An atheist on indoctrination

I don’t know if the ostrich-like indoctrination approach that John Loftus describes is normal for most Bible colleges and seminaries or not, but it certainly applies to almost every university in the world with regards to economics:

When I went to Bible College I was not educated. I was indoctrinated. While other believers will protest that their Christian college was different, I wonder if that’s true. In order to test this let me explain my experience, compare it with what a good education is, and see what you think. Okay?

Yesterday I had lunch with my friend Dr. Dan Lambert of the Evangelical school John Brown University. He is using my book, WIBA, in several different teaching venues, including college/master’s level classes, and even at an adult study group for a church. I had written about this before. He’s not the only one. My friend Dr. Richard Knopp is using my book in his college/master’s level apologetics classes. I had written about this before too.

There are others, so I’m told. I would like to applaud them all for doing their very best to educate rather than indoctrinate their students. Some skeptics may claim they’re indoctrinating their students anyway, but this is the best we can expect of them. I don’t think the word “indoctrinate” can apply to doing what they’re doing, even if they are arguing against me in their classes.

I very much agree with Loftus on the difference between education and indoctrination; I am not only a strong advocate of reading the material from opposing points of view, but of learning it and knowing it better than the advocates of that point of view. For example, the average Richard Dawkins fan does not realize that when Dawkins makes the superficially straightforward statement that “evolution is a fact” he is actually committing typical Dawkinsian sleight of hand and only commits himself to having inferred the facthood of evolution. This inference, of course, is not at all the same thing as an actual fact, let alone an “inescapable” one. In like manner, few Marxians understand how thoroughly robotics and the information society have destroyed the entire foundation of not only Marxian economics, but historical materialism, simply because they do not know their Marx well enough.

I have as little patience for Christians who think it is unnecessary to know what non-Christians are saying as I do for atheists who plead that cretinous Courtier’s Reply while simultaneously attempting to criticize religion in general or Christianity in particular. The fact that one might happen to be correct about something should never be confused for the knowledge of why one is correct, the probability that one is correct, or the ability to explain why someone else is incorrect. The best minds constantly embrace challenges to their thinking, they do not run and hide from them. I can only commend the likes of Dr. Lambart who do not shirk from doing what every good teacher should do and expose their students to the arguments and ideologies they will be expected to face in the future.

Since the question will undoubtedly arise, I should point out that I haven’t read Loftus’s books, and I have no idea if his critiques of Christianity are any more serious or intellectually legitimate than those presented by the Circle Jerk of the Militant Godless.

A Christmas surprise!

Actually, it’s about as surprising as seeing Santa at the mall. I suppose you can imagine how shocked I am to be proven correct – again – about downward revisions to the Q309 GDP report that has been keeping the markets afloat for the time being:

Economists React: GDP Revision “Surprisingly Large”
Economists react to the larger-than-expected downward revision to third quarter gross domestic product (GDP), to 2.2% annualized growth from 2.8% previously and 3.5% originally reported.

This isn’t really a surprise, obviously, or I could not have predicted it. And even though this is supposed to be the second and final revision to the third quarter GDP number, (at least until the next comprehensive National Income and Product Accounts revision in 2014), I fully expect that it will be revised downward again in a “surprise” unscheduled revision sometime in 2010. Notice that despite being revised downward itself, the Cash for Clunkers debt-creation program now accounts for 66 percent of the remaining GDP “growth”, up from 47 percent in the initial report.

This is an error of $185 billion, which you will note is both a) larger than the $152 billion Bush stimulus package of 2008 and b) smaller than the average $245 billion variance in quarterly reports. Of course, that latter average takes into account two additional revisions, so as subsequent unscheduled revisions are quietly made, we can expect the Q309 variance to increase. If the first two revisions are a correct indication, it will surpass the average.

There is no growth. There is only debt.

UPDATE: It’s always a little startling to come across references like this when you’re making your daily reading rounds: I sure as heck get more data, which I can view an analyze myself, on individual websites like this one, Mish, Zero Hedge, Vox Popoli, and discussion boards, than I find in the mainstream media. I’ve come to the conclusion that many journalists are not even capable of analyzing the subjects they are meant to be covering. And if they are, they will not be allowed to present their analysis if it conflicts with the agenda of their overlords.

Speaking of that data, here’s a link to the 2007-2009 GDP Variance Chart updated with the most recent revisions.

