<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">SG -<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOmOqnJUmOTTmJ_K+JL4_PpJjFYJ9LHCR9ERzHEP0Nu8i4qAaw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I was completely ignorant of the <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergot"
moz-do-not-send="true">history/impacts of ergot</a> before
this thread. Fascinating!</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>so now you have added (upped the game of) "ergot" to your argot!</p>
<p>Language of thieves?!</p>
<p> <a href="https://grammarist.com/usage/argot-vs-ergot/">https://grammarist.com/usage/argot-vs-ergot/</a></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>-SS<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOmOqnJUmOTTmJ_K+JL4_PpJjFYJ9LHCR9ERzHEP0Nu8i4qAaw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In this context, we can think about Dave's different ways
of knowing when we show cause and evidence that someone is a
witch.<br>
</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Science: <a
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g</a> </li>
<li> LSD: Ergo the Ergot: LSD, Causation and Evidence
<a
href="https://www.vox.com/2015/10/29/9620542/salem-witch-trials-ergotism"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.vox.com/2015/10/29/9620542/salem-witch-trials-ergotism</a> <br>
</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 7:47
AM Prof David West <<a href="mailto:profwest@fastmail.fm"
moz-do-not-send="true">profwest@fastmail.fm</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">addendum: I was
interrupted mid-post<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
davew<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020, at 6:24 AM, Prof David West wrote:<br>
> Nick,<br>
> <br>
> There is truth in what you say, but only a bit.<br>
> <br>
> I have certainly spoken as if "Science was a bunch of
nasty people with <br>
> vested interests acting in an exclusionary manner."<br>
> <br>
> Hyperbole.<br>
> <br>
> A better metaphor / analogy would be the way we have
hybridized our <br>
> food supply; e.g. 90 percent of all dairy cows have one
of two bulls in <br>
> their ancestry, there are one or two tomato hybrids,
one or two strains <br>
> of rice, wheat, corn, etc.<br>
> <br>
> This creates a huge vulnerability — a novel pest or
disease and presto, <br>
> no food supply.<br>
> <br>
> Now imagine that there are multiple species of
investigation, thinking, <br>
> knowledge.<br>
> <br>
> Since the Age of Enlightenment, the western world has
been hell bent on <br>
> hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly,
Science).<br>
> <br>
> Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a
privileged status <br>
> that it tolerates no criticism and critics are
"excommunicated" with <br>
> prejudice.<br>
> <br>
> I would like to think of myself as someone interested
in growing <br>
> heritage tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the
differences in <br>
> taste and texture and finding very deep value from the
use of them in <br>
> culinary creations.<br>
> <br>
> davew<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, <a
href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br>
> > Dave, <br>
> > <br>
> > No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you,
Science is a bunch <br>
> > of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on
that understanding, <br>
> > has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a
set of practices that <br>
> > lead to understandings of experience that endure
the test of time. It <br>
> > is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If
pot smoking in bubble <br>
> > baths leads to understandings that endure the test
of time, then it is <br>
> > a scientific method. Something like that seemed
to have worked for <br>
> > Archimedes. <br>
> > <br>
> > Nick <br>
> > <br>
> > Nicholas Thompson<br>
> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology<br>
> > Clark University<br>
> > <a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a><br>
> > <a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a><br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: Friam <<a
href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>>
On Behalf Of Prof David West<br>
> > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM<br>
> > To: <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">friam@redfish.com</a><br>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked
from the tail end of <br>
> > anthropological observtions<br>
> > <br>
> > Nick,<br>
> > <br>
> > I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe
that, IF alternative <br>
> > means with some kind of criteria for
falsifiability and repeatability <br>
> > THEN they should be incorporated into that which
is deemed "Science" — <br>
> > ergo there is no argument to lose.<br>
> > <br>
> > If there is an argument — and there is clearly a
difference of opinion <br>
> > — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic
Alchemy, Acid <br>
> > Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description,
Ayurvedic Medicine, <br>
> > Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the
moment and for the <br>
> > most part, excluded from Science.<br>
> > <br>
> > davew<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, <a
href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br>
> > > Dave,<br>
> > > <br>
> > > You're going to lose this argument with me
eventually, because any <br>
> > > investigatory practice that works in the long
run I am going to <br>
> > > declare to be part of "the scientific
method." So if you declare that <br>
> > > discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds
bath smoking pot, and <br>
> > > you can describe a repeatable practice which
includes that as a <br>
> > > method, and that method produces enduring
intellectual and practical <br>
> > > structures such as the periodic table, then I
will simply say, "That's science."<br>
> > > <br>
> > > I am not sure this works with my
falsifiability schtik, but that must <br>
> > > have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before
lunch".<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Nick<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Nicholas Thompson<br>
> > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University <br>
> > > <a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a>
<a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a><br>
> > > <br>
> > > <br>
> > > <br>
> > > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > > From: Friam <<a
href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>>
On Behalf Of Prof David West<br>
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM<br>
> > > To: <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">friam@redfish.com</a><br>
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction —
forked from the tail end of <br>
> > > anthropological observtions<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Consider three entities making 2016 political
predictions and their predictions.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate
Silver (albeit as <br>
> > > everyone notes, the citation was more
interpretation than citation), <br>
> > > pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times,
has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of <br>
> > > winning the election.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will
win to "almost certain" he will win.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > 3- davew - Trump will win.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > # 3 is a fool because he made no effort
whatsoever to hedge his prediction.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > The first group used traditional polling,
statistical modelling, etc. <br>
> > > to come to their conclusions.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools
but, as described in his <br>
> > > book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric
analysis tools/techniques <br>
> > > he did use.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > davew remains coy about how he came to his
certainty.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > QUESTIONS: Are there different approaches,
different avenues, <br>
> > > different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I
am being vague here <br>
> > > because I do not know how to make the
question precise. But it would <br>
> > > have something to do with different
definitions of what is considered <br>
> > > data and different techniques/tools for
digesting that data to form <br>
> > > conclusions — in this instance predictions.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > If there are different approaches, is a
comparative analysis of them <br>
> > > possible? desirable?<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Different approaches — useful in different
contexts? How to determine <br>
> > > appropriate contexts.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Or, is there but one avenue to knowledge —
Science — and all else is <br>
> > > idiosyncratic opinion?<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Personally, I think there is use in pursuing
this type of question and <br>
> > > then using the answers / insights to makes
sense of the multiple <br>
> > > conversations concerning COVID and the
response thereto.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > davew<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
archives: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>