I
The reason for the impossible $16 trillion figure is explained right under the table in the Fed audit report. There is no mystery as to whether the Fed really gave banks $16 trillion. It did not.

That statement requires only word reading.

As to why Senator Sanders (my favorite Senator) was peddling it requires mind-reading. That I cannot do.

That press release was false, and nobody can claim (with a straight face) that its lead claim actually happened. The audit it purports to describe states that it did not happen.

But I do not know whether Sanders knew that.

If he knew that, then he lied... but that's not the point.

The point is that there is a truth underlying discourse. In this case, the truth is that for consistancy with past accounting practices for the overnight loan program, the Fed acounted for (for instance) a 90 day loan of $1 billion dollars as 90 individual one billion dollars loans made and repaid every 24 hours, for a total of $90 billion, even though the Fed loaned only $1 billion.

As explained right in the audit report, right under the extraordinary figure. It isn't hidden.

This really sums it all up.

Prosense wants to promote "sides" and have the herd exclude me as not on "their side" because I said something bad about the left.

Facts schmacts... this is a pep-rally!

Guilt by association is the last refuge.

Yes... I have no doubt that I agree with 99% of right-wingers in my assertion that some lefty shibboleths are crud.

And I agree with very few RWers in my assertion that the entirety of the RW enterprise is built on delusion.

Tart, writing in a fairly recent book (2009), THE END OF MATERIALISM, has this to say:

Semiconsciously and unconsciously, we've all been subjected to great amounts of belittlement of spirituality by scientists and other prestigious thinkers, so there's unconscious, as well as conscious, resistance to spirituality and the emotional issues around it . . . . [but] the problem is not a conflict between science per se and spirituality, but between SCIENTISM and spirituality. SCIENTISM, attached to the enormous success of the physical sciences, presumes a philosophy of total, materialistic monism. Everything can and will be fully explained by studying space, time, matter, and energy with physical instruments, and we can dismiss the spiritual la priori without wasting our time by looking at it seriously. Essential, genuine science, radical empiricism, insists, though, that we look at ALL data, ALL experience, not just those things that make us happy because they fit the beliefs and theories we've already adopted. People have always had and keep right on having experiences that simply do not fit into current materialistic frameworks or reasonable extensions of them. . . . The Archives of Scientists' Transcendent Experiences <www.issc-taste.org>, for example, describes many such experiences that living scientists have had. When we apply the methods of essential science to look at these kinds of experiences, which are ignored in materialistic SCIENTISM, we discover paraconceptual phenomena, paranormal phenomena as they're usually called, apparent transcendences of the usual limitations of space and time that happen to so many ordinary people that the "normal" in paranormal is actually misleading. If what happens to a majority of people is "normal," then those who haven't personally had some sort of paranormal experience are not up to normal; they're subnormal or abnormal.

Tart goes on to point out that one group of paranormal experiences, what he calls "the big five" (telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, and psychic healing) "are psi phenomena whose existence is supported by hundreds of rigorous experiments for each phenomenon."

and the "the big five" (telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, and psychic healing)" have absolutely not been demonstrated through any rigorous experiments.

I grew up fascinated and enthralled with all this stuff and have owned and read several books by Charles Tart. Eventually I came to the conclusion that all the "evidence" was basically made up. The last step that would make even a single demonstration valid or "proven" is never taken, and repeated efforts by people on both sides of the argument to demonstrate any of "the big five" have failed.

Once you've gone far enough, reading all the debunking of this stuff is more interesting than the stuff itself.

Seriously, being into the "woo" side is an interesting way to keep one's mind active and entertained, but its not real. At some point in life, that matters.

Here's a section of the NPR interview given in the post. They're discussing the case of the young boy, 2 years old, who had memories of a life as a WWII pilot being shot down off the coast of Japan.

TUCKER: Well, I think it's very difficult to just map these cases onto materialist understanding of reality. I mean, if physical matter, if the physical world is all there is, then I don't know how you can accept these cases and believe in them. But I think there are good reasons to think that consciousness could be considered a separate entity from physical reality. And in fact, some leading scientists in the past, like Max Planck, who's the father of quantum theory, said that he viewed consciousness as fundamental and that matter was derived from it. So, in that case, it would mean that consciousness would not necessarily be dependent on a physical brain in order to survive and could continue after the physical brain and after the body dies. In these cases, it seems, at least on the face of it, that a consciousness has then become attached to a new brain and has shown up as past life memories.

MARTIN: This may be a dumb question, but I'm going to ask it anyway: so, does that mean, does a consciousness need to inhabit a body?

TUCKER: Well, we don't know, of course. But in a case like James Leininger, I mean, there was 50 years between lives. Now, who's to say he didn't inhabit another body in the meantime. But my guess would be no. Now, in this world, it may need to be in a physical body in order to be expressed but it may well be that our brains are conduits for consciousness but it is actually being created somewhere else.

MARTIN: So, what are you trying to reveal or prove? What to you would constitute an important scientific development in this field?

