I’m well aware that Geithner is a political actor. But he’s not the only person quoted in that article.

See my update on David Brook’s July 4 column. Should Brooks stop writing about politics too?

–Jon Winsor

Myself, I’ve noticed a lot of Fallacies of Hasty Generalization coming from the denier/skeptic side, and also Fallacies of Incomplete Evidence.

Funny you should mention that.

If the gov’t does go into default, it won’t stop paying ALL debts. Just some of them. We’ll have to pay for some federal salaries, and something of the military, etc. Other programs will get triaged away.

Except the only possible agent to choose which programs get paid and which don’t would be the executive branch–the President–and he very clearly does not have the Constitutional authority to do that. He has to obey every law passed by Congress–including the laws that established the Dept. of Education, the NEA, and every other program that he’d have to choose to allow to disintegrate in the event of default.

Obama isn’t stupid enough to go down to impeachment like that, so I *hope* he invokes the 14th. What I grimly suspect is he will give the GOP everything they want and let them keep their insane country-ruining class warfare tax cuts too. But that’s why they call it “hope.”

Unlikely. It would be challenged in the courts, which would mean the US government would be paying its bills with money the recipients were unsure was even valid – not the way to encourage market stability. And it would put Obama in the position of engaging in risky high-profile Constitution-dodging manoeuvre for the explicit purpose of running up more debt in a move that is sure to drag out in the courts and hence the news cycle for years.

From a political point of view, Obama’s best bet is to let it happen, after making what appears to be a sincere attempt to do a deal, and then try to blame the resulting economic chaos on the Republicans. Which might or might not work, depending on whether word gets out about why the Republican rebels are doing it. If Obama gets to pick and choose which bills get paid (it’s pretty much undefined who decides), and selects Republican districts for the resulting cuts, it could get quite nasty.

It would be better for both sides to do a deal. It’s just a matter of negotiating the price, and talking up one’s own reputation for irrationality is often a good (and perfectly rational) negotiating strategy.

So would Obama invoking the 14th amendment to allow the government to continue paying all its debts regardless of Congressional input, thus sidestepping the frivolous ultimatums currently being screeched by the party of gaybashers, creationists, and tri-corn hats.

If we genuinely cannot distinguish research with a payoff from research without, then any research would be as good as any other, and it would be as valid to do those bits we think look promising as any other. Remember, by not doing some of the “cheap, quick, and easy” application-led research, you might just as easily miss out on a fundamental long-term advance as by not doing basic research. In practice, of course, we do have some idea of likely probabilities and pay-offs.

And it’s still possible to overspend on it.

#35,

As a working scientist, you ought to recognise Argument from Authority when you see it.

Scientific discussion is based on evidence, and the only sense in which an expert is more worth listening to is that he or she is usually able to marshal the evidence better and explain it with more clarity.

If you can construct a valid case for a particular photolithographic technique, then it doesn’t matter who you are. The argument speaks for itself. Conversely, it doesn’t matter if you are acknowledged to be the greatest expert in the world – if you can’t or won’t present the evidence, then your opinions are of no more worth than the man on the street.

If, as you say, scientists in other fields don’t have the knowledge to judge climate science, then your opinion as a scientist (and those of all those scientific organisations declaring support for the global warming theory one of my friends here is so keen on posting) are of no more worth than the man on the street, either. The difference is that as scientists you and they ought to know that, and not accept or claim scientific authority on a subject they haven’t checked personally.

In practice, of course, there’s enough overlap with fields like physics and statistics for experts in those fields to check, and some of the errors have been so bad that even an educated layman can understand.

One such error is the persistent and pervasive use of Argument from Authority. It is easy enough for a layman to understand that it is a fallacy and opposed to the principles of science – and therefore anyone who uses it is no scientist.

But another problem is that when the scientists do go to speak to the elected officials, they have their hand out and are just one faction of many special interests promoting their own agenda with nothing to distinguish them from the others. Everyone else comes with requests that are important to them as well.

There is also a long history of scientists making unfulfilled promises as to the benefits of their research. They are quick to say warm fuzzy things like the cure to X will be found in the rainforest and then it will be found in the oceans. I am not sure where it supposed to be now. It keeps moving. Instead of representing their research honestly, they hype it with all kinds of vague promises and dire consequences that are calculated to scare them into submission rather than reflect reality. Add to that, the history of all the programs that were enacted to improve science and mathematics education which failed and left us to slide farther and farther down the list of rankings. It is amazing that they are still in the budget at all.

“Incredulous: as a working scientist, I am not going to take seriously the opinions of people who have no training in science or mathematics on technical issues”

But you do have an opinion on the federal budget? You have training in that?

I am not really being snide about it. We all have to give an opinion on things that are outside of our expertise. Just because you are a working scientist doesn’t mean you don’t have valid input on the budget. Scientist is your job. You are a citizen regardless of your occupation. As a citizen you are responsible to elect people to make the decisions on your behalf. But your opinion doesn’t outweigh everyone else any more than mine does.

The people of Oklahoma have the right to elect any idiot that they choose. He is responsible to do whatever he thinks is right for his constituency. Thankfully he is only one man and there are 99 Senators , 435 or so Representatives, 1 President and 9 Supreme Court Justices to keep him in check. He can be censured. He can be voted out. Isn’t democracy grand? As much as it sucks at times, democracy still beats the alternatives.

I think that a certain amount of humility and, in most cases, respect for the idea that a person may be honestly attempting to interpret issues correctly, is needed if we are to be effective educators and communicators.