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-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:01 PM
To: FriAM <friam@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-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:37 PM
To: FriAM <friam@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
