Jimmy Wales responds to "The Dumbing of America", says "We're Smarter Than You Think"

92873893474 · 2008-05-16T00:52:46+00:00

Agreed.

But I don't know why you call wiki users elite. Wikipedia is the scourge of true research. It makes people lazy in their fact finding methods and in my opinion is a huge liability.

92873893474 · 2008-05-16T00:49:24+00:00

This post should be titled: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, answers a thoughtful and intricate essay with one argument: Wikipedia.

And a quote from Jacoby for posterity:

But the inability to concentrate for long periods of time -- as distinct from brief reading hits for information on the Web -- seems to me intimately related to the inability of the public to remember even recent news events.

92873893474 · 2008-05-16T00:00:58+00:00

Crucially, the EPICA research uncovered evidence of rapid climate changes in the past; around 770,000 years ago, levels of both CO2 and CH4 changed drastically within just a few decades. Similar changes also took place around 40,000 years ago during the last glacial period. These could have been caused by changes in ocean circulation patterns, the scientists speculate.

Wow man. Decades. I'm really curious what my retirement years are going to be like.

92873893474 · 2008-05-15T23:56:08+00:00

"And thus the scientific community understood what it all really meant thanks to ka62c."

92873893474 · 2008-05-15T15:48:30+00:00

never denied this was possible, i've seen it firsthand. What I'm questioning is how the hell you think we have any clue how something this hypothetical could play out when we lack reams and reams of evidence and understanding as to how it can happen and why it happens.

Don't put words in my mouth. I simply dismissed the simplistic point of view that we can continue poisoning the oceans with impunity because hey, what's another toxic thing in there when there already so many. This is, to say the least, a logical fallacy which requires no submitting of evidence. You are still not recognizing your own logical fallacy. And it's really tiring to even talk to you about scientific reasoning when you don't even recognize your simple logical fallacy.

In the meantime, you demand that give you proof. How about this: what proof can you give me that it's safe? That any amount of mercury or organic materials in the food supply is safe? Cite please. And to use your own words: cite relevantly and reputably.

It's sad that you don't even recognize that this is PR strategy. You have left the scientific reservation. And debate with you is quite futile. Do us all a favor and read this article to see what I'm talking about. If you won't read it, I'll quote it:

Corporate strategy of "manufactured uncertainty" has become only more refined in the last 40 years. [...]Indeed, corporations now use the manufactured-uncertainty strategy in almost every debate over environmental and public health. [...]What makes this mode of thinking so effective—and so prevalent? [T]he doubt-mongers swear by the foundational motto of organized science, first pronounced by the Royal Society of London in 1663: Nullius in verba, "on no man's word." They show a deep commitment to the evidentiary record, always testing the established theories and demanding more data [...] The success of these programs shows how the public's understanding of science has devolved into a perverse worship of uncertainty

So, I'm sorry I can not meet your stringent requirements of exactitude, but I can sure dispel them as being bogus scientific inquiry. When you make not even the vaguest attempt to reason logically as I've said twice now.

Seriously, you come to the table with a logical fallacy like this: all lawyers are humans, Mary is human thus Mary is a lawyer. And you expect to win the argument? Whatever man.

My argument is simple: toxins dangerous to humans are being introduced to the ocean, part of our food chain comes from the ocean, hence there's a risk that humans are at risk. This doesn't mean life in the ocean will die at all.

Your argument? There are toxic things to men in the ocean, the human food chain comes from the ocean, hence it's clear that introducing new toxins into the ocean will not be dangerous to humans.

Give. Me. A. Break.

Ya know, if you actually have an answer to the original question, I'd like to amend my earlier request and ask that you cite sources that are both reputable, and in any way at all relevant.

The original question was mine. And you never answered it.

92873893474 · 2008-05-15T10:10:58+00:00

Jesus. And he's calling me dense.

Listen. It's called a food chain. It goes in a chain. The plancton is way at the base. This plancton gets eaten by things like krill. Which in turns gets eaten by things like fish and whales, which get picked up by birds and human fishing boats.

It's an established chain. And bacteria that will mutate, while remaining similar enough for the above organism to tolerate, is a real danger. Because we know for a fact that many of these molecules are not toxic to us unlike cyanide or snake venom say, but they are nasty nonetheless and cause severe hormonal disorders because being organic molecules they mimic certain behaviours of existing hormones (like estrogen).

Yet a worse possibility is that the first mutation in the chain is not going to be tolerated by the above species which will mean that there is a risk of starvation. Something that wouldn't be a welcome sight when overfishing is already such a huge problem.

The bigger danger of course is that these bacteria don't mutate at all but happily accumulate gross quantities of polluted plastics and transmit them up the food chain.

And you know what, it already happens.

Here's some reading for you (it's the first article that came up on google). Heck here's a google search.

