Today I got to thinking why can't we get through to Pollies. I think the Pollies are using logic and the doomers are using logic. There are two kinds. The Pollies reason by inductive reasoning. My father was this sort of a reasoner. He believed that if no one had ever gone to the moon in 6000 years, it is only good sense that no one could do this. Yet they did and in his life time. An example of deductive reasoning would be no one has every gone to the moon because no one has the knowledge to do so, but if someone had the knowledge to do so then he would go to the moon. Inductive reasoning outcome is probable, but not necessarily so, because some elements are missing. Deductive reasoning comes by proof of a set of premises that are true. So what has this to do about Y2K. Simply that people with minds who think inductively will say THEY HAVE ALWAYS FIXED IT BEFORE, THEY WILL DO IT AGAIN, THEY ARE NOT ABOUT TO LOSE ALL THAT MONEY. Ok, that's reasonable in a inductive way. But have you considered the time element and the number of people available with the smarts to accomplish all this. That figured with a deductive mind spells disaster. Inductive mind says probable , but not necessarily. You can't argue with inductive reasoning people, because they reason with only what they have seen, like my father. It is like comparing apples with oranges. nuff said.

Oh, by the way. What is raw panic. raw panic invites total denial. THink about it. People preparing are NOT Panicing they are too busy using there heads and preparing. nuff said. I invite others thoughts on this.

-- Gay Boling (wilber@montanasky.net), November 25, 1999

Answers

I like that. That combined with the fact that most of us believe that "it can never happen to me" added to the Media bull, makes it very hard for the inductive types to think a thought they haven't before.

An old line from GN or somebody said, "People on this subject (Y2K) lose the ability use critical thinking and logic." I would add, "have an independent thought".

And I've heard it attributed to Voltaire, "Common sense is not common."

-- Gregg (G.abbott@starting-point.com), November 26, 1999.

Makes alot of sense Gay. I can think of lots of examples that would support your in/deductive distinction. I think people who prepare are better able to tolerate ambiguity. It takes alot of courage to consider the implications discussed on this board. My significant other teases when saying "If I read the web sites you do everyday then I would slash my wrists" (said with humor rather than morbidity). It takes alot of strength to even consider living through such chaotic y2k changes. Most people fold, meaning their psyches don't have adequate defenses to tolerate the emotions that come with the knowledge, and so they become overwhelmed and shut down. Persons with an internal locus of control will search for ways to prep, to give them a sense of control. Y2K is such a wildcard though, and most incomes are limited, so it's a hell of a thing to even contemplate preparations. (Do I buy the first aid burn patches, or an extra bag of dogfood?)

Consider history. In the middle ages the average person absorbed and processed the amount of information in their LIFETIME that we do in one Sunday newspaper. The human mind has not yet evolved to a point where we are able to efficiently process the data hurled at us in our lives, let alone develop a coherent plan of response.

Besides, it's so much easier to just blame the government (heh, couldn't resist).

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), November 26, 1999.

But have you considered the time element and the number of people available with the smarts to accomplish all this. That figured with a deductive mind spells disaster.

Deductive logic only works if you start from a true premise. There is too much about Y2K that is unknown and unknowable to make deductive logic a reliable guide to what is going to happen.

You will never be able to carry on a rational dialoge if you start with the assumption that other people are just not logical and you are.

For example, your statement implies that there are not enough smart people to fix Y2K. In fact, it doesn't take a genius IQ to expand 2 digits to 4, or to apply a standard windowing fix.

Many of the predictions of disaster being made a few years ago were based on false premises about the amount of COBOL code and the number of programmers it would take to remediate that code. There was less code than thought, and automated processes were developed to speed the process.

Nevertheless, disaster is still a possibility that a prudent person should prepare for. Just realize that it probably will not happen, and you will have to live with the poll

-- kermit (colourmegreen@hotmail.com), November 26, 1999.

And then there are some with no reasoning. PA teacher's retirement checks for January are being sent out in December. My sister-in -law thinks this is becauce "they" are being nice about Christmas! Pam

-- Pamela (jpjgood@penn.com), November 26, 1999.

kermit muttered:

Deductive logic only works if you start from a true premise. There is too much about Y2K that is unknown and unknowable to make deductive logic a reliable guide to what is going to happen.

