[FRIAM] on Feynman, again

Fri Oct 13 11:59:13 EDT 2017

Good Article. It portrays Robinson as a maverick but still a scientist who
is ultimately interested in the truth. I respect that. My question is how
does someone who respects truth get along with the Heartland institute,
which I have always thought of as a well funded machine for corporate
propaganda?  I mean, don't his views on nuclear energy stand to ruin the
fossil fuel industry that heavily funds it. He even acknowledges climate
change but views it as a good thing for humanity. Aren't we all just
speculating on the effects of anthropogenic climate change anyway. It's not
like it's happened before.

Cody Smith

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:

> Glen/Marcus -
>
> Once again, a nicely chewy (if mildly pithy) exchange here:
>
> To try to summarize my own responses...   I think Glen is suggesting (via
> Aaronson quotes/references) that some folks believe that by invoking an
> aphorism of a well-respected/famous person and finding fault with it
> (sneering?) that they thereby gain some of the power that person has
> (socially?) not unlike a cannibal-warrior eating a vanquished opponent's
> organ of choice. Or racing for pink slips?
>
> As for "Apex Predator of the Signalling World", I assume that the allusion
> is to replacing the actual discussion at hand in an arguement or
> investigation with a meta-discussion, a superset of ad-hominism?   FWIW
> I've just been watching Hugh Laurie's new (to me) role as Dr. Chance
> (Neuropsychologist cum Vigilante) in the Hulu series of that name (Chance),
> who is doing his own version of Walter White-style breaking bad, and there
> are a lot of parallels to what I *think* you are pointing out here.
>
> Regarding this Robinson fellow, he does *seem to be* a lot more credible
> (or grounded, or ???) than most of his brethren in arms.   Given that both
> of you have a strong contrarian streak of your own, I want to be careful in
> observing that "contrarianism" is one of the stronger signals (in my
> experience) for conspiracy whackadoodlery.  Just as with cinema, food,
> literary and really any form of criticism it is generally easier to let
> someone else do the heavy lifting of building something up and then just
> come along and chisel away at some of the weak spots and claim to have done
> something equally worthy (or meaningful or utilitarian?), not unlike the
> original point made by Aaronson above.    Another signature element in my
> experience is strong examples of confirmation bias.   "mainstream science"
> is also guilty of same, and perhaps that is what "alt science" legitimately
> has a claim against them (us?) for, is that there are *structural* biases
> built into funding and peer-review/publication.
>
> That said, there has to be some useful "corollary" to the idea of "just
> because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!".
> Maybe "just because you recognize and call out the biases of that which is
> mainstream doesn't make YOUR contrarian biases any more legitimate"?
>
> I'm not personally that focused on cancer itself, but am generally
> interested in human metabolism and the effects of the "diseases of
> affluence" that our first-world lives lead us to.  I find this to be an
> interesting microcosm of the global scale issues such as global climate
> change, travel-aggravated-epidemics, and diversity collapse.
>
> I found it acutely interesting that Robinson (and colleagues) would play
> the "hedge" of "if there is climate change, it seems to be good for
> humanity!".   Why can't they take those two issues fully independently and
> corroborate the "mainstream"s observations about the anthropogenic effects
> they CAN observe and then maybe (or not) make their own case for evaluating
> (not cherry picking) models of ways that might "help" the biosphere (or
> even the anthroposphere)?   I may be being sloppy, but it seems to me that
> there is a strong correlation between mere "contrarian" and a more
> insidious "strong conflation".
>
> This leaves me wondering if there are natural language processing tools
> suitable for identifying these kinds of structural failures in written
> discussion/arguement?   Maybe Google is doing this already and using the
> results to mine what is superficially fringe/crackpot/pseudo-science for
> the real thing (revolutionary science marginalized by the mainstream?)
>
> Carry On,
>
>  - Steve
>
>
>
>
> On 10/12/17 4:25 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
>> Like upsides to global warming, perhaps there are benefits to the
>> irrationality of scientists, like Robinson's and others'.
>> It suggests that science is an activity or an algorithm, that can be
>> conducted in parallel with arbitrary if closely-held beliefs.
>> But I'm cynical.  I'm inclined to think the scientific method is just a
>> weapon in the hands of a sufficiently wacko person to pummel the world into
>> a form they think they can manage or profit from.   Better have more
>> non-wacko people with the same skills to balance things out.   Sure, there
>> is herd behavior in all kinds of people, even the science-policy elites in
>> Washington.   Is there some harm being done by them other than to direct
>> money in a worthy direction that happens not to be to him?   The contrarian
>> needs to be clever to navigate these things and do more than complain.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>> "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our
>> humanity." - Albert Einstein
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
>> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:01 PM
>> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again
>>
>> Yep.  One of my homunculi does that to his brethren.  This came out today:
>>
>>    The Grandfather Of Alt-Science
>>    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/
>>
>> Anyone whose spent any time in Oregon knows this whack job.  And my apex
>> predator of the signaling world homunculus yells at me to hate him as the
>> crackpot he clearly is, as well as his neolithic social postions.  But
>> *most* of my other homunculi have immense respect for someone who hacks
>> their own path through the thicket, going to bat for every wannabe crackpot
>> or inventor who spends their spare time breathing solder smoke in the
>> basement or suffers regular chemical burns because they care more about
>> their objective than safety.  Yes, DIY biology is dangerous.  But hey, we
>> can't all work in the belly of some bureaucratic leviathan.
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2017 02:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> "Apex predator of the signaling world."
>>>
>>> Cute, know it well.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:37 PM
>>> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again
>>>
>>> I know.  I just thought it was an interesting post.  That we'd recently
>>> discussed Feynman was only a segue. I could also have used Russell as the
>>> segue, since Marcus quoted him in our thread.
>>>
>>> The 1st part of Aaronson's post re: Gowers is more interesting than the
>>> later stuff.
>>>
>>> On 10/12/2017 02:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I took issue not with Feynman as a person ...
>>>> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488
>>>>
>>>> if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing
>>>>> chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner
>>>>> product with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand
>>>>> above him, in the same way that set theory transcends and stands above
>>>>> arithmetic by constructing a model for it.  Feynman’s achievements don’t
>>>>> thereby become your achievements.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
>>> at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
>>> at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>> --
>> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20171013/180c3ffb/attachment.html>