I had an interesting experience recently. I was at an event where it was mostly family and friends of various family members. Dinner and dancing and dress-up and all.
What was interesting to me (beyond just the event and the decorations and all) was the way (even among friends and family and even at a ‘special’ event) those holding a PC POV on a topic feel compelled to snipe and enforce that it is the right one. While I’m happy to let them think whatever they want to think, I must be “corrected” if I stray too far…
Now in fairness, this was a group rich in Vegetarians, Vegans, and other Left Advocates; and I’m modestly Right (or from their POV Flaming Bigoted Alt-Right Nutjob ;-)
So I made some fairly innocuous statements, each of which got a ‘snipe’ in return.
In one case a bunch of folks where doing a kind of a group rave dance thing. No one person particularly dancing with any other and the usual House Music heavy beat kind of music. Folks generally in their 20s mostly, some 30s?. I commented to another guy (an older bachelor, drifted California Left politically) that there seemed to be a shortage of guys dancing. Since there were about 2 guys and about 15 girls, a simple truth. Now he’s a single guy, and my intent was to encourage him to party too and maybe dance with them. But no. I was “politely scolded” with “They seem to be enjoying themselves just fine.” in a slightly condescending tone. The undertone being that you don’t need guys and girls to dance together… and I was evil for even hinting there was anything wrong. Then after that he seemed to choose to not be near me anymore. I guess I was contaminated…
Later, there was some conversation about one of the ladies who is a 20-something. My daughter’s good friend growing up; I’d known her since she was about 5 but had not seen her in a bunch of years. She has matured to be an absolutely beautiful young woman. She is tall, and with strong facial bone structure, laughing eyes, and what was once called a ‘statuesque’ build. She could be a Vegas Show Girl given her size and looks. Someone said she was studying to be a cook. I said (having grown up in the restaurant business and being a bit more aware of it than most) “You don’t put someone with her looks ‘back of house’, you put them ‘front of house'”. Meaning she has opportunities others do not have and can make a lot more money with a lot less work in a lot more pleasant environment. (I’ve worked in the kitchen. It is NOT pleasant.) Of course, one of the 30 something women at the table ‘corrected’ me with “I think she should do whatever she wants.” Again with a bit of a put-down tone of voice. The Retort Tone. As though I was advocating forcing her to give up a great love of the kitchen for sex slavery… 1/2 /sarc;
Toe that PC line and be hypersensitive to whatever misinterpretation someone might put on your intentions or be a pariah, I guess. The Left and Women’s Issues folks doesn’t ask for expansion or clarification on a point to see if there’s a positive motivation for a comment. They don’t think maybe it’s just a simple statement of how an industry works. No. Assume The Worst and Snipe a retort. Just tedious being around so many eggshells and landmines.
I did manage to avoid asking if there was any butter for the bread or about cream for the coffee or if I could get some cheese grated onto my salad or any of the other few dozen ways anyone who eats normally can get in trouble at a vegan / vegetarian event. (Honey? Don’t you know it’s not vegan and hurts the bees to steal their food!? Is the sugar vegan? Yeah… somewhere in the world some few places use gelatin to clarify the sugar solution prior to crystallization. Never mind that most places just spray dry it. Pay up and pay extra to assure no animal was anywhere near the sugar company or be an evil animal slaughterer… The list goes on… but do be aware a biscuit with butter and honey is Evil!… NO /sarc; )
Sigh.
OK, the event is over and I’ll not see 90% of the people who were there ever again. There’s a 1/2 dozen who are close family I’ll see again, and most of them will accept (i.e. tolerate) me despite my “defects”. Even if with some pity and distance. I’ve generally avoided letting them know how tedious they are or how much they can be oppressive of folks who do not believe their particular (bent?) POV. Being as this is California, and the more Loony Left Silicon Valley part of it, and the Vegan / Vegetarian excess of that, and, well, you get the picture; Given that, I’ve had some practice at ‘getting by’ here. But I think my time in Florida had my camouflage skills get rusty, though. I could just relax there and be me and only occasionally be accused of being Left Wing ;-)
It is an odd effect. Having strong left wing beliefs when in Florida and being seen as a Right Wing Nut in Silly Con Valley. Never actually changing what I believe in the transition. Near as I can tell I’m still the middle of the bird moderate I have been for the last 50 years.