We do have premises to build upon in regards to Y2K to come up with possible outcomes. Could a computer behave differently from expected parameters if in its calculations it is subtracting 99 from 00 but we think it is subtracting 1999 from 2000? Yes.

We already know that to be true. Simple mathematics tells us that the result we want to appear will not appear if we have not catered for it in the first place.

I program all the time, I add in bits and pieces 'just in case' a certain event happens which is probably unlikely. But I and many other programmers still get hit with unforeseen circumstances that are totally logical went you examine the problem. The computer can only attempt to do what we have told it to do, and for years we been telling them to calculate with 2 digits and we never told them what to do when you hit 00.

The programmers aren't the only ones to be blamed for this 2 digit fiasco, we are all to blame. Look at your receipts, cheques, bills, when you fill out a form, when you tell people what year it is, etc etc etc. We've been all carrying on using 2 digits for years with each other just because we were too lazy to say the full 4 digit year. No wonder this has filtered down into computers, and hey if they majorly chuck a fit on the 1st of January then I ain't going to blame them. For example, your statement implies that there are not enough smart people to fix Y2K. In fact, it doesn't take a genius IQ to expand 2 digits to 4, or to apply a standard windowing fix.

But it does take someone with a reasonable intelligence to know if the 2 digits you are expanding are related to the date or not. It might have been a percentage value, oops we are now making a 5000% profit on Twinkies. Also there is 4 digit to 6 digit conversion (Year/Month), 6 to 8 (Year/Month/Day) and other combinations. So it ain't as simple as 2 digits to 4.

Many of the predictions of disaster being made a few years ago were based on false premises about the amount of COBOL code and the number of programmers it would take to remediate that code. There was less code than thought, and automated processes were developed to speed the process.

I agree it has helped immensely, but I personally would feel more comfortable if someone afterwards still checked the code to make sure it picked up on everything.

Regards, Simon

-- Simon Richards (simon@wair.com.au), November 26, 1999.

It's not so much the logic being applied that makes the distinction, as it is the selection and interpretation of the available evidence. Nearly all the doomie-brand "deductive logic" I've read here starts with the premise that "All warnings are facts, all good news is lies." And yes indeed, conclusions follow faithfully from that premise.

The single most critical conclusion that is derived from that premise is that all "valid" information MUST be selected and interpreted in light of this "logical" conclusion. The result has been a closed, impenetrable loop of circular reasoning.

What's instructive is that so many here who apply this method to their y2k analysis, apply it so broadly to derive so many negative conclusions. The government is evil, society is going to hell in a handbasket, conspiracies are everywhere, and anyone who disagrees is their paid agent.

So I agree that we have no more chance of fixing y2k bugs with appropriate effort as we have of ever putting a man on the moon with appropriate effort. It's never been done, so it never WILL be done. Oh, we did it? Well, uh, well, nope, can't be done!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 26, 1999.

Er, I agree with the lack of data argument. Hard core doomers and pollies alike are taking action (or otherwise) based on belief systems and cognitive dissonance, not sound deductive reasoning. Those of us in the middle are playing the odds. I don't think fact- based logic really comes into it.

-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), November 26, 1999.

Thanks everyone for your input. When I said there were not enough "smart" people, I should have said, "knowledgable people." There does not seem to be enough knowledgeable people to fix up the embedded chips problem. Maybe there are and this premise is faulty. Let's hope so. I really liked the arguments. It shows there are intelligent people on this forum.

-- Gay Boling (wilber@montanasky.net), November 26, 1999.

And now let me throw THIS one into the hopper.

I LOVE the exercise of logic -- it has got me through many major scrapes in my life; it has helped me in many of my accomplishments in fields as varied as computer programming, electronic design, even medicine. But I have lived long enough to realize that quite a few of the important junctures and events in life panned out in a positive manner, because of an ABSENCE OF LOGIC. How could that be? Could there be another factor besides rational, linear thinking at play?

