Dave -
> You noted,/"I simply can't read this as a "simple observation /
> prediction"... I believe it is laced with judgements and
> assumptions... some I agree with and some which I find either
> questionable in substance or in intent, but all worth inspecting."/
>
> Nevertheless, that is exactly what I intend — a prediction that will
> or will not be borne out. If not, everyone gets a chance to jeer at
> the wannabee Nostradamus. If it does, then maybe a discussion of why;
> the reasons behind the prediction.
I understand that was how you wanted it to be interpreted, and I agree
that it can be interpreted strictly that way. If I didn't know you at
all, I might accept that the "subtext" as you acknowledge it
could/should go unspoken to. I found (at least) two subtexts.
> I will cede, immediately, that there is a very strong subtext. For the
> last month or more I have seen this list, and a few virtual FRIAMS,
> almost exclusively devoted to "scientific," statistical,
> epidemiological, models and projections of the virus and what the
> future holds based on those models, that math, that science.
>
> As if there was no other data set, no other way of thinking about the
> problem, no other way of making projections and predictions, no other
> way of making sense of the data. No other foundation upon which to
> make decisions.
>
> My prediction is a challenge to a gentleperson's duel with regard that
> "as if ..." And, it is a continuation of a theme I have harped on
> before - there are other ways of knowing and other things to know
> about that are important but neglected because of the dominance of
> Scientism.
I wasn't thinking that much about THAT subtext, though I recognize that
it is a theme here and has been a point of contention.
I don't feel like I've been able to weigh in effectively in that
particular discussion. I may have submitted a few posts, but more likely
I deleted my feeble attempts. My life's work began with a pursuit of
science in it's "pure" sense but morphed into a pursuit of supporting
and developing intuition and tools and methods for supporting the
development of intuition in the service of scientific understanding.
I encountered any number of "newage" and "occultist" and "psychedelic"
and other systems of thought/belief along the way which were also
pursuing the development of intuition (or something seemingly like
it? This role has put me somewhat in "no-mans land" with many
"serious scientists" resisting the work I was doing, at least until they
had a useful/relevant experience on one hand and many "wishful thinkers"
seeking my support for their methods of seeking of "truth".
Scientific Visualization, Visual Analytics, Info/Data Visualization are
some of the names that have been attributed to that work, hidden within
that is often a significant amount of modeling and statistical
analysis. If we take "Science" to be roughly the process of
"hypothesis generation and testing", then there is a (I would suggest
central) place for the intuitive in "hypothesis generation". If taking
psilocybin mushrooms, or LSD or peyote or ayhuasca or meditation or
fasting or sleep deprivation or chatting with a dead white man, or
anything else vaguely like that helps someone generate novel hypothesis,
then more power to them and their method, whether they or anyone else
understands the mechanisms involved in triggering their intuition. But
none of that obviates the need for the second part of that working
definition "hypothesis testing". I don't fault someone who pulls
amazingly intuitive leaps out of their ass (or their peace pipe or sex
with a Gawdess) which are then proven to be accurate by the resulting
data gathered, based on those hypothesis. If they are particularly
good at it yet insist on obscuring their "methods" behind arcane
explanations, I might find *that* a little offputting, but it doesn't
change the validity of the results. If, however, they try to parlay a
few "lucky guesses" (or vaguely-stated, goal-post moving revisionism)
into a claim for a "sure fire method" that they can't or won't explain,
then I'm not interested.