In Florida (and more so in Texas visiting family) needing to not say things like “M.J. ought to be free to sell and grow by anyone” or “The Drug War is a stupid oppressive waste of resources” or “I’d have no problem dating a different race. In fact, I have.” And at the same time needing to be careful in California not to say things like “Maybe folks who are breaking the law to be here ought to go back to their own country and come in legally.” or “Pass the butter, please.” or even “She looks very nice in that dress”…
When did we as a society become so intolerant and in particular, when did The Left decide any stray from the PC Party Line (even one only a fantasy in the mind of the self appointed PC Police) was cause for derision and snide-itude?
I really don’t care if two girls or two guys want to dance together. In fact, I’ve danced with a gay guy. When the music slowed to ‘slow dance’, I decided not to run for the chairs but instead to stay on the dance floor. (Beer was involved and all the girls had run off to the bathroom together… and I really wanted to dance… in my defense… sort of…) Now I found out I really don’t like stubble and guys are not soft enough for my tastes, but still, I was willing to “go there” to find out. So how is it that in Texas and / or Florida that gets me The Hairy Eyeball from one side (they tend to be too polite to openly criticize or ‘correct’), but in California the fact that I decided I had a bit of a “yuck” reaction to beard and don’t like the whole thing gets me whacked from the other?
So here I am, basically middle-of-the-road on a lot of stuff. Left leaning on social issues mostly. Right leaning on money issues and rule of law, mostly. So both sides hate me. Sigh. But in California it is the incessant Left Wing Landmines you must watch out for, so that’s what I’ve stepped on mostly lately.
But it does get tedious dealing with the sniping and eggshell strewn culture.
Musings from the Chiefio 
mikey, we love you because of your bad habits ;-)…pg
Haha! Very perplexing…not sure how old you are, but probably, like me, you’re too old to care what any of them think and don’t need to be liked unduly, so you can say and do what you damn well like…Rock on!
At the close of the 2017 legislative session, marijuana remains illegal to produce, possess, use or sell in Texas. While cities like Dallas have moved to implement cite-and-release policies, which allow police to send people holding marijuana home with a court summons, the state maintains its stiff penalties for drugs.
This year, however, legislators on both sides of the aisle made progress toward loosening and removing those restrictions. While Texas Gov. Greg Abbott won’t have any bills coming across his desk in 2017 to reform the state’s marijuana policies, there are signs that he or his successor might get an opportunity to do so in 2019. With an eye toward what’s coming, let’s take a look at how several marijuana bills performed this session.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-legislature-2017-marijuana-law-recap-9522506
don’t see much tolerance for the nutty old guy anymore do you. When I was a kid I would have been shushed for sniping at a comment. As you say, sniping is the new… proper moral statement
I think a lot of it is self defensive virtue signaling.
(If I don’t find offense with that comment, someone will think I agree with it and I will get ostracized, so in self defense I will broadcast “I’m not one of them)
That is a very very short walk from Stalinesque report your neighbor behavior which is sort of scary!
Given that folks are losing jobs due to off hand comments over heard or made on social media we are already going in that direction if the Left continues to dominate social discourse.
One of the consequences of living in an echo chamber, is over time the belief system slowly creeps toward the extreme not toward the center, as individuals with in that cult seek approval and validation of the group at large.
I think it is a symptom of a societal trend away from self determination of what is right and seeking group approval as people become more herd like in their behavior. Being shunned by a social group you care about is actually a very aggressive and violent act of manipulation and most people will avoid it all costs.
As a culture America used to celebrate the self guided person who walked to his own drummer, characters like Johnny Appleseed, the great mountain men, adventures like Lewis and Clark, Molly Brown, were heroes and examples of independent action and someone to look up to. Now you are judged by how closely you conform to the group and being well to “work well with others” is more important that being like Thomas Edison or Nicola Tesla and blazing your own path.