This is a hard one for our present-day, hi-tech, First World culture to get a handle on. We put men on the moon without any other factor coming into play, didn't we? I can't think of a better metaphor than that for supporting the argument: "Right hemisphere brain activity will get you where you want to go -- any other kind is beyond the pale, and must be relegated to artists, musicians, fiction writers, poets, lunatics, wishful thinkers, primitive peoples, sentimentalists, mystics, and people who believe God actually exists and is in control of everything."

Talk about unbridgeable gaps in understanding 'how the world works' -- I can think of none so unsurmountable as (ordinarily) exists between right hemisphere and left hemisphere thinking. I have fun with languages -- love to play with Spanish, German, Swiss German, Yiddish (almost identical to Swiss German), and dialects of English (I'm still having problems making myself understood to some of my Southern kinfolk and neighbors, and vice versa, but I LOVE the language of the South, BTW.)

But these linguistic differences pale by comparison to the 'no comprende' between those who limit their thinking either to right, or to left hemisphere dominance. Before I drop from sight (to avoid the thundering mob who will come after me with mile-long flames) let me use one of my favorite tie-breakers between these two domains.

It's from the bio of Jesse Livermore, the legendary stock market trader of the early part of this century. Seems back around 1906, everybody was long the western railroad stocks -- given they were the backbone of the phenomenal development of that part of our nation at that time -- 'How could they go anywhere but up?'

But one day in April Jesse started SELLING ALL HIS RAILROAD STOCK. And he kept doing it, day after day. Fellow speculators, all of whom had great respect for this man with the great track record, began questioning his judgment, asking him what were his reasons for such a contrarian play. Now here's the crux: his only answer was, paraphrased, "I don't really know -- I just have to do it."

So how did this all play out? Did Jesse lose his shirt? What happened a few days later was: The Great San Francisco Earthquake that the buildings of that beautiful city -- AND the railroad stocks, which latter plummeted to the bottom of the earth. Jesse made another killing.

BTW, how do dogs and cats know that earthquakes are about to hit minutes BEFORE they actually happen? Or do you relegate them to the category of urban myth?

Not wanting to stick around to get flamed, still suffering from 3d degree burns from other entanglements,

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), November 26, 1999.

To set the record straight about "all government is evil", I never mentioned that, because I don't believe it. It was not one of my premises, therefore it is invalid for this argument. That's a whole new inductive conclusion to another argument put up by some other person for I am not interested in it.

-- Gay Boling (wilber@montanasky.net), November 26, 1999.

It would be interesting to compare the flow charts of the two basic camps wouldn't it, how about some examples from each.

I'll cut to the chase first

GI Flow chart synopsis:

ON ERROR GOTO PREPS

DGI flow chart synopsis

ON ERROR GOTO GOV IF GOV = 0,0,0 GOTO GRAVE

Well how about it, care to expand on a flow chart that supports your position?

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), November 26, 1999.

You are so right----being hampered by intuitive dominance and living with a computor against my nose at least 12 hours a day--please! It is the INTEGRATION of both forms of logic, both sides of the brain that allows us to make rational AND informed decisions. AND guess what? Even then with all the available data in concideration it is just INFORMED decision at best---could be right, could be wrong because----we never have all the data present at all times. I learned about "other" data the day I was in the back of the house washing walls and put everything down, ran out to the street, down 1/2 block and picked a neighbor's toddler out of the very busy street, delivered her home and went back to washing walls--stopped mid splash and "what the@#@#@ just happened--how did I know?" This may have absolutely nothing to do with y2k and maybe it does. My hunching stuff insists I prepare----I'll know soon enough--I'll know soon enough if my decision was a hit or miss. I am comfortable in my skin with what I have done--I am comfortable with the sousrces of data I have interpreted and followed.

-- John Q (Thankyouwilliam@goodsence.com), November 26, 1999.

To pollies:

I am not interested in hearing so-called "good news," i.e., that something will be as usual, because I ALREADY KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT AND WHAT TO DO IN NORMAL TIMES.

I need to read what MIGHT go wrong and how, so I know how to plan contingencies, just like many businesses and institutions are doing (e.g., the Navy War College). The odds are I will never need contingency plans, but I NEED TO KNOW WHAT NIGHT GO WRONG JUST IN CASE.

