Steve, I believe it possible (easy actually) to make parallel assertions and arguments for XYZ(tm); substituting religion, PC. christianity, islam, et. al. for XYZ. Equally possible (easy) for Politically Correct Enlightened (Woke) Liberal Democrats(tm)
I picked on Science(tm) this time because it is fresh and raw in my mind. In the past I have picked on PCE(W)LD(tm) because, IMO, failure to answer Mathew's question, 'Why beholdest thou the *mote* that is in thy brother's *eye*, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own *eye*?" has created a political situation, in this country, the guarantees an outcome (re-election) that so many say is abhorrent. davew Nick - what Eric said about baiting. davew On Sat, May 30, 2020, at 2:32 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Dave - >> All but the last paragraph of my trolling post can be seen a simple >> "baiting." The last paragraph: "I do find it perplexing that scientists, as a body, allow The Science to usurp their knowledge and legitimate authority; why they allow The Science to speak on their behalf, even when they profoundly disagree." is not. > > I think you are correct... your last line was well crafted and the timing of > the delivery was apt to slide by (me) the first time and loom large when > reflected upon later. And the point it makes is important. > If Science(tm) is a Strawman for science itself, then we have a simple > explanation for the nature of your argument, but I think it is more subtle > (and nefarious?) than that? > If you replace Science(tm) with Religion(tm) or more typically/poignantly > Christianity(tm) in our culture and scientists with christians, the same > argument holds. Our Christian(tm)-in-Chief (throw open the doors of the > churches and synagogs and mosques, and temples for Easter so my people can be > touched by God (and Covid19) what? muslims? jews? buddhists? hindus? > zoroasterians?))seems to have demonstrated so pervasive of un/anti-Christian > behaviour and values in his life, and more relevantly in his tenure while *on > the job* in that highest office, that we wonder how the "moral majority" of > christians (or Christians as my spell-checker insists) don't hold him and the > myriad other the Christians(tm) to task, or in check? I know that the extreme > Christian Right Agenda is not his only plank nor support by any means, but I > think without them he'd be fully upside down long ago. He is shrewd. > So what is it about us (not sure how to scope "us") that leads us to allow > our presumed Identity/Vocation co-opted so easily (eagerly in some cases)? > You make a good case that science and scientists often have their good name > co-opted by those who will claim anything to gain leverage over others and > they/we can be complicit. This is not unique (I hope I've made a > case-by-examples above) to Science(tm) vs scientists by any means. > You may flog Science(tm) while I flog Christianity(tm) or Conservatism(tm) > and Glen maybe flogs the Newage(tm) and Metaphor(tm) and Nick flogs > RecreationalDrugCulture(tm) with our wet noodles of choice... while Donald > flogs Alligators with Crocodiles and possible philanderer-peers with his own > grabby little hands, and the LawNOrder(tm) faction flogs protestors (with > batons, flash-bangs, tear-gas, pepper-spay, rubber bullets, and the hard > edges of their riot-shields, accusations of being Criminals(tm), > unPatriotic(tm), DomesticTerrorists(tm), and PawnsOfForiegnPowers(tm) ), but > does all this achieve our stated goals? Or some hidden agenda we might have? > Or are we just confused? Incompetent? Tangled up in our own tangled web of > attempted deceit? > Do those who rail against Science(tm) actually help to make sure that science > is used/practiced/applied/deferred to properly? Or is that railing (flogging) > intended to discredit not only XYZ(tm) but in fact xyz itself? Is your > ~XYZ(tm) stance held to support/protect xyz or is in fact ~XYZ(tm) crafted to > undermine xyz because somehow xyz feels ~ABC(tm) to you? Or to decode this, > does science (for example) threaten your religion (mormonism, christianity, > mysticism, psychonautary, for example), leading you to want a proxy war > against XYZ(tm) to weaken xyz so that abc/ABC(tm) can outcompete/crush it? To > many who don't trust ABC(tm), I can see why they accept XYZ(tm) as a proxy > for xyz. Reverse Science->xyz and Religion->abc and I *think* all of the > logic works identically. > By the way, I think you would enjoy Jim Dodge's Stone Junction > <https://www.amazon.com/Stone-Junction-Jim-Dodge/dp/0802135854> which I > pointed Glen to recently, if for significantly different reasons. The common > theme for me was (mostly) righteous counter-culture. > - Steve > BTW to all... my recent Candide/Polylanna utterances about a coming "great > turning" (ala Joanna Macy's version > <https://www.ecoliteracy.org/article/great-turning> ) feel yet more Pollyanna > as I listen to the rhetoric of the likes of the Minnesota Governer trying to > paint the entireity of the protests across the country as being architected > by "foriegn powers" and "domestic terrorists" and endorsing our > Strongman-in-Chief to activate the military (they are saying military and > military police and Pentagon, NOT National Guard who I think are already > activated). This sounds like another escalation of abuse of power? > >> The Media, "Authorities," Politicians, Leaders of Churches (and other >> special interest organizations/corporations) do not misunderstand science as >> much as they know they can mis-use science — as The Science(tm) — with >> impunity. Those, actual scientists, that, I think, have the most to lose from this mis-use, seem to be (mostly) silent and acquiescent. Nick put 'the public' in the list of those that misunderstand science. I exclude them, and, except for the rabid minority (e.g. those that think evolution means great-great-great-grandpa was a chimpanzee) I would exclude them from the list of abusers. I think the public is far more aware and far more sophisticated than credited. For example: Stephen Hawking's and Stephen Gould's books were best sellers. From conversations in bars and cafes and libraries and bookstores, I believe, that they were widely read and understood — by the public. Because they understand, they see through the pretensions of The Science(tm) and because scientists stand (mostly) mute, they get tarred with the same skepticism that The Science(tm) actually merits. I think this is dangerous! For public policy, society, and humanity. davew On Sat, May 30, 2020, at 9:16 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Dave, I think what you have here is a demonstration of how monstrously the media and the public (and Ted Talks) mis-understand "science". But to join in your critique, I think we have to embrace that misunderstanding. Thus you posts seek to congeal that which you abhor. NO? Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University >>> [email protected] >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 8:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Science Commits Suicide (yes, another trolling headline) Eric, (BTW - nothing said by anyone on this list will ever be taken, at least by me, as a personal attack. Frank and blunt "bullshit" is always a possible and possibly called for response to anything, anyone says.) That said — au contraire, Eric. There is an incongruity between what I said, it being labeled BS, and the rationale for the labeling. For the past five months I have read headlines and seen references in stories that prominently state, "Science says ... ," "The Science tells us ...," "Science suggests ... ," "The Science is settled," etc. (I am not certain how or why The Science ever became disgruntled and in need of settling, but ...) I have seen eminent human beings stating, "Science says ..." and politicians (never eminent in my opinion) claiming to be doing, "What The Science tells us." I am pretty sure that "Science" and "The Science" refer to the same entity, just as Dave and David. So, even though I have never met this entity, I am pretty confident in asserting that It is arrogant, authoritative, claims to be inerrant, and It dissembles (and or lies) constantly. The Science does make assertions as if they were unalloyed True Facts. if The Science is caught out It simply changes the subject — much like another well known public figure. The Science has no regard for the humans it uses as mouthpieces for Its assertions. So when Dr. Fauci channels The Science in stating, "Science suggests we have nothing to worry about from this virus" or "The Science states that face masks are of no value," Dr. Fauci might be embarrassed when it becomes necessary to reverse course, but The Science doesn't give a damn. None of the preceding is a "claim about the actions of an encompassing set of people." Nothing in the original post referred to people (human scientists in this case) but solely to the entity, The Science. You might argue that there is no such thing as The Science, It has no ontological status. While I would agree, de jure, I would strongly disagree, de facto. Every time an eminent personage states, "The Science ..." or a politician / public health official takes action based on"The Science," their words/actions cede exactly that status. And, I still maintain that The Science is hell bent on self-destruction and, before long, will lack any vestige of credibility. Now, with regard all those people, all those scientists, in your "large set of people against whom I can test that claim, and it is about as opposite from factual accuracy as I know how to get in the world of human behavior." They, most unfortunately, collectively and individually are going to be collateral damage vis-a-vis loss of credibility. I would offer, as a supporting argument, the status of scientists in a courtroom. Two humans assert opposing claims as to what The Science says. The assertions of the humans is discounted because The Science has no credibility and neither human has derivative credibility. The jury/judge must find grounds other than credibility for believing one individual scientist over the other. I do find it perplexing that scientists, as a body, allow The Science to usurp their knowledge and legitimate authority; why they allow The Science to speak on their behalf, even when they profoundly disagree. davew On Fri, May 29, 2020, at 4:18 PM, David Eric Smith wrote: >>> >>>> Dave, >>>> >>>>> On May 30, 2020, at 12:32 AM, Prof David West <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: Science suffers from a similar problem. Making assertions as if they were unalloyed accurate and True Facts when they know that the models, the assumptions, the data (lack of) generate more ambiguity and conclude little more than probabilities. And they constantly change. But Science remains unable to admit to error or ambiguity — generating a facade that is just as false as the "We are always in the right" facade of police departments. >>>>> >>>> That’s a lot of bullshit. It is a general claim about the actions of an encompassing set of people. I have a large set of people against whom I can test that claim, and it is about as opposite from factual accuracy as I know how to get in the world of human behavior. You are, of course, free to believe whatever serves your own needs, and I continue to support your right to do it unmolested. You are even free to troll up to whatever limits the board moderators consider appropriate, and I can’t imagine the above comes anywhere near infringing on a limit of decency. However, if you are trolling in a public place, it is reasonable for someone else to flag the trolling as bullshit. Eric -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe >>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>> >>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe >>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> >> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... >> ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... > ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