Herd like behavior is much easier for the powerful to manage and many of our institutions have been slowly grooming independence out of our culture and celebrating a compliant follower sort of behavior and berating those who dare to go their own way (unless they are filthy rich in which case do what ever you want)
It is interesting that now you are just beginning to see vocal advocates for at least a reassessment in how some of these PC litmus tests are applied in industry.
For example are you hiring that person because they are a good coder or to fulfill some gender quota?
People forget that there is huge overlap in genders and other groups in their skills and abilities. Although most men are taller than most women, there are a few women who are taller than almost all men. the same applies to other skills like the ability judge distance in and trajectory (ie ability to catch a ball) or depth perception, or skills usually associated with math or engineering. There are many women who are excellent at those skills (Grace Hopper etc.) but as noted below some in Silicon valley are seeing a trend toward political correctness pushing advocacy for equal treatment too far.
A coder should be hired because they are a good coder, not because they fulfill some arbitrary quota.
On the team I work with we have 5 people one is a woman, she is clearly the best customer support person we have and by far the best at Windows support and administration. She was hired for those skills not because she was the right gender. Our company has a lot of women managers and code developers but they are not only women but very good at their jobs. You can do both but when an agenda gets pushed solely for its own sake you end up breaking the company.
When HR departments start judging people against quota criteria rather than their basic skill set and ability to contribute to the company you end up with a huge mess.
Just the other day they announced that a woman had finally passed the Marine Infantry Officer course and is about to take command of an infantry unit.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/female-marine-officer-finish-infantry-article-1.3513352
It took a while, because the Marines refused to lower standards so they could arbitrarily add women to their ranks. A lot of women tried and failed to qualify, but folks forget a lot of men try for and fail as well. Just because a group has a tendency to have certain skills does not mean that all do, and the contrary also applies just because few in a group tend to have a skill set does not mean that there is not a few exceptional individuals that have those skills. I wish people understood how statistical distributions work and that stating a documented tendency does not mean that you feel it applies to all in that group.
Over the years I have had 2 female bosses, one was pretty good (above average) the other was excellent and I would work for her again in a heart beat. I have worked for a lot of men and the numbers are very similar one or two were pretty good and only a couple were excellent, and many were absolutely awful.
Gender does not even enter my consideration when it comes to evaluation of employees, they are good or excellent, or poor or adequate based on their actual skills and their ability to apply them properly. Some have great skills but horrible human communications skills which cripple their ability to actually do the job. There are several women where I work that are very very good at what they do. It is possible to hire good people and still be a place of equal opportunity for various groups but you have to do hiring based on ability and skill set not some superficial criteria to check a box on a survey.
@ Larry Ledwick:
“Herd like behavior is much easier for the powerful to manage and many of our institutions have been slowly grooming independence out of our culture and celebrating a compliant follower sort of behavior and berating those who dare to go their own way (unless they are filthy rich in which case do what ever you want)”
Nailed it!
I remember the message to young people used to be, “Do your own thing!”
Not any more.
@P.G.:
Thanks! I think…. ;-)
@Jane Brewer:
Let’s just say I apply for Social Security “soon”…
FWIW, I stopped “needing to be liked” at about 2nd grade and stopped caring about not needing to be liked about 5th grade. I’ve been basically a “self contained and complete person” from about that point on. Finally asserting that fact at the rest of the world about the last semester of my High School years. Yeah, I’ve been a burr under folks saddles for a loooong time ;-)
@Jim2:
So there’s hope for Texas yet ;-)
@Bruce:
I think it is just a general loss of “social graces”. The Left is advocating for an In Your Grill Attitude as a replacement for being polite… I was always taught to not say things that were verging on an insult.
@Larry:
Sounds about right.
