[quote=SK in CV]
I gotta jump in here and argue this point. At least one of them. You’re right, the voters will not care. They won’t care because absolutely absurd ideas get thrown around as if they have merit…
We can’t have serious discussions when rediculous theories, without basis in fact, are advanced as reasonable talking points. They’re not. I am not supporting censorship, I’m supporting marginalization of stupid ideas. Stupid ideas are too often placed at the table for discussion as rational and supportable options. They’re not. There is no path to progression unless teh stupid is eliminated as an option.
/rant[/quote]
SK: Can we include wrong-headed in here as well? I have no issue with marginalizing stupid in order to support rational, but, all too often, simply questioning “settled science” (empirically speaking, there is NO such thing), whether its economics or AGW/Climate Change, is treated as heretical or blasphemous.
I read Krugman’s article on the need for additional stimulus. I don’t take any issue with the assertion, what I do take issue with is Krugman’s insistent and persistent abuse of anyone who disagrees with him and his continued use of strawman arguments to attempt to pro-actively submarine his opponents. Since when did asking questions become such a big deal? If we’re truly committed to a rational, well thought approach, I’d think that empiricism would hold pride of place.
I’ve also watched those whose fervent belief in AGW has caused them to lose all objectivity on the subject, frothing at the mouth over the temerity of those who are proffering the newest NASA and CERN findings on climate change for review and comment.
I strongly agree with you, SK, but I’d also offer the observation that that blade cuts both ways.
