The Forum > Article Comments > A democratic approach to population and development > Comments
A democratic approach to population and development : Comments
By Philip Howell, published 5/8/2013Adding a question to the census could allow us to control housing density from the bottom up.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
-
- All
Great points and you have identified a fatal flaw in the CAGW debate.
Firstly the complex analysis used in such as entity relationship analysis, process engineering and enterprise mapping have one outstanding difference, they do NOT involve computer modeling, computers are not even required to produce results other than producing the report and graphs. The variables must be actual (empirical), not simulations.
These tools mandate examining what is real, tangible, measurable and quantifiable which is why these tools are so powerful. We also know that they work because most large enterprises on the planet are horrendously complex and have to work in the real world by using such tools.
I hope you can now see that CAGW as a topic involves only one of the six domains, science, and that science relies on assumptions, simulations and forecasts. Nothing is real in that sense because it is viewed in isolation.
CAGW relies on just part of just one of the “thumb wheels” of the combination lock analogy. More importantly, if CAGW were subjected to the methods we are discussing here it would be seen for what it really is, a compete fabrication.
Likewise when subjected to this methodology, the “Peak Everything” mantra will fail, it will fail because they assume that the “something” being peaked is the primary influence and ignores thousands of other factors embedded in several other domains.
Remember, no simulations, no modeling, no isolated assumptions and no such thing as independent variables, they all have a relationship and an impact.
Try the pyramid analogy, at the tip of each domain there are few entities but the further you go towards the base of the pyramid, the more the entities and the more complexities. The principle is to take one entity at a time and trace it down into the mass of complexities but only register that which has a “relationship” with the entity, ignoring the rest. Does that work for you?
Thanks for your questions and interest.