House of Eratosthenes

Nothing new here at all. But this brain-fart I had, in the middle of garrulously rambling away here, and then here and here, has shown itself to be worthy of some linkage while I’ve been in the midst of describing some other things. Those things have to do with explaining, without offending anybody too much, how it is that liberals and conservatives come up with their different opinions about things when neither one of them is actually misunderstanding anything or intentionally presenting their perceptions in any delusive or insincere way. This is a worthy goal in these contentious times, when heated discourse has become more abundant, and more cool & rational discussions have therefore become desirable and valuable.

So I need a higher-quality link-point for the idea. Or a more concise one. The idea has to do with the way people perceive things.

Imagine that one day a conservative and a liberal, both reasonable, intelligent and honest, take the time to attend an art museum. Within this museum hang many paintings. Among these, is a painting of a barn adjacent to some fields…and then some other paintings of stuff like kids, birds, clouds, water action, sidewalks with people on them doing things…then, another painting of a barn. Once the suspicion is aroused, an observer can quickly gather some evidence that the two paintings are of the same barn, captured from two different directions, by two different artists, and two different times of day, as well as seasons, and using different illustrative styles.

Barn in Painting The ideas that are being captured in the metaphor are, that there are differences in perceptive methodology between conservatives and liberals, and these differences become a bit less subtle in certain situations. These situations avail us of a rare opportunity to see things from the other’s point of view, if we can just make something of them. These situations exist any time an object is illustrated through a defined perception. What you will tend to see happening is that, since liberals suffer from an inability to distinguish a bit of helpful information from some kind of a marching order, they end up living in an empty universe of only one kind of idea. This universe is stuffed to bursting point, with lots of commands, be they good commands or bad ones, and not a whole lot else. You might say their universe of words is noun-sparse and verb-heavy. Think of the paintings as they actually exist: There is the barn, a three-dimensional object, someone built that; the painters then made a decision about how to paint the barn, from the Northwest in the case of one, or the Southwest in the case of the other; these and other actions combined together, layers upon layers of decisive actions, to make the paintings. But the liberals don’t see the layers, they only see the products. As experiences, waiting for observers to come by and live them. Standalone, independent, packaged experiences.

They do not see that it is the same barn — generally. If it is pointed out to them, then — generally — they won’t care that much. That’s because conservatives tend to be Architects, who respond to new situations by thinking, as opposed to Medicators who respond by feeling. So! A liberal stands in front of a painting. The painting makes him feel a certain way. The barn combines with the brush strokes, and colors selected, oil, matte, frame, lighting of the painting, room in which it is kept, to form an emotional experience. And this experience is the whole point. In actuality, the experience is a confluence of many layers of decisions made by the painter, the museum curator, the guy who built the barn…but the liberal doesn’t see all these “layers of commands,” he sees only the one. Painting, is single command, is single experience. Kinda ties in to the “you didn’t build that” thing.

The conservative, on the other hand, who was probably dragged to this damn art museum by the liberal, more likely than not found the whole thing to be a crushing bore until such time as he figured out this bit of trivia with the barn. And to whatever extent this arouses any passion in him, it probably has to do with a genuine curiosity about whether the barn is real, and since it probably is, where it’s located, when it was built, by who, and whether it still stands. Or, maybe he doesn’t find that so captivating. But even if not, it’s still an important part of his perceptive process; it is meaningful to him that painting A and painting B share this common conceptual object. It logically follows that the common object, the barn, will be elevated in importance. The barn, appearing in both paintings, has meaning that is not imbued in the sunflowers that appear in the one painting but not in the other. But none of this matters a tinker’s damn to the liberal. The liberal is more in a thought locus of, I like this painting over here, I don’t like that painting over there.

But a lot of life is like this, which is why conservatives and liberals argue about, evidently, just about everything. Images…which are put together by the task of visually capturing an object. The image is not synonymous with the object, it is just a reflection of it. But to the liberal, to whom each painting is a separate item of value, that doesn’t work. Images are objects, to the liberal. Say something profound in English, then say it in Spanish, now you’re twice as smart. That’s complete balderdash to about half of us, while to the other half it makes perfect sense.

