From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: "experience" ( was Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:56:17 GMT

Amazing what one can come up with when you reset your NNTPSERVER to sites
where the evidence has not been expired yet...
Let's try this again...

Topic I - Fact vs opinion
=========================

In article <1992Dec30.161147.14583@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}I beleive your stating of facts. I don't believe your opinions.

Excellent.  I hope that you will not be guilty of hypocrisy and extend the same
to me.  Now, what is a "fact" and what is an "opinion"?

fact \'fakt\ n
  1: DEED; esp : CRIME <accessory after the fact>
  2: the quality of being actual
  3: something that exists or occurs : ACTUALITY, EVENT; also : a
     piece of information about such a fact

opin.ion \*-'pin-y*n\ n
  1: a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive
     knowledge
  2: JUDGMENT
  3: a formal statement by an expert after careful study

  Hence, a fact is something which exists or occurs or a piece of information
  about such an item.  An opinion is a judgement or belief.

Past and present items:
	These may be fact or opinion, they are ultimately theoretically verifiable.
future items:
	These may onlt be opinion (with associated probabilities), they cannot
	be fact since they have not yet occurred.  They can only be verified
	once they are no longer future items.


Do you agree or disagree with these requirements and definitions.  If so, fine.
If not, why?

If so, we may conclude that your OPINIONS on the future state of the DoE and what Clinton
may (or may not) do is that and not automatically acceptable as a truth.

Topic II - rational debate:
==========================

In article <1992Dec29.210220.21888@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}I also think that you simply want to slam Clinton over this issue,
}accusing him of appointing inexperienced people, and will continue
}your pedantry no matter what logic is presented, using as your
}fallback position  "But you don't know what WILL happen, you can only
}guess", which means no rational discourse can come of this.

In article <1992Dec30.161147.14583@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}#That is nice.  However, what you think may be debated but is not verifiable
}#as an actuality.  You may be wrong.
}
}Gee, and that is why I was debating it.

Let us establish what a "Rational discourse" used in the debating consists of:

1. correct reasoning applied appropriately to correct (verified) facts yield correct
fact-conclusions.
2. correct reasoning applied appropriately to opinion yields opinion-conclusions.
3. When a opinion-conclusion conflicts with a fact-conclusion, the opinion is incorrect.

Do you agree or disagree with these methods for rational discourse or not.  If so, fine.
If not, why?

If so, we may conclude that your OPINIONS on current actions are irrelevant when
verifiable facts indicate otherwise.

Topic III - qualification vs experience
=======================================

In article <1992Dec28.193551.25763@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}err, what? This thread started when you complained that Clinton
}appointed someone unqualified to be in charge of the DoE, because
}Clinton's appointee didn't have experiance with nuclear weapons.

and
In article <1992Dec28.224208.27279@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}#Not quite.  I stated that the candidate appeared to be chosen for reasons
}#other than expertise in the position in which she was selected.  And you
}#have managed to say such yourself.  See?
}
}I'm not sure I agree with this summary. Your origional article, which
}has expired on my system, seemed to imply that the head of DoE needs
}to be qualified in nuclear weapons, as does your summary above
}("expertise in the position she was selected"). I disagree with the
}fact that the DoE *needs* to be headed by such a person, and I don't
}think that Clinton's appointee is unqualified to be head of DoE.

and
In article <1992Dec29.151615.18125@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}FOR THE SECOND TIME: Your posts seem (to me at least) to be implying
}that Clintons nominee is not qualified for the position of DoE.

and
In article <1992Dec29.210220.21888@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}#Why do you keep saying that I am wrong, then use the word "qualified"
}#that I didn't use?  If you disagree with me, disagree with what _I_
}#say, don't disagree with what YOU say then claim that I said it.
}
}Well, since you agree that there is no difference between the use of
}the two words, does it matter? It was a minor mistake to use
}"qualified" instead of "experience".

