MIT Solve

rascal · Jun 25, 2019

Allen65 said:
Yeah, you're probably right. When I hear "MIT", I automatically associate to hard sciences, math, and engineering. But I keep forgetting they have business, arts, too.

The use of statistics in population health (a term replacing "public health" in the science) is a hard science and extremely advanced higher math. quantifying the social costs of an unwanted behavior and the costs of nudging people toward wanted behaviors is science. So is the epidemiology of behavior based health consequence.

So, what the nannies think may or may not put your eye out, get you to not use plastic bags, push you to drive at 65.5 mph instead of 66 mph, and quantifying the social costs of any behavior is science.

And it is not business or arts, it is the cutting edge of governance and science based policy. and governance' a growth industry like no other!

The problem is it is also the underpinning of extreme paternalism that will reach totalitarian proportions. There is in fact in this model "no problem that can't be fixed with taxes." And there is also of course, no individual choice or liberty that is more informed, or even good, than decisions made for the masses than those determined and made by the expert class.

K31 · Jun 26, 2019

Glaron said:
Hmm. Please be clear bout what is happening. "Gun Violence" transfers responsibility to an object. Violence was caused be the person.
As an Engineer if they keep transference up... NORMALIZE it

Gun Violence. yeah shot
Gravity violence. Falling
Car violence. Car involved
Water violence. Drown

You get the idea.

Yeah, exactly my point.

Boom Boom · Jun 26, 2019

Here's a real solution Everytown doesn't want. Get rid of the corrupt human factor in the criminal justice system. Use electronic prosecutors and judges to enforce the law and hand out stiff sentences for violent crime. No more gun charges getting routinely dropped. No more revolving doors or slaps on the wrist. Violent crime rates, gun crime included, will plummet.

PowPow · Jun 26, 2019

Here's an idea: an entry detector that counts people in, people with guns in, people out, and people with guns out. At the end of the day, it averages the count of people in the building each hour it is open, and for every X number of people in, it checks to see if at least Y people had a gun. If not, then people working in the building are encouraged via e-mail to carry their pistols to work. Vary the numbers X and Y by policy, but the software is hardcoded to make sure that Y must be greater than one.

Steve_Zissou · Jun 26, 2019

snallygaster said:
Callous perhaps, but I don't really care about solving gun violence.

This. If gun violence is the price we pay for the right to bear arms, then so be it.

Sometimes granting a freedom will carry the consequences of having to live with those who who are unable to exercise the freedom responsibly. You don't see people moving to repeal the 1st amendment just because people verbally abuse their spouses and kids bully each other in school, do you?

gamer_jim · Jun 26, 2019

It bears repeating that Everytown is supported by the liberal elite.

https://everytown.org/press/juliann...reative-community-around-ending-gun-violence/

Big names on the list for me:

Jim Gaffigan - comedian
JJ Abrams - Hollywood director
Alec Baldwin - actor
Steve Carell - actor
Conan O’Brien - talk show host
Nick Offerman - actor (from Parks and Rec)

There's a bunch more but these are the ones that I liked before I read this article. I no longer watch or listen to anything these bafoons produce.

Allen65 · Jun 26, 2019

rascal said:
The use of statistics in population health (a term replacing "public health" in the science) is a hard science and extremely advanced higher math. quantifying the social costs of an unwanted behavior and the costs of nudging people toward wanted behaviors is science. So is the epidemiology of behavior based health consequence.

So, what the nannies think may or may not put your eye out, get you to not use plastic bags, push you to drive at 65.5 mph instead of 66 mph, and quantifying the social costs of any behavior is science.

And it is not business or arts, it is the cutting edge of governance and science based policy. and governance' a growth industry like no other!

The mathematical analytic portion is deterministic, the problem comes when the results are used to prove causality, or to make policy recommendations. If someone did a controlled experiment with specific policies under test, that would be science. But much of social science as practiced in the public policy arena does not use the Scientific Method, and therefore should not be allowed to describe itself as "scientific", no matter how rigorous the math used.

r3t1awr3yd · Jun 26, 2019

"Selected solutions will contribute to reductions in gun violence and its impacts through the use of DATA"

But when data is presented that doesn't support the unfounded claims of anytown, what will happen then?

