RE: (Fwd) HANDBOOK OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY (fwd)
I'm glad there are people who can compose more concisely...Eva Why do they believe this? First, explicit evolutionary thinking can sometimes eliminate certain kinds of errors in thinking about behavior (Symons, 1987). ... and so on. Evolutionary theory is only intended to explain how living organisms evolve. Applying it to any other field of inquiry puts you on VERY shaky ground. *** Regards, Dave Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Trade Battle (fwd)
THE TEXT OF FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS: Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:18:00 -0500 From: Mike Dolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list TW-LIST [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The Trade Battle in case you missed this ** The Trade Battle By E. J. Dionne Jr. Tuesday, January 26, 1999; Page A19 Among the stories buried under the past year's obsession with President Clinton's scandal is a remarkable transformation in the debate over the global economy and its effect on the jobs and incomes of Americans. While everyone talks about history's verdict on Clinton and impeachment, the change in our approach to organizing the world's commerce bids to play a larger role in defining this era's historical legacy. Clinton hinted at this in his State of the Union message. "I think trade has divided us and divided Americans outside this chamber for too long," he told Congress. "Somehow we have to find a common ground. . . . We have got to put a human face on the global economy." Clinton went on to embrace a new International Labor Organization initiative "to raise labor standards around the world" and pledged to work for a treaty "to ban abusive child labor everywhere in the world." He promised trade rules that would promote "the dignity of work and the rights of workers" and "protect the environment." Behind these words is a battle that has been waged in Washington, largely out of public view, since the 1997 defeat of a bill that would have given Clinton the authority to negotiate trade treaties on a "fast track." The fast-track defeat demonstrated that liberal, pro-labor Democrats now have veto power over legislation to promote free trade and to support global economic institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Without the liberals, there aren't enough votes in Congress to pass such initiatives. These pro-labor Democrats have used their newly found influence to push for more assistance to workers who are hurt by freer trade and for stronger international rules to protect workers' rights and the environment. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) says the new situation can be explained by the division of Congress into three groups. There are, in his terms: (1) "isolationists" who are skeptical of all international institutions and free trade; (2) "trickle downers" who favor free trade and free markets but oppose any rules to regulate the global economy; and (3) "international New Dealers" who accept the global market as a reality but care passionately about lifting labor standards and wages, in the United States and elsewhere. Because the "trickle downers" lack the votes to pass free trade or support international institutions on their own, they need the "New Dealers" to create a majority. The Clinton administration, particularly Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, came to realize this and opened negotiations last year with Frank and his allies -- they include House Minority Whip David Bonior (D-Mich.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). In October, Rubin sent a letter to Frank making important concessions in pursuit of the group's votes on new financing for the IMF. "I believe that one of the ways to build the confidence of workers is to seek the adoption and promotion of policies abroad that will enhance the respect for core labor standards," Rubin wrote. "The United States," he went on, "will work to affect the policy dialogue between the IMF and borrowing countries so that recipient countries commit to affording workers the right to free association and collective bargaining through unions of their choosing." Rubin also pledged to push the global financial institutions "to encourage sound environmental policies." Clinton's State of the Union pledges were the logical next step in this running negotiation. Frank saw Clinton's promise to work against "abusive child labor" as especially significant. "It's important for some of the labor people, and it's one of the most visible examples that you can do something" to regulate the workings of the global marketplace. C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics, thinks the trade debate has changed fundamentally. "Most trade types thought the merits of free trade were so obvious, the benefits were so clear, that you didn't have to worry about adjustments -- you could just let the free market take care of it," he says. "The sheer political gains of the anti-globalization side in the last few years have made the free trade side realize that they have to do something to deal with the losers from free trade and the dislocations generated by globalization." This battle has only begun and the common ground that Clinton says he seeks could prove elusive. "The jury is still out," Frank says, referring to the administration's intentions. But creating a global economy that promotes growth with a measure of social justice is a big
re:democracy
Jay: ... As it has turned out, modern evolutionary scientists have found that the Founding Fathers were right: true democracy won?t work. Natural selection and genetic development created a human tendency for dominance, submission, hierarchy, and obedience, as opposed to equality and democracy. As one political scientist recently put it: "[ Evolutionary scientists ] Somit and Peterson provide an informative account of the evolutionary basis for our historical (and current) opposition to democracy. For many, this will be an unwelcome message ? like being told that one?s fly is unzipped. But after a brief bout of anger, we tend to thank the messenger for sparing us further embarrassment." ... Natural selection and genetic development works in a much larger time scale than social depelopment that may change human hierarchical, obedient etc behaviour in less than a generation and such socially conditioned behaviour forms are not genetically inheritable. Anyone who uses the winners/losers biological evolution argument for the development of human society is ready to blame the failures of social structure on human characteristics, and ready to condemn sections of society, rather than to condenm inefficient social structures. A straight and sinister road to fascism. Eva
