[FRIAM] Tripping on the Rye: She's a Witch! How do you know? . (Re: basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions)

Sun Apr 19 14:32:42 EDT 2020

How about lead?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lead-in-americas-water-systems-is-a-national-problem/
https://www.nrdc.org/resources/whats-your-water-flint-and-beyond
https://www.vox.com/2016/1/21/10811004/lead-poisoning-cities-us

Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 12:21 PM
To: friam at redfish.com <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Tripping on the Rye: She's a Witch! How do you know? . (Re: basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions)

SG -
I was completely ignorant of the history/impacts of ergot<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergot> before this thread. Fascinating!

so now you have added (upped the game of) "ergot" to your argot!

Language of thieves?!

    https://grammarist.com/usage/argot-vs-ergot/

It might be notable that Rye Whiskey (and wild, wild women) is my preferred (hard) drink of choice...  not sure if there is evidence or precedent of rye whiskey made from "spoiled Rye".  Also that my cover/nurse crop of choice is a mix of winter-wheat/winter-rye here on the "homestead".   I haven't tried actually eating or fermenting any yet.

-SS

In this context, we can think about Dave's different ways of knowing when we show cause and evidence that someone is a witch.

  1.  Science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
  2.   LSD: Ergo the Ergot: LSD, Causation and Evidence https://www.vox.com/2015/10/29/9620542/salem-witch-trials-ergotism

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 7:47 AM Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm<mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm>> wrote:
addendum:  I was interrupted mid-post

Just as a new strain of ergot might pose a severe challenge to hybridized wheat, a new "strain" of problem might pose a severe challenge to a hybridized mode of thinking.

I would posit that challenges like Covid-19, global warming, and even The Donald are akin to a new strain of ergot vis-a-vis wheat. Our ability to address or solve those challenges might be, I am certain it would be, enhanced if we could bring to bear some "heritage modes of thought."

My expressed antipathy for Science derives from the tendency of scientists to simply dismiss any alternative ideas or arguments as anti-scientific and therefore invalid.

The reason I said that you and I are in fundamental agreement, is that, I think, both of us would accept into our garden of thought" any sufficiently viable, and tasty, mode of thinking.

davew

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020, at 6:24 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> Nick,
>
> There is truth in what you say, but only a bit.
>
> I have certainly spoken as if "Science was a bunch of nasty people with
> vested interests acting in an exclusionary manner."
>
> Hyperbole.
>
> A better metaphor / analogy would be the way we have hybridized our
> food supply; e.g. 90 percent of all dairy cows have one of two bulls in
> their ancestry, there are one or two tomato hybrids, one or two strains
> of rice, wheat, corn, etc.
>
> This creates a huge vulnerability — a novel pest or disease and presto,
> no food supply.
>
> Now imagine that there are multiple species of investigation, thinking,
> knowledge.
>
> Since the Age of Enlightenment, the western world has been hell bent on
> hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly, Science).
>
> Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a privileged status
> that it tolerates no criticism and critics are "excommunicated" with
> prejudice.
>
> I would like to think of myself as someone interested in growing
> heritage tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in
> taste and texture and finding very deep value from the use of them in
> culinary creations.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com<mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > No, wait a minute!  Thou slenderest me!   For you, Science is a bunch
> > of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding,
> > has the power to exclude.  For me, Science is a set of practices that
> > lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time.  It
> > is not the sort of thing that can exclude.   If pot smoking in bubble
> > baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is
> > a scientific method.  Something like that seemed to have worked for
> > Archimedes.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Nicholas Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> > Clark University
> > ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com<mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM
> > To: friam at redfish.com<mailto:friam at redfish.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of
> > anthropological observtions
> >
> > Nick,
> >
> > I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative
> > means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability
> > THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" —
> > ergo there is no argument to lose.
> >
> > If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion
> > — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid
> > Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine,
> > Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the
> > most part, excluded from Science.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com<mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any
> > > investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to
> > > declare to be part of "the scientific method."  So if you declare that
> > > discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and
> > > you can describe a repeatable practice  which includes that as a
> > > method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical
> > > structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's science."
> > >
> > > I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must
> > > have been at least 4 hours ago.  So "before lunch".
> > >
> > >  Nick
> > >
> > > Nicholas Thompson
> > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University
> > > ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com<mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM
> > > To: friam at redfish.com<mailto:friam at redfish.com>
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of
> > > anthropological observtions
> > >
> > > Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their predictions.
> > >
> > > 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as
> > > everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation),
> > > pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of
> > > winning the election.
> > >
> > > 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely"  will win to "almost certain" he will win.
> > >
> > > 3- davew - Trump will win.
> > >
> > > # 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his prediction.
> > >
> > > The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc.
> > > to come to their conclusions.
> > >
> > > Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his
> > > book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques
> > > he did use.
> > >
> > > davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty.
> > >
> > > QUESTIONS:  Are there different approaches, different avenues,
> > > different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I am being vague here
> > > because I do not know how to make the question precise.  But it would
> > > have something to do with different definitions of what is considered
> > > data and different techniques/tools for digesting that data to form
> > > conclusions — in this instance predictions.
> > >
> > > If there are different approaches, is a comparative analysis of them
> > > possible? desirable?
> > >
> > > Different approaches — useful in different contexts? How to determine
> > > appropriate contexts.
> > >
> > > Or, is there but one avenue to knowledge — Science — and all else is
> > > idiosyncratic opinion?
> > >
> > > Personally, I think there is use in pursuing this type of question and
> > > then using the answers / insights to makes sense of the multiple
> > > conversations concerning COVID and the response thereto.
> > >
> > > davew

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200419/8c454ba8/attachment-0001.html>