I do appreciate that, and full well understand the pain of having clear understandings rebuffed by the contorted fears of others that they could not be expected to untangle with even the clearest of simple information provided. What I'm talking about is the 'go along' concession in either casual or formal communication that reduces all opinion to equal validity, when that is incorrect. When speaking things one knows, the quality of your own clarity an full comprehension should be part of the message, and not withdrawn for the sake of being pleasant. Learning how to speak truthfully without being argumentative is another part of the trick, because turbulent word throwing isn't usually helpful, of course. Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:56 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. Sorry, Phil, I misread and hence misquoted. My mistake. I personally know no one, scientist or otherwise, who does not speak out against this war. (No, that's not true. I am acquainted with some people who feel so invested in this administration and Republicanism in general that they think the majority of us have simply failed to see the light, and history will show, blah blah blah. There's no arguing with such people. That's their "truth.") As for the tales the members of the administration who promulgated this war tell their mirrors, I have no idea. They got orders from God? I'm told that after Vietnam, the junior officers who had watched the senior officers lie their way through light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel stuff until the last moment said to each other: we will never do that; we will resign first. Some did. Some told the truth to power and were quickly replaced (Shinseki, for example). Others understood that the president is commander in chief of the armed forces under our constitution, and however wrong-headed his ideas might be, it was their duty to follow those orders, because that was an oath they had taken. It's never easy. On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:18 PM, phil henshaw wrote: I guess I think science is mostly an art of speaking accurately about those things it is possible to be accurate about. Since it seems the fault in Iraq, is that our army is at war with an indigenous culture, because it mistakenly tried to 'clean-up' the violent objectors to our occupation as if they were stragglers in Saddam's army, and so stirred up a firestorm of hatred for us that had not been there before, people should speak plainly about it and not defer to the rules of polite conversation when perpetuates a war crime of any large or small proportion. We should be truthful when we know the truth. Accepting the right of anyone to have any opinion does not mean that you need to not state the facts you know yourself with their full value. You did slightly misquote me, though, my phrase "comity of political/military deceit" you substituted 'defeat' for some reason. Comity is the way to getting along with people, and hides a lot of what goes into the sausage of government, a glue that holds all kinds of things together. I'm not suggesting we abandon that, but for speaking plane and true where it matters, dropping the polite 'well you may be right' nod of deference for people who are clearly committing great crimes. Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 10:05 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. I must have missed where science was deferring to the "comity of political/military defeat." Most scientists, and for that matter, most professional military people, deplore this gap, though gap is too nice a word for blindly pursuing ideology in the face of facts. If you follow it at all, you know that the present administration has gutted scientific committees meant to advise or make scientific policy for the government and loaded them with politically safe ignoramuses. But you find the same pattern in many significant areas--health care, the drug problem, education, foreign policy generally. I put it to an historian I know: when did we stop being a nation of Yankee pragmatists and start being a nation of ideologues? On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:03 AM, phil henshaw wrote: Well, where's the gap between knowledge and it's practical use then? We're using a method in Iraq designed for certain failure (because of strategies modeled on attacking a phantom enemy unlike the one actually interfering with our plans) and causing huge harm in every direction. add the 15% of our own soldiers that come bask with serious permanent psycological dammage. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13 from New Eng J of Med. I was looking to see if young soldiers would be more senstitive to mental damage from it, as i would expect, but this article doesn't break that out. If sci defers to the 'comity of plotical/military deceit' , as it would look to me is the problem, what's the point of calling it science? Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:02 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. On Jul 8, 2007, at 7:31 PM, phil henshaw wrote: Good observation, about using young mend when they are most maleable for making platoons and follow commands. It's the opportunity for emergent structure, as well as in this case, people who wish to exploite it, that makes the difference. I don't generally buy the evolutionary value laden self interest of genes idea for what makes systems powerful, but how the confluence of diverse factors and a catalyst actually engage a developmental process. And it's often contradictions like the fact that these are not the men most fit for the job, but the ones dumb enough for the job, that raises the questions that reveal what's actually going on. Older men would think more. Bad for armies! I had no idea when I read this (a revelation to me at the time) whether it was empirical observation all senior officers in armies understood, or grounded in biology. Both, apparently, but for centuries, empirical observation served well enough. As for your next two paragraphs, Phil, I do believe many in the military understand the situation completely--my 80-year-old cousin, who served as a member of the British SAS in WW II, yelled at me on the phone last night: "A field army can never fight a guerilla army." It's no secret. Whether the officers who understand it have--or once had--the power to do anything about it I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Those who once balked have been replaced. Our military is quite properly under the direction of civilians. I hope it will always be so, even when the civilians fail as egregiously to understand things as they have failed in this instance. "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