re:democracy
Ed W.: ... Somehow I'm not at all surprised that this is your point of view. But then how is merit to be determined? Testing and experience, you say, but who will assess this? Surely an intelligent and informed public should have something to do with it. But, I suppose you would then argue that much of the public is neither intelligent nor informed, a point which I would, alas, have to agree with. ... Not informed , yes. But not intelligent?? I wasn't aware of any decline in public intelligence. Any data? Voting and tv vieing habits are not valid - they belong to the "not informed" bit. I am seriously concerned now. How many of this list have this total contempt for most of humanity??? Eva
Re: How science is really done
Yes, scientists are human, but when we try to define something, shouldn't it define what is, not what its practitioners mistakenly assume it to be ? Science in its description of itself denies the entire right brain creative side of itself. It does this because the mythology of science is objectivity and subjective pattern making is heresy to that mythology. Yet in fact science is a blend of the two. Science is a method. I detest any separation of thinking into "artist" and "scientist". I think we all do and need both, but this has nothing to do with the way science works. Eva Mike H Mike H: Regarding the subject of what is science and definitions which emphasized observation and rejection of theories when counter factual data is presented, I thought the two following documents would be of interest. Scientists do not as a rule observe and then theorize. They typically do it the other way round. When they find the data does not confirm the hypothesis, the usual reaction is not to reject the hypothesis, but to assume it was a bad set of data and proceed to draw another set. Scientists are human, they not always adhere to their own principles. That doesn't make those principles defunct. The good news is that the method always wins out in the long run, when all the data is in the public domain, and peers have a free run at the re-analysis. I sent on your piece on Gold for a review... Eva "So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe." -- Isaac Asimov Robert Silverberg, _Nightfall_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: Workplace sabotage on the rise as job security wanes
-- From: Sid Shniad To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Workplace sabotage on the rise as job security wanes Date: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 4:24PM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES October 31, 1998 SURE, WORKERS GET MAD BUT MORE GET EVEN Sabotage Is on the Rise As Job Security Wanes By Mary Curtius SAN FRANCISCO -- Call it work rage. As the corporate world slims down, speeds up and grows more uncertain, workers are getting mad. Anger at employers is getting more pervasive, security experts say, in a job market where few people expect to finish a career where they began it. Resentment usually surfaces in the traditional form of griping. But increasingly, it is playing itself out in a darker fashion -- sabotage. Most managers don't want to even talk about their workers who deliberately inflict damage on the job. Few companies have worked out programs to anticipate and deal with the problem. But employee sabotage is costing American corporations hundreds of millions, if not billions, dollars every year, and it is being carried out by everyone from dock workers to corporate vice presidents. Just ask Dennis Dalton, president of security firm Dalton Affiliates in Fremont, Calif. Hired recently to find out who was carving graffiti into the imported hardwood that lined one of San Francisco's best-known downtown skyscrapers, Dalton set up security cameras in the elevators and posted signs outside warning riders they were being monitored. The security consultant, a veteran of the business, could hardly believe what the videotapes recorded. Vandals repeatedly gouged profanity-laden hate messages into the wood, forcing the office tower's owners to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars replacing paneling. Both the building's owners and Dalton initially believed they were looking for outsiders, people who did not actually work in the building. "There were a group of bicycle messenger folks that we strongly suspected were the primary people," Dalton recalls. Instead, "we caught office workers using pocket knives and other instruments on the wood," he says. "It ran across the spectrum . . . to our chagrin and surprise, up popped a professional white-collar employee." All but two of the many vandals the cameras recorded, he says, were employed by firms whose offices were in the skyscraper. Companies Find the Enemy Within In another instance, Dalton says, owners of a Boston high-rise wanted him to find out who was defacing elevators lined with imported marble. "Again, we put in cameras, this time hidden -- with a court order. We found that the vandals were dock workers, secretarial- computer people, computer workers. And then we caught a vice president who wrote graffiti on the elevator's marble in response to the nasty messages from the employees. At that point, you think 'This is getting bizarre."' The lesson to be learned, Dalton says, is one a lot of managers have trouble accepting: Employee sabotage in the workplace is a common occurrence and can range from the most simple acts of vandalism to complex acts of technological revenge. Employee sabotage, particularly in the Information Age, "is a huge issue," says Barbara J. Bashein, professor of information systems at California State University at San Marcos. A specialist in computer systems and controls, Bashein wrote a report this year for the Financial Executives Research Foundation on internal corporation controls over technology. One of the things she learned, Bashein says, "is that a lot of managers believe employee sabotage won't happen to