FWIW, the largest raise I ever gave was a 36% raise to a woman coder / sysprog. We hired her straight out of Cal Poly SLO as an E.E. and she was exceptional. I went in to HR during a “salary level review” cycle and said what she was worth. This was at the end of her first year. They looked startled. I had the joy of saying: “Do you want me to pay a woman less for doing just as good a job as the men she works with?” and shut up… “Sput sput sputter… ” ;-) I had them! Yeah, the guys had a few years experience on her. Yeah, she would never get such a raise ever again. OTOH, I knew I’d keep her on staff for the next couple of years and not have her hired away ;-O
That it was HR Aikido was just gravy…
I think it may have required a VP to sign off…
But she really was that good. Wonder whatever happened to her… Maybe I ought to find her name and do a web search…
Apple got hung on some kind of “equality test” by some Agency and was all strung out about it. Since it’s largely an EE Company it has LOTS of male EE Grads largely white. Our group turned out to be THE highest diversity in Engineering. Folks came to find out “why” and “how?”. We looked at each other perplexed (the management team). Best answer we had was: “Well, we pay no attention to anything but how good they are at the job”…. We had ACCIDENTALLY hired a mix of Hispanic, Black, Asian, White, Men, Women, Gays, etc. etc. Nobody had bothered to think about it… As a support group, we didn’t need Electrical Engineering Degree From Name U. Just “show me your skillz”. So we tended to hire folks who where really good with or without a degree in Computer Stuff. Sure, about 1/2 our folks had some E.E. like / related degree. But another bunch were just naturally hot properties.
HR Didn’t like our answer of “just ignore race and gender and hire skilz”…
Yes, although that was used in the context of be a crazy hippy all too often. I tend to prefer a slightly different version.
It comes from the movie “Secretariat” the story of probably the best race horse in modern history. The father of the horse’s owner Penny Chenery used to tell her “run your own race!”
“It does not matter if others think you won, it matters if you think you won.”
At the end of the movie she follows her gut instinct and lets Secretariat run free and run his own race, and he completely obliterated the record winning by something like 30 lengths.
It is a movie I highly recommend if you want to watch an inspirational movie.
But I think back to that every time I catch myself trying to fulfill other peoples expectations, and admonish myself to “run my own race”.
Works for me.
short video of all three triple crown races by secretariat
Read the comments on this video to grasp the impact Secretariat had on people. Penny Chenery lived here in Denver and the triple crown in 1973 was a really big deal here locally because of the local connection. My Dad used to talk about Sea Biscuit and how all the working people loved the little horse that would not give up. Secretariat was similar, only he loved to run but did not run hard until the end of most races because he loved to come from behind but in this race he would not lose to Sham. The two horses were big alpha horses and in the last race the Belmont Stakes, Sham’s owner was sure that if Sham pushed Secretariat he would fold and gave his jockey permission to try to run Secretariat into the ground. the result is both horses broke the existing record but Secretariat apparently realized how important that race was as he gave 100% and simply ran off from a field of the best horses of his day.
EM, I have been for the “legalization” of drugs, but I have to admit, the opioid “epidemic” has given me pause. I guess one first must ask if it is really and epidemic? Do we really have that many more addicts? Don’t know the answer to that one. But I still feel society pays too high a price for the drug “war.”
I would say yes we have a problem.
Drug overdose is now the leading cause of premature death for those under 50 according to this article.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/overdoses-are-leading-cause-of-death-americans-under-50/
Of course you have to keep in mind that we have never had to deal with so many synthetic drugs before. Some of the new opioids are so strong they would qualify as a chemical weapon if they were dispersed as an aerosol cloud in an enclosed area.
Changing conditions require re-evaluation of the whole question, these are not relatively benign drugs with positive pharmaceutical uses, unless you consider tranquilizing elephants as positive use.
Larry, take that stuff with a grain of salt. The big thing now-a-days is how over scrutinized opioids are. In my own lifetime, I’ve seen this pendulum swing twice. We’re killing people in chronic pain because we are afraid of ‘addiction’, in part. Sure we have some very powerful semi-synthetic opioids these days, yet we have them because they’re useful at low doses and can be given in a time-release form that blunts the peaks and troughs seen with the older ones. Plus, some of the older ones were pretty nasty side-effect wise, too.