This explains a lot. It explains why today’s statesmanly “leaders” tend to be a grown-up versions of sissy liberal hippie kids back in the 1960’s, and many among those who were not alive back in the 1960’s, but would have fallen in line with the anarchy and rebellion and counter-culture protesting and what-not if they were, now tell the rest of us we’re a bunch of racists if we don’t take our orders unquestioningly from this crop of sixty-something lefty politicians. Liberals see every message as some kind of command. They don’t understand “You go ahead and pay taxes to fight climate change if you want to, but I personally don’t want to” — you say that, and what they hear is “I hate the Earth and I wish to destroy it.” And pretty much every time. That’s a painting they don’t like. Oppose them on the debt talks, and you’re a racist. Oppose them on social spending, you hate poor people. Oppose them on Medicare, you must want to push granny off a cliff. Oppose them on education, you must want more stupid kids. Oppose them on paying for birth control, you must hate women. You know the litany.

Conservatives have a slow time catching on to this. The thing that a lot of people don’t get, mostly because liberals put a lot of energy into propagandizing to the contrary, is that the conservatives pretty much have a monopoly on the nuanced thinking here. In the example with paying taxes to fight climate change, they recognize a common object in the two illustrations, which is the desire that our species should co-exist with the Earth peacefully and toward mutual benefit. Whereas liberals — like their representative example in the art museum, who sees a second painting of the same barn and doesn’t realize it’s the same barn — only hear a second message distinguishably different from the first. Since all messages are commands, and the first one was “good,” this one must be “bad.” Yes, that is the thought process. It isn’t one bit more complicated than that.

So when they talk about what hateful racists conservatives are, it isn’t that they’re actually trying to slander. They don’t think it’s lying. But of course, you can’t say logical things like, “since you think that’s true, why don’t you…” As in, “since you think this is such a terrible country, why don’t you leave.” Or, “since you’re so convinced that I’m dead-set on destroying the planet, where do you think I’m planning to live once I succeed.” None of that stuff works. It isn’t that they think there’s a true or a false, what’s going on is they really don’t care! All they’re trying to do, really, is call out a painting that they think is ugly and bad. Every object is a painting. Every message is a command. Some are good and some are bad. Once you understand this, you understand them.

They don’t have a sophisticated, multi-faceted way of looking at the world. What they have is the precise opposite of that. A liberal trying to understand a conservative point-of-view, is like a dog trying to measure how far it ran to fetch the stick. Our mistake is in thinking, when we see a liberal looking at artwork and professing some appreciation of it, that they understand it. They don’t. And that is not to say, I hasten to add, that they’re stupid or anything. Some of them may appreciate that there is deeper meaning in all the pleasing colors within the rectangle, and that they’re supposed to combine together to make a person or a house or a barn or a cloud — if they tried. But if trying is mutually exclusive from being a good liberal, then they don’t want to try. And it is, so they don’t.

Remotely related.
Stranger in a Strange Land.
Fair Witness.
(para)I testify that the house I saw in the distance was painted white, but only on the two sides of it that I could actually see.

Life changing cognitive “ahhhhh….” moment for me in high school that permanantly “dented” the way I blindly accepted information.
It was private boarding (ironically honey-and-wheat-germ for high achievers) high school that ALLOWED students to read/think about/report/be assessed (graded) on comprehension of such things.
- CaptDMO | 01/21/2013 @ 13:05
House of Eratosthenes: The conservative, on the other hand, who was probably dragged to this damn art museum by the liberal, more likely than not found the whole thing to be a crushing bore until such time as he figured out this bit of trivia with the barn.

Let’s hope you meant this as a caricature.
- Zachriel | 01/21/2013 @ 15:07
I do.

The only serious part to that particular passage would be what is substantiated throughout the rest: In most matters, but particularly with art, conservatives and liberals experience entirely different things.
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2013 @ 15:09
So conservatives are Vulcans, and liberals are Earthlings. Conservatives can’t enjoy a painting for its own sake, but only as schematics. Liberals, on the other hand, wouldn’t know a barn if they saw one.
- Zachriel | 01/22/2013 @ 07:13
Liberals tend to labor under a confusion between an image, and the object the image is supposed to represent. When the conservative and liberal discuss things related to the image’s accuracy, they very often end up in parallel monologues, talking past each other. They don’t agree on what that concept is.
- mkfreeberg | 01/22/2013 @ 07:22
So are you agreeing or disagreeing with the comment: So conservatives are Vulcans, and liberals are Earthlings. Conservatives can’t enjoy a painting for its own sake, but only as schematics. Liberals, on the other hand, wouldn’t know a barn if they saw one.
- Zachriel | 01/22/2013 @ 08:13
Seems overly complicated, in the sense that it has an analogy that could be intended to mean any one of a variety of things, and is not fully explained. From what I can tell about it, I believe this is a real-life “barn” standing somewhere that served as the model for your “painting,” so in that sense it is agreeable.
- mkfreeberg | 01/22/2013 @ 08:22
mkfreeberg: From what I can tell about it, I believe this is a real-life “barn” standing somewhere that served as the model for your “painting,” so in that sense it is agreeable.

