<div dir="ltr"><div>I was completely ignorant of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergot">history/impacts of ergot</a> before this thread. Fascinating!</div><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">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">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">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">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">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a><br>
> > <a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a><br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com" target="_blank">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">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">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">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a> <a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a><br>
> > > <br>
> > > <br>
> > > <br>
> > > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > > From: Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com" target="_blank">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">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>