Ever since the goody-two-shoes got political power, they have made life tough in ways that create ‘crises’ for the goody-two-shoes to exploit. I never had a problem with ‘Just say No’; but that papered over the problem created by criminalizing commerce. We had drunk & disorderly laws (abused at times) to deal with this. We should go back to that. Want to kill MS-13? Legalize ordinary sale, use, manufacture and possession. That lets the people harmed, to the extent they were harmed, seek non violent means of addressing grievances.
“E.M, I have been for the “legalization” of drugs, but I have to admit, the opioid “epidemic” has given me pause.”
Right with you. I am bothered by the MJ legalization crowd and the incessant monetary motivated propaganda put out that pot is fine. Yes, I understand and agree with legalization. I disagree with glorifying mood altering substances, and MJ advocates are NOT being truthful regarding growing evidence of MJ harms to the brain and intelligence. ( plus the killing of drive and will and other adverse psychological affects often observed, yet poorly studied)
My POV is that along with legalization the known and potential harms need to be communicated. The youth that smokes pot and drinks is certainly in danger of career failure and trying other drugs.
So how to communicate the danger of harm, when many assume legalization means it must be ok, is a valid question.
I have seen folk argue that “hey alcohol is harmful, and legal, and there are far more alcoholics.”
I was not sure that arguing that making a drug legal harmed far more people was a good arguement for legalization. There are better arguments, and they have been made here, yet I wish for ideas on how the potential harms can be communicated to prevent, as much as possible, what I know will be ruined lives.
A few weeks ago I went to my local 7/11 to collect my daily ration of Cab Sav. The lady who served me (a real milf) had obviously spent a lot of time and money at the hairdresser’s that morning. “Your hair looks beautiful” sez I. With a bright smile and shining eyes “thank you” sez she.
@David A – I understand completely. But people are already dying and others harmed in other ways. If the drug being illegal would stop it, it would make sense to make it illegal. But laws don’t stop it. On top of the damage done by the drug per se, there is additional damage created by the criminals who make and peddle the drugs. Then, a third layer of damage occurs by enforcement efforts as it affords the government one more excuse to make oppressive laws, such as what chemicals we can obtain and possess, to spy on us, to take property without a warrant, and to break down our doors without warning. We are stupid for letting these things happen to us.
David A, you must remember that for almost all of human history, ‘drugs’ were legal. They were made illegal because enough people were convinced that intoxicated people harm themselves and others solely due to ‘drugs’, so making them illegal would reduce the harms. Forgetting that it is better, for a free people, to deal with vices through the culture, not criminal statutes (with a reminder given not that many years before the goody-two-shoes did their thing). Experience has shown that making commerce criminal makes criminals of enterprising people and by limiting the ability of the people involved to seek other means of dispute resolution short of violence impossible, prohibition had the opposite effects. Prohibition increased the harms instead of decreasing them. Thus the push to return to the status quo ante of the previous centuries.
IMHO, the criminal element in drug abuse and yhe law enforcement damage exceeds what would be done if drug abuse were just decriminalized. We have an existance proof. Opium, cocaine, marijuana et.al. were legal and available up to about the Progressive Movement of the early 1900s. Use and abuse were less as was damage.
Per synthetics:
Leave them prescription only and go after the supply chain for violation of prescription drug laws. That leaves a very thin market and high prices. Abusers will then chose the more available cheaper and less risky natural versions. Make that use a medical treatment issue with rehab covered via insurance.
A dynamic human society is a messy thing. Control freaks want Order, to their specifications, and are willing to take any action needed to force others into their mold of proper behavior.