A photograph would likely be more precise in its depiction.
- Zachriel | 01/22/2013 @ 08:28
Without an acknowledgement of the obvious, that there’s an object of reality being merely reflected in the resulting graphic, it’s all useless — photographs, paintings, sonar, computer renderings, the “paste” command from an operating system clipboard. It is most accurate, in all these cases, to see the resulting graphic as a bit of evidence to be accumulated and then reconciled with other bits of evidence, about the same thing, to fill in the “story” of what the thing is.

I don’t see liberals doing that, overall. As noted above, it is like they see each report as a standalone, as a “story” unto itself, with a beginning-middle-and-end, ready to be assessed as to whether it is good or bad. It’s really just a matter of taste which way to go. At least, until someone tries to accomplish something that requires knowledge.
- mkfreeberg | 01/22/2013 @ 08:40
mkfreeberg: Without an acknowledgement of the obvious, that there’s an object of reality being merely reflected in the resulting graphic, it’s all useless —

Well, our guess is that the vast majority of self-identified liberals would say it was a painting of a barn.

In any case, a photograph would likely be more precise in its depiction. Does that make it better?
- Zachriel | 01/22/2013 @ 08:47
As long as it works for you, I suppose.

The point being made here, though, is that nothing beats a second picture of the same barn, from a different angle. That and, in order to make use of this plurality of visuals, the observer will have to recognize the object as reality, with each image being nothing more than a reflection of that reality.
- mkfreeberg | 01/22/2013 @ 09:11
<b.mkfreeberg: The point being made here, though, is that nothing beats a second picture of the same barn, from a different angle.

Beats it for what exactly? What is the purpose of a painting? Again, wouldn’t a photograph be better?
- Zachriel | 01/22/2013 @ 10:42
Liberals, on the other hand, wouldn’t know a barn if they saw one.

– Zachriel | 01/22/2013 @ 07:13

Sure they would.
They’re the place where gampy left his unused Karmen Ghia to rot, that are now falling down because someone else didn’t maintain them. Humanities PhD’s, cloistered in college tell us-Originally somehow connected to the now lost mystical “art” of self sustaining agriculture, and “family” Ancient practitioners had strange marks on their hands called blisters and callouses, as well as “dirt” under any rarely surviving fingernails.
They can still be found beside the road to rarely used “vacation” homes inhabited by third or fourth generation spawn of “I actually worked my way through/didn’t need college” folk, in tax “haven” states lacking low-skill/idiot savant union “collective representation”

(reducto absurdium non sequitur ad nauseam go here)
- CaptDMO | 01/22/2013 @ 12:05
Oops
“…where gampy abandond his Karmen Ghia to rot…”
- CaptDMO | 01/22/2013 @ 12:08
Again, wouldn’t a photograph be better?

Better for what?

As I understand it, Morgan is starting from a representational theory of art. That is, if we’re faced with a series of nine paintings of the same barn, all done from different angles, in different light, with different techniques, etc. our understanding of the series as a whole must proceed from the knowledge that these are, in fact, nine different views of the same barn.

Liberals, by contrast (according to my reading of Morgan’s theory), take a sort of intentionalist approach — what is the painter trying to say with each piece? That it’s the same barn is immaterial; it’s the technique or the lighting or whatever that’s important, and what’s really important is the way it makes me feel.

Do I have that right? I’m not sure I agree if so, but I want to make sure — before we start in with 300 cut-and-paste “comments” — that we’re talking about the same thing here.
- Severian | 01/22/2013 @ 14:47
More or less, yeah. The conservatives, once they figure out the barn is a common object, will disassemble the paintings and put together an understanding of the barn. Liberals, seeing each painting as an atomic unit that is indivisible, will conclude each painting is valid or not valid. They’ll throw out entire paintings. As we’ve seen. If the painting suffers from guilt-by-association with some other thing that is racist, it’s out. If the painting has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it’s out. If it offers evidence about the barn, driving toward a conclusion that isn’t liked, then it is out.

