Gyroscopic Investing

Anybody here listened to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts?  I find them addicting as hell!  If I had to guess I'd say the guy is a liberal, but I'd challenge anyone to argue he's not one damn interesting/thorough historian. He's also very, very fair.

One podcast I'd recommend to our more religious followers is "Prophets of Doom," where he details some goings-on during the Protestant Reformation. Also, Radical Thoughts is an extremely interesting account of the Red Scares in the US and the types of thought that led to revolutions in Europe.

The American Peril shines a light on one of my favorite presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, and what a borderline war-monger he was as under-secretary of the Navy, and some of the happenings during the Spanish-American war are downright eerie in their similarities to what has gone on in the last 13 years under the war on terror. Don't worry... It's not a left-wing diatribe. It's amazing stuff considering it's such a non-event to most people (including me... At least until listening to this podcast).

http://www.dancarlin.com

moda0306 wrote: Anybody here listened to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts?  I find them addicting as hell!  If I had to guess I'd say the guy is a liberal, but I'd challenge anyone to argue he's not one damn interesting/thorough historian. He's also very, very fair.

One podcast I'd recommend to our more religious followers is "Prophets of Doom," where he details some goings-on during the Protestant Reformation. Also, Radical Thoughts is an extremely interesting account of the Red Scares in the US and the types of thought that led to revolutions in Europe.

The American Peril shines a light on one of my favorite presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, and what a borderline war-monger he was as under-secretary of the Navy, and some of the happenings during the Spanish-American war are downright eerie in their similarities to what has gone on in the last 13 years under the war on terror. Don't worry... It's not a left-wing diatribe. It's amazing stuff considering it's such a non-event to most people (including me... At least until listening to this podcast).

http://www.dancarlin.com

I love this podcast. 

It is mesmerizing.  Dan Carlin is a fantastic. 

The American Peril podcast on The Spanish Anerican War is over 4 hours long, and never boring.

AdamA wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Anybody here listened to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts?  I find them addicting as hell!  If I had to guess I'd say the guy is a liberal, but I'd challenge anyone to argue he's not one damn interesting/thorough historian. He's also very, very fair.

One podcast I'd recommend to our more religious followers is "Prophets of Doom," where he details some goings-on during the Protestant Reformation. Also, Radical Thoughts is an extremely interesting account of the Red Scares in the US and the types of thought that led to revolutions in Europe.

The American Peril shines a light on one of my favorite presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, and what a borderline war-monger he was as under-secretary of the Navy, and some of the happenings during the Spanish-American war are downright eerie in their similarities to what has gone on in the last 13 years under the war on terror. Don't worry... It's not a left-wing diatribe. It's amazing stuff considering it's such a non-event to most people (including me... At least until listening to this podcast).

http://www.dancarlin.com

I love this podcast. 

It is mesmerizing.  Dan Carlin is a fantastic. 

The American Peril podcast on The Spanish Anerican War is over 4 hours long, and never boring.

Glad I'm not just falling into a nerd-trance.  If this doesn't qualify as top-tier info-tainment, I don't know what does.

I wonder if he has all this stuff scripted out.  It's random enough that it feels like he's just spit-balling it, but organized and entertaining enough that I have to think he's at least got an outline, if not reading from a script.

moda0306 wrote: I wonder if he has all this stuff scripted out.  It's random enough that it feels like he's just spit-balling it, but organized and entertaining enough that I have to think he's at least got an outline, if not reading from a script.

I was wondering the same thing.  Apparently, he's been on the radio for a while, so he's probably had some practice.

He apparently has another, longer running podcast that's supposed to be really good (I've haven't listened yet).

From Wikipedia:

Common Sense is similar in scope to several Carlin-hosted radio programs that aired between 1994 and 2004. The shows highlighted his independent political views, his sense of humor, and unique communication style. The podcast riffs on current events and US politics. All sides of the political spectrum are subject to blistering criticism (and occasional praise). A rabid non-partisan, his political philosophy has been described as "Neoprudentist" taking a skeptical approach to evaluation of the current political trends and forces. Unlike many pundits he fosters discussion by developing and presenting self deprecated (Martian) but innovative thought experiments on solutions to current problems. The podcasts are said to be broadcast "almost live from the end of runway two here at the Emerald International Airport."