Mailvox: Minds do change

It sometimes seems as if human minds are about as capable of changing as rocks; only high explosives and slow erosion over vast quantities of time are capable of effecting it. But, as this email from a longtime regular demonstrates, it does, on occasion, happen:

At risk of sounding all fawning and shit, I want to thank you, and the Ilk, for aiding in my political transformation. When I went to law school, then started frequenting your blog, I began to appreciate the ramifications of political ideology, particularly the dangers of expanded and intrusive federal government. The fact that you and yours have ALWAYS afforded me a deal of respect, even when I was toting the Democratic party line, speaks volumes about the character of not only yourself but the cabal at Vox Popoli. Even Nate and the dearly departed Bane treated me with respect, a rarity indeed. So, just let me extend my thanks for always being honorable in a time when the concept of honor has seemingly been forgotten.

He is welcome, of course. The reason I chose to share this email is that a common and completely false accusation is that this blog is some sort of echo chamber where disagreement and criticism are not permitted. The reality is that the readers, and to a lesser extent, regular commenters, here represent a wide variety of ideologies and very few of them entirely share my idiosyncratic political and religious beliefs. While the dominant intellectual strain is unsurprisingly libertarian and protestant Christian, there are no shortage of those who do not share either perspective and their opinions are no less regarded for being different. And as the emailer testifies, so long as one abides by the rules of the blog, even the most vehement critic will be treated exactly same as the most fawning sycophant. In fact, I probably pay far more attention to the critics than I do to those who have no criticism to offer; after all, the truly arrogant require no praise.

Wikipedia and the warming scammers

The latest editing scandal underlines the inherent problem with Wikipedia and why it is intrinsically unreliable:

Through his role as a Wikipedia administrator, Connolley is said to have created or rewritten 5,428 unique Wikipedia entries.

“When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it – more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand,” Solomon wrote. “When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred – over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.”

….A Wikipedia arbitration committee has stated in the past: “William M. Connolley has, on a number of occasions, misused his administrator tools by acting while involved.”

If Wikipedia doesn’t immediately remove Connolley’s administrative privileges and ban him from ever editing Wikipedia again, this will conclusively prove that it is nothing more than a propaganda device, not an encyclopedia. When one dishonest ideologue is permitted to run roughshod over 2,000 other individuals, the pretense of democratic openness simply cannot be maintained. Any doubts about the fictional nature of global warming should not be difficult to see by this point, as is the left-wing nature of the charlatans. Those who are telling the truth are seldom interested in scrubbing the history books, and rewriting accurate history is the one of the Left’s signature characteristics.

UPDATE: The good news is that apparently Wikipedia hasn’t entirely given up on the idea of providing accurate information to the masses:

In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming.

A rational metric

Karl Denninger proposes one at the Market Ticker:

[T}his is where government and regulatory interests align to the detriment of economy stability: Governments want to see big GDP increases, and increasing leverage (amount of borrowing outstanding in the economy for a given GDP level) is one way to do this.

The best way to control this trend would be to mandate (by law) that GDP be adjusted to reflect leverage changes in the economy – that is, if debt goes up by 4% of GDP then the 4% has to come off the reported GDP numbers.

The reason this isn’t tenable, of course, is that it would make it clear that we’re well into the economic contraction of massive proportions that is beginning to become visible despite the best efforts of the governments and banks to statistically obfuscate.

Explaining debt-deflation

This article should help explain why “printing” money is not necessarily inflationary in a monetary system where most of the money is created through fractional-reserve lending:

The following chart shows that bank reserves held at the Fed have increased 100-fold over the past 14 months — from around $10B in August of 2008 to around $1000B ($1T) today. It is important to understand that while this explosion in the reserves of US depository institutions has rightfully prompted much discussion and consternation, it hasn’t directly added to the total supply of US dollars (bank reserves are not counted in monetary aggregates such as M1, M2, M3, MZM and TMS). The reason that bank reserves aren’t added to the money supply is that they do not constitute money available to be spent within the economy; rather, they constitute money that could be loaned into the economy or used to support additional bank lending in the future.

If even bank reserves can’t be counted as money, it should be obvious that mere Federal Reserve printed notes can’t be counted either. The money has to go into the system before it can be spent; this is why increased bank reserves are considered to be deflationary. This does not mean, however, that the Fed can simply force the banks to force lending, as some have suggested. Mike Shedlock explains why:

1) Lending comes first and what little reserves there are (if any) come later.
2) There really are no excess reserves.
3) Not only are there no excess reserves, there are essentially no reserves to speak of at all. Indeed, bank reserves are completely “fictional”.
4) Banks are capital constrained not reserve constrained.
5) Banks aren’t lending because there are few credit worthy borrowers worth the risk.