Some Guy · Jun 26, 2019

Boom Boom said:
Here's a real solution Everytown doesn't want. Get rid of the corrupt human factor in the criminal justice system. Use electronic prosecutors and judges to enforce the law and hand out stiff sentences for violent crime. No more gun charges getting routinely dropped. No more revolving doors or slaps on the wrist. Violent crime rates, gun crime included, will plummet.

This is actually a compelling idea. Use logic and algorithms in justice administration.

Some Guy · Jun 26, 2019

r3t1awr3yd said:
"Selected solutions will contribute to reductions in gun violence and its impacts through the use of DATA"

But when data is presented that doesn't support the unfounded claims of anytown, what will happen then?

Everytown will bury the data, of course. But, if some pro-2A people participate in this contest then they will be on the floor demonstrating their solutions to this issue even if they don't win the corrupted contest. At least the pro-2A voice would be heard, which would be kind of cool.

Boom Boom · Jun 26, 2019

Some Guy said:
This is actually a compelling idea. Use logic and algorithms in justice administration.

Correct. Our justice system is currently dominated by irrational emotion. Emotion that leads to lawmakers penalizing law-abiding people as a direct fallout of violent criminals quickly back on the street due to light sentences.

traveller · Jun 26, 2019

Boom Boom said:
Correct. Our justice system is currently dominated by irrational emotion. Emotion that leads to lawmakers penalizing law-abiding people as a direct fallout of violent criminals quickly back on the street due to light sentences.

We need a robotized 'Judge Dredd'

Occam · Jun 26, 2019

Some Guy said:
This is actually a compelling idea. Use logic and algorithms in justice administration.

That sounds a lot like "by any means necessary" in terms of getting logically derived results. If we make life miserable for a small number of people so that it can be easier for a larger number of people, well, doesn't logic support that approach?

Law and justice have to start with PRINCIPLE, first. Applying it efficiently and in a consistent way is important and we should never accept laziness on that front. But everything has to start with and remain glued to principle. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about!

Boom Boom · Jun 26, 2019

Occam said:
Law and justice have to start with PRINCIPLE, first. Applying it efficiently and in a consistent way is important and we should never accept laziness on that front. But everything has to start with and remain glued to principle. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about!

Principle is the first casualty when emotion takes over.

PowPow · Jun 27, 2019

traveller said:
We need a robotized 'Judge Dredd'

I knew you'd say that.

rascal · Jun 28, 2019

Allen65 said:
The mathematical analytic portion is deterministic, the problem comes when the results are used to prove causality, or to make policy recommendations. If someone did a controlled experiment with specific policies under test, that would be science. But much of social science as practiced in the public policy arena does not use the Scientific Method, and therefore should not be allowed to describe itself as "scientific", no matter how rigorous the math used.

They often do a lot of sophisticated controls that help establish causality. often they don't but often they do. And epidemiology is not "social science."
Population health study is hard science. It can include junk science but it does not do so inherently any more than any hard science.

The issue is not so much the validity but the issue of liberty. We sure can prove that drinking 32 oz sodas does harm the individual's health and the populations overall health - and because schemes like obamacare then make it everyone esles cost -- make it everyone's business.

You ca also prove that "nudging" people with a soda tax works. You don't need junk science to do that, good science shows it. and causality is often there.

The issue is should we be subjecting our liberties to such tests? After all we can make a safer society with less injury and better population health with reductions in the fourth and fifth amendments, chucking double jeopardy, warrant, privacy, right to jury etc protections. Or for that matter requiring IQ and edcuaion tests to vote. We can also be a lot more civil and have less stress if there was no first amendment.

MIT Solve

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

"Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"

Hold my beer. Watch this.

Where's the beef?

Ultimate Member

Podcaster

Ultimate Member

Meh.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Hold my beer. Watch this.

The one with two L

Not Even ONE Indictment

Hold my beer. Watch this.

Where's the beef?

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics