POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Scientific illiteracy in boards of education : Re: Scientific illiteracy in boards of education Server Time
29 Jul 2024 06:14:01 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Scientific illiteracy in boards of education  
From: Patrick Elliott
Date: 19 Nov 2012 20:17:18
Message: <50aada1e$1@news.povray.org>
On 11/18/2012 6:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 10:01:39 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2012 5:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> See above re: my own frame of reference.  Those in the US who pine for
>>> a "better, simpler time" are pining for the world of "Leave it to
>>> Beaver", an idyllic, perfect world where there were no problems, unlike
>>> today where everything is someone else's fault.  (That view,
>>> incidentally, is most often put forth by the Republican party, which
>>> ironically bills itself as the "party of personal responsibility" - but
>>> they won't take responsibility for anything *they* do, and try to shift
>>> the blame for the current situation to anyone *but* them).
>>>
>> You noticed that too? ;)
>
> It's kinda hard to miss. ;)
>
>> And, married people didn't sleep in the same bed, a gun actually
>> functioned as a deterrent, not an escalation, and.. But, these are the
>> same party that hosts the, "The Bible is absolutely, literal, true, or
>> at least the bits we don't gloss over.", people. Its hardly a surprise
>> that they pick a work of complete and total fiction as a hallmark of the
>> old days, then insist that everything has gone down hill from there.
>
> Yep.  This election, though, reality crashed their party.  I know many
> who said that Nate Silver was full of sh*t and that he couldn't /
> possibly/ know anything with his particular brand of voodoo.
>
> Except that his particular brand of voodoo was science, math, and deep
> statistical analysis of the data combined with some modeling.  You know,
> *pixie dust and unicorns*.
>
> That missed one race out of all of them (IIRC, he missed the Gov. of one
> of the Dakotas).
>
> Everything else was pretty much dead on.
>
> So now they're faced with their belief not being sufficient to win in
> spite of facts telling them otherwise.
>
> Jim
>
Yeah. To use a Star Wars reference, I am so happy *we* decided to keep 
Chancellor Valorim, instead of electing Palpatine, but even so, it was a 
closer miss than I liked, statistics or otherwise.


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.