The long-prophesied government

The outlines are beginning to become clear:

The word “global” has taken on sacred connotations. Any action taken in its name must be inherently virtuous, whereas the decisions of individual countries are necessarily “narrow” and self-serving…. There is a whiff of totalitarianism about this new theology, in which the risks are described in such cosmic terms that everything else must give way. “Globalism” is another form of the internationalism that has been a core belief of the Left: a commitment to class rather than country seemed an admirable antidote to the “blood and soil” nationalism that gave rise to fascism.

There is more than “a whiff of totalitarianism” about it; globalism is an intrinsically more deadly threat to Man than fascism, Communism, and Nazism combined. The sacred connotations it has taken on should cause every religious and non-religious individual alike to question just what, precisely, is the nature of the religious spirit behind it. As for me, I think it stinks of sulfur.

VPFL Playoffs Round One

Judean Front (10-4)
Bane Silvers (7-6-1)

Alamo City Spartans (10-4)
Mounds View Meerkats (8-6)

It looks like another one-and-out for the Meerkats, although that’s less disappointing this year. Getting no performance out of two of my three keepers – Clinton Portis and Greg Jennings – and making a terrible blunder by picking up Mario Manningham instead of Steve Smith (NYG) left me scrabbling to fill my roster from week to week. With every starter but one playing on the road and the Spartans up 30-7 already thanks to early points from MJD and Miles Austin, I’m just hoping to keep it halfway respectable. Besides, everyone would be disappointed to miss the big showdown between the Spartans and the Front.

The Saints have blown their perfect season, I expect the Colts will next week. I’m just hoping the Saints drop another one while the Vikes win out and claim home-field advantage.

Bank failures: the grim prognosis

Those who are skeptical of the economic negativity expressed in RGD may wish to keep in mind that I projected failed bank deposits would reach 1.4 percent of total deposits in 2009. After the seven bank failures yesterday, including four large banks with more than $1.5 billion in nominal assets each, that percentage has now reached 1.84 percent. If next week’s Bank Failure Friday is of similar size, the 2009 percentage will reach 2 percent. The chart below compares the historical failed deposits of 1929-1931 to 2008-2010; the 2010 estimate is based on 400 banks failing with the same deposit average of the 2009 failures.

While the widespread rumors of 400 banks being projected to fail next year may be exaggerated, it’s fairly obvious that more than 150 are expected to collapse since the FDIC is expanding its work force by 1,600, an increase of nearly one-fourth, in order “to help with bank closings and examinations.”

Mailvox: science is a thing of the past

A mathematician/physicist writes of the negative effect peer review has on science:

I am writing concerning some pieces of yours I’ve seen which appear to be examining the peer review process in science. There can be little doubt that the peer review system presently in place is flawed, to the extent that it is doing science a grave disservice. I have now retired after being a senior lecturer at an English university in mathematics until 2002, before transferring to physics where I remained until retirement in 2008. In that time I have seen the reviewing standards in many of the so-called prestigious physics journals, as well as more general journals such as Nature, slump. I have also noted a difference in attitude from editors. Now they usually refuse to discuss any submission; if a paper is rejected, that is normally the end of the matter.

I catalogued cases in a number of areas of physics in a book “Exploding a Myth: ‘Conventional Wisdom’ or Scientific Truth?” There is little doubt, although I cannot prove it, that those controlling science and scientific funding in the UK would not have wanted this book publicised since, if the general public became aware of what is really going on, they might be less inclined to fund these hugely expensive dubious projects like the Large Hadron Collider and LISA. Incidentally you might be interested in some of the cases I discussed, particularly the one where I and a colleague took Nature to the Press Complaints Authority – and won. It’s worth noting that “Against the Tide” by Martin Corredoira and Carlos Perelman is similarly not as well known as it should be. It too reveals much of what’s going on in science. It should be realised that everything simply supports the status quo; anything that might rock the boat is buried. Hence, truly original science is becoming a thing of the past.

It sounds like a pair of interesting books, well worth checking out. What far too many scienthologists fail to understand is that it is not the critics of science who pose a real and present danger to science, but rather the very scientists whose abuse and misuse of it are being criticized. If the public begins to tire of funding science, which is a probability in the more negative economic scenarios, scientists will have no one to blame but the charlatans and ideologues in their midst.