Posts by James
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I reckon John Quiggin is essential reading on this topic. He's been carefully explaining the conflict of interest of the rating agencies for years.
In 2003:
Policies that specifically improve the position of holders of government debt will be viewed favourably by credit rating agencies even if they are harmful to the state as a whole.
and in February:
If financial markets functioned as they were supposed to, institutions with a record of failure like that of the ratings agencies would be out of business.
His solution? Governments have enough power and resources to stop the outsourcing, and
[replace] ratings issued by for-profit agencies with an alternative system, in which AAA ratings actually mean something.
-
I do not think that schools should only teach that light is a wave. I do not think that schools should only teach that light is made of particles. I was rather surprised when someone answered my question "should we be teaching students that light is a particle or a wave?" with a "yes", instead of a "no; we should teach them it's both."
My other example (what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?) was obviously the better one for getting the general point across that disagreement and differing points of view do have a place in science.
The essay I linked to before gives a nice case-study about how the scientific disagreement about waves or particles was eventually resolved (as "neither-nor").
Eventually Freeman Dyson showed that three apparently different theories were really giving the same explanation of what was going on. QED (as Feynmann punned).
But the disagreement wasn't between points of view; it was between different observations . People like Einstein and Bohr grappled with the different observations - they didn't argue that only one of them could be real.
-
So should we be teaching students that light is a particle or a wave?
Um, yes.
-
Roger Kerr also says:
Of course, there is seldom complete agreement among economists just as there is rarely complete agreement in other scientific fields, but the degree of consensus on many issues provides a sound basis for much public policy.
from an article linked to from the Business Roundtable homepage.
Now read that again, only changing "economists" to "climate change experts"...
-
those who deny Climate Change number a few hundred scientists + Ian Wishart and Rodney Hide, whereas those pro Climate Change number an estimated 300,000+ scientists. The rationale for revisting the debate is....?
That suggests an interesting idea. Let's get two teams drawn evenly from the few hundred plus the 300,000, because there are some interesting debates within those 300,000 scientists. For example, some of them point out that half of the estimates of future temperature are above the median prediction.
John Quiggin noted some of the consequences a while back:
An important implication is that any reasoning based on picking a most likely projection and ignoring uncertainty around that prediction is likely to be badly wrong, and to understate the likely costs of climate change.
That applies as much to Rodney's prediction of a new ice age as to the IPCCC's careful 2-degree consensus.
-
Glad you mentioned Israel.
Low thresholds - say 1% - encourage single issue parties, individuals with a strong local following, small religious groups and so on. And when they add up to 5 - 10% of parliament, it can be chaotic.
STV gives an effective threshold of 15 - 20%, depending on the details. MMP can be set at whatever threshold one wants.
Has anyone kept a copy of the useful booklet that was published for the first proportional representation referendum?
-
But Stephen, and Anjum, you'll just have to accept that many people sincerely feel differently: love the game, get excited about it, and feel a sense of cultural attachment.
I accept it, but I'm still puzzled by it.
-
all the evidence is anecdotal
Ok, here's another anecdote. About public violence, not domestic violence.
Is is just me, or is Courtenay Place always a very unpleasant place after a rugby loss over at the stadium?
-
howcome in all the polls and questioning and inquests as to why 'we' lost, there isn't an Option E: The French were better?
So glad you said that! I've been wondering exactly the same thing. Especially for Stuff's "whose fault was it?" poll.
Even in the PA rugby-fan threads there seems to be a sneaking suspicion that, y'know, the French team was smarter.
-
How about you figure it out? I'll be interested in your solution to how you can get public transport to be as fast and convenient as an automobile. Seriously.
We each spend at least several $1000 a year on our cars. Many spend several tens of thousands, in depreciation alone. I see some cars round Wellington that cost half as much as my house!!
What would public transport be like if we each spent that sort of money on it?