Do you paternalistic, meddling, self-righteous, interfering pollies understand this simple concept? I don't NEED details of fine weather when the sun is shining, I need to know if there's a chance of rain, so I can put my umbrella in the car. Understand?

Anyone else feel free to get this point across. Good luck.

-- A (ray@of.light), November 26, 1999.

A ray:

Precisely! Preparing for lack of power and food is a very different strategy from preparing for lack of work. In the first case, you purchase seeds and generators, in the second you pay off debts and boost savings.

Preparing for NO gasoline available is quite different from preparing for higher gasoline prices. In the first case, you stockpile gasoline, in the second you reduce your commuting distance and get a high milesage vehicle. Etc.

In general, preparing to do without isn't the same as preparing to do with less.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 26, 1999.

I often get the feeling that "doomers" and "pollies" (and I am talking about honest and sincere pollies here, not the moronic trolls that we have seen on this forum lately) are just on two completely different planets. It may be that it's a different logic approach, maybe it's something else, but it is there.

Flint's view that all doomer arguments depend on rejecting good news, accepting that the government is lying all the time, etc., is certainly representative of "polly-think". How anyone could express such a belief in the face of the overwhelming evidence is beyond me, but there it is.

Broken computer code couldn't care less.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 26, 1999.

KOS:

The evidence, when ALL of it is considered, isn't overwhelming in favor of *anything*. Computers will execute their code regardless, but how much of it is still bad? Positive reports outnumber negative reports about 3-1. So you select the 1, ignore the 3, and call the result *overwhelming*. And then you just can't understand how anyone could possibly disagree with you in face of the "facts".

It won't be long now.

-- Flint (flintc@mindsprinjg.com), November 26, 1999.

Interesting debate. Thanks.

Sincerely,
Stan Faryna

Read a rational explanation for making Y2K preparations
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001R UO

Got 14 days of preps? If not, get started now. Click here.

Click here and check out the TB2000 preparation forum.

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 26, 1999.

Michael, Your DGI flow chart synopsis suggested

ON ERROR GOTO GOV IF GOV = 0,0,0 GOTO GRAVE

Try this one for a DGI

TEST HOME PC

ON ERROR GOTO REMEDIATE

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), November 26, 1999.

Michael, Your DGI flow chart synopsis suggested

ON ERROR GOTO GOV IF GOV = 0,0,0 GOTO GRAVE

Try this one for a DGI

BEGIN: TEST HOME PC

ON ERROR GOTO REMEDIATE

CARRY OUT HOME PREPS

WORK: INVENTORY WORK HARDWARE

INVENTORY WORK APPLICATIONS

INVENTORY WORK EMBEDDEDS

CHECK INVENTORY

TEST HARDWARE

ON ERROR GOTO REPLACE

TEST APPLICATIONS

ON ERROR GOTO REDIATE

TEST EMMBEDDEDS

ON ERROR GOTO REPLACE

PREPARE CONTINGENECY PLANS

TEST CONTINGENCY PLANS

ON ERROR GOTO MODIFY PLANS

RETURN TO BEGIN.

Sysops, please delete my previous post. (sorry)

Malcolm

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), November 26, 1999.

William J. Shenker, MD

Well said.

-- mar (derigueur2@aol.com), November 26, 1999.

This thread reminded me of an observation I had formed about Ed's "Endgame" essay: chess, a game in which the position is completely known to the players, is a weak analogy to Y2K, in which there are so many unknowns. Bridge would have been a theoretically better choice because its essence is drawing inferences from incomplete information. (I say "theoretically" because it might have been more difficult to clearly explain a bridge example without disrupting the flow of the paper.)

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), November 26, 1999.

Maybe Poker would be a good analogy, too. You know what's in your own hand, but you cannot know the 'facts' of the other players hands. You must rely on limited 'clues'. Kosky's doin all he can to make us think he's got the winning hand. I say it has all the earmarks of a classic bluff.

Protect yourself at all times.

Godspeed,

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), November 27, 1999.