchmark we later find other species doing the same thing. We discover we’re not that special.

I have a dog with a sense of humor. She will try anything to make her humans laugh, including funny faces.
More interestingly, she will laugh at her own pranks such as bearing fangs in full killer-face an inch from a sleeping person's nose. If (only if) you wake up startled, she will then do a series of weird snort-sneezes. Strangest thing.

[john61ct]

The Thoughts of a Spiderweb
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-t...rweb-20170523/

Ravens Once Again Demonstrate a New Intelligence
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6347/202.full

Are You As Smart As a Fish?
http://m.nautil.us/issue/40/learning...-than-primates

Honeybees Seem To Understand The Notion Of Zero
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/07/61786...notion-of-zero

They Called Her Cinderella
http://www.metafilter.com/162448/The...Her-Cinderella

Do Animals Have Feelings?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-knows/580726/

[Mike OReilly]

And anyone who’s spent time with a cat knows they have a sense of humour — a diabolical sense.

[transmitterdan]

So did you read about the new research result in mice brain tissue? After cutting a piece in 2 scientists kept them close together but with a thin barrier between. They were able to show that there was communication between the two physically separated tissue samples.

Because this result was unexpected and also probably because it may be physical evidence of a mechanism to support ESP theories the peer reviewed journal would not publish unless the entire experiment was done more than once which took a long time. But the results seem pretty convincing.

The distance between the samples was very tiny so probably not ESP involved. But it means that there is a way for mice brain cells to communicate on some level without any physical connection between them. Sort of like a WiFi network in the brain that nobody knew was there. I thought it was really interesting anyway.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

So did you read about the new research result in mice brain tissue? After cutting a piece in 2 scientists kept them close together but with a thin barrier between. They were able to show that there was communication between the two physically separated tissue samples.

Because this result was unexpected and also probably because it may be physical evidence of a mechanism to support ESP theories the peer reviewed journal would not publish unless the entire experiment was done more than once which took a long time. But the results seem pretty convincing.

The distance between the samples was very tiny so probably not ESP involved. But it means that there is a way for mice brain cells to communicate on some level without any physical connection between them. Sort of like a WiFi network in the brain that nobody knew was there. I thought it was really interesting anyway.

Missed this one. Can you link to the paper?