How well do restaurant patios and smoking coexist?

I'm being snarky because you keep talking about liberal confirmation bias,

This was the first time I've brought up confirmation bias. Snark preceded that by a large amount. And didn't you say that I had already lost, and therefore you weren't listening to me anymore?

then you write, "But why should I trust them if I don't trust the government bureaucracy that has them bought and paid for." Your posts demonstrate (or at least suggest) that your deep skepticism over science is because it tends to promote actions that go against your political positions, therefore it must be biased.

No. My deep skepticism of institution science -- while still firmly believing in the idea of the scientific method -- started when I observed studies being taken seriously and influencing policy that any engineer would laugh at. That's when I started looking at things closer. My skepticism in institutional science preceded my skepticism in government, while ultimately leading me to that place. So as you can see, you got the whole cause and effect reversed, and once again, your assumptions about me are wrong. Assumptions that go unexamined so you can discount another point of view is, wait for it, a pretty good example confirmation bias.

Besides, my confirmation bias is inconsequential. I go out of my way *not* to tell people what to do. It's the confirmation bias built into the governing paradigm, which you buy into, that is the real problem. They want to tell everybody what to do, down to the smallest detail. When someone is trying to tell someone else how to live their life, then a little skepticism is warranted, no?

The thing is, I used to agree with you 100%. Heck, I *was* you. And not all that long ago. Then I looked outside my bubble. When the evidence changes, I change my mind. When's the last time you looked, really looked, outside your bubble?

And I can find two studies that prove that (of course, by the rules of the game, one couldn't prove it at all, but that is another matter).

Do they "prove it"? Or do they just "highly suggest" it? Were they based on surveys inflicted on undergrad psych majors?

Now I believe one should always follow the money. I don't trust any human endeavor absolutely.

Maybe there is hope for you yet!

But to quote the great philosopher Steven Colbert, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Or maybe not.

Does all of this mean I can stop wearing the damn seat belt in the car? Talk about freedom killing legislation! Let's make a deal, you smokers can have at it wherever you want if I can stop wearing the seat belt. Unlike your deadly second hand smoke, my seat belt only inconveniences and potentially kills me. I can live with that. Do we have a deal? Yes, yes?

Long as you don't have any insurance that compensates your and/or your family in case of permanent disability or death paid for by the premiums of those who didn't make that choice.

In a free society, Ronnie could select an insurance policy that provided coverage for non seat belt wearers and he wouldn't have to drive around under threat of fines and arrest for not wearing his seat belt.

Freedom!

Don't forget the dearest freedom of all (he says in his best Rand Paul voice),the freedom to choose your own light bulbs.

Here is an example of government bureaucrats buying the "science" that they want.

It's like using an electric chair to teach people not to kill.

Or like tackling a guy to keep him from beating his kid. Give him flowers instead, or maybe another beer. I wish the world worked in this pollyanna way, Monkey, but it doesn't. I think there is a middle ground somewhere.

So, what is the difference between skepticism of government funded science vs skepticism of corporate funded science? (not necessarily at odds).

Well, the bigger question......where is the real money?

For me, I'll take the better intentioned (and less funded) state school/government funded research over research funded by, i.e., Monsanto, et al. It's a no-brainer.

So, what is the difference between skepticism of government funded science vs skepticism of corporate funded science? (not necessarily at odds).

Yes. You *should* be skeptical of both. I think you should be even more skeptical of the people with the power to force your compliance to their agenda.

Well, the bigger question......where is the real money?

For me, I'll take the better intentioned (and less funded) state school/government funded research over research funded by, i.e., Monsanto, et al. It's a no-brainer.

Ignorance is blis, as they say.

Yes. You *should* be skeptical of both. I think you should be even more skeptical of the people with the power to force your compliance to their agenda.

Do you actually think that they're mutually exclusive? Meaning, do you actually think that the private sector has their hands clean of "forcing their agenda"?

Ignorance is blis, as they say.

Apparently......

http://wondermark.com/1k45/

Yes. You *should* be skeptical of both. I think you should be even more skeptical of the people with the power to force your compliance to their agenda.

Do you actually think that they're mutually exclusive? Meaning, do you actually think that the private sector has their hands clean of "forcing their agenda"?

The only way the private sector can force anyone to do anything is to co-opt the government to do it for them. If that power were taken away from the the government then it wouldn't be available to be corrupted. There is no one in the private sector that will send armed people to force you to comply. Only the government can do that.

Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

Apparently......

Hey,. You are the one that said "it's a no brainer", which means that you are the one choosing *not* to examine your assumptions. Isn't that choosing to be ignorant?

[Robin Garr]

The only way the private sector can force anyone to do anything is to co-opt the government to do it for them.

Umm, ever heard of the Pullman strike? The Harlan County miners? Or, for that matter, the fuzzy line between Blackwater (et al) and the military? The state-corporate partnership is classic fascism, and I'm afraid the US is slipping quietly in that general direction.

