[FRIAM] Science Commits Suicide (yes, another trolling headline)

[Steve Smith]

Dave -

You state your (previously veiled?) intention well.  I understood your
use of Science and The Science (Caps) to be roughly what you describe
here.  My own preferred idiom for this type of abstraction would be
"Science(tm)".  I understood you to be trolling, and I understand (not
agree with) much of your point of view and am able to apply my own
biases to what I understand to be your biases, etc. to turn the
deliberate noise into some signal for myself.   If/when I knew you less
well, I would feel that your (trolling) words were strongly "gaming" the
discussion here.  I accept that a modest amount of trolling is a healthy
part of this kind of community. 

I grant you (Dave) a lot more goodwill in your trolling than I do our
Troller in Chief, but I can't help projecting some of his onto yours.   
Every court needs a jester from time to time.   Every pantheon has a
trickster to help maintain dynamic balance.

I am sure many here (and those with stronger bona fides than my own)
cringe when Science/The Science/Science(tm) is invoked fairly
weakly/loosely/arbitrarily.   But what your troll doesn't acknowledge
(openly?) is that there has been a strong setup to try to favor a whole
range of authoritarian positions, not just in the public discourse, but
also in the halls and chambers of our government.   And by authoritarian
I mean "authority by political power", "authority by wealth", "authority
by assertion", "authority by religious "authority by intimidation".   
While those with Blue Ties (or truckers caps) are not immune from these
sins, those with the Red ones have taken it to a new level of late.  

The Science(tm) has become a *ward* for those who seek to resist or at
least avoid the "wrath" of those who feel they can take power over them
by "saying anything".  Science(tm) has become a catch-all term for
"reason and evidence over superstition, wishful thinking, willful
ignorance/ignorant willfulness". While anyone with even modest
scientific training or  an understanding of the epistimological role of
science knows that much of what is being invoked as Science is at best
only weakly related, and this is the basis of your claim that keeps it
from being entirely wrong.  Many invoke Science the way the Cargo Cults
tried to obtain more western goods by invoking the shape of an airplane.

When "the Donald" thrashed all the guys with their Red Ties with his Red
Cap and no end of brash claims and ridiculous accusations (only
occasionally veiled as innuendo, "who shot JFK?"), we saw something
ominous coming, but imagined that too few people would actually fall for
his ugly, hateful, scapegoating rhetoric to come close to letting him
take the election.   Even with a political opponent who had enough
sketchy baggage to be an easy target for his style of mud-slinging.   
The built up frustration in wide swaths of our population, along with a
multi-decade campaign by Red Ties to tilt every field, gerry every
mander, and suppress every (other) vote, lead this buffoon (who doesn't
know he is a buffoon, even/especially those sucking hard on his
backside?) to fill an entire branch of our government with a toxic mix
of incompetence, intolerance, and anti-humanist special interest.   With
help from the Red Tie in Chief in the Senate and some timing, he was
able to tilt the Canoe of Justice over to the right side, and but for
the grace of RBG's tenacity, has not (yet) had the opportunity to tip it
over fully onto it's side.  

I think chanting "The Science, The Science!" is a relatively ineffective
"ward" but may be a more effective "rallying cry".   While the Red Caps
have been using dog whistles and coded language very effectively to
rally their "unwashed masses" to swing the pendulum of political control
quite a way, it was inevitable that an equally gullible public who
either are not swayed by those specific tropes (xenophobia, grudge,
fear, hate), or recognized that "promises made/promises kept" was pure
hogwash (actually hogshit), would be ready for a new rallying cry, a new
set of dogwhistles, a new kind of coded language (Science! Data!
Evidence!).    And those who benefited either directly (gaining
political or economic power or new social standing under the Trump
Regime) or just emotionally flat don't want to lose all that to the
(other) faction of rabble that suffered under those conditions and is
now dead set on unseating that power base.  So while "The Science!"
imight be a weak misnomer for what is really being invoked, those
benefitting from "The Anti-Science" are doubling down on trying to
discredit any and all forms of facts and reason because their power
depends on "alternate facts" and "conspiracies" and outright
"Anti-Science".  