them. Our research showed that the reality is that it will happen to you because it happens to most organizations." It can be as simple as the angry employee who uses his car key to scrape paint off a row of cars in the company parking lot, security specialist Dalton says, or as complex as the computer technician who plants a virus in the company's system as her final act before taking a new job. In San Francisco a year ago, a power failure at a key downtown substation of the Pacific Gas Electric Co. plunged one-third of the city into darkness for several hours and hopelessly snarled the morning rush-hour commute. Within hours of the blackout, PGE and local law enforcement officials were declaring it an act of sabotage -- someone had turned a long row of knobs in the substation to cut the power. At the time, PGE was struggling with the adjustments caused deregulation of utilities in California. Employees who had long counted on job security were suddenly faced with the realities -- and stresses -- caused by jumping into a competitive market. From the beginning, both PGE al law enforcement officials said employees were the primary suspects because access to the substation was restricted and no one had broken in. The FBI says is still under investigation. No arrests have been made. Often, acts of employee sabotage go unreported and
Re: How science is really done
Eva Durant wrote: Science is a method. I detest any separation of thinking into "artist" and "scientist". I think we all do and need both, but this has nothing to do with the way science works. "Detest" doesn't say anything. Because both hands are the body doesn't mean that both hands are the same. REH
Re: How science is really done
Both describe reality in different ways. One person is able to do both. I don't think artists are predisposed against being good at science and vice versa. Eva Science is a method. I detest any separation of thinking into "artist" and "scientist". I think we all do and need both, but this has nothing to do with the way science works. "Detest" doesn't say anything. Because both hands are the body doesn't mean that both hands are the same. REH
FW Privatization on the way? (fwd)
Date:Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:13:42 +1300 From:Ross James Swanston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CUPE Privatization Report MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I am reposting the following report which shows that Corporations are gaining control of our public services at an alarming rate for several reasons. These are:- 1) It seems to tie in with the lead article in the local newspaper of 26/1/99 headed up:- "STAFF CUTS ON CARDS FOR COUNCIL" I would appreciate feedback on my comments as well as on the report itself. This article reports on tentative plans of the Palmerston North City Council (New Zealand), which may be included in the upcoming Draft Annual Plan. A radical review of the Council's long-term financial strategy is necessary, or so it is claimed, because of escalating local body costs. Main points of the article are - staff cutbacks, a leaner organisation, user pays water charges and possible private sector involvement in the provision of services. 2) I am seeking feedback and comment from as many list members as possible on a number of issues the newspaper article raises so as to assist in formulating 'battle' strategy well in advance of the call for public consultation and submissions on the proposals. Issues raised in the article are:- a) COSTS. According to the City Manager the existing financial strategy is politically and publically unacceptable, because gross rates will rise by 45% and debt is expected to nearly double within 10 years. Under the new strategy, "while rates and user charges would be paid separately, they collectively would remain very similar to what the rate demand is today". I find this an amazing statement. On the face of it, and judging by the "Cupe Privatization Report"attached, this seems a fallacious argument. If the 'leaner organisation' is achieved and ratepayers get very little for their 'rate dollar' while most services including water, rubbish collection, road maintenance, (you name it), is contracted out to private providers, we are likely to end up paying far more than we do today, if only for the simple reason that private providers are there to make a profit, which must come from somewhere - the long-suffering ratepayers. b) EFFICIENCY. Further efficiency gains can be achieved over the next three years by introducing improvements to "internal processes", the article claims. c) QUALITY AND SAFETY. The article emphasises that levels of service will not be reduced and neither would the Council reduce its commitment to its current 10 year capital programme. Again, I would take that statement with a 'grain of salt' as it seems that privatizing public utilities does compromise levels of service as was shown by the problems experienced by Auckland in the delivery of electricity early in 1998 and the problem with water supply only a few weeks ago. d) STAFF CUTS. Then there is the important issue of job losses. According to the City Manager, staff losses are yet to be calculated as they will depend on what efficiencies can be achieved internally. This fails to take into account the fact that the Council has been going through endless restructuring and drives towards greater efficiency ever since the New Right agenda began to be implemented in the early 1980's. One has to ask - Just how efficient can an organisation become and is there ever an end to it? One thing is certain, if Palmerston North follows the pattern of elsewhere, greater use will be made of part-time and casual labbour as well as a general contracting out of work that used to be performed by the Council. Maybe this a part of what is meant by "efficiency gains" but I am not so sure. I would appreciate as much comment and feedback on these issues as possible. Cheers Ross Swanston At 01:39 PM 1/25/99 -0500, you wrote: Last week CUPE released a wide-ranging annual report on privatization. The full text of the report can be found at the website of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, www.cupe.ca Below is a brief summary of the report and information on how to order a copy. CUPE Releases Major Report on Privatization _Workers' Summary_ Going public about privatization It's a hostile takeover that would inflame any shareholder's meeting. Corporations are gaining control of our public services at an unprecedented pace. CUPE's Annual Report on Privatization documents for the first time the depth and breadth of the corporate takeover that's happening in our hospitals, schools, municipal services, community centres, social services and utilities. When the dots are connected, a clear picture emerges of the threat to good jobs, public safety, quality and accessibility. Pillaging the public purse Contrary to the seductive patter pitching privatization, selling off public services doesn't save the public treasury money. Deals struck with corporations leave governments and taxpayers to assume the risk for many ventures and pick up the