If the painting is in, then nobody should be allowed to criticize it.

One of the benefits of the conservative way is, if any one among the paintings have some kind of distortion, there is a way to correct for that. This is very useful when the “paintings” are actually human recollections. Contradictions can be sensibly reconciled. Liberals are shown to be deficient in accomplishing this, because they can’t acknowledge that the “paintings” reflect something else, each one is its own reality. And since they’re declaring such images to be good/in or bad/out, each one as a whole, very now and then they’ll completely fall on their faces with the contradictions they failed to reconcile.

Example: Bush handled X wrong, Obama is handling X exactly right. If anybody criticizes Obama’s handling of X, they should be reminded that they’re racists because Bush did X the same way, and they didn’t say anything. So the liberals argue Bush & Obama did X the same way, the liberals argue Obama’s doing the right thing, the liberals argue Bush was squarely off in the wrong direction. They will not concede any of these. The trouble that is made is obvious — they’re trapping themselves. Well, that’s what happens.

No, I don’t think a photograph improves on that situation. The problem is in how the images are managed & put together, not with how they are created.
- mkfreeberg | 01/22/2013 @ 15:40
Severian: That is, if we’re faced with a series of nine paintings of the same barn, all done from different angles, in different light, with different techniques, etc. our understanding of the series as a whole must proceed from the knowledge that these are, in fact, nine different views of the same barn.

Presumably, they are separate paintings by different artists, and not as part of a series. Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 01/23/2013 @ 06:12
Morgan already clearly stated the lessons he wanted us to draw from his metaphor. What possible good would more specificity in the hypothetical do?

“Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin.”

“Ummm, Rabbi, do you mean lilium candidum or lilium pardalinum?” One’s white, one’s red….”
- Severian | 01/23/2013 @ 08:13
Severian: What possible good would more specificity in the hypothetical do?

To clarify his meaning.

Frankly, the post appears to show an ignorance of art and the purposes of art, rather than drawing a valid distinction between liberal and conservative. Returning to the original post,

House of Eratosthenes: Imagine that one day a conservative and a liberal, both reasonable, intelligent and honest, take the time to attend an art museum. Within this museum hang many paintings. Among these, is a painting of a barn adjacent to some fields…and then some other paintings of stuff like kids, birds, clouds, water action, sidewalks with people on them doing things…then, another painting of a barn. Once the suspicion is aroused, an observer can quickly gather some evidence that the two paintings are of the same barn, captured from two different directions, by two different artists, and two different times of day, as well as seasons, and using different illustrative styles.

Okay, so they are painted by different artists.

House of Eratosthenes: They do not see that it is the same barn — generally. If it is pointed out to them, then — generally — they won’t care that much.

Sure they would care, but it’s the artistic interpretations that imbue the paintings with their individual characters and meaning.

House of Eratosthenes: That’s because conservatives tend to be Architects, who respond to new situations by thinking, as opposed to Medicators who respond by feeling. So! A liberal stands in front of a painting. The painting makes him feel a certain way. The barn combines with the brush strokes, and colors selected, oil, matte, frame, lighting of the painting, room in which it is kept, to form an emotional experience.

Yes, because the reaction of the person viewing a painting is the very purpose of the painting—even in representational art.

House of Eratosthenes: The conservative, on the other hand, who was probably dragged to this damn art museum by the liberal, more likely than not found the whole thing to be a crushing bore until such time as he figured out this bit of trivia with the barn. And to whatever extent this arouses any passion in him, it probably has to do with a genuine curiosity about whether the barn is real, and since it probably is, where it’s located, when it was built, by who, and whether it still stands.

Which suggests that the “conservative” is ignorant of art and its purposes. From the original post’s viewpoint: Conservatives can’t enjoy a painting for its own sake, but only as schematics; while liberals, on the other hand, wouldn’t know a barn if they saw one. It’s a caricature, and it’s hard to derive any substance from the comparison.

