Seems pretty air tight, right? But why do I still feel like this is an over simplification of this issue?
Thanks for the Heads Up, Edwin.
music maker, photo taker, world changer
Seems pretty air tight, right? But why do I still feel like this is an over simplification of this issue?
Thanks for the Heads Up, Edwin.
Okay, I’ll poke a hole in this guys theory, sort of.
Basically this guy has just now “discovered” the normal form game. His proof strategy is the foundation of game theory; a branch of mathematics that has been around since the 1930’s designed to solve problems like this. The problem is that he is describing the normal form of a game, but a more sophisticated version also exists that can describe other kinds of information, like a game where one player might not know the decisions of his opponent.
So his theory is good, but it could be more robust. And he discovered it about 70 years late. more can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_form_game
In other words, I probably could prove the opposite with the same fancy grid - as long as the negative connotations the opposite would bring about could be abandoned (or least considered a non-contributing factor to the argument)?
I’m guessing Normal Form Game theory was not lost on the video producer - he just applied it to the Climate Change debate.
Thanks for the comment, Brother Morgan. I’ve been thinking about Game Theory lately, and of course will forever link the two to you because of that essay you wrote many moons ago.
Of course, what does it say about us if we’d rather pick apart the debate method, rather than the debate? We’re either bitter and jaded or we’re the choir he’s preaching to. Or both.
Interesting bit of information Morgan, but I don’t think you are debating the theory as much as you are the method. I make a huge assumption when I say that the narrator in the movie could have delivered a more complex and robust argument, but I think the simplicity of his message serves his purpose.
It’s safe to say that many people make their decision on this sensitive issue on gut feeling without ever weighing the matter. I know I’ve run into much of this. More often than not the reasoning behind peoples decisions are one dimensional at best. As with the best ideas (and by best I mean those that gain wide public acceptance) it caters to the lowest common denominator and trusts that a more sophisticated audience will understand and appreciate its simplicity for what it is.
You obvioulsly understand the argument and it’s method and would likley appreciate something with more substance, but I don’t think you disproved his point.
Eric, while I agree that a chart with opposing view can be easily created, I don’t think it would be sincere. This guy didn’t pull punches in describing worse case scenarios for either side. On the the one extreme he describes a total meltdown of our society due to economic colapse. But no matter how far you take that side of argument it still leaves us with humanity intact. The flipside is not so forgiving.
As for my oppinion, I didn’t need this movie to reach the same conclusion, but I appreciate as a tool.
Take care,
Ed
You’d think it’d be easy to convince people of the Climate Crisis - It came out last week that the North Pole shrunk 23%! in the last 2 years. Santa Claus and his home continent are responsible for reflecting 80% of the heat and energy by the sun. Now its 23% less effective - and that rate will continue to accelerate.
And even with companies like <a href=”http://www.makanipower.com/vision.html” rel=”nofollow”>Makani Power</a> (with their bad ass, google funded High Altitude Kite Wind Power project) working on the Energy side of the equation - some times I fear it may be too late.
And while this video may be useful in convincing the most staunch skeptic - I’m a little more worried by those who need a video to convince them of the science (including the wonderful “<a href=”http://www.climatecrisis.net/” rel=”nofollow”>An Inconvenient Truth</a>”) - as there are usually 2 barriers to their belief: blind (i.e. dumb) faith and money. Usually combined (at least in the higher echelons of business and government).
What Would Jesus Do?
Probably book it back home.
<em>Oh wait</em>.
Good conversation, folks!