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

Sat May 30 19:26:57 EDT 2020

A more optimistic view.  All Harvard president's are vigorously criticized
by the faculty and the Harvard Crimson.  President Bacow is no exception.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: *Lawrence S. Bacow* <president at harvard.edu>
Date: Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:05 PM
Subject: What I believe

[image: Harvard University - Office of the President]
------------------------------
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

The last several months have been disorienting for all of us. COVID-19 has
profoundly disrupted the lives of people worldwide. It has caused more than
365,000 deaths around the globe and more than 100,000 in the United States
alone. Forty million Americans have lost their jobs, and countless others
live in fear of both the virus and its economic consequences.

In the midst of this incomprehensible loss, our nation has once again been
shocked by the senseless killing of yet another black person—George
Floyd—at the hands of those charged with protecting us. Cities are
erupting. Our nation is deeply divided. Leaders who should be bringing us
together seem incapable of doing so.

I cannot help but think back to 1968, the spring of my junior year in high
school. First, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, then Bobby
Kennedy. Riots broke out in nearby Detroit, as they did across the country.
Then, like now, our nation was hugely polarized, and we desperately
struggled to find common ground that might unite us.

At the time, hope was in short supply. It seemed difficult to imagine how
we would move forward, but we did. As I think about the challenges that we
face today, I return again and again to what I believe:

I believe in the goodness of the people of this country—and in their
resilience.

I believe that all of us, liberal and conservative, Democrat and
Republican, whatever our race or ethnicity, want a better life for our
children.

I believe that America should be a beacon of light to the rest of the world.

I believe that our strength as a nation is due in no small measure to our
tradition of welcoming those who come to our shores in search of freedom
and opportunity, individuals who repay us multiple times over through their
hard work, creativity, and devotion to their new home.

I believe in the American Dream.

I believe in the Constitution, the separation of powers, the First
Amendment—especially the right to a free and independent press that holds
those in power accountable, and to a free and independent judiciary.

I believe in the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the
laws—for everyone, not just for those who look like me.

I believe that no person is above the law regardless of the office they
hold or the uniform they wear. Those who break the law must be held
accountable.

I believe that one measure of the justness of a society is how it treats
its most vulnerable members.

I believe we must provide opportunity to those who may not encounter it on
their own so that they may achieve their full potential.

I believe in the power of knowledge and ideas to change the world, of
science and medicine to defeat disease, of the arts and humanities to
illuminate the human condition.

This is just some of what I believe. I hope you will pause during these
troubled times to ask what you believe. Even more importantly, I hope you
will find the strength and determination to act on your beliefs—to repair
and perfect this imperfect world. Those of us privileged to work or study
at a place like this bear special responsibilities. As Luke teaches us,
from those to whom much is given, much is expected.

Sincerely,
Larry

Lawrence S. Bacow
President
Harvard University
------------------------------
© 2020 The President and Fellows of Harvard College | Harvard.edu
<http://click.hu.harvard.edu/?qs=d5ea9cee160c7b2d9a7e908b2a1b12e6f4fa6952178d2aa1302cd7ef5fabcf403636162b42aebaa3e4143d2a41afffed3815599b108b0398>

Harvard University | Massachusetts Hall | Cambridge, MA 02138
Harvard respects your privacy. Please see our privacy statement
<http://click.hu.harvard.edu/?qs=d5ea9cee160c7b2d8341bd86ca61c43f7a54d6d6daba0c63002ce6501effd0924f3a456ec4847c407b5c66285c3f6014ab7a866947e1aea4>
for
more information.

Removal Instructions: If you no longer wish to receive Special Announcement
email messages from Harvard University Leadership, please unsubscribe
<http://click.hu.harvard.edu/unsub_center.aspx?qs=047d1c35534d068e8b292b61fd95ed7466bbb30fb763bc2b4dbb08be6560835efcfd008edfc7f4384e0244dbfc7603ec3a6e009d24ed3a62d99f396f5c5ead69d300da2cb66a4d23>
.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sat, May 30, 2020, 5:16 PM Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Steve,
>
> I believe it possible (easy actually) to make parallel assertions and
> arguments for XYZ(tm); substituting religion, PC. christianity, islam, et.
> al. for XYZ. Equally possible (easy) for Politically Correct Enlightened
> (Woke) Liberal Democrats(tm)
>
> I picked on Science(tm) this time because it is fresh and raw in my mind.
> In the past I have picked on PCE(W)LD(tm) because, IMO, failure to answer
> Mathew's question, 'Why beholdest thou the *mote* that is in thy
> brother's *eye*, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own *eye*?"
> has created a political situation, in this country, the guarantees an
> outcome (re-election) that so many say is abhorrent.
>
> davew
>
> Nick - what Eric said about baiting.
>
> davew
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2020, at 2:32 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
> 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 UniversityThompNickSon2 at gmail.comhttps://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <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
> 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> <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://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/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://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/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/20200530/278a6fa4/attachment.html>