I differentiate between "experience" and "qualified"
1 ex.pe.ri.ence \ik-'spir-e_--*ns\ n
  1: observation or practice resulting in or tending toward
     knowledge; also : the resulting state of enhanced comprehension
     and efficiency
  2: a state of being affected from without (as by events); also : an
     affecting event <a startling experience>
  3: something or the totality experienced (as by a person or
     community) <human experience>

2 experience vb
  1: to know as an experience : SUFFER, UNDERGO <experience hunger>
     <experience conversion>
  2: to find out : DISCOVER


qual.i.fy \'kwa_:l-*-.fi_-\ vb
  1: to reduce from a general to a particular form : MODIFY
  2: to make less harsh
  3: to fit by skill or training for some purpose
  4: to give or have a legal right to do something
  5: to demonstrate the necessary ability (as in a preliminary race)
  6: to limit the meaning of (as a noun)
     SYN: moderate, temper
  -- qual.i.fied adj

  In this usage, I use "experience" to mean primarily definition 1, and "qualified" to
  mean primarily definition 3.  Please not that there does not exist a ambiguity
  between these terms using any definition set. 

  qualified and experienced:
  The person has the skill and/or training to perform the job, and has performed
  it for a period and thus experienced the tasks.  Look around for competent, long-term
  employees for examples.

  qualified and unexperienced:
  The person has the skill and/or training to perform the job, but has not actually
  performed it.  A student recently graduated from training that is applying for a job
  for which he is trained is an example.

  unqualified and inexperienced:
  The person does not have the skill to perform the job, and has not had to do it.  An
  example of this is anyone who knows nothing, and cares less, about something they are
  not doing.  There is no shortage of these people.

  unqualified and experienced:
  The person does not have the skill to perform the job, but has done it.  Please note
  that I did NOT say "done it well".  An example of this would be someone filling an
  opening while the search for an appropriate person for the job is made.  Another
  example would be someone who has been doing the same job, poorely, for an extended
  period.  Look around and you should be able to point to some where you are.

Hence I do, and always have, differentiated between "experience" and "qualified" and have
made no claims as to the qualifications for any candidate.  Do you, or do you not,
acknowledge that these are two separate concepts and that I have NOT, at any time,
addressed qualifications?

Hence, your entire argument about the qualifications for the candidate for the secretary
to the Department of Energy is irrelevant to my initial presentation.

Topic IV - priorities of the Department of Energy
=================================================

In article <1992Dec22.191826.14174@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
}>1. Rank the budget of DOE in decreasing order, with the biggest line item
}>first.  Now, by a sizeable fraction, what is the #1 item in the budget of the
}>Department of Energy?
}As it happens, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, 'line items'
}in the DOE budget has historically been the management of the facilities
}which produce nuclear weapons.

I do not disagreee with Mr. Pajerek.  If you do, take it up with him.

In article <1992Dec22.225052.11034@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}#Pop test two:  When was the last nuke made (by DoE)?
}
}Bout two years from what I remember.

Conclusion on resource allocation (using general systems reasoning):
A lot of money goes into the DOE for the management of the facilities to produce nuclear
weapons.  It has not gone into the production of nuclear weapons.  It has not
accumulated, hence it is being spent on something pertaining to nuclear weapon facilities
other than nuclear weapon production.  Do you agree or disagree?  If not, why?

Assumption 1: DoE is a rational organization.  If it is not, the entire question is
irrelevant.  Do you agree of disagree?

Assumption 2: A rational organization will allocate it resources relative to its
priorities.  Note that these priorities may be self or externally imposed.  Do you agree
or disagree?  If not, why?  Please furnish an example, if so.

Conclusion based on resource allocation conclusion and assumptions 1 & 2:
The DoE's current highest priority is with its facilities that produce nuclear weapons,
and is not the actual production of nuclear weapons or anything else.

Hence, your OPINION on what the priorities of the DoE which do not agree are irrelevant
and currently incorrect.


========================================================================================
BTW:
In article <1992Dec29.210220.21888@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}I also know you must have the last word in, so go ahead. I'm done
}replying. Have the last word to your hearts content.

but
In article <1992Dec30.161147.14583@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
 [again]
 In article <1992Dec30.185541.16334@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
 [again]

 Guess an example of "promise" not matching "action" easily presents itself...


Newsgroups: alt.acvivism,talk.politics.misc