Those that feel unhappy with their lives take drugs to escape their misery. I have spent much of my life around those that use drugs of one kind or another and in my opinion, messed up people use drugs, drugs do not mess up people. Self medication is an effect not the cause of their problem. The “War on Drugs” is a war on people aimed at CONTROL of them, not an attempt to help them. “Just say No” actually did work to reduce drug use among young people during the time when it was actively pursued. The demand for mood altering drugs is actually quite inflexible and the supply/demand curve price reflects this. Prohibition restricts supply and greatly increases the price and damage that feeding that demand causes. the use of Cannabis causes the least amount of side effects of any legal and illegal drug that I know of. You can not damage yourself with an overdose. With no government controls it would be dirt cheap and Big Pharma would lose $billions in lost revenues for their drugs that are often misused and sometimes ineffective as well as cause damaging side effects…pg
E.M., most people seem to be blissful self-unaware. Ideologues even more so, unable to step outside of themselves even when it’s tactfully pointed out to them. It’s probably an innate defect. My take is that they’re permanently stuck in Kahneman’s Type I thinking style. When reality smacks them upside the head, they still don’t get the bigger picture. All you really can do is find the rare one who might have a whiff of a clue and nurture it so they will learn to navigate the infested waters as you have and not be eaten by the sharks.
Cd, jim, thanks for the replies, and as I said, I essentially. Agree.
My question however is… “,yet I wish for ideas on how the potential harms can be communicated to prevent, as much as possible, what I know will be ruined lives.
P.G. have you studied the evidence against M.J.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/04/150-scientific-studies-showing-dangers.html
There is evidence MJ can cause or contribute to…Marijuana can cause – Brain Damage (Lowered IQ, Memory Loss, Paranoia, Psychosis, Schizophrenia); Mood Disorders (Aggression, Anxiety, Depression, Irritability); Cancer; Heart Attacks; Gum Disease; Impaired Motor Skills; Lung Disease; Obesity; Osteoporosis; Pregnancy Complications; Sexual Dysfunction; Strokes, Viral Infections and even Death.
David A.; I do not have time to read ALL of these “studies”papers. I do see many “coulds” ” mights” ,”maybes”. etc. The lowering of mental activity is a definite, yes! sometimes even a feature for some problems. Some studies that I have seen even contradict these other ones. Many of these claims of caused disorders are actually reports of preexisting conditions of the users.. Like all pharmaceuticals some wisdom is needed. Many of both prescription and over the counter drugs from Big Pharma have very bad, permanent side effects. Read the contradictions page that comes with them. Nothing is “Safe” in excess. I take Ibuprofen for body pain, the difference between an effective dose and a terminal dose is not very large. It was once “prescription only” drug. I don’t use cannabis but I do know people that do use it. They get far better results for their problems than from any Big Pharma offering with little or none of the side effects they suffered from the accepted medications for their afflictions.
It would seem that honest education is what is needed and the freedom to chose. The application of the prohibition legal mess is a far greater danger to my person and property then any users have ever been…pg
P.G. says…,I do see many “coulds, mights” ,”maybes”. etc.
——-
Yes this is why I phrased this…”
“There is evidence MJ can cause or contribute to…”
Most side affects are not universal and affect a limited portion of the population.
My objection is twofold. The mood altering affect, just as with alcohol, creates a propensity to over use. The adverse brain affects and psychological affects appear with more studies to be long term and cumulative, taking years to show up.
The above combined with the propaganda promoting it as the least damaging medication is, IMV, harmful.
Hi E. M.,
Since the comments have gotten away from your post and I cannot find an email address for you and I remember this comment will not be posted until it is read by you or someone else., I am sending this for your possible consideration and if you read it you will find it is a cover letter for a long essay.
My nature is to confront people with factual information. I do this so they cannot say: No one told me this. What is factual information? I am a physical scientist; so I consider factual information to be reproducible observations. And because I can read, factual information is what someone else has written in the past. But at the same time, just because someone has written something in the past, does not make what is written the truth as a reproducible observation does.
Galileo Galilei wrote a book with the translated English title: Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. As a physical scientist, I consider Galileo to be the founder of physical science. I have read that Galileo considered this book to be the collimation of his life work. His book was written and, in 1638, published in the Italian language. And for many years before 1914 there was no English translation of his book for English reading people to read. So for many years many physical scientists got along quite successfully without knowing what Galileo had actually written.
