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

Steve Smith sasmyth at swcp.com
Sat May 30 16:32:52 EDT 2020 

Dave -

> All but the last paragraph of my trolling post can be seen a simple "baiting."  The last paragraph:
>
> "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."
>
> is not.

I think you are correct... your last line was well crafted and the
timing of the delivery was apt to slide by (me) the first time and loom
large when reflected upon later.  And the point it makes is important.

If Science(tm) is a Strawman for science itself, then  we have a simple
explanation for the nature of your argument, but I think it is more
subtle (and nefarious?) than that?

If you replace Science(tm) with Religion(tm) or more
typically/poignantly Christianity(tm) in our culture and scientists with
christians, the same argument holds.  Our Christian(tm)-in-Chief (throw
open the doors of the churches and synagogs and mosques, and temples for
Easter so my people can be touched by God (and Covid19)  what? muslims?
jews? buddhists? hindus? zoroasterians?))seems to have demonstrated so
pervasive of un/anti-Christian behaviour and values in his life, and
more relevantly in his tenure while *on the job* in that highest office,
that we wonder how the "moral majority" of christians (or Christians as
my spell-checker insists) don't hold him and the myriad other the
Christians(tm) to task, or in check?   I know that the extreme Christian
Right Agenda is not his only plank nor support by any means, but I think
without them he'd be fully upside down long ago.  He is shrewd.

So what is it about us (not sure how to scope "us") that leads us to
allow our presumed Identity/Vocation co-opted so easily (eagerly in some
cases)?   You make a good case that science and scientists often have
their good name co-opted by those who will claim anything to gain
leverage over others and they/we can be complicit.   This is not unique
(I hope I've made a case-by-examples above) to Science(tm) vs scientists
by any means.

You may flog Science(tm) while I flog Christianity(tm) or
Conservatism(tm) and Glen maybe flogs the Newage(tm) and Metaphor(tm)
and Nick flogs RecreationalDrugCulture(tm) with our wet noodles of
choice...   while Donald flogs Alligators with Crocodiles and possible
philanderer-peers with his own grabby little hands, and the
LawNOrder(tm) faction flogs protestors (with batons, flash-bangs,
tear-gas, pepper-spay, rubber bullets, and the hard edges of their
riot-shields, accusations of being Criminals(tm), unPatriotic(tm),
DomesticTerrorists(tm), and PawnsOfForiegnPowers(tm) ), but does all
this achieve our stated goals?   Or some hidden agenda we might have? 
Or are we just confused?  Incompetent? Tangled up in our own tangled web
of attempted deceit?

Do those who rail against Science(tm) actually help to make sure that
science is used/practiced/applied/deferred to properly?  Or is that
railing (flogging) intended to discredit not only XYZ(tm) but  in fact
xyz itself?   Is your ~XYZ(tm) stance held to support/protect xyz or is
in fact ~XYZ(tm) crafted to undermine xyz because somehow xyz feels
~ABC(tm) to you?   Or to decode this, does science (for example)
threaten your religion (mormonism, christianity, mysticism,
psychonautary, for example), leading you to want a proxy war against
XYZ(tm) to weaken xyz so that abc/ABC(tm) can outcompete/crush it?   To
many who  don't trust ABC(tm), I can see why they accept XYZ(tm) as a
proxy for xyz.   Reverse Science->xyz and Religion->abc and I *think*
all of the logic works identically.  

By the way, I think you would enjoy Jim Dodge's Stone Junction
<https://www.amazon.com/Stone-Junction-Jim-Dodge/dp/0802135854> which I
pointed Glen to recently, if for significantly different reasons.  The
common theme for me was (mostly) righteous counter-culture.

- Steve

BTW to all... my recent Candide/Polylanna utterances about a coming
"great turning" (ala Joanna Macy's version
<https://www.ecoliteracy.org/article/great-turning> ) feel yet more
Pollyanna as I listen to the rhetoric of the likes of the Minnesota
Governer trying to paint the entireity of the protests across the
country as being architected by "foriegn powers" and "domestic
terrorists" and endorsing our Strongman-in-Chief to activate the
military (they are saying military and military police and Pentagon, NOT
National Guard who I think are already activated).   This sounds like
another escalation of abuse of power? 


>
> The Media, "Authorities," Politicians, Leaders of Churches (and other special interest organizations/corporations) do not misunderstand science as much as they know they can mis-use science — as The Science(tm) — with impunity.
>
> Those, actual scientists, that, I think, have the most to lose from this mis-use, seem to be (mostly) silent and acquiescent.
>
> Nick put 'the public' in the list of those that misunderstand science. I exclude them, and, except for the rabid minority (e.g. those that think evolution means great-great-great-grandpa was a chimpanzee) I would exclude them from the list of abusers.  I think the public is far more aware and far more sophisticated than credited. For example: Stephen Hawking's and Stephen Gould's books were best sellers. From conversations in bars and cafes and libraries and bookstores, I believe, that they were widely read and understood — by the public.
>
> Because they understand, they see through the pretensions of The Science(tm) and because scientists stand (mostly) mute, they get tarred with the same skepticism that The Science(tm) actually merits.
>
> I think this is dangerous! For public policy, society, and humanity.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2020, at 9:16 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>> Dave, 
>>
>> I think what you have here is a demonstration of how monstrously the 
>> media and the public (and Ted Talks) mis-understand "science".  But to 
>> join in your critique, I think we have to embrace that 
>> misunderstanding.  Thus you posts seek to congeal that which you abhor. 
>>  NO? 
>>
>> Nicholas Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>> Clark University
>> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>  
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
>> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 8:51 AM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Science Commits Suicide (yes, another trolling headline)
>>
>> 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/ 
>>
>>
>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. 
>> . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
>> 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/ 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200530/18638e62/attachment.html>

More information about the Friam mailing list