FW New poverty measure=less poverty (fwd)
More on the Market Basket Measure of Poverty. Richard Shillington has done a great paper outlineing what is going on at; http://home.iSTAR.ca/~ers2/poverty/MBM.htm Also more background at: http://home.iSTAR.ca/~ers2/poverty/poverty.htm Thought this was worth sharing as it details the impact of income inequality and also why the market basket poverty line is a problem,
Re: democracy
Anyone who uses the winners/losers biological evolution argument for the development of human society is ready to blame the failures of social structure on human characteristics, and ready to condemn sections of society, rather than to condenm inefficient social structures. A straight and sinister road to fascism. Interesting thought but the economists who wrote the "Winner Take All Society" define this issue in the reverse. The ones pushing Winner/Loser or Social Darwinian "Creative Greed" solutions blame the social governmental structures as not being efficient in their very nature. According to them, only the private companies that have to live by the free market "natural selection" competitive process have the potential for efficiency, which is often interchanged with "productivity" although that is a confusing use of the two words. Because they think without the intrusion of govrnments, the winners/losers separation would be more perfect for them. So that they can blame then every ill on just their "inefficiently evolved" victims. ... The propaganda of the left is amply criticized in the media in the West but a truly non-military economic competition between structures of the far left and right has never happened so we can't really call Capitalism, Socialisms, Communism or any other economic ism scientific or Darwinian in that sense IMO. you lost me here. Just because they haven't competed, doesn't mean we cannot draw conclusions, even scientific conclusions. Your examples that I deleted show the shortcomings of the competitive setup for sustainability and RD. Even just these two problems cannot be solved based on market compotition system and there are more such fatal flows. So surely, you try to achieve a society without these flaws. As Ed Weick pointed out last year on this list. Such "scientific" economic writings as Marx and others are less science and more philosophy in spite of the Complexity Engineer's love of Huyek's writing structures. If I remember right Ed said that they didn't really qualify being called Economists in the modern scientific sense. But Ed will have to say whether my memory is correct or just all in my head. I find Marx's analysis scientific, because he manages to point out the features of capitalism that are unable to achieve a balanced economical and social development. It makes sense to leave them out from a future structure. This is what he proposed with very good reasoning, using all the historical and scientific data he had. That he had also had the philosophical support of dialectic materialism is just an extra plus. Eva REH
Re: (Fwd) HANDBOOK OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY (fwd)
- Original Message - From: Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do they believe this? First, explicit evolutionary thinking can sometimes eliminate certain kinds of errors in thinking about behavior (Symons, 1987). Evolutionary theory is only intended to explain how living organisms evolve. Applying it to any other field of inquiry puts you on VERY shaky ground. It's presently being used to predict primate (human) behavior. Although it's politically incorrect, it's scientifically true. Jay
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about an explicit definition of the job and explicit qualifications? We do that with every other job, why not politics? God will write them? Theocracies worked for a while, but they too had their problems -- e.g. the classic Mayas screwed up their environment just as badly as we have. Gee! Why not try science for a change?
Re: re:democracy
- Original Message - From: Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Natural selection and genetic development works in a much larger time scale than social depelopment that may change human hierarchical, obedient etc behaviour in less than a generation and such socially conditioned behaviour forms are not genetically inheritable. You are correct. Here is a longer quite from Somit Peterson that discusses "indoctrinability": --- This book seeks to explain an incontrovertible though hardly welcome fact: Throughout human history, the overwhelming majority of political societies have been characterized by the rule of the few over the many, by dominance and submission, by command and obedience. No matter the century or era, we see the same pattern -- authoritarian regimes are notable by their presence and persistence, democracies by their infrequency and impermanence. This has unarguably been the case in the past; an objective assessment of today's some two hundred polities compels the conclusion that, even in what is hailed as an "Age of Democracy," it still remains essentially the case today. The consistency of this pattern raises two very troublesome questions. First and most obvious: Why are authoritarian governments so common and enduring--and democracies, in painful contrast, so rare and, all too often, so fragile? To this question, many answers have been offered; as their sheer number and variety testifies none has yet been particularly persuasive. In this book we address the same issue but advance a quite different explanation. Although other factors are undoubtedly also operative, the most