The only way the private sector can force anyone to do anything is to co-opt the government to do it for them. If that power were taken away from the the government then it wouldn't be available to be corrupted. There is no one in the private sector that will send armed people to force you to comply. Only the government can do that.

In addition to Robin's example, if the private sector "forcing their hand" doesn't exist, then lobbying and campaign contributions must be a myth. And of course, not one politician has ever been bought, ever.

Like Charles W said in an earlier post; Just follow the money.

Hey,. You are the one that said "it's a no brainer", which means that you are the one choosing *not* to examine your assumptions. Isn't that choosing to be ignorant?

No, it doesn't mean that. It means that it's a relatively simple conclusion. That's the classic definition of the term.

The only way the private sector can force anyone to do anything is to co-opt the government to do it for them.

Umm, ever heard of the Pullman strike? The Harlan County miners?

Yes. Those were complicated situations. And driven by corruptions of government power like debtor's prisons.

Here's a question for you? What is the purpose of government employee unions? Who are they protecting their members from?

Or, for that matter, the fuzzy line between Blackwater (et al) and the military?

Having a military is a necessary evil. I'm not sure that an American military using mercenaries matches our ideals. It's interesting that you are worried about this aspect of government power and not our rapidly militarizing police forces.

The state-corporate partnership is classic fascism, and I'm afraid the US is slipping quietly in that general direction.

Yes. Except that you probably think of Fascism as a right wing phenomena, whereas I don't see that limitation. Fascism at its foundation is identity politics bolted onto socialism and cronyism.

If you are worried about Fascism, then you should be a huge supporter of limiting government power and against identity or class politics. Fascism always starts by rewarding the in group and punishing the out group. That is not limited to a left/right dichotomy.

The whole "Occupy" movement seems like they'd make some pretty good Brownshirts though.

In addition to Robin's example, if the private sector "forcing their hand" doesn't exist, then lobbying and campaign contributions must be a myth. And of course, not one politician has ever been bought, ever.

I don't know what you mean by "forcing their hand".

It's funny, you are worried about the corporations lobbying government and campaigning. These are ways to get the government to do what they want. You aren't complaining about them forcing you directly. That's because they need the government to do it. Clearly, you already know this.

Just think of a minimal, small government. There would be little reason to lobby or campaign for special favors. In fact, the bigger the government is, the higher the stakes get and the more frantic lobbying and campaigning you'll see. Shrink the government. Lower the stakes. And let people get back to being productive instead of rent seeking from the government.

Charles W said in an earlier post; Just follow the money.

Government money has been taken from someone. And to assume that bureaucrats are virtuous is naive.

Hey,. You are the one that said "it's a no brainer", which means that you are the one choosing *not* to examine your assumptions. Isn't that choosing to be ignorant?

No, it doesn't mean that. It means that it's a relatively simple conclusion. That's the classic definition of the term.

It was also a no brainer when NASA thought the o-rings weren't sensitive to low temperatures. It was also a no brainer when NASA thought the foam insulation didn't have enough mass to damage the heat shield tiles. No brainers are really unexamined assumptions, and feeling safe while doing it.

I don't know what you mean by "forcing their hand".

I mean, i.e., the private sector's overwhelming influence in legislation.

It's funny, you are worried about the corporations lobbying government and campaigning. These are ways to get the government to do what they want. You aren't complaining about them forcing you directly. That's because they need the government to do it. Clearly, you already know this.

No. That's not funny at all. Plutocracy has been on an upward trend for quite a while now.

Just think of a minimal, small government. There would be little reason to lobby or campaign for special favors. In fact, the bigger the government is, the higher the stakes get and the more frantic lobbying and campaigning you'll see. Shrink the government. Lower the stakes. And let people get back to being productive instead of rent seeking from the government.

Many that pay lip service to smaller government really means less oversight and regulation, specifically, in financials. The irony being, the more the plutocrats get their way, the more the requirement for low income assistance, for example. Of course inefficiencies need to be cleaned up. But bigger fish are to be fried.

Government money has been taken from someone.

Yes, because taxation is theft, period. After all, paying for infrastructure, defense, social services, et al, is highway robbery. Does corruption exist? Of course. Is taxation summary theft by definition? Well, that's just silly.

And to assume that bureaucrats are virtuous is naive.

I never implied that, but nice attempt at the straw man. Since you said it, conversely, to assume that the private sector and "the market", left unchecked, is somehow the panacea to all of society's ills is truly naive.

It was also a no brainer when NASA thought the o-rings weren't sensitive to low temperatures. It was also a no brainer when NASA thought the foam insulation didn't have enough mass to damage the heat shield tiles. No brainers are really unexamined assumptions, and feeling safe while doing it.

Perhaps. However, it might be an insult to you if pointed out off the wall and silly examples of when a no-brainer does not fall under the limitations of your own definition. But I digress, as I want no part in space vehicle accidents.

If you reply, I'll surely read it and probably even want to reply. However, I'm finished, as discussions like this never end.