tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post5889142201721870375..comments2023-12-05T07:50:19.855-05:00Comments on No Oil for Pacifists: Policy, Not Science, Is the Point@nooil4pacifistshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16688417615117569825noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-71256500718327337892009-12-22T03:01:39.524-05:002009-12-22T03:01:39.524-05:00> I fully understand the "precautionary pr...> <i>I fully understand the "precautionary principle," which is not necessarily un-sound. I just haven't seen enough to apply it to climate change. </i><br /><br />Pascal's Wager is inherently flawed. The Precautionary Principle, on the other hand, is a blatantly sensible Rule of Thumb.<br /><br />They are making Pascal's Wager, not implementing the PP. <br /><br />The former is a claim based on a simplistic examination of the problem. <br /><br />The latter is a rational application of an idea based on a careful examination of a situation, the risks involved behind selecting the wrong alternative, AND the opportunity costs of each option.<br /><br />What part of "careful examination" do you think has been applied here? What risks have been detailed? What opportunity costs identified and laid out?<br /><br />Right, and QED: It's <i>Pascal's Wager</i>, <b>not</b> the <i>Precautionary Principle</i> in play here. <br /><br />To call it the PP is to grant legitimacy to the claim which it hasn't even sought.<br /><br />;-)OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-84206476388375600852009-12-21T19:54:26.153-05:002009-12-21T19:54:26.153-05:00Partial answer here (what you call "Pascal...Partial answer <a href="http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2009/12/qotd_20.html#7106446316859266929" rel="nofollow">here</a> (what you call "Pascal's Wager" I call the "precautionary principle").@nooil4pacifistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16688417615117569825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-27505491460471955952009-12-21T16:36:28.119-05:002009-12-21T16:36:28.119-05:00...Gives new meaning to be in support of "ID&......Gives new meaning to be in support of "ID", don't it?OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-56368806215776225212009-12-21T16:35:54.921-05:002009-12-21T16:35:54.921-05:00> What is the solution? Let politics do its job...> What is the solution? Let politics do its job; indeed, demand it.<br /><br />I don't think that's the problem. They want the political solution, it's just the political solution of the Imperial Diktat, not the solution of the Democratic Ideal.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-7006750619620091372009-12-21T16:33:32.556-05:002009-12-21T16:33:32.556-05:00> should be determined by objective scientific ...> <i>should be determined by objective scientific assessments of future risks.</i><br /><br />Even if you grant this, you don't want to make the mistake of Pascal's Wager, which they've been using all along as an argument.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.com