important reason for the rarity of democracy is that evolution has endowed our species, as it has the other social primates, with a predisposition for hierarchically structured social and political systems. In the pages that follow, we will try both to explain why and how this has occurred and, equally important, to anticipate the objections that likely will (and certainly should) be raised to such an unattractive thesis. The proposed explanation promptly triggers the second question: How, then, can we account for the undeniable occasional emergence of democratic polities? Many of those who have wrestled with this problem find the answer in some unique concatenation of economic, social, historical, and political "facilitating" factors. These factors undoubtedly play a role. Nonetheless, paradoxically enough, we must again turn to evolutionary theory for the necessary, though not sufficient, condition that makes democracy sometimes possible. Although it shares the proclivity of its fellow social primates for hierarchical social organization, Homo sapiens is the only species capable of creating and, under some circumstances, acting in accordance with cultural beliefs that actually run counter to its innate behavioral tendencies. The generally accepted, if lamentably awkward, term for this truly unique capacity is "indoctrinability." Celibacy and the (presumably) less demanding ideal of faithful monogamy are obvious examples of indoctrinability at work. Democracy, an idea almost as alien to our social primate nature, is another. It is indoctrinability, then, that makes it possible, given some conjunction of the aforementioned facilitating social, economic, and other, conditions, for democracies occasionally to emerge and to have some chance to survive. Our original objective was to address the two questions identified above. As we proceeded, however, a third task emerged. A neo-Darwinian perspective on the prospects of democracy in a social primate species can all too easily be misperceived as deliberately or inadvertently (the net effect is the same) antidemocratic in thrust. That is assuredly neither our position nor our desire. Our intent, rather, is to show that the democratic cause will continue to be ill served if we fail to take adequate account of our species' innate hierarchical inclinations. That evolution has endowed Homo sapiens with a genetic bias toward hierarchy, dominance, and submission need not necessarily be a counsel of despair. Better to grasp this reality than to blissfully believe that our species is innately democratic in its political tendencies and that other forms of government are unfortunate, but essentially temporary, aberrations. Only after we recognize and accept that fact can we begin to think realistically about the type of domestic and foreign policies required for the survival of democratic government, a subject to which we finally decided to devote our concluding chapter. [pp. 3,4, DARWINISM, DOMINANCE, AND DEMOCRACY: The Biological Bases of Authoritarianism, by Albert Somit and Steven A. Peterson; http://info.greenwood.com/books/0275958/0275958175.html http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275958175 Jay
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Colin Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hence the concept of Direct Democracy: " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" No thanks! I saw direct democracy in action the other night on a PBS program about Rwanda: eight-hundred-thousand dead in one hundred days. Jay
Re: democracy
Eva Durant wrote: Not informed , yes. But not intelligent?? I wasn't aware of any decline in public intelligence. Any data? Voting and tv vieing habits are not valid - they belong to the "not informed" bit. I am seriously concerned now. How many of this list have this total contempt for most of humanity??? Not contempt, Eva. Concern. The decline isn't limited to mental (brain/nervous system). No species is composed of exact replicas/equals. Adaptive fitness is a reality. Humans are the only species known that attempts to make differences disappear - a physical impossibility. For those dealing in 'souls' or 'spirits', I have nothing to say, and you have nothing to show us. This doesn't make deep democracy impossible; recall Garrett Harden's "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" as the rational way forward. (see Jay's site: dieoff.org) Steve See this report from yesterday's BBC: Humans may be collecting bad genes January 27, BBC Net http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_264000/264191.stm Better health care might be causing humans to become weaker. Humans could be getting weaker and sicker with each new generation because of a build up of bad genes. Most animals weed out harmful genetic mutations by natural selection -- only the fittest survive long enough to reproduce. But in humans the weak have been prevented from dying out by improvements in standards of living and health care. Commenting on the research published in Nature, James Crow, from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said it was likely that in this situation natural selection would "weed out mutations more slowly than they accumulate". He said: "Are some of our headaches, stomach upsets, weak eyesight and other ailments the result of mutation accumulation? Probably, but in our present state of knowledge we can only speculate." Geneticists Adam Eyre-Walker, from the University of Sussex in Brighton, and Peter Keightley, from the University of Edinburgh carried out the new research. They calculated the rate at which human genes have mutated since our ancestors split from chimpanzees six million years ago. Keightley told the BBC: "We estimate that about 4.2 new mutations have occurred on average every generation in the human lineage since we diverged from the chimpanzees, and that 1.6 of those are deleterious." That rate is so high that without other factors intervening the human race should be extinct by now. One possible reason that humans have survived is that in the past natural selection eliminated handfuls of harmful genes because individuals with lots of mutations died early, before reproducing. But it is also likely that genes which were only slightly harmful became "fixed" in successive generations. Over time these would accumulate, especially if improving living standards and health care meant that the harmful genes were less of a handicap for survival. (more links on the URL above)