I also acknowledge that this is hard, and anecdotally we have many
examples of where an intuitive grasp of a phenomena preceded anything
like "proof" by months, years, even centuries in some cases. This
means that part of being open-minded means that a lack of demonstrable
"proof" (logical or statistical) does not necessarily make a hypothesis
wrong. It also means acknowledging that an assumed "fact" (likely
backed up by significant data and applied statistics) may well yield to
A) new data; B) possibly supporting a competing hypothesis; or C) an
as-yet unrevealed hypothesis that fits the existing data better. And
of course this new "fact" is open to similar revision. Scientific
ideas like Classical Mechanics had to be give way to Relativistic and
Quantum Mechanics without becoming precisely *wrong*, just
*incomplete*. Other ideas like Aether and Phlogiston or the
Plum-pudding model of the nucleus came to be acknowledged as "simply"
*wrong*. That doesn't mean they weren't useful and even reasonable
models of phenomena... until experiments which directly contradicted
them were contrived. I use this often here, but I *still* choose to
speak of and even perceive the sun and moon as if they are orbiting
earth, even though *those* models are patently *wrong* AND I know it to
be so. Just because a model is wrong doesn't mean it isn't useful, as
long as you understand it's limits.
So I will grant you (and others) that there are other ways of
"knowing"... but I don't happen to have any reason to believe that they
hold any objective reality... they are, in my experience, always either
"wishful thinking" or subjective post-hoc rationalizations... the very
thing I think you accuse "scientism" of indulging in. WHICH IT DOES!
The only difference is that when science indulges in "rationalizing" one
of it's hypotheses, it is by following a strong general method which
includes repeatability by independent parties. I "know" a lot of
stuff, "deep in my gut" which I occasionally have to face as *wrong* and
sometimes even *wrongheaded*. I *think* some of your task with
"scientism" might be that it has become quite popular among the
"unwashed masses" and anything with a "science" label or flavor or
endorsement gets held up as high as "gospel" (in the theological sense)
is by another group (of groups) whose knowledge is entirely passed down
by "received wisdom" from a "supernatural authority". I can see how
frustrating that kind of "competition" must feel to the "true
believers"... Yes, there IS a cult of "Scientism" which competes with
other cults, but in fact that is NOT the same as Science itself.
> Certainly, the observations are grounded in particular perspectives
> and those should be examined. But later, if the prediction holds, more
> or less. At this moment they are merely a distraction. {BTW, Nick,
> white versus brown is almost incidental - the conflict is between the
> 10-15% and the 85-90%, an economic distinction.]
I also winced at Nick's melanin-content implication, which is NOT
unmotivated, but is often conflated with economic and class
opportunities. There ARE strong correlations there, but in fact, white
males *can* suffer equivalent barriers to success under the right
circumstances.
> It was quite clever of you to see behind the seat belt facade and
> discern I was really talking about helmets. The perception is that
> helmets increase safety. Both riders and EMTs refer to helmets as
> "brain buckets" in that they hold the demolished and messy contents of
> the head surrounded by the helmet. A helmet is designed to protect the
> wearer from impact injury equivalent to a one-pound weight dropped
> from a height of 5 feet. Not much protection if you are traveling at
> 50 KPH flying through the air and hitting a tree head on. At the same
> time, wearing a helmet increases by roughly 65% your odds of being in
> an accident and triples the odds that the accident will result in a
> spinal cord injury and paralysis._Amazing how fast I switch sides and
> let the "science determine" the advisability of wearing a helmet. :)_
I didn't, in fact, discern that as YOUR sleight of hand... it was my own
"trigger". Most of my riding years were in AZ which HAD a helmet law
which I observed fairly consistently (on paved roads anyway), partly
because I found a good helmet a good defense against bugs, wind (hot and
cold), and sun, and partly because I knew I would not get more than a
few miles down the road without having to have an unpleasant
conversation with law enforcement if I did not. When I moved to NM, I
went about 50/50 helmet/not for the reasons above. I was MORE offended
by seat-belt laws which are not as patently conflicted ( I'm sure there
are anecdotal examples of where someone died or was maimed by a seatbelt
whilst someone else was miraculously saved by NOT wearing one) as helmet
laws. As a motorcycle rider, I knew I was easily MUCH more exposed
(with or without helmet) than as an automobile driver without a
seatbelt)... simple laws of (newtonian) physics balanced those equations
for me. To be told I was harming others by not wearing a seatbelt
feels patently incorrect.
The Subtext I *was* calling out (unsuccessfully) was the strong
implication that the threat posed by the COVