Marcus, Yes, Lead is a good guess. Though if you listen closely, it was already offered right before "duck" :-) https://youtu.be/zrzMhU_4m-g?t=157
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote: > How about lead? > > > https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lead-in-americas-water-systems-is-a-national-problem/ > https://www.nrdc.org/resources/whats-your-water-flint-and-beyond > https://www.vox.com/2016/1/21/10811004/lead-poisoning-cities-us > > Marcus > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Steven A Smith < > sasm...@swcp.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, April 19, 2020 12:21 PM > *To:* friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Tripping on the Rye: She's a Witch! How do you > know? . (Re: basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of > anthropological observtions) > > > > SG - > > I was completely ignorant of the history/impacts of ergot > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergot> before this thread. Fascinating! > > so now you have added (upped the game of) "ergot" to your argot! > > Language of thieves?! > > https://grammarist.com/usage/argot-vs-ergot/ > > It might be notable that Rye Whiskey (and wild, wild women) is my > preferred (hard) drink of choice... not sure if there is evidence or > precedent of rye whiskey made from "spoiled Rye". Also that my cover/nurse > crop of choice is a mix of winter-wheat/winter-rye here on the > "homestead". I haven't tried actually eating or fermenting any yet. > > -SS > > > In this context, we can think about Dave's different ways of knowing when > we show cause and evidence that someone is a witch. > > 1. Science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g > 2. LSD: Ergo the Ergot: LSD, Causation and Evidence > https://www.vox.com/2015/10/29/9620542/salem-witch-trials-ergotism > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 7:47 AM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> > wrote: > > addendum: I was interrupted mid-post > > Just as a new strain of ergot might pose a severe challenge to hybridized > wheat, a new "strain" of problem might pose a severe challenge to a > hybridized mode of thinking. > > I would posit that challenges like Covid-19, global warming, and even The > Donald are akin to a new strain of ergot vis-a-vis wheat. Our ability to > address or solve those challenges might be, I am certain it would be, > enhanced if we could bring to bear some "heritage modes of thought." > > My expressed antipathy for Science derives from the tendency of scientists > to simply dismiss any alternative ideas or arguments as anti-scientific and > therefore invalid. > > The reason I said that you and I are in fundamental agreement, is that, I > think, both of us would accept into our garden of thought" any sufficiently > viable, and tasty, mode of thinking. > > davew > > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020, at 6:24 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > Nick, > > > > There is truth in what you say, but only a bit. > > > > I have certainly spoken as if "Science was a bunch of nasty people with > > vested interests acting in an exclusionary manner." > > > > Hyperbole. > > > > A better metaphor / analogy would be the way we have hybridized our > > food supply; e.g. 90 percent of all dairy cows have one of two bulls in > > their ancestry, there are one or two tomato hybrids, one or two strains > > of rice, wheat, corn, etc. > > > > This creates a huge vulnerability — a novel pest or disease and presto, > > no food supply. > > > > Now imagine that there are multiple species of investigation, thinking, > > knowledge. > > > > Since the Age of Enlightenment, the western world has been hell bent on > > hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly, Science). > > > > Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a privileged status > > that it tolerates no criticism and critics are "excommunicated" with > > prejudice. > > > > I would like to think of myself as someone interested in growing > > heritage tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in > > taste and texture and finding very deep value from the use of them in > > culinary creations. > > > > davew > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Dave, > > > > > > No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch > > > of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding, > > > has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that > > > lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It > > > is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble > > > baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is > > > a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for > > > Archimedes. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > > Clark University > > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West > > > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM > > > To: friam@redfish.com > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end > of > > > anthropological observtions > > > > > > Nick, > > > > > > I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative > > > means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability > > > THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" — > > > ergo there is no argument to lose. > > > > > > If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion > > > — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid > > > Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine, > > > Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the > > > most part, excluded from Science. > > > > > > davew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Dave, > > > > > > > > You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any > > > > investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to > > > > declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare > that > > > > discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and > > > > you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a > > > > method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical > > > > structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, > "That's science." > > > > > > > > I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that > must > > > > have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch". > > > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University > > > > thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West > > > > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM > > > > To: friam@redfish.com > > > > Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of > > > > anthropological observtions > > > > > > > > Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their > predictions. > > > > > > > > 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as > > > > everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation), > > > > pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance > of > > > > winning the election. > > > > > > > > 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" > he will win. > > > > > > > > 3- davew - Trump will win. > > > > > > > > # 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his > prediction. > > > > > > > > The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, > etc. > > > > to come to their conclusions. > > > > > > > > Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in > his > > > > book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis > tools/techniques > > > > he did use. > > > > > > > > davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty. > > > > > > > > QUESTIONS: Are there different approaches, different avenues, > > > > different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I am being vague here > > > > because I do not know how to make the question precise. But it > would > > > > have something to do with different definitions of what is > considered > > > > data and different techniques/tools for digesting that data to form > > > > conclusions — in this instance predictions. > > > > > > > > If there are different approaches, is a comparative analysis of them > > > > possible? desirable? > > > > > > > > Different approaches — useful in different contexts? How to > determine > > > > appropriate contexts. > > > > > > > > Or, is there but one avenue to knowledge — Science — and all else is > > > > idiosyncratic opinion? > > > > > > > > Personally, I think there is use in pursuing this type of question > and > > > > then using the answers / insights to makes sense of the multiple > > > > conversations concerning COVID and the response thereto. > > > > > > > > davew > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe 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 > unsubscribe 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 unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/