On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 06:06:57 +1000, Dave Smith >
wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:30:25 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>>Masks are just common sense. It is a virus and easily spread from
>>excretions from the mouth.
>>
>>If you are standing naked and someone pees on you, you get wet
>>
>>If you have pants on and someone pees on you, there is a little protection.
>>
>>If you are both wearing pants and someone tries to pee on you, he gets
>>wet, you don't.
>
>Communism! A Republican under God has the right to spread viruses.
>It's the 2nd Amendment! Besides, viruses don't even exist. That's all
>facts and science!
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:54:33 -0700 (PDT), GM
> wrote:

>Graham wrote:
>
>> On 2021-06-01 10:23 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>> > On 2021-06-01 10:57 a.m., Graham wrote:
>> >> On 2021-06-01 7:38 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>> >>> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
>> >>>> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates
>> >>>>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick
>> >>>>> goog brings up much stuff...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Etcetera...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out
>> >>>> of the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used
>> >>> to involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated.
>> >>> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where
>> >>> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific
>> >>> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies.
>> >>> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have
>> >>> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have
>> >>> touched. A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and
>> >>> anyone who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science.
>> >>> I realize that science gets more involved over time, but this
>> >>> thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science.
>> >>
>> >> A typical response from a non-scientist!
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > I studied social sciences rather than the physical sciences, but I did a
>> > considerable amount of research, was lab demonstrator in an experimental
>> > Psychology course and completed a thesis. My first job out of university
>> > was in educational research.
>> >
>> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>> to "hard" science.
>> >
>> > I realize that a lot of scientific knowledge has changed over the years.
>> > We have developed technologies that have allowed us to find more
>> > accurate answers to our questions. I have never seen science change so
>> > quickly.
>> Develope more quickly!! That's because of the huge number of scientists
>> working frantically to get on top of this virus!
>
>
>Let us nor forget the contribution of President Trump in initiating "Operation Warp Speed", Graham...
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 05:42:46 +1000, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 05:24:53 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:
>
>>On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 11:41:50 PM UTC-5, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>>>> On 2021-05-30, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a
>>>>> region on Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used.
>>>>> Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate
>>>>> change includes global warming and everything else that increasing
>>>>> greenhouse gas amounts will affect.
>>>>
>>>> There are no "scientific climatologists". Climatology is a scam science
>>>> that makes a lot of money for politicians and Universities that buy into
>>>> the "idea" for money and power.
>>>> One might as well shake a magic eight ball or visit that machine on
>>>> the boardwalk.
>>>> I lost my career to the same ilk of climatologists in the seventies.
>>>> Back then, we were going to enter a new ice age. More data means
>>>> more confusion,but fake climatology jobs are on the line. Gotta say
>>>> whatever the politicians want to be presented as the truth.
>>>> Look at the politics of Covid for a comparison. They don't know sh*t.
>>>> But kudos to the virologists that created the vaccine. They did know and
>>>> practiced the true meaning of science.
>>>> I ask again, why is Bikini Atoll still above sea level?
>>>>
>>>> leo
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you, Leo...we are regressing to an age of "junk science" scamming, which is super - propelled by liberal political correctness. The Covid crisis is the latest cringable example - not to mention the totally manufactured "climate crisis " ...
>>>
>>> And don't get me started on the EV trend...
>>>
>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick goog brings up much stuff...
>>>
>>> Etcetera...
>>>
>>
>>
>>"science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out of
>>the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease.
>
>Facts are the new bubonic plague.
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:25 -0600, Graham > wrote:

