Yes, data is by definition seleted and preserved to the exclusion of other possible data, including the same thing which can be selected, isolated and labeled for use in a different laboratory scene. The data gathered by the climate change guys is as far as I know real data, analyzed more or less rigorously and honestly--I don't really know. I do know that there is no evidence of real data gathering regarding the consequences of what they claim they want to do based on the conclusions they've drawn. I say I know this because I have never seen the following, very obvious question asked: assuming that the climate is changing in the ways the 97% or whatever of scientists who support the agenda claim, why not consider, rather than stopping or slowing it, taking the changes into account in infrastructural, architectural and other decisions? Asking that question would direct data collection in a whole new direction, and the rejection of that question is what marks the limits of their integrity, and that means there is plenty of room to argue here, especially since they will never get anything close to what they say they want. If New York really starts to go under water, I think people might say, well, why not build dams, dikes, etc., start moving cities further inland, and so on--rather than mandating everyone drive electric cars? Which would more directly address a felt problem?
More broadly, I would say that data is always collected, ultimately, for the sake of either judging cases or building infrastructure (in the broadest sense--the "stack of scenes"). There's always a "political' destination and frame--everything flows to the center, and everyone doing data work is assigned such work by some authority, which is in turn funded, supported, mandated, etc., by some other authority. All this generates data as well, of course, and since aligning these authorities is in the end the most important social task, all data collection needs to be organized around the questions of who will be in a position to do what.
But dB, before i get any further than your rather startling opening paragraph, collection of data concerning what? Is not the selection and isolation of one central item to the exclusion (for now) of all others what makes the laboratory scene parallel the establishment of the very ritual/religious one itself? Is there a singular "datum" out there that can reproduce all of that ? And from which quarter of the social will the announcement that a sh*toad of correlations now stand in for causation come? The climate change gang, perhaps? Ooer. You've often given the strong impression that about such politcal orientations you do not really care (e.g. with Bratton's wider concerns) - but aren't the machinations of those fellows the first thing your reader will think of?
Yes, data is by definition seleted and preserved to the exclusion of other possible data, including the same thing which can be selected, isolated and labeled for use in a different laboratory scene. The data gathered by the climate change guys is as far as I know real data, analyzed more or less rigorously and honestly--I don't really know. I do know that there is no evidence of real data gathering regarding the consequences of what they claim they want to do based on the conclusions they've drawn. I say I know this because I have never seen the following, very obvious question asked: assuming that the climate is changing in the ways the 97% or whatever of scientists who support the agenda claim, why not consider, rather than stopping or slowing it, taking the changes into account in infrastructural, architectural and other decisions? Asking that question would direct data collection in a whole new direction, and the rejection of that question is what marks the limits of their integrity, and that means there is plenty of room to argue here, especially since they will never get anything close to what they say they want. If New York really starts to go under water, I think people might say, well, why not build dams, dikes, etc., start moving cities further inland, and so on--rather than mandating everyone drive electric cars? Which would more directly address a felt problem?
More broadly, I would say that data is always collected, ultimately, for the sake of either judging cases or building infrastructure (in the broadest sense--the "stack of scenes"). There's always a "political' destination and frame--everything flows to the center, and everyone doing data work is assigned such work by some authority, which is in turn funded, supported, mandated, etc., by some other authority. All this generates data as well, of course, and since aligning these authorities is in the end the most important social task, all data collection needs to be organized around the questions of who will be in a position to do what.
But dB, before i get any further than your rather startling opening paragraph, collection of data concerning what? Is not the selection and isolation of one central item to the exclusion (for now) of all others what makes the laboratory scene parallel the establishment of the very ritual/religious one itself? Is there a singular "datum" out there that can reproduce all of that ? And from which quarter of the social will the announcement that a sh*toad of correlations now stand in for causation come? The climate change gang, perhaps? Ooer. You've often given the strong impression that about such politcal orientations you do not really care (e.g. with Bratton's wider concerns) - but aren't the machinations of those fellows the first thing your reader will think of?