False Science and Unqualified, Politicized Punditry




  1. A general comment:

    Through the years Daedal2207 and I have agreed on almost nothing. That is, except for one thing. That is the idea that all reasonable voices should be heard. For this I have immense admiration for him.

    I know him as Claude, and I also know him to have had an incredible life actively spent at the cutting edge of important activities. He has admirably raised children who in their own right have cut a path that should be the envy of all good people with healthy ambitions.

    About many who were named as contributors of this blog, all I can say is they have not revealed themselves as minds willing, or capable, of entering the quest for best ideas. That has been a disappointment.

    The main divide between Daedal2207 and myself seems to be the following: Daedal2207 has a strong moral sense about how society should be structured. For him, “Social Justice”, or group measured equities, are of great significance. My first priority is that of pragmatism. What is the real nature of man? What is the real nature of nature’s laws? How can these essential ingredients be structured such that the greatest possible number of humans will survive and thrive? Logically, my pragmatism, if successful in its goal of most enhancing life, would also be the most highly moral of paths forward. By going through pragmatism, we avoid the pitfalls, the sidetracks of “righteous” distortion. I think that Daedal2207 is caught up in one of emotion’s whirlpools, and thus, is not objectively seeing how other forces are impacting on our trajectory. Pragmatism indicates that by striving for individual equality under the law, it allows us to bypass the great problems associated with group disparities. If individual citizens are to be the core of “justice” and “equity”, every person is IN THAT WAY made equal. In this way, our country incentivizes the greatest number to be productive of the resources that enrich a habitat amid which the greatest number of humans can survive and thrive.

    Age is limiting the time we have for saying the things that should be said. For having created this opportunity for ideas to find exposure Daedal2207 (Claude) should be applauded as being one of the better minds, and one of the better citizens.

    Thank You

  2. It appears that herd immunity is the fastest and most probable way to put this danger behind us. Given that mortality is rare among the young and healthy, the fastest and least deadly route to herd immunity would be to protect the vulnerable while exposing the young. So, let the young go back to work, thereby reducing deaths caused by a crippled economy, and also quickly, but not so quick that hospitals are innundated, building for society a real protection. How is this different from the path selected by the President? Or, is the real issue not that of the most life-saving path forward, but the goal is really that of promoting the best way to harm the President’s chances of reelection?

    1. This comment is a good example of unqualified politically motivated punditry.Assumptions are absurd and conclusions ridiculous.What happened to the last prediction of disappearing infection? Black lives matter because all lives matter and Americans are dying at the rate of 1500 per day.The presidential reelection is secondary to unnecessary death and disease.

      1. And by what wizard power does Daedal2207 know that with any other President Covid-19 would be a walk in the park? Perhaps Daedal2207 could explain just why we need to dismiss the best current data to favor some nasty slander against Trump, a claim without good data that imagines all ills in life and nature to be his doing? I am presenting a very rational path using current knowledge about the probabilities of mortality linked to age groups, and probabilities linked to what is known about the general nature of immunities. It only takes a basic form of logic to understand how this path has a good, if not best chance to lead us to a relatively fast end to the threat.. Daedal2207 charges Trump with being responsible for immense numbers of Covid-19 death, and then charges me with making a political argument? You thinking readers – try to make sense of that.

      1. SB
        I could inundate you with well written columns from conservative writers. It would be better for all of us if you would provide in your own writing a synopsis of these articles. Indeed, one critical question I would like to see anyone answer has to do with which political party will, with its policies, be most productive of the resources that provide the most vast and fertile habitat in which humans can most be able to survive and thrive? Please explain just why some might think that the capitalist and individual liberty policies of the Republicans would be less productive of needed resources than would the “social justice”, redistributionist policies of the Democrat Party?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.