So, I would say your "trolling hooks" caught some "live ones" here.   Me
included.   You caught me with the "Pandemic over in mid June" bait
earlier and while I let this one roll around in my mouth a while,
EricS's response "set the hook" for me.   You are not wrong when you
point out that The Science(tm) is not science, but you *might* be wrong
headed if you are part of the crew who want to hold political/emotional
advantage over everyone else by changing the subject, accusing the
opponent of their own flaws, using absurd claims to derail or deflect
the conversation.  "Baffle with Bullshit"  which is what EricS called I
think.

When the Donald was sworn in, I knew he was a bad actor on many levels
but I accepted that he was about to "troll the country" and force us to
face a lot of our weaknesses and arrogances and blind spots.   When he
said "I'm going to Drain the Swamp" I grinned with pleasure at the
thought *even though* I knew damn well he had a whole Crock of
Crocodiles ready to slip right in their place... I just didn't realize
how far he would/could take how many things and how many of the GOP
congress were Crocs in Alligator suits.  

4 years ago I could get mildly worked up against the "lamestream media"
too (though Fox, in my book was the lamest of shit-streamers and the
usual alternative go-to's for people using that dismissive term like
Alex Jones were 100 times worse), but I had no idea how *good* the
Donald was going to be at hamstringing and wooden shoeing, and monkey
wrenching just about everything and everybody in sight who wasn't
(rabidly) on his team.    These 4 years (since he  smacked down his
Red-Tie buddies with his Red Cap in the primaries) have really exposed a
lot of the flaws in our government AND in our culture.   If we are lucky
we will look back from the safety of 2 or more presidential terms out
and honor this time, if not the mechanism, with which we got our wakeup
call.   I'm only mildly hopeful that we will use this moment (post
Trump, assuming a LOT) to rebound and do something really overdue.  
Color me Pollyanna.

I spent the evening watching the Oakland violence simmer right up to the
lid last night (myriad livestream perspectives), after seeing the
aftermath of the NYC, Twin Cities, Atlanta kettles boiling over.  The
Donald and his crew (including way too many of elected GOP politicians
at many levels) have spent 4 years looting and pillaging like so many of
us are (rightly) afraid of the people in the streets doing at a *petty*
level in comparison.   It is no surprise when the torches and pitchforks
come out after this kind of long run up.    I'm not sure exactly how
much this pent-up-energy was compounded by the context of the Corona
Virus quarantine, but if the "Liberate this-n-that" crowd thinks *they*
are worked up, I think we are seeing a very different crowd expressing
their own frustrations/resentments/fears *much* more righteously (imo),
albeit possibly more dangerously.   And while few people revel in the
actual violence that peppered each of these uprisings, I think there is
a lot of mainstream (middle class, working class, professional class)
support for the sentiments expressed.   While most of those I saw on the
streets in Oakland were under 40, there were a few older folks,
especially on the fringes, and the demographic looked pretty
cross-cutting otherwise.   This is not a "race" issue as some would like
to dismiss.

We are due for a huge socioeconomicpolitical renormalization, and I
think the "rise of the self-righteous Right" was a necessary and
inevitable early heave in the fundament, but there is a larger heave in
the making, set up by the kind of "might makes right" and "rich get
richer".   I am personally NOT looking for "yet another pendulum swing"
, but a qualitative shift, a change in the discussion, not just another
shift in power or will in the neverending tug-of-war. 

You (Dave) may believe it starts by taking away the (false) power
obtained by invoking the "authority" of Science(tm),   I think that may
play a role, but is probably only the smallest of many issues in our
"collective crooked thinking".   I would claim that whether we have
outgrown the games of power struggle and dominance, we can no longer
afford the consequences of of treating the abundance this world we live
on has offered us as scarce goods to be hoarded and even squandered just
to make sure we "get our share" (code for "I'm going to take my (big)
half out of the middle!"). 