Re: How science is really done
I know many former artists who have good jobs in the sciences, however the reverse is rarely true. Why? Eva Durant wrote: Both describe reality in different ways. One person is able to do both. I don't think artists are predisposed against being good at science and vice versa. Eva Science is a method. I detest any separation of thinking into "artist" and "scientist". I think we all do and need both, but this has nothing to do with the way science works. "Detest" doesn't say anything. Because both hands are the body doesn't mean that both hands are the same. REH
different language games
I've been really enjoying the manic state of FW over the last while. I've barely got time to read half the messages but I would never miss Ray E. Harrell's stuff. He sees things very differently than most. He also has the ability to slow some people down and have them think. Much of what gets discussed on this list could be described as people playing different language games. The words seem familiar and connectable but aren't. The kings in chess and checkers are very different kings. I've posted this quote before on this list but I think it deserves being repeated. Ray, I believe, knows the advice of the physicist but is not persuaded. He prefers the oracle. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein spent the last 18 months of his life(he knew he was dying of cancer) writing about 'certainty'; These writings were published after his death in the book_ On Certainty_ Blackwell, 1969. I would like to quote a short portion that he wrote 3 days before his death: "Is it wrong for me to be guided in my actions by the propositions of physics? Am I to say I have no good ground for doing so? Isn't this precisely what we call 'a good ground'? Supposing we met people who did not regard that as a telling reason. Now, how do we imagine this? Instead of physics, they consult an oracle. (And for that we consider them primitive.). Is it wrong for them to consult an oracle and be guided by it?- If we call this "wrong" aren't we using our language game as a base from which to combat theirs? And are we right or wrong to combat it? Of course there all all sorts of slogans which will be used to support our proceedings. When two principles really do meet which cannot be reconciled with one another, each man declares the other a fool and a heretic. I said I would 'combat' the other man,- but wouldn't I give him reasons? Certainly; but how far do they go? At the end of reasons comes persuasion. (Think what happens when missionaries convert natives.)." ** * Brian McAndrews, Practicum Coordinator* * Faculty of Education, Queen's University * * Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 * * FAX:(613) 533-6307 Phone (613) 533-6000x74937* * e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * "Ethics and aesthetics are one"* * Wittgenstein * ** ** **
Re: democracy
Eva Durant wrote: (snip) Because they think without the intrusion of govrnments, the winners/losers separation would be more perfect for them. So that they can blame then every ill on just their "inefficiently evolved" victims. Are you saying it is like the Christian who blames Christians for the failure of Christianity and not Christ? (snip) you lost me here. Just because they haven't competed, doesn't mean we cannot draw conclusions, even scientific conclusions. How can you be logical about something that is simply theory? Don't youneed real data before you can call it scientific?The military option that I mentioned pollutes the test of the integrity of the systems IMO. Your statement is an example of the assumptions that make an evaluation difficult. Suppose we begin with just the theory and then the data as to the success of that theory. Everything else is philosophy or prejudice, yes? Your examples that I deleted show the shortcomings of the competitive setup for sustainability and RD. They weren't examples but questions that I would like to discuss.Theoretical problems to be explored. Even just these two problems cannot be solved based on market compotition system and there are more such fatal flows. I am not tied to the market as the only system although considering themarket as one of the systems is a good idea IMHO. So surely, you try to achieve a society without these flaws. Actually I'm much too practical to believe in systems without flaws.But exploring practically the future of work, the growth of both individuals and systems and individual evolution fascilitated by an environment that allows for all of the human endeavors, is in my mind, a worthy exploration. I find Marx's analysis scientific, because he manages to point out the features of capitalism that are unable to achieve a balanced economical and social development. It makes sense to leave them out from a future structure. This is what he proposed with very good reasoning, using all the historical and scientific data he had. That he had also had the philosophical support of dialectic materialism is just an extra plus. This sounds much like the comments that I hear about Hayek on the right and his science.I'm not an expert on him but I certainly have heard a lot about him from our Libertarian right wing.Can both be truly scientific and diametrically opposed?Can we draw any conclusions about that without the input of competitive data? minus the military option? REH
FW: Public Forum on Poverty and Inequality
-- From: Sid Shniad To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Public Forum on Poverty and Inequality Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 4:43PM PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS NOTICE WIDELY __ Public Forum on Poverty and Inequality THE GROWING GAP with guest speaker Armine Yalnizyan, author of "The Growing Gap: A Report on Growing Inequality Between the Rich and Poor in Canada" Also: * How the 1999 Alternative Federal Budget would close the gap * Inequality and poverty in BC - a report by End Legislated Poverty THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11 7 PM BC Teachers' Federation (550 West 6th Ave., Vancouver) Sponsored by: * The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives * The Centre for Social Justice * End Legislated Poverty * The BC Federation of Labour
What would happen if . . .