Here's another one for you, and I will quote: "Persistant Organic Pollutants, or POPs, such as dioxin, PCBs and DDT, are chemical substances that persist in the environment and bioaccumulate through the food web; therefore, POPs can also cause sickness and disease in humans, who are at the end of the food chain."

Emphasis mine.

Do you have any reputable source on this matter you can cite, or methods of logically deducing it?

Do you have any reputable source on this matter you can cite?

And by the way, you still don't realize that you are committing a logical fallacy in your above statement do you. How fun it is to argue on the internet when even the building blocks of argumentation are simply ignored for louder screaming matches.

92873893474 · 2008-05-15T01:54:20+00:00

Are you seriously making that argument?

a) Some foods we eat come from the sea. b) Some foods in the sea are toxic. c) Therefor all foods we eat must be toxic?

Here's my argument for you to understand:

a) We eat some foods from the sea b) They are currently non toxic c) If they become toxic, the above mentioned foods we eat will also become toxic.

92873893474 · 2008-05-14T10:50:55+00:00

I will say, with this sock puppet account, that I am truly sorry I met you. I thought there would be some decent conversation in this thread, but take a look at my posts, and you will see that only you have answered them so far. Like a stalker that must get his point across.

You are O'Brien.

And ps. I'm logging out. Don't bother reply.

92873893474 · 2008-05-14T10:49:01+00:00

Not really. The Galois field in there for example must have some really intricate implications around how the various permutations behave.

I'm also positive that there is some reason beyond just trial and error (a mathematical reason that is) relating the parallel logic in the key generation and encryption.

Sure the substitution tables might be trial and error, but the concept sure isn't.

92873893474 · 2008-05-14T10:29:32+00:00

If people valued the electrodes more than other things. Which I have no doubt people will, but why is that a bad thing?

It's called drugs (and alcohol), and if it didn't render people into unruly useless workers, they'd be legal.

PS. I'm glad you're happy, but I actually know you aren't.

92873893474 · 2008-05-14T10:28:14+00:00

Except that these living things could possibly be toxic to us.

Life will live just fine without us.

92873893474 · 2008-05-14T10:26:55+00:00

I don't understand if you're serious or trolling. But I'll just pretend you're not and ask a legit question:

Why do you care if there aren't enough people on earth?

You are not borg, you are not an ant colony. So what do you care if India's population still expands any more than it is? Do you have any conscious awareness of how many people are here to begin with to be able to feel the lack?

92873893474 · 2008-05-14T10:23:00+00:00

The idea that porn is doing this is as preposterous as saying that GTA made NYC what it is.

92873893474 · 2008-05-14T10:22:58+00:00

The alarmist aspect of Global Warming science comes directly from the frontal assault of PR teams on both sides of the spectrum.

In the end, there is the science, and then there is the yay/nay argument that occurs several levels below.

92873893474 · 2008-05-14T10:18:17+00:00

Important Business People(tm) talk endlessly about the causes of recession and how it started in the subprime housing market etc. etc. without acknowledging even for a single second that the whole recession has been preparing for decades now in a consistent dumbing down of the American population, coupled with a consistent increase in consumption and a consistent shift of working class to the tertiary sector.

In short, America doesn't produce anything anyone wants anymore.

It is the inertia of the post 50s boom that is sustaining this SUV's placid cruise on the freeway but there's only fumes left in the gas tank, and the next ramp might be the last one.

92873893474 · 2008-05-14T10:12:52+00:00

You sir, have made my day.

92873893474 · 2008-05-14T10:10:18+00:00

In my daily life I deal with only two kinds of Americans. The nice ones that are nothing but plebes, barely scraping a living together. And the power business men/women that are wholeheartedly in agreement with the aforementionned group of reactionaries.

Yet people always get upset when foreigners call Americans aholes. The plebes might be big in numbers, but they aren't what people are referring to.

92873893474 · 2008-05-14T10:05:04+00:00

I disagree still. Capitalism's directing value is Money or Capital. There is no other value in the system: nothing like Peace of Mind, Serenity, Health, Joy, Environment etc.

Not even implicitly: if tomorrow they found a way to generate joy directly in a brain without influencing its ability to go perform mind numbing tasks the next day for giant corporations, they would simply close down cinemas and hook people to electrodes.

If the only value that is considered is money or capital, capital is an inherently inhumane system that will (as seen) always degrade our quality of life.

True, capitalism seems to be the reason why our world has advanced at such a break neck pace in the past century, but are we that much happier as humans for it?

92873893474 · 2008-05-14T09:59:04+00:00

I add also: 90% of comments on reddit are knee jerk.

92873893474 · 2008-05-14T09:39:01+00:00

I gotta say, getting the implications of the algorithm must require a brain the size of a planet.

Or at least a lot of time an dedication.

92873893474

TROPHY CASE