But in 1914 an English translation of this book was published. This translation was the work of Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio and in their preface they wrote: For more than a century English speaking students have been place in the anomalous position of hearing Galileo constantly referred to as the founder of modern physical science, without having any chance to read, in their own language, what Galileo himself has to say. … To render the Physics of Galileo also accessible to English and American students is the purpose of the following translation.
I do not know how many English and American professors of physical sciences, upon the publication of this translation, immediately made it required reading by their students. What I know is that no one, as a student majoring in chemistry (a physical science), ever even suggested I get a copy and read it; to say nothing about assigning it as required reading. Hence, I never read it until near the end of my teaching career, when chemistry professors and instructors, like myself, began observing that our students, after an year of our teaching, were not able to perform at the higher level of our previous students.
I consider the following brief segment very informative. Salv. … I greatly doubt that Aristotle ever tested by experiment whether it be true that two stones, one weighing ten times as much as the other, if allowed to fall, at the same instant, from a height of, say, 100 cubits, would so differ in speed that when the heavier had reached the ground, the other would not have fallen more than 10 cubits. Simp. His language would seem to indicate that he had tried the experiment, because he says: We see the heavier; now the word see shows that he had made the experiment. Sagr. But I, Simplicio, who have made the test can assure you that a cannon ball weighing one to two hundred pounds, or even more, will not reach the ground by as much as a span ahead of a musket ball weighing only half a pound, provided both are dropped from a height of 200 cubits. Salv. But, even without further experiment, it is possible to prove clearly, by means of a short and conclusive argument, that a heavier body does not move more rapidly than a lighter one provided both bodies are of the same material and in short such as those mentioned by Aristotle.
Do you see (understand) that Galileo here clearly calls Aristotle out as being a liar? And today we know, as Galileo knew, Aristotle could have never done the experiment that it seemed he claimed to have done. I have read that Einstein had stated: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. Do you believe this is true? Evidently Galileo did not. For he immediately, after referring to the results of experiment, wrote: it is possible to prove clearly, by means of a short and conclusive argument. And twenty pages later one can read: Simp. The previous experiments, in my opinion, left something to desired: but now I am fully satisfied. Salv. … I must neglect no experiment or arguments to establish it.
Aristotle was a liar and Galileo considered that experiment was not sufficient to prove that Aristotle had lied. Galileo considered that argument was a productive activity in his science. Einstein knew that the only test of his reasoning (assumptions and arguments) was experiment (observation either qualitative or quantitative measurement).
I repeat Galileo’s words: The previous experiments, in my opinion, left something to desired. It seems that Galileo never saw (understood) that argument led to the fact that Aristotle was wrong. And it had to have been self-arguments which led Galileo to reject the consequences of Tycho Brahe’s careful naked-eye quantitative astronomical observations and Johannes Kepler’s exhausting mathematical analysis of them according to the heliocentric model of the solar system. Which, Copernicus discovered, historians tell us, was first proposed by some Greek philosophers who had lost the debate (argument) with Aristotle and the other proponents of the geocentric model of the universe.
And I repeat, as Einstein stated: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. I believe this is true.
So, please read my attached essay so you might say someone told me.
Have a good day and may the Creator God bless you,
Jerry L Krause Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Oregon State University 1969
jerry.semivision@gmail.com
As Detective Murtaugh said – “I am getting too old for this sh*t!”.
I just avoid them. Half my family is conservative. The other half would fit right in with Silicon Valley. I just do not discuss politics with either side. But I do go out of my way to avoid the left side as they do seem to think their religion is better than anyone elses.
philjourdan; Amen brother! ;-)
I’ve been dealing with them since 1958, Right after escaping Catholic Parochial School’s brain washing sisters I got trapped by newly minted Liberal Progressive California school teachers. All and all, good vaccinations against the disease of cult group think…pg
Chief, we all love you!
@LarryGeiger “Chief, we all love you!” amen to that. My mother used to say she had ‘foot-in-mouth disease’ – i.e. whenever she opened her mouth she’d say the wrong thing (put her foot in it).
Yep… my granddaughters have “unfriended” me on Facebook and are unavailable for dinner when I’m in town. Go figure.