. . . we had a four-day work week? The NEXT CITY asked Tom Walker, a social policy analyst with TimeWork Web, and Jock Finlayson, vice-president of policy and analysis for the Business Council of British Columbia, to comment. go to: http://www.nextcity.com/whatif/whatif14.htm Who makes more sense to you? Select your choice and then press below to register your vote. Tom Walker Jock Finlayson http://www.nextcity.com/WhatIf/whatif14.htm#vote Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: (Fwd) HANDBOOK OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY (fwd)
Jay, It is no more scientifically true than that the sun and planets revolve around the earth. What is really funny is that Darwin purloined his principle of selection through competition from classical economics, from Malthus in fact. So you take the dog eat dog mythology of early capitalism and apply it to biology and then "prove" that hierarchical social systems are evolutionarily determined because evolutionary biology proves it to be so. Tosh. It is a tautology from beginning to end. (As is the Darwinian "Theory" of Evolution, but that is another story). for those who would like the fine print of the argument see Richard Lewontin (a biologist who can actually think rather than merely regurgitate) Biology as Ideology. It was one of the Massey Lectures and can be sourced at the the CBC's website under the program Ideas. Mike H - Original Message - From: Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do they believe this? First, explicit evolutionary thinking can sometimes eliminate certain kinds of errors in thinking about behavior (Symons, 1987). Evolutionary theory is only intended to explain how living organisms evolve. Applying it to any other field of inquiry puts you on VERY shaky ground. It's presently being used to predict primate (human) behavior. Although it's politically incorrect, it's scientifically true. Jay
Re: different language games
Actually Brian, I have no problem nor does my culture or profession with Quantum Physics, it is just the linearity of Newtonian physics without the uncertainity of his metaphysics (action) to balance his linear objectification that I would protest. I don't believe reality is contained in either place but in both. Whether you call it balancing Science with Art, Object with Process, particle with wave or Physics with Metaphysics. As for Oracles, they are not a part of my tradition or knowledge. My guess about the Greeks is that the Oracle was a holistic diagnostician as well as skilled in reading those subtle waves that tend to shape reality in non-ordinary ways in extraordinary circumstances. For example this afternoon I had a student read my mind for almost an hour as I worked with her vocalises. When she "slipped" I would say "read my mind" and she would take correction without a word being spoken. But was there a word spoken? Was it micro-movements? Or was my projection of the physicality of the process being transferred to my face and she reversing the process from face to body and then to the activated breath?Almost any discription will be both a success and a failure depending upon the time/ space of the lesson. There have been many examples in which the vocal art has used the science, philosophy, psychology and even economics of the day to organize the vocal pedagogy so that it would be comprehensible in the language of the moment. It is often forgotten that all of these ways are really metaphors to stimulate the whole organism into an action that is comprehensible as artistic singing. They are as untrue as they are true and are discarded as soon as they cease to "work". There is always this hunger for the specificity of the Denotative Dictionary meanings that will make time stop and everyone understand but it doesn't exist. I.A. Richards spoke of the problem of the Dictionary in language which is a kind of parallel to the certainty that Wittgenstein seemed to be finding in physics. You would know better than I and he is dead and we could both be wrong. But this dead poet rhetorician put it this way: The real danger of "dictionary understanding" is that it so easily prevents us from perceiving the limitations of our understanding: a disadvantage inseparable from the advantage it gives us of concealing them from our friends Most of our devices for exhibiting feeling through words are so crude that we easily convince ourselves and others that we have understood more perfectly than is the case. Humanity's pathetic need for sympathy also encourages this illusion. Thus "dictionary understanding" of feeling, though less glib, is as treacherous as with sense. I.A. Richards "Practical Criticism" Pg. 307 The issue for me is one of what Gel-Mann calls "complex adaptive systems." It is the ability to perceive systems with clarity and then to adapt that perception, through the whole being, into some form of expression that involves the whole person with another. i.e. the root of the word Per-form-ance. To make the Form (system) clear to an audience. The quantification of that is science while the expression of it in terms of truth and beauty is art. At this point, even with the computer, art has a better record of working within science than the reverse because beauty, or "the best possible of its kind" is one of the pre-requisites for Art but not necessarily for Science. That is why my daughter's academics classes really teaches her about "completing as much as is possible within an allotted time" while her drama and arts courses teach her that "it must be completed as perfectly as possible no matter how long it takes." I contend that the "academics" create "hired hands" through their use of mass teaching in time bound situations, while the Arts teach "thinking" as a process that contains a system in time that must be completed perfectly within the individual context. This individual context is not out of sync with my understanding of Wittgenstein, so could this parallel he expressed be a result of his need based upon his situation? or maybe I'm wrong about him. You would be the one who would know Brian. REH Brian McAndrews wrote: I've been really enjoying the manic state of FW over the last while. I've barely got time to read half the messages but I would never miss Ray E. Harrell's stuff. He sees things very differently than most. He also has the ability to slow some people down and have them think. Much of what gets discussed on this list could be described as people playing different language games. The words seem familiar and connectable but aren't. The kings in chess and checkers are very different kings. I've posted this quote before on this list but I think it deserves being repeated. Ray, I believe, knows the advice of the physicist but is not persuaded. He prefers the oracle.
