A government's energy policy is a subset of its policies. In making these policies, a government needs to have a model of each physical system that is to be regulated through the enactment of this policy into law. In building this model the builder of this model needs to have a solution to the so-called Problem of Induction. The problem is of how, in a logically permissible way, to select the set of inferences that are made by a model of a physical system from a larger set of possibilities. This problem is solved by the rule that the induced model expresses all of the available information but no more than this information. Details on implementation of this method are published in the seven volume Entropy Minimax Source Book by the late Ronald Christensen, circa 1980. However, this method is seldom used. Instead, a builder of a model of a physical system selects this set of inferences through use of the intuitive rules of thumb called "heuristics." However, on each occasion in which a particular heuristic selects a particular set of inferences for being made by the model, a different heuristic selects a different set of inferences for being made by this model. In this way, the Method of Heuristics falsifies Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction. Replacement of the Method of Heuristics by the rule that the induced model expresses all of this available information but no more solves the Problem of Induction and in this way provides a logically sound basis for public policy making. Usage of a logically unsound basis forr public policy making is he cause for Mass Formation Psychosis as described by Mattias Desmet in "The Psychology of Totalitarianism."
A group of us here in Colorado Springs are working on putting together a cirriculum specifically addressing this . Contact us if you can offer support .
Bob: Always glad to help citizens who are trying to upgrade our woeful education system — especially in the Sciences. You have my email, so email me the specifics.
As usual, your research and thinking about energy, environment, and economic development are spot on. I would to talk you about developing a tabernacle choir of practical environmentalists and strong communicators, John.
John, I'm aware of a different definition for Precautionary Principle. Instead of 'we will take care', it's more of the idea of making policy decisions before evidence is available. It's the idea of, 'the potential harm is so great, we should take this action even if we don't know that the cause of the harm will ever come to pass.' It's particularly evident in climate policy, 'even if we're wrong about how much change, we must take action NOW to ensure that the future will have [less sea level rise, less tornados, less hurricanes, etc.]. Or, 'the new medicine may eliminate the virus, but it may also cause unforeseen health issues, so let's don't approve the medicine until we know for sure' [e.g., more and more testing and delay].
The great danger is spending money or net zero policies now is that economists show we will be wealthier in the future, and that spending money now robs future generations from the wealth to address climate issues, 'if' they should occur. This is in contrast to the pleas now, 'do this for your grandchildren,' when the financial evidence from economists is that climate may have beneficial effects and we're actually robbing our grandchildren of future wealth by wasteful spending (subsidies, etc.) now.
Thank you John Droz for many years of dedicated rational analysis and recommendations for sound energy policies AND great public education on these topics.
Many programs of deliberate public mis-education and thought manipulation are working to destroy the wonderful modern world, good government, and basic freedoms.
A government's energy policy is a subset of its policies. In making these policies, a government needs to have a model of each physical system that is to be regulated through the enactment of this policy into law. In building this model the builder of this model needs to have a solution to the so-called Problem of Induction. The problem is of how, in a logically permissible way, to select the set of inferences that are made by a model of a physical system from a larger set of possibilities. This problem is solved by the rule that the induced model expresses all of the available information but no more than this information. Details on implementation of this method are published in the seven volume Entropy Minimax Source Book by the late Ronald Christensen, circa 1980. However, this method is seldom used. Instead, a builder of a model of a physical system selects this set of inferences through use of the intuitive rules of thumb called "heuristics." However, on each occasion in which a particular heuristic selects a particular set of inferences for being made by the model, a different heuristic selects a different set of inferences for being made by this model. In this way, the Method of Heuristics falsifies Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction. Replacement of the Method of Heuristics by the rule that the induced model expresses all of this available information but no more solves the Problem of Induction and in this way provides a logically sound basis for public policy making. Usage of a logically unsound basis forr public policy making is he cause for Mass Formation Psychosis as described by Mattias Desmet in "The Psychology of Totalitarianism."
Please free to contact me for further details.
Cordially,
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, CA
1-650-941-0533
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com
A group of us here in Colorado Springs are working on putting together a cirriculum specifically addressing this . Contact us if you can offer support .
Bob: Always glad to help citizens who are trying to upgrade our woeful education system — especially in the Sciences. You have my email, so email me the specifics.
As usual, your research and thinking about energy, environment, and economic development are spot on. I would to talk you about developing a tabernacle choir of practical environmentalists and strong communicators, John.
Steve
TY for your support. Please email me the specifics of what you had in mind.
John, I'm aware of a different definition for Precautionary Principle. Instead of 'we will take care', it's more of the idea of making policy decisions before evidence is available. It's the idea of, 'the potential harm is so great, we should take this action even if we don't know that the cause of the harm will ever come to pass.' It's particularly evident in climate policy, 'even if we're wrong about how much change, we must take action NOW to ensure that the future will have [less sea level rise, less tornados, less hurricanes, etc.]. Or, 'the new medicine may eliminate the virus, but it may also cause unforeseen health issues, so let's don't approve the medicine until we know for sure' [e.g., more and more testing and delay].
The great danger is spending money or net zero policies now is that economists show we will be wealthier in the future, and that spending money now robs future generations from the wealth to address climate issues, 'if' they should occur. This is in contrast to the pleas now, 'do this for your grandchildren,' when the financial evidence from economists is that climate may have beneficial effects and we're actually robbing our grandchildren of future wealth by wasteful spending (subsidies, etc.) now.
Thank you John Droz for many years of dedicated rational analysis and recommendations for sound energy policies AND great public education on these topics.
Many programs of deliberate public mis-education and thought manipulation are working to destroy the wonderful modern world, good government, and basic freedoms.
Rarely, have brutal armies done such vast damage.
Exactly. TY.