His main complaints about US political culture are corruption and money in government, the growth of the federal government and the powers of the President, and partisanship preventing real problems from being addressed. He supports some form of nationalization of health care. In a 2010 Common Sense show titled "Flirting with the Berserk Line," Carlin announces that the only two politicians in the US he believes are most likely to help fix the US political system are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.[2]

"Common Sense" was nominated for a Podcast Award in the Politics/News category in 2012 and 2013.[3]/i]

If I could pause time, the amount of time I'd spend indulging my need for infotainment would be borderline unhealthy.

Thanks for contributing that info.

moda0306 wrote: If I could pause time, the amount of time I'd spend indulging my need for infotainment would be borderline unhealthy.

Ditto.

Please post if you figure out a way to pause time.

AdamA wrote: Please post if you figure out a way to pause time.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvzuq9 ... shortfilms

I tried listening to one of his podcasts, once.  Way too morally flexible for my taste.  As I remember it, he was trying to morally equivocate the Nazis with the Allies.

I may have written him off too quickly, though. I do that sometimes when I need to eat.

Well, I screwed up!  I listened by mistake to his "Common Sense with Dan Carlin" podcast last night instead of Hardcore History.  I'll give the Hardcore History a listen soon.

My comments on the "Common Sense" episode "Controlling the Past":
Dan is entertaining but somewhat in the ilk of Rush Limbaugh but not nearly as self-agrandizing.
He has opinions on matters but they seem to be much more speculative than truth based.
He delivers his opinions in a rather calm manner, not a rant like Limbaugh or Beck.
When he spoke about climate change, a.k.a. global warming, he presented several items as fact instead of hypothesis, and when he spoke of science and creationism, he discounted the creationist view without giving any context or reasons or mentioning the current shift by many scientists toward a belief in intelligent design - a skilled Christian appologist like John Warwick Montogomery would likely eat him alive in a debate.
All in all, Dan seems to be an entertainer delivering material to many in our culture that are swayed by emotion and are more interested in speculation, conspiracy theories, and squashing tradition than carefully examining all sides of a situation before forming a rational conclusion based on truth.

Just my opinion based on only one episode and probably too harsh.  Hopefully his history podcast will stand up to close scrutiny.

... Mountaineer

From Wikipedia...

In a 2010 Common Sense show titled "Flirting with the Berserk Line," Carlin announces that the only two politicians in the US he believes are most likely to help fix the US political system are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

That was enough to put his podcasts on my "to do" list.

Mountaineer wrote: Well, I screwed up!  I listened by mistake to his "Common Sense with Dan Carlin" podcast last night instead of Hardcore History.  I'll give the Hardcore History a listen soon.

My comments on the "Common Sense" episode "Controlling the Past":
Dan is entertaining but somewhat in the ilk of Rush Limbaugh but not nearly as self-agrandizing.
He has opinions on matters but they seem to be much more speculative than truth based.
He delivers his opinions in a rather calm manner, not a rant like Limbaugh or Beck.
When he spoke about climate change, a.k.a. global warming, he presented several items as fact instead of hypothesis, and when he spoke of science and creationism, he discounted the creationist view without giving any context or reasons or mentioning the current shift by many scientists toward a belief in intelligent design - a skilled Christian appologist like John Warwick Montogomery would likely eat him alive in a debate.
All in all, Dan seems to be an entertainer delivering material to many in our culture that are swayed by emotion and are more interested in speculation, conspiracy theories, and squashing tradition than carefully examining all sides of a situation before forming a rational conclusion based on truth.

Just my opinion based on only one episode and probably too harsh.  Hopefully his history podcast will stand up to close scrutiny.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

Not to make this an intelligent design thread, but can you direct me to a source that shows an increase in scientists believing in creationist theories?

Also, what is your definition of "hypothesis" vs "theory" in science?  The best line I've seen drawn between the two is detailed at www.diffen.com

A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.

Obviously, somethings are more testable and falsifiable than others (and everything is done in the realm of inductive conclusions, which are never 100% proven... even gravity is just a "theory."  Also, the line between a "suggested explanation" and a "tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation" could be a hazy one, but I'd be curious to hear you explanation as to where you draw the line, and why global warming and evolution fall on the "hypothesis" side of the divide, while Christianity falls on the "Self-evident Truth" side of the debate (beyond even "theory"), when (to me) it qualifies as a hypothesis, and a relatively weak one at that.