>On 2021-06-01 11:03 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2021-06-01 12:30 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2021 9:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>>> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used
>>>> to involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated.
>>>> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where
>>>> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific
>>>> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies.
>>>> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have
>>>> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have
>>>> touched.* A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and
>>>> anyone who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science.
>>>> I realize that science **gets more involved over time,* but this
>>>> thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science.
>>>
>>> Masks are just common sense.* It is a virus and easily spread from
>>> excretions from the mouth.
>>>
>>> If you are standing naked and someone pees on you, you get wet
>>>
>>> If you have pants on and someone pees on you, there is a little
>>> protection.
>>>
>>> If you are both wearing pants and someone tries to pee on you, he gets
>>> wet, you don't.
>>
>> I am not arguing for or against masks. I am objecting to the put down
>> "follow the science" when the sciences keeps changing.
>
>What you see as changing is better defined as developing.
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:

>On 2021-06-01 10:23 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2021-06-01 10:57 a.m., Graham wrote:
>>> On 2021-06-01 7:38 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>>> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"?* By most estimates
>>>>>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick
>>>>>> goog brings up much stuff...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Etcetera...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "science" is the new "racism".* The mere mention of either word out
>>>>> of the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used
>>>> to involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated.
>>>> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where
>>>> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific
>>>> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies.
>>>> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have
>>>> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have
>>>> touched.* A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and
>>>> anyone who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science.
>>>> I realize that science **gets more involved over time,* but this
>>>> thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science.
>>>
>>> A typical response from a non-scientist!
>>>
>>
>>
>> I studied social sciences rather than the physical sciences, but I did a
>> considerable amount of research, was lab demonstrator in an experimental
>> Psychology course and completed a thesis. My first job out of university
>> was in educational research.
>>
>Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>to "hard" science.
>>
>> I realize that a lot of scientific knowledge has changed over the years.
>> *We have developed technologies that have allowed us to find more
>> accurate answers to our questions. I have never seen science change so
>> quickly.
>
>Develope more quickly!! That's because of the huge number of scientists
>working frantically to get on top of this virus!
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 15:08:08 -0600, Graham > wrote:

>On 2021-06-01 2:13 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:25 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-06-01 11:03 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am not arguing for or against masks. I am objecting to the put down
>>>> "follow the science" when the sciences keeps changing.
>>>
>>> What you see as changing is better defined as developing.
>>
>> Dense people can't understand that scientific insights into a new
>> phenomenon will be prone to change. If you said one thing a year ago
>> and another thing today, you're not a good scientist! Or so the
>> dummies think.
>>
>Precisely!
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 17:42:54 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2021-06-01 5:08 p.m., Graham wrote:
>> On 2021-06-01 2:13 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:25 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-06-01 11:03 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not arguing for or against masks. I am objecting to the put down
>>>>> "follow the science" when the sciences keeps changing.
>>>>
>>>> What you see as changing is better defined as developing.
>>>
>>> Dense people can't understand that scientific insights into a new
>>> phenomenon will be prone to change. If you said one thing a year ago
>>> and another thing today, you're not a good scientist! Or so the
>>> dummies think.
>>>
>> Precisely!
>
>I had pointed out earlier in similar threads that much of what we were
>told was not really science. It was anecdotal. I looked up some of the
>sources and did not see studies or references to real studies. They were
>anecdotal observations.
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 06:13:53 +1000, Dave Smith >
wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:25 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>
>>On 2021-06-01 11:03 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not arguing for or against masks. I am objecting to the put down
>>> "follow the science" when the sciences keeps changing.
>>
>>What you see as changing is better defined as developing.
>
>Dense people can't understand that scientific insights into a new
>phenomenon will be prone to change. If you said one thing a year ago
>and another thing today, you're not a good scientist! Or so the
>dummies think.
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:


>>
>Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>to "hard" science.
>>

There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.

On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 19:28:55 -0400, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>>to "hard" science.
>>>
>
>There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.
>
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.

On 6/1/2021 5:28 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>> to "hard" science.
>>>
>
> There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.
>
>
No, Frank Luntz will not rent you a room now...