Sure, conservatives might be considered more grounded, but we would hope they wouldn’t be so grounded as to not be able to appreciate artistic beauty for its own sake. And liberals may be, very generally, more appreciative of art, but we would hope they would still recognize a picture of a barn if they saw one, and have some appreciation for the object the painting depicts. Indeed, the artist thought enough of the barn to take hours painting it.
- Zachriel | 01/23/2013 @ 09:12
And yet, in these contentious times, the conservatives and liberals have generally been becoming more entrenched in their views. The typical conservative’s ability to appreciate “beauty for its own sake,” arguably, could be thought of as on a perceptible downslide, whereas the typical liberal’s give-a-damn-ness about the “schematics” of the painting, also, could be thought of as in a state of recession. Each could improve somewhat in the department of being a better-rounded person, were they able to appreciate the qualities of the painting being favored by the other — aesthetics, in the case of the conservative, and meaning, in the case of the liberal.

You “would hope” both sides can do this. I agree with you, I hope that too. But I’m not sure what our wishes have to do with anything; I wrote the original post, so take my word for it, that is out of scope. The point here is to examine how they think, contrasted from one another, in this case to examine the constantly-resurfacing issue of why they seem to live in different worlds, and can’t get along with or even communicate with each other, now & then.
- mkfreeberg | 01/23/2013 @ 13:23
Actually, just noticed this…

Frankly, the post appears to show an ignorance of art and the purposes of art, rather than drawing a valid distinction between liberal and conservative. Returning to the original post,
:
[excerpt]
:
Okay, so they are painted by different artists.

Why are you passing judgment on my ability to understand “art and the purposes of art,” before you’ve read enough of my descriptions to get your own questions answered? It comes off looking like, intentionally or not, you’re providing some quality anecdotal support for what I was pointing out.
- mkfreeberg | 01/23/2013 @ 13:32
So now I’m even more confused.

I interpret your point, Morgan, as something along the lines of: “Conservative looks at a painting of a barn, realizes that it IS a barn, and his response — emotional, aesthetic, or whatever — hinges on the base assumption that this is, in fact, a picture of a barn (and not a hinge or an erlenmeyer flask or the starting backcourt of the New York Knicks). Liberal, on the other hand, looks at a picture of a barn and immediately evaluates it in terms of politics. Not only does it not matter that the underlying image is a barn, but they’d actually go so far as to declare that it’s actually a picture of kittens if the situation required it.”

I get that. It’s a metaphor — “looking at a picture of a barn” = “thought process.”

But then the Zachriel come along and, as is their wont, try to drag the discussion down some other avenue, seemingly without even reading the responses to their own questions (as is also their wont).

What the hell good does that do?

It seems pretty clear that we’re not actually arguing about art. “Art” is a stand-in for “things to which human responses vary based on their preconceptions, level of knowledge, general engagement with the subject, etc.” Whether the paintings in question are by different artists, or done in oils vs. watercolors, or whatever, seems waaaaay beside the point. It’s as if I said “politics is like baseball; whoever scores the most runs wins” and then got a long cut-and-paste response about the lineup of the 1927 Yankees.

So, if we must, how about this: There’s a painting of a barn, and it’s by Adolf Hitler. How do we react? If I’m reading Morgan correctly, the conservative considers it an independent question whether the painting is good or not (technically skilled, or well-executed, or whatever); that the painter went on to be the Fuhrer matters only trivially. The liberal, on the other hand, argues that since it’s a painting by a bad man, it must therefore be bad art, even if it’s identical in every respect to a rendering of the same barn by, say, Gandhi.

Is that about right?
- Severian | 01/23/2013 @ 14:16
Yeah, that’s part of it. Liberals are overly obsessed with “I like this thing and hate that thing” so they get all hung up on who painted the barn, whether any bad people put out a painting that looked like this, etc., so they have a tough time getting any useful information out of it. And, they can’t break the painting down into its component parts, because there’s no reason to; if any part of the painting is bad, then it’s a bad painting, and thus is reduced to a nullity. It was never painted, or rather, we’re going to pretend that it was never painted.

Hence the elaborate monologues about “Are you qualified to have an opinion about climate science?” If liberals sat in judgment of Eratosthenes’ measurement of the Earth, they wouldn’t even bother to comprehend how the experiment worked or what the seven-degree angle meant or how many times the distance between Syene and Alexandria must be multiplied…wouldn’t even go down that road. They’d just ask Eratosthenes if he’d ever been published in any peer-reviewed journals, what his occupation was, and as soon as he said Administrator of the Library at Alexandria they’d say, don’t let the doorknob hit. But not that nicely. The presenter is not in the club, so the presentation never happened. Entire paintings are tossed aside, as packaged and indivisible units of intellectual contraband.