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Well, I screwed up!  I listened by mistake to his "Common Sense with Dan Carlin" podcast last night instead of Hardcore History.  I'll give the Hardcore History a listen soon.

My comments on the "Common Sense" episode "Controlling the Past":
Dan is entertaining but somewhat in the ilk of Rush Limbaugh but not nearly as self-agrandizing.
He has opinions on matters but they seem to be much more speculative than truth based.
He delivers his opinions in a rather calm manner, not a rant like Limbaugh or Beck.
When he spoke about climate change, a.k.a. global warming, he presented several items as fact instead of hypothesis, and when he spoke of science and creationism, he discounted the creationist view without giving any context or reasons or mentioning the current shift by many scientists toward a belief in intelligent design - a skilled Christian appologist like John Warwick Montogomery would likely eat him alive in a debate.
All in all, Dan seems to be an entertainer delivering material to many in our culture that are swayed by emotion and are more interested in speculation, conspiracy theories, and squashing tradition than carefully examining all sides of a situation before forming a rational conclusion based on truth.

Just my opinion based on only one episode and probably too harsh.  Hopefully his history podcast will stand up to close scrutiny.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

Not to make this an intelligent design thread, but can you direct me to a source that shows an increase in scientists believing in creationist theories?

Also, what is your definition of "hypothesis" vs "theory" in science?  The best line I've seen drawn between the two is detailed at www.diffen.com

A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.

Obviously, somethings are more testable and falsifiable than others (and everything is done in the realm of inductive conclusions, which are never 100% proven... even gravity is just a "theory."  Also, the line between a "suggested explanation" and a "tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation" could be a hazy one, but I'd be curious to hear you explanation as to where you draw the line, and why global warming and evolution fall on the "hypothesis" side of the divide, while Christianity falls on the "Self-evident Truth" side of the debate (beyond even "theory"), when (to me) it qualifies as a hypothesis, and a relatively weak one at that.

Re. Source:  Moda, I'm sorry but I can't remember the details of where I heard it.  I think it was a podcast I listened to about a week or so ago where they were either quoting or interviewing an astronomer who was heavily involved in the "Big Bang" (hypothesis?  theory?) for quite some time and had come to the conclusion that there almost certainly had to be a "God" responsible for creating the cosmos; he said there were many other scientists who had formerly thought as he did and also come to the same conclusion about "someone" being responsible for the creation of it all.  I was falling asleep at the time and only remember the content of his statement which I thought was interesting.

Re. definition:  Your quoted definitions look similar to what I was taught many years ago about hypotheses and theories.  I seem to remember that hypotheses were on the likely but still a guess side and once they could be tested and repeatedly proven (within the boundaries of the experiement) by others they became theories.  I remember being taught never to go outside the boundaries of the "data"; if one does that they are into speculation instead of science.  Perhaps the rules have been revised since I learned them - or perhaps I do not remember it all correctly.  Example of a theory: water runs downhill - that is generally correct but only within the boundaries of the experiement; for example, water can run uphill in a glass due to surface tension, or in a zero gravity environment.  Water running downhill was probably considered fact at some point in the past until surface tension was discovered, or zero gravity was available for testing things.  Silly, but you get the drift.

Christianity is self-evident because of the resurrection and 2000 years of intense scrutiny and skeptics unsuccessfully trying to disprove it.

As you suggested, if you wish to continue this line of discussion about intelligent design and/or creationism, we should probably continue on the religion thread so we don't go off track on Dan Carlin podcasts. 

... Mountaineer

I have listened to about 3/4 of the "Prophets of Doom" podcast. It is more objective than the other one I commented on and so far much like the Protestant Reformation history I have read.  It sure points out what can happen when a bunch of Biblically ignorant people get taken in by smooth talkers that have a personal agenda that differs from orthodox doctrine.  It still happens in many megachurchs today where the focus is on a charismatic pastor instead of on Jesus.

... Mountaineer

Edit:  I finished the podcast; I thought it was interesting and entertaining.  No changes to my above comments.  The podcast was another example of fallen man being susceptible to the siren's call of evil - in everything from religion, to politics, to investing, to treatment of your next door neighbor.

Mountaineer wrote: Christianity is self-evident because of the resurrection and 2000 years of intense scrutiny and skeptics unsuccessfully trying to disprove it.