On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 3:08:19 PM UTC-4, Graham wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 10:23 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 2021-06-01 10:57 a.m., Graham wrote:
> >> On 2021-06-01 7:38 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> >>> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
> >>>> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates
> >>>>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick
> >>>>> goog brings up much stuff...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Etcetera...
> >>>>
> >>>> "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out
> >>>> of the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease.
> >>>
> >>> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used
> >>> to involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated.
> >>> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where
> >>> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific
> >>> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies.
> >>> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have
> >>> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have
> >>> touched. A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and
> >>> anyone who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science.
> >>> I realize that science gets more involved over time, but this
> >>> thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science.
> >>
> >> A typical response from a non-scientist!
> >
> > I studied social sciences rather than the physical sciences, but I did a
> > considerable amount of research, was lab demonstrator in an experimental
> > Psychology course and completed a thesis. My first job out of university
> > was in educational research.
> >
> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
> to "hard" science.

Polly sci got AOL founder Steve Case $1.5 billion bucks. That doesn't sound very funny to me.

On 2021-06-01 5:28 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>> to "hard" science.
>>>
>
> There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.
>
>
But it's still "The art of the possible" (R.A. Butler, one of the UK's
greater politicians).

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:37:39 -0600, Graham > wrote:

>On 2021-06-01 5:28 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>>> to "hard" science.
>>>>
>>
>> There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.
>>
>>
>But it's still "The art of the possible" (R.A. Butler, one of the UK's
>greater politicians).

Oh, I do understand. A family member is a soc & polisci professor.
Written lots of books and I tease this person about the soft side of
the field. I also must say that this person knows more about politics
and political theory than anyone I have ever read or met.

On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 20:57:58 -0400, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:37:39 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>
>>On 2021-06-01 5:28 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>>>> to "hard" science.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.
>>>
>>>
>>But it's still "The art of the possible" (R.A. Butler, one of the UK's
>>greater politicians).
>
>Oh, I do understand. A family member is a soc & polisci professor.
>Written lots of books and I tease this person about the soft side of
>the field. I also must say that this person knows more about politics
>and political theory than anyone I have ever read or met.
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:37:39 -0600, Graham > wrote:

>On 2021-06-01 5:28 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>>> to "hard" science.
>>>>
>>
>> There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.
>>
>>
>But it's still "The art of the possible" (R.A. Butler, one of the UK's
>greater politicians).
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 17:23:10 -0700 (PDT), bruce bowser
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 3:08:19 PM UTC-4, Graham wrote:
>> On 2021-06-01 10:23 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>> > On 2021-06-01 10:57 a.m., Graham wrote:
>> >> On 2021-06-01 7:38 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>> >>> On 2021-06-01 8:24 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
>> >>>> On 5/31/2021 11:21 PM, GM wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Remember the looming polar bear ""extinction"? By most estimates
>> >>>>> there are many more polar bears today than decades ago...a quick
>> >>>>> goog brings up much stuff...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Etcetera...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "science" is the new "racism". The mere mention of either word out
>> >>>> of the mouth of a woke, and all discussion must cease.
>> >>>
>> >>> There appears to be a new definition to the word "science". It used
>> >>> to involve empirical observations, and results could be replicated.
>> >>> There have been a number of issues with the Covid19 pandemic where
>> >>> people have talked about following the science, but those scientific
>> >>> facts seem to be based more on anecdotes than on empirical studies.
>> >>> Look at the controversy on masks. No, we don't need them, but we have
>> >>> to sterilize every surface, don't touch anyone or anything they have
>> >>> touched. A couple months later we were told to wear masks, and
>> >>> anyone who objected was scorned and and told to follow the science.
>> >>> I realize that science gets more involved over time, but this
>> >>> thing has been way to inconsistent to be referred to as science.
>> >>
>> >> A typical response from a non-scientist!
>> >
>> > I studied social sciences rather than the physical sciences, but I did a
>> > considerable amount of research, was lab demonstrator in an experimental
>> > Psychology course and completed a thesis. My first job out of university
>> > was in educational research.
>> >
>> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>> to "hard" science.
>
>Polly sci got AOL founder Steve Case $1.5 billion bucks. That doesn't sound very funny to me.
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.