But for the conservative, this process the liberals aren’t doing, the stripping the paintings down to their component parts, figuring out the barn is the common part of it all, that this door in this painting must be the same as that one in that painting…that’s a lot like real-world work. You back a large truck into a parking space without smashing anything, what are you doing, you’re checking all your mirrors and putting a perception together with the benefit of all these perspectives. Now, maybe there are some liberals running around who are skilled at moving trucks around without breaking anything, because they do this. But they don’t translate that simple task into evaluating things like paintings. Or, political messages. So essentially, they live in the “real” universe only when they’re forced to.
- mkfreeberg | 01/23/2013 @ 14:28
mkfreeberg: And yet, in these contentious times, the conservatives and liberals have generally been becoming more entrenched in their views.

Perhaps, but if they become too extreme, they cease being liberal or conservative in the real sense of the words, as both represent philosophies of balance.

mkfreeberg: Each could improve somewhat in the department of being a better-rounded person, were they able to appreciate the qualities of the painting being favored by the other — aesthetics, in the case of the conservative, and meaning, in the case of the liberal.

Quite impressed by this comment, and largely agree with it.
- Zachriel | 01/23/2013 @ 15:16
But then you return to your one-sided caricatures. Oh, well. It was nice while it lasted.
- Zachriel | 01/23/2013 @ 15:19
Well, if the caricatures fit the experience of real life more closely than the “real sense of the words,” then what’s the problem?

It seems your collective has this fundamental disagreement with me, with regard to whether sanctioned & distributed paper documentation should take priority over practiced & experienced reality. The barn-in-painting metaphor captures this nicely, as does Eratosthenes’ experiment. The book says the world is flat, and yet, I have detected angular difference in the sunbeam shining down these two water wells…a real-life experience. What to make of it? Just as, conservatives and liberals, when they really argue, are not in strict compliance with what you read out of a book about what “conservative” & “liberal” are supposed to mean. To me, real life must take precedence, because that’s what all the arguing is supposed to be about. It seems you’ve got a different take on things.
- mkfreeberg | 01/23/2013 @ 15:53
mkfreeberg: Well, if the caricatures fit the experience of real life more closely than the “real sense of the words,” then what’s the problem?

While a caricature can reveal aspects of something that are not always apparent, you only fool yourself when you confuse the caricature with thing itself. You end up caricaturing yourself.

mkfreeberg: It seems your collective has this fundamental disagreement with me, with regard to whether sanctioned & distributed paper documentation should take priority over practiced & experienced reality.

Data always trumps in science.

However, your analogy with the painting fails because it misunderstands the nature of painting. It is the experience of the painting that determines whether it is good art, regardless of its verisimilitude to a barn.

Data does not trump in art.

mkfreeberg: The book says the world is flat, and yet, I have detected angular difference in the sunbeam shining down these two water wells…a real-life experience. What to make of it?

Data always trumps in science.

mkfreeberg: To me, real life must take precedence, because that’s what all the arguing is supposed to be about.

Your subjective experiences may or may not have an objective basis.

The plural of anecdote is not data.
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 06:47
[…] “President Obama Wants More Government” “Ayn Rand is for Children” Barn in Painting Women of USPSA Make Someone Else Pay Twenty Non-Partisan Things Emperor Barry’s Special […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/24/2013 @ 07:53
“Data always trumps in science”…. until it’s not what we expected and then we’ll alter or ignore it to make it fit.

It’s a barn here. Over in the Global Somethening thread, it’s a biting and fearless critique of the agricultural industry and the American middle class.
- nightfly | 01/24/2013 @ 08:38
nightfly: “Data always trumps in science”…. until it’s not what we expected and then we’ll alter or ignore it to make it fit.

Data trumps in science. But talk is just talk. You have to have the data, not just hand waving objections.
- Zachriel | 01/24/2013 @ 08:42
[…] gets back to the barn in the painting thing. Whereas conservatives see every illustration or elevation or message or question as another bit of […]
- Alpha Dog | Rotten Chestnuts | 01/24/2013 @ 09:40
Subscribe
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 14:42

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Barn in PaintingMonday, January 21st, 2013

Barn in Painting
Monday, January 21st, 2013