<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dave, et al -</p>
<p>These are fecund times. The time between the lightning and the
thunder - "when all things are possible". Or maybe, if you have a
more apocalyptic bent, the beginning of the "end of times".
William Gibson's "Jackpot" perhaps (to be more ambiguous). <br>
</p>
<p> I think Churchill tried on (in oratorial style):<br>
</p>
<p> "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the
end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."</p>
<p>In closing your "trip report" a dozen posts back you referenced
once again, the likelihood of a violent clash between Left and
Right or Red and Blue as a next logical/likely step in the path we
seem to be stumbling (shambling?) down right now.</p>
<p>The recent (armed) protests at state capitals, demanding that the
Governors "open up the state" do seem foreboding. An almost
self-abusive desire to trigger a breakdown in social order.<br>
</p>
<p>The (""<i>failing!!!!""</i> double-scare-quotes) New York Times
opinion piece <a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-inequality-america.html">The
America We Need</a> from 10 days ago (feels much longer in
Corona Time) exposes one side of the challenge (how modern
society/America has been failing) and a hopeful response (how this
crisis could help galvanize us to become who we need to be
collectively). I'd love to hear something from the Right with an
equally constructive perspective. Maybe I just have my ear on the
wrong rail but I only hear "boom or bust" talk from the Right.<br>
</p>
<p>Living with one foot in each camp (Red and Blue) I believe that
the divide we feel is on one hand very real, but on the other
deliberately aggravated as a way to keep us in dynamic tension (or
more simply pitted-against one another) while those with most
power keep stirring us up and raking off the top. Red/Right sees
the threat of government/wealthy/elite/??? one way while Blue/Left
see what I think is roughly the same threat very differently.
But it might very well be the very same threat, and the pointy end
is designed to keep us divided.<br>
</p>
<p>And lest we create a strong "other" to reject/resent/hate/fear:
"We have met the enemy, and they is us". <br>
</p>
<p>The deficit-hawk, small-government GOP has been building up a
State like none before it, and while they (and the NRA) are
encouraging their loyal followers to arm themselves to the teeth,
double down on ammunition, all the while militarizing the police,
loading them up with armored personnel carriers and
fully-automatic weapons (opposite the citizen's semi-autos), and
bullet-proof vests, helmets and shields to maintain overwhelming
force. Meanwhile, the Dems might be trying to nurture us out of
our dysfunction and misery, sometimes disabling us more in the
process, and the wealthy on that side are raking their share off
of that, elbow to elbow at the same trough. <br>
</p>
<p>We ship our (two hybrid strains of tomato and two germ-lines of
beef) food halfway across the country (add coffee, avocados and
bananas - world) from agri-industry-chemical soaked feed-lots and
(formerly) fertile valleys and plains, burning fossil fuels (not
just in the machines, but to make the hyper-fertilizer now
needed). Whether we shop at Trader Joes, or Whole Foods, or Bob's
Butcher or just order up Trump Steaks, we HAVE built a house of
cards which is bending under the weight of this pandemic. <br>
</p>
<p> Why does it feel like a segment of the population just wants to
knock it down?</p>
<p>Is there a constructive route up and out of this mess? The
pandemic has exposed a LOT more of the weaknesses in our
economy/society as this current administration has exposed the
weaknesses in our government. It seems like an opportunity to
try to rebuild thoughtfully rather than "tear it down" or "patch
it back the way it was".</p>
<p>Guardedly Hopeful,</p>
<p> - Steve (574)<br>
</p>
<p class="bq_fq_a" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px
5px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; color:
rgb(102, 102, 102); font-style: normal; text-align: left;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9583ee6e-fc45-4e7f-a44c-fb9dff4b63c8@www.fastmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Nick,
There is truth in what you say, but only a bit.
I have certainly spoken as if "Science was a bunch of nasty people with vested interests acting in an exclusionary manner."
Hyperbole.
A better metaphor / analogy would be the way we have hybridized our food supply; e.g. 90 percent of all dairy cows have one of two bulls in their ancestry, there are one or two tomato hybrids, one or two strains of rice, wheat, corn, etc.
This creates a huge vulnerability — a novel pest or disease and presto, no food supply.
Now imagine that there are multiple species of investigation, thinking, knowledge.
Since the Age of Enlightenment, the western world has been hell bent on hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly, Science).
Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a privileged status that it tolerates no criticism and critics are "excommunicated" with prejudice.
I would like to think of myself as someone interested in growing heritage tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in taste and texture and finding very deep value from the use of them in culinary creations.
davew
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Dave,
No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch
of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding,
has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that
lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It
is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble
baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is
a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for
Archimedes.
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of
anthropological observtions
Nick,
I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative
means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability
THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" —
ergo there is no argument to lose.
If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion
— it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid
Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine,
Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the
most part, excluded from Science.
davew
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Dave,
You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any
investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to
declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that
discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and
you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a
method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical
structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's science."
I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must
have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch".
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a>
Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of
anthropological observtions
Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their predictions.
1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as
everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation),
pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of
winning the election.
2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" he will win.
3- davew - Trump will win.
# 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his prediction.
The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc.
to come to their conclusions.
Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his
book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques
he did use.
davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty.
QUESTIONS: Are there different approaches, different avenues,
different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I am being vague here
because I do not know how to make the question precise. But it would
have something to do with different definitions of what is considered
data and different techniques/tools for digesting that data to form
conclusions — in this instance predictions.
If there are different approaches, is a comparative analysis of them
possible? desirable?
Different approaches — useful in different contexts? How to determine
appropriate contexts.
Or, is there but one avenue to knowledge — Science — and all else is
idiosyncratic opinion?
Personally, I think there is use in pursuing this type of question and
then using the answers / insights to makes sense of the multiple
conversations concerning COVID and the response thereto.
davew
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .-
... .... . ...
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>
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .-
... .... . ...
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>
<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>
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .-
... .... . ...
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>
<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>