On 2021-06-01 6:57 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:37:39 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>
>> On 2021-06-01 5:28 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>>>> to "hard" science.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.
>>>
>>>
>> But it's still "The art of the possible" (R.A. Butler, one of the UK's
>> greater politicians).
>
> Oh, I do understand. A family member is a soc & polisci professor.
> Written lots of books and I tease this person about the soft side of
> the field. I also must say that this person knows more about politics
> and political theory than anyone I have ever read or met.
>
It's fascinating listening to well-informed, political commentators. I
used to keep myself fairly well informed, taking various magazines and
journals but these days it's so damned depressing.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 21:28:10 -0600, Graham > wrote:

>On 2021-06-01 6:57 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:37:39 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-06-01 5:28 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>>>>> to "hard" science.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But it's still "The art of the possible" (R.A. Butler, one of the UK's
>>> greater politicians).
>>
>> Oh, I do understand. A family member is a soc & polisci professor.
>> Written lots of books and I tease this person about the soft side of
>> the field. I also must say that this person knows more about politics
>> and political theory than anyone I have ever read or met.
>>
>It's fascinating listening to well-informed, political commentators. I
>used to keep myself fairly well informed, taking various magazines and
>journals but these days it's so damned depressing.
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
The other Dave Smith.

On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 7:29:00 PM UTC-4, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
> >to "hard" science.
> >>
> There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.

Yeah, but it's not as if you can repeat the experiment with another group.

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting."

Cindy Hamilton

On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8:58:04 PM UTC-4, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:37:39 -0600, Graham > wrote:
> >On 2021-06-01 5:28 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
> >>> to "hard" science.
> >>
> >> There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.
> >>
> >But it's still "The art of the possible" (R.A. Butler, one of the UK's
> >greater politicians).
>
> Oh, I do understand. A family member is a soc & polisci professor.
> Written lots of books and I tease this person about the soft side of
> the field. I also must say that this person knows more about politics
> and political theory than anyone I have ever read or met.

Quite understandable. Especially about a family member or even a close friend.

On 6/1/2021 6:37 PM, Graham wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 5:28 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>>> to "hard" science.
>>>>
>>
>> There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.
>>
>>
> But it's still "The art of the possible" (R.A. Butler, one of the UK's
> greater politicians).

A vote whore is a vote whore is a vote whore, hth.

On 6/1/2021 6:57 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:37:39 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>
>> On 2021-06-01 5:28 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be compared
>>>> to "hard" science.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.
>>>
>>>
>> But it's still "The art of the possible" (R.A. Butler, one of the UK's
>> greater politicians).
>
> Oh, I do understand. A family member is a soc & polisci professor.
> Written lots of books and I tease this person about the soft side of
> the field. I also must say that this person knows more about politics
> and political theory than anyone I have ever read or met.
>

A lettered vote whore is still a vote whore.

On 6/1/2021 9:28 PM, Graham wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 6:57 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:37:39 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-06-01 5:28 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:08:13 -0600, Graham > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Social science and the laughable political "science" cannot be
>>>>> compared
>>>>> to "hard" science.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a branch of polisci that is wholly focused on hard data.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But it's still "The art of the possible" (R.A. Butler, one of the UK's
>>> greater politicians).
>>
>> Oh, I do understand. A family member is a soc & polisci professor.
>> Written lots of books and I tease this person about the soft side of
>> the field. I also must say that this person knows more about politics
>> and political theory than anyone I have ever read or met.
>>
> It's fascinating listening to well-informed, political commentators. I
> used to keep myself fairly well informed, taking various magazines and
> journals but these days it's so damned depressing.

I've yet to see you make a cogent political point hereon.

Was the loss of mental acuity recent then?