Re: (Fwd) HANDBOOK OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY (fwd)
- Original Message - From: Mike Hollinshead [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is no more scientifically true than that the sun and planets revolve around the earth. What is really funny is that Darwin purloined his principle of selection through competition from classical economics, from Malthus in fact. So you take the dog eat dog mythology of early capitalism and apply it to biology and then "prove" that hierarchical social systems are evolutionarily determined because evolutionary biology proves it to be so. Tosh. It is a tautology from beginning to end. (As is the Darwinian "Theory" of Evolution, but that is another story). Hierarchy -- not hierarchical social systems -- has been observed in all social primates. And in dogs, cats, lions, etc. I suppose on another planet things might look different, but here on earth, primates are genetically predisposed to hierarchy. Hierarchy empirically true -- it's everywhere -- the birds do it, the bees do it, the aardvarks do it, the Green Bay Packers do it, etc. Jay for those who would like the fine print of the argument see Richard Lewontin (a biologist who can actually think rather than merely regurgitate) Biology as Ideology. It was one of the Massey Lectures and can be sourced at the the CBC's website under the program Ideas. Mike H - Original Message - From: Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do they believe this? First, explicit evolutionary thinking can sometimes eliminate certain kinds of errors in thinking about behavior (Symons, 1987). Evolutionary theory is only intended to explain how living organisms evolve. Applying it to any other field of inquiry puts you on VERY shaky ground. It's presently being used to predict primate (human) behavior. Although it's politically incorrect, it's scientifically true. Jay
Re: (Fwd) HANDBOOK OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY (fwd)
- Original Message - From: Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] primate and human behaviour is not the same, so such research is not scientific. Evolutionary scientists include humans unless stated otherwise. Scientists are using the theory of evolution to predict human behavior: - Third, and most important, the theory of evolution can be used to help scholars and scientists develop substantive testable predictions about human behavior. Cosmides (1989) used it to make predictions about content effects in logical reasoning. Silverman and Eals (1992) used it to make predictions about gender differences in spatial abilities. Singh (1993) used it to make predictions about preferences for body images. Buss (1994) used it to make predictions about gender differences in mate choice criteria and tactics for acquiring mates. Orians and Heerwagen (1992) used it to make predictions about evoked responses to landscapes. Several chapters in Part III of this book discuss recent research in which various aspects of evolutionary theory were used to derive testable predictions about human behavior. [pp. 8-10] HANDBOOK OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY: Ideas Issues and Applications, Eds. Charles Crawford Dennis Krebs; Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998 http://www.erlbaum.com/2621.htm
Re: How science is really done
Ray wrote: I know many former artists who have good jobs in the sciences, however the reverse is rarely true. Why? Interesting observation. I know too few painters, musicians, dancer etc. to make an estimate. Artist blacksmiths may be a notable exception. I started out in chemistry and biomedical research. I know...lessee... two other ex-biochemists, ex-biologist, ex-civil engineer, ex-behavioral psychologist, ex-biologist, ex-programmer/analyst -- all I can think of off hand -- who are artist blacksmiths. Once and former committment to science varies from baccalaureat through PhD and several years work in science. The common ground between art and science may well have been captured by the title of Cyril Stanley Smiths book, _A Search for Structure_. Interesting ground, superficially off topic but perhaps a good place to start to resolve the unpalatability of Jay's pronouncement that scientists or scientifically trained analysts should run the show. The people I've most admired -- metallurgist Cyril Smith and surgeon Harold Schuknecht for example -- have been able to doubletrack between a deeply compasionate and humanistic relationship with the world and an incisivly analytical ability based on extensive and detailed scientific knowlege. - Mike -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html ---
Re: real-life example
From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about an explicit definition of the job and explicit qualifications? We do that with every other job, why not politics? God will write them? Theocracies worked for a while, but they too had their problems -- e.g. the classic Mayas screwed up their environment just as badly as we have. Gee! Why not try science for a change? Jay, I've known enough scientists to convince me that that might not be wise. Ed
Re: real-life example
No thanks! I saw direct democracy in action the other night on a PBS program about Rwanda: eight-hundred-thousand dead in one hundred days. Jay Jay, Don't you think your being just a little unfair? That was butchery, not democracy. Given its background, it could have happened under any form of government. Ed
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] No thanks! I saw direct democracy in action the other night on a PBS program about Rwanda: eight-hundred-thousand dead in one hundred days. Don't you think your being just a little unfair? That was butchery, not democracy. Given its background, it could have happened under any form of government. That's exactly my point. Given the opportunity, it would happen anywhere, at any time. There is nothing inherent in man that keeps him torturing and murdering his fellows. For example, the practice of human torture was "legal" for at least 3,000 years and formed a part of most legal codes in Europe and the Far East. Remember that Hitler was elected by "the people". Moreover, the men who ran the camps during WW2 were, for the most part, average people. Remember the Slave trade? Just some conscious family men trying to make a buck and put their kids through school. Let "the people" make all the laws? Bad idea! Jay