TUCKER: Well, I don't know that I'm necessarily trying to prove anything, but I'm trying to sort of find out for myself what seems to be going on here. And I think these cases contribute to the body of evidence that consciousness, at least in certain circumstances, can survive the death of the body, that life after death isn't necessarily just a fantasy or something to be considered on faith, but that it can also be approached in an analytic way and the idea can be judged on its merits.

My suggestion: Wouldn't it be better to just say that you prefer to put your faith in reason as the final arbiter even tho you accept the good faith and honesty of the people on the Woo side? Calling somebody "delusional" strikes me as unwarranted, especially since many scientists (Planck is mentioned) as noted in the above article have also tried to understand these events and experiences. I think the sign of a scientific mind is the acceptance of all data that comes from honest people or scientists reporting actual experiences or experiments. Tart may be wrong or perhaps our understanding of all areas of human experience is presently not comprehensive enough to allow for "reason" to explain things adequately, but I don't think Tart is delusional.

and the "debunking" side of it has always been more compelling than the "magical" side. I think anyone who has raised children or worked with children realizes how incredibly impressionable they are, how incredibly willing they are to say whatever is desired to please or impress, and how versatile and surprising their minds can be. Also, how the notion of what's true or real versus what is imagined or false doesn't develop until later in life (and in many cases doesn't develop at all).

One thing you can learn from science is that memories are dependent on the physical brain. They are generated by experience, which is neural activity, and this neural activity is stored via the modifications of synaptic connections and chemical conditions. Any disturbance of the system, whether chemical or electrical, which prevents normal activity, is likely to prevent the physical formation of memory, such that it then doesn't exist. Any physical damage to the brain can cause the permanent loss of memory which was dependent on the areas damaged.

So...I am to believe that memory is independent of the brain, or can be transferred whole from one dead brain to another living brain, in spite of all extensive evidence to the contrary, because children are very good at making things up to please people?

...nah, forget it.

and reject evolution then you are, a priori, anti-science.

At least when it comes to biology and inherited traits. Literally nothing we know to be factual about these subjects make any sense at all without evolution.

Why in the hell do you think we need a new flu vaccine every year? Or that bacteria is becoming resistant to antibiotics?

Yes. Yes you are anti-science.

I'm gonna need a little bit more to go on.

I just have a hard time with evolution. As liberal as I am, science to me makes more sense.

does not compute.

-p

You'd have difficulty finding anything more universally agreed-upon by relevant scientists than the basic notion of evolution and speciation by natural selection.

which, of course, has no relevance to your ability to detect woo

That was an epic word fail.

"...What has turned so many Americans against science—the very tool that has transformed the quality and quantity of their lives?"

"Today's denial of inconvenient science comes from partisans on both ends of the political spectrum. Science denialism among Democrats tends to be motivated by unsupported suspicions of hidden dangers to health and the environment. Common examples include the belief that cell phones cause brain cancer (high school physics shows why this is impossible) or that vaccines cause autism (science has shown no link whatsoever). Republican science denialism tends to be motivated by antiregulatory fervor and fundamentalist concerns over control of the reproductive cycle. Examples are the conviction that global warming is a hoax (billions of measurements show it is a fact) or that we should “teach the controversy” to schoolchildren over whether life on the planet was shaped by evolution over millions of years or an intelligent designer over thousands of years (scientists agree evolution is real). Of these two forms of science denialism, the Republican version is more dangerous because the party has taken to attacking the validity of science itself as a basis for public policy when science disagrees with its ideology."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy

Magic is not real, no matter how good the sales pitch is, claiming it is.

Nice summation of the problem with woo.

What on earth is going on with that kitteh?

He tells me he has found some higher level of consciousness and is blissfully levitating.

Fuzzy little bastards.

There's a difference.

who have blatantly false nonscientific beliefs wherever they fall on the political spectrum. Nobody can know everything, but believing differently from 98% of the experts in the field is just, well, worthy of an eyeroll or two.

The critical difference is that those on the left are not demanding that their beliefs and crammed down everyone else's throats. A liberal may decide not to believe in evolution (in spite of the literal mountains of evidence for it and none against it), but said liberal is not forcing the local schools to teach creationism. A liberal Catholic may be against the birth control pill while doing nothing to prevent others from being able to take it. A liberal may be heterosexual and not try to restrict how homosexuals live their lives.

We are not being selective in who we fight against. We fight against those who are trying to force the rest of us to live according to their rules, not the laws and customs that we already have. Liberals tend to let others live their lives on their own terms. US conservatives these days seem to want to control everyone's personal lives.

THAT is the difference.

And purify this board of the ones who don't think right.

I did not read this past the first two paragraphs but I get the drift...run off the religious or those who don't believe like progressives are supposed to.
In the end we will make ourselves into a very small tent indeed...like it or not, the majority are not atheist and they vote too.

"But if we are going to laugh at the 60% of republicans who do not believe in evolution then why exactly should we not laugh at the 35% of Democrats who reject evolution?"

