[FRIAM] Science Commits Suicide (yes, another trolling headline)
thompnickson2 at gmail.com
thompnickson2 at gmail.com
Sat May 30 16:38:52 EDT 2020
Yeh. I don’t know how I think about this baiting thing. What good comes of baiting? Debating is one thing; baiting seems to me quite another.
N
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
<mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
<https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 2:33 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Science Commits Suicide (yes, another trolling headline)
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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 8:51 AM
To: friam at redfish.com <mailto: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 <mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm> <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/20200530/99af4fa1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list