That's not objective science, that's emotional hucksterism.  The problem with faith is everyone thinks their subjective meme is orthodox and acts accordingly.  Science doesn't include the act of everyone reinforcing everyone else's meme by the failure of trying to prove a negative or other logical fallacies.  After all, that's how the downfall of religion originally began and we came out of the Dark Ages.

Jesus may be the ultimate meme imprisoning your mind, but so does Mohammed to Muslims, Buddha to Buddhists, Xenu to Scientologists, etc..  No one of these memes are more important or valid than another when you operate within the faith realm.

Yes, I know, I'm wasting my breath.  You're too far gone.

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Christianity is self-evident because of the resurrection and 2000 years of intense scrutiny and skeptics unsuccessfully trying to disprove it.

That's not objective science, that's emotional hucksterism.  The problem with faith is everyone thinks their subjective meme is orthodox and acts accordingly.  Science doesn't include the act of everyone reinforcing everyone else's meme by the failure of trying to prove a negative or other logical fallacies.  After all, that's how the downfall of religion originally began and we came out of the Dark Ages.

Jesus may be the ultimate meme imprisoning your mind, but so does Mohammed to Muslims, Buddha to Buddhists, Xenu to Scientologists, etc..  No one of these memes are more important or valid than another when you operate within the faith realm.

Yes, I know, I'm wasting my breath.  You're too far gone.

Bhuddism ain't a religion i.e. it has nothing to do with faith or worshipping anyone.

Benko wrote: Bhuddism ain't a religion i.e. it has nothing to do with faith or worshipping anyone.

Sure it is. Zen isn't a religion, but Buddhism is.

Benko wrote: Bhuddism ain't a religion i.e. it has nothing to do with faith or worshipping anyone.

Hasn't prevented the rituals, worshipping or idolatry.  Channeling a little Zon Power here, honest objectivity does not matter to religious mystics.

I have listened to about 3/4 of the "Prophets of Doom" podcast. It is more objective than the other one I commented on and so far much like the Protestant Reformation history I have read.  It sure points out what can happen when a bunch of Biblically ignorant people get taken in by smooth talkers that have a personal agenda that differs from orthodox doctrine.  It still happens in many megachurchs today where the focus is on a charismatic pastor instead of on Jesus.

... Mountaineer

Update:  I finished the podcast; I thought it was interesting and entertaining.  No substantial changes to my earlier comments, above.  The podcast was another example of fallen man being susceptible to the siren's call of evil - in this case religion, in other cases politics, investing, and treatment of your next door neighbor.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: I have listened to about 3/4 of the "Prophets of Doom" podcast. It is more objective than the other one I commented on and so far much like the Protestant Reformation history I have read.  It sure points out what can happen when a bunch of Biblically ignorant people get taken in by smooth talkers that have a personal agenda that differs from orthodox doctrine.  It still happens in many megachurchs today where the focus is on a charismatic pastor instead of on Jesus.

... Mountaineer

Update:  I finished the podcast; I thought it was interesting and entertaining.  No substantial changes to my earlier comments, above.  The podcast was another example of fallen man being susceptible to the siren's call of evil - in this case religion, in other cases politics, investing, and treatment of your next door neighbor.

... Mountaineer

I figured it would be up your alley and didn't seem to offend any position you've taken in the past.  My favorite one is either the Wrath of the Kahns series, or the red scare one.  I'm sure he's got a bunch of other good ones once you pay the $$'s for the subscription.

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I have listened to about 3/4 of the "Prophets of Doom" podcast. It is more objective than the other one I commented on and so far much like the Protestant Reformation history I have read.  It sure points out what can happen when a bunch of Biblically ignorant people get taken in by smooth talkers that have a personal agenda that differs from orthodox doctrine.  It still happens in many megachurchs today where the focus is on a charismatic pastor instead of on Jesus.

... Mountaineer

Update:  I finished the podcast; I thought it was interesting and entertaining.  No substantial changes to my earlier comments, above.  The podcast was another example of fallen man being susceptible to the siren's call of evil - in this case religion, in other cases politics, investing, and treatment of your next door neighbor.

... Mountaineer

I figured it would be up your alley and didn't seem to offend any position you've taken in the past.  My favorite one is either the Wrath of the Kahns series, or the red scare one.  I'm sure he's got a bunch of other good ones once you pay the $$'s for the subscription.

Thanks for the tips.  I'll put on my list.

... Mountaineer