Replying to Keith Wilde's green points:
Google is my home page. I will.
In the past, as a candidate, I have always concentrated on pointing out the
apparent faults in the present system, and following that up with our
(obviously sensible) answers to the problem. This favours the more
practical approach and helps better to promote our ideas. The method of
testing against reality gets the story across, long monologue only about
what we would do leaves them iin stony-faced incredulity.
I believe the near-parable about the mechanics to be apt. But no,
nobody has THE truth and I agree that those who claim it are downright
dangerous. But when we have a Minister of Finance obviously brainwashed
by orthodox economists to believe that banks lend their deposits, I most
certainly get cynical. Or when I read a four hundred odd page book about
the great thinkers of economics and their theories that nowhere mentions the
part played by banks in increasing the money supply.
No. We are not "the only...". Just that we do and I suspect those
running the present system do not. Otherwise we would not have the poor
nations subsidising the rich ones with goods produced by sweated labour and
outrageous payments on their debts. Or the impoverished people in the "rich"
nations.
I welcome criticism from people like Keith because they force us to
present our ideas in better form than has often been the case.
John R.
>From: "Keith Wilde"
<keithwilde@sympatico.ca> >Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com >To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com> >Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Reply to
Keith Wilde X 2 >Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 10:05:26 -0400 > >A couple of
'green' remarks from Keith: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John
G Rawson > To: socialcredit@elistas.com > Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005
5:21 AM > Subject: [socialcredit] Reply to Keith Wilde X 2 > > >
Having dropped a snide remark about "label thinking", it would be unseemly for
me to quibble about the precise one now applied to scientific methodology.
Provided it means testing against reality rather than pure untested
deductions, then I am happy. If I stand corrected, so be it, it does not
affect the thrust of my argument. But I do hope Keith's source is not an
anti-evolutionist "scientist" from a US mid-western college. > > If you
haven't heard of Ernst Mayr, you probably have heard of Google. Give it a try.
> > And scientists are regularly running tests of Einstein's work in
space experiments etc. > > Anyone who isn't sure what we are talking
about could get an excellent indication from either of two sources: a. The US
Biological Science Curriculum Studies "blue version", "Molecules to Man",
about 1970, or b. the Sherlock Holmes stories. The first undoubtedly contained
it in the first chapter of the book as a reaction to "put downs" from physical
sicentists about our "imprecise sciences"; someone else may care to guess at
Conan Doyle's motivation. > > And Keith does not have to look forward to
empirical tests, because Vic Bridger's excellent contributions contain many
examples where predictioins based on the Douglas analysis have proved correct.
> > Where did I say that I wanted empirical tests? I am quite content
with what I understand of Douglas' deductive apparatus--which I am pretty sure
had empirical foundations in his own thinking. My comments were about where I
conceive empirical effort to have the greatest potential impact for promoting
the policy. > > But I will mention again the stagflation problem if he
wishes one scrap. > > Finally, may I bring up the totally invented story
of the motorist who went to an economist mechanic when his car stalled.
Mechanic DEDUCED from the symptoms that the fault was certainly electrical and
replaced the whole ignition system. And the car still didn't go. So, several
hundred dollars poorer, the motorist went down the street to the Socred
mechanic, who thought "Looks like an electrical fault, but I'll check".
Checking a spark plug, which had a beautiful blue spark SUGGESTED (didn't
prove) that his first hypothesis was wrong. So he took the alternative one,
that the fuel system was faulty, and behold, no fuel was reaching the motor.
So his next hypothesis was a line blockage, but being truly (INDUCTIVE, or ..)
he dipped the tank, to find it was empty, and had to ditch that one too. Being
knowledgeable, he asked the motorist if he could have been misled by a fuel
gauge permanently showing "full"? To leave out the next hypothesis and cut the
story a bit shorter, he soldered up the broken lead from the tank unit to it
and charged the motorist about ten dollars before he went off happily. (It
really was an electrical fault, but not the one DEDUCED by the first
operator.) > > What point are you trying to make by reciting this
example of the bitter humor of a self-satisfied, political-religious minority
who is certain that they have THE truth of the universe and also that they are
totally misunderstood and persecuted by the ignorant and hostile mass of
everyone else? The only point you have in fact made is that you perceive
yourself to be among one of those groups. > > Before someone tells me
modern cars have computers and different methodology, I'll agree. But from the
point of view of a typical do-it-yourself Kiwi working on the wonderful old
Chrysler Valiants formerly produced in Australasia, it is dead accurate. >
> The only message I can infer from this (above) is that social crediters
are the only sociologists who know how to work like a good mechanic. Is that
what you mean? > > For the first situation in it, (first situation in
what? I don't get the drift here.) perhaps one could substitute the "trickle
down" theory associated with the modern monetarist approach to economics? You
won't get any reaction from me by criticizing "standard" economics, because I
have no defensive feelings about it--or much interest in it. On the other
hand, I do have an aversion to joining in with jeering mobs. If you or other
believers find my comments critical, you should not infer that they are
directed against Douglas or his analyses. Interpret them instead as a critique
of your merchandising technique. > > John R. > >
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Looking for love? Check out XtraMSN Personals >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>You're subscribed to this list with the email keithwilde@sympatico.ca
>To unsubscribe, send a message to >socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
>For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit >
> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
>To unsubscribe, send a message to >socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
>For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
