Well, now I'm convinced that the death of the rain forests would be
an ELE. Cuz Shawn says it won't be.
Shawn Wilson <
ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:61456ee5-7d3e-4cd8...@googlegroups.com:
Offer's still open, Shawn:
Step one: What is the definition of "economist" that you intend
when you refer to yourself with that word?
*******************************************************************
Hey, Shawn Wilson, you claim to be an economist. I have a challenge
for you:
First, provide us with an objective definition of what you mean by
"economist," when you refer to yourself being one. This will be
discussed, of course, but the definition will be up to you, and
only you.
Once you are happy with your definition of what you mean by
"economist," when you refer to yourself being one, I will set up a
survey on Survey Monkey (or some place else, if you prefer another
service) with two questions:
Do you agree this is a reasonable definition of what makes someone
an economist?
Do you agree that this is an objective definition, which is to say,
one that can be objectively verified.
If the majority of the votes agree that your definition is
reasonable, and objective (50% + 1 on both questions), then we
still proceed to step two:
Since _your_ definition must be objective, it will be possible to
verify it. If, for instance, you claim that a degree in economics
makes you an economist, then it would be easy to verify whether or
not you have one, once you tell us what university awarded you such
a degree. Or, for instance, if you claim that being published in a
peer reviewed journal devoted to economics makes you a journalist,
you tell us which journal and when you were published. But again,
these are just examples. We will be using *your* definition of
"economist," and *only* your definition. If you choose the archaic
dictionary definiton of "one who practices economy," that's fine,
too, because _it is your choice_, and your's alone.
If the survey indicates that people do not find your definition is
reasonable, then you are using the word differently than other
people, and should make a note of that when using it publicly. If
the majority do not agree that your definition is objective, and
verifiable, then your use of it is meaningless, and you should
note that when you use it publicly. (Because, in both cases, I
*will* note it whether you do or not.)
If need be, we can discuss methods of verifying your claim to be an
economist _by your own definition_ here, until you and I agree on a
method that will verify whether your not your claim is true _by
your own definition_.
Once we have a method _that you agree_ will objetively verify your
claim to be an economist _by your own definition_, we can proceed
to the verification process itself. If it involves public
information, like a claim to have been published in a peer reviewed
journal, then you can provide that information here and _anyone_
can verify it. If it involves some information that you want to
keep private, especially something that would require your
permission to a third party, such as verifying that you have a
degree in economics from an accredited university, then you provide
that information to me alone, or to any other party that we both
agree to be an impartial arbitrator (if need be, I'll hire an
attorney to do this), with an explicit agreement that this
information will be kept private, for your protection.
If in the end, you get the majority here to agree that _your_
definition of what makes you an economist is reasonable, and
objectively verifiable, and, in the end, it _is_ verified that you
meet that definition - *your* definition - then I will send you a
US postal money order (good as money, but safer to mail) for at
least $500. If anyone else wishes to contribute to this fund, it
will, perhaps, be even more, and I encourage everyone to contribute
if Shawn accepts my challenge (which we all know he won't, and he
will lie and claim he did). If you don't trust me, then the
attorney
I hire to act as arbitrator can also hold the money in escrow
(where
it would be a criminal offense for him to not pay you if you meet
the conditions, which, remember, will be pubicly available).
So how about it, Shawn? Are you confident enough that you are using
a realistic definition of "economist" when you call yourself one to
_get paid_ to back it up?
I predict you won't even answer this post. I am confident - $500,
plus the cost of an attorney - that you won't accept this
challenge. And confident enough that you won't meet the challenge
that I won't even _ask_ for you to put up a single penny against
the possibility that you fail.
You game? I am.
*******************************************************************