Thank you for lancing this boil, if inadvertently.

- Steve





On 5/30/20 8:50 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> Eric,
>
> (BTW - nothing said by anyone on this list will ever be taken, at least by me, as a personal attack. Frank and blunt "bullshit" is always a possible and possibly called for response to anything, anyone says.)
>
> That said — au contraire, Eric.  There is an incongruity between what I said, it being labeled BS, and the rationale for the labeling.
>
> For the past five months I have read headlines and seen references in stories that prominently state, "Science says ... ," "The Science tells us ...," "Science suggests ... ," "The Science is settled," etc.  (I am not certain how or why The Science ever became disgruntled and in need of settling, but ...)
>
> I have seen eminent human beings stating, "Science says ..." and politicians (never eminent in my opinion) claiming to be doing, "What The Science tells us."
>
> I am pretty sure that "Science" and "The Science" refer to the same entity, just as Dave and David.
>
> So, even though I have never met this entity, I am pretty confident in asserting that It is arrogant, authoritative, claims to be inerrant, and It dissembles (and or lies) constantly. The Science does make assertions as if they were unalloyed True Facts. if The Science is caught out It simply changes the subject — much like another well known public figure.
>
> The Science has no regard for the humans it uses as mouthpieces for Its assertions. So when Dr. Fauci channels The Science in stating, "Science suggests we have nothing to worry about from this virus" or "The Science states that face masks are of no value," Dr. Fauci might be embarrassed when it becomes necessary to reverse course, but The Science doesn't give a damn.
>
> None of the preceding is a "claim about the actions of an encompassing set of people."
>
> Nothing in the original post referred to people (human scientists in this case) but solely to the entity, The Science.
>
> You might argue that there is no such thing as The Science, It has no ontological status. While I would agree, de jure, I would strongly disagree, de facto. Every time an eminent personage states, "The Science ..." or a politician / public health official takes action based on"The Science," their words/actions cede exactly that status.
>
> And, I still maintain that The Science is hell bent on self-destruction and, before long, will lack any vestige of credibility.
>
> Now, with regard all those people, all those scientists, in your "large set of people against whom I can test that claim, and it is about as opposite from factual accuracy as I know how to get in the world of human behavior." They, most unfortunately, collectively and individually are going to be collateral damage vis-a-vis loss of credibility.
>
> I would offer, as a supporting argument, the status of scientists in a courtroom. Two humans assert opposing claims as to what The Science says. The assertions of the humans is discounted because The Science has no credibility and neither human has derivative credibility. The jury/judge must find grounds other than credibility for believing one individual scientist over the other.
>
> I do find it perplexing that scientists, as a body, allow The Science to usurp their knowledge and legitimate authority; why they allow The Science to speak on their behalf, even when they profoundly disagree.
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2020, at 4:18 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>>> On May 30, 2020, at 12:32 AM, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>> Science suffers from a similar problem. Making assertions as if they were unalloyed accurate and True Facts when they know that the models, the assumptions, the data (lack of) generate more ambiguity and conclude little more than probabilities. And they constantly change. But Science remains unable to admit to error or ambiguity — generating a facade that is just as false as the "We are always in the right" facade of police departments.
>> That’s a lot of bullshit.
>>
>> It is a general claim about the actions of an encompassing set of 
>> people.  I have a large set of people against whom I can test that 
>> claim, and it is about as opposite from factual accuracy as I know how 
>> to get in the world of human behavior.
>>
>> You are, of course, free to believe whatever serves your own needs, and 
>> I continue to support your right to do it unmolested.  You are even 
>> free to troll up to whatever limits the board moderators consider 
>> appropriate, and I can’t imagine the above comes anywhere near 
>> infringing on a limit of decency.
>>
>> However, if you are trolling in a public place, it is reasonable for 
>> someone else to flag the trolling as bullshit.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. 
>> . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
>>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
>