Conspiracy theories and the rejection of science have many accomplices. Whether this is "bombing the moon," "All things are Fukushima related," "aliens did it," "God did it," "my magical berries give undocumented abundant health," and so on, do not deserve floor time when we have science to help us understand, in an unbiased way, more about the things we wish to know. As a race we have to be pro science. Science is the reason you are able to so rapidly and easily ignore 95% of a post written by someone distant using the same technology.

You assumed you knew what the post was about after 2 lines. You assumed incorrectly.

I am not going to further debate the content of a post you admittedly (and obviously) didn't bother to read before eagerly commenting.

Because you can lump them all in the same box and call it woo, and presumably get their post hidden...and you can do that with anything that is not the official story...including religious belief.
But I have sense read the whole thing...and I see nothing to change my mind.

Climate Scientists get to decide on global warming.
Biologists get to decide on evolution.
Physicists get tot decide on the age of the universe.
Geologists get to decide on the age of the planet.

They all do so with data-back peer-reviews systems to check, double check, correct, and further understand.

There are things for which there are evidence. There are things for which there is not evidence.


Our future should be based on evidence and logic. That combination has a proven track record of success. Good wishes and perception doesn't.

And driven from the progressive side because we don't need them...because progressivism is all about agreeing with those in authority.
Do I have that right?

The incredible shrinking base.

I realize it's a radical concept to think we should believe in what experts have to say.

To me:
Thinking that Neil Degrasse Tyson knows a little more about comets than the Heaven's Gate cult is a good thing.
Thinking that Brian Cox knows more about quantum theory than the guy who cuts my hair is a good thing.
Thinking that Richard Dawkins knows more about how humans came to be than iron age peasants is a good thing.
Thinking that Climate Scientists know more about the earth Climate than Frank at the bar is a good thing.


If you want to appeal to conspiracy theorist and junk science, you'll find that barrel has already been craped by the tea party.

But not to the extent that I deny that they can ever be wrong or that they know it all.
And not to the extent I insist that everyone else believe in them too.
Because that flies in the face of the spirit of science, to try to try to intimidate people who take exceptions to their theories or their facts.

No one ever said they couldn't be wrong. Science is self-correcting.
I choose to believe the people who have a basis for an opinion.
No one has suggested intimidation.

This whole sub-thread exactly proves the point of the OP
You have decided things based on scant information, and you won't let it go in the face of additional information you have admitted ignoring.

And no you never say that they could not be wrong, you just say they are 100% right...and never suggest intimidation, but it is done.

And I have decided nothing...I keep my mind open to new things, but I see this sub thread as proof that open minds are not well appreciated by some here, and if they had their way all but the official story would be banned from DU...as WOO.

Your mind should be open to reality. Not all new things are rational.

History if full of the wrecks of rationalizations.
I can remember the NYT retracted a opinion piece when men landed on the moon that called Robert Goddard a crank because even in high school they knew that rockets can't work in space where there is no air to push against...that sounded very rational.

Tested is where science comes in. Science test perceptions.

I've posted this once already today. I guess I'll post it again:

dogma, he is said to be the future, the definition of our Party's path, anti choice, anti gay, preaching about demonic influences, he's DU's favorite and many people make OPs to claim he is that which he really is not.
To some of us the endless praise for the anti gay does feel like an organized dog whistle orgy.

And he is celebrated on DU. Even some who do not celebrate make excuses and advocate that his bigotry be tolerated, as you have done.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I haven't seen that many auto removes in one thread.

One of the things I ask the religious is if God made you and gave you a brain, why do they hand it over to someone else instead of using the gift bestowed by God? There's always a moment of silence before they fabricate a reply which is usually a non reply.

I say give everyone a subscription to Scientific American that they must read every month.



-p

It is a method for asking questions and looking for answers. Not "believing" in science makes as much sense as not "believing" in pipe wrenches.

Sure, one can try and explain the physical world based upon ancient folklore and myth. One would then be expected to have as much success as trying to fix a flat tire with a shovel. Choose the right tool for the job.

Similarly, there are questions that science cannot answer. What is right? What is wrong? What happens to us after we die? What does this all mean? This is the realm of spirituality and philosophy.

We encounter difficulty when we use the tools of one discipline to try and solve the problems of the other. Teaching creationism in science class makes as little sense as teaching differential equations in PE.

.

"Using reason to see the world as it is, as a necessary pre-condition to doing anything good."

"But it doesn't matter. The inability of copper bracelets to cure arthritis is, like all scientific facts, independent of what we think about it. In the same way that Pluto was there before we first saw it. Science finds truths. It sucks that a lot of RW assholes fancy themselves rational, but that does not change anything about reason itself. "

+++=======++++

It has become very difficult to challenge some folks, even with facts and reason. They need to see more evidence. The facts available do not seem to sway them?

So I try not to get huffy.

Lots of energy being spent on this. Science evolves. Somewhere, at some time, someone has been wrong.

Not to find some fixed final formulation. People are too attached to certainty, for emotional reasons too, it feels safer somehow if you consider you know what's going on. Uncertainty is unsettling.

The Confirmation Bias, some call it, the desire to be right.

I know I've been wrong many times, and that it can be the most educational experience of all, being wrong. I've learned to be more open to it.