OK, Which Is It?

By -
Up until about May, Ron Paul supporters kept telling me he was definitely going to win the GOP nomination, or at least that it was quite probable that he would.

Now, on Facebook, they are saying, "Well, of course the establishment was never going to let him win!"

So were the odds close to 100%, or were they 0%?

Because it really can't be both!

Comments

  1. August10:08 AM

    The guy at the track with a ticket for a long shot feels much the same way. Once he buys the ticket, he feels much more certain that his horse will win. Once his horse loses he feels much more certain that the race was rigged.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Daniel James Sanchez10:09 AM

    Could it be that it was different individuals saying these different things? That, due to developments, the 100%ers have quieted down, and the 0%ers are piping up? And that you're not having a conversation with a strange, schizophrenic entity named "Ron Paul supporters"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:29 AM

      "Could it be that it was different individuals saying these different things?"

      Could be, but I think August's explanation is a lot more like it.

      Delete
    2. traumerei1:09 PM

      Daniel's explanation reflects my experience. My Facebook friends who had worked on the campaign - people who are 100%ers as policy - rarely post RP news these days. My Facebook conspiracy minded friends, however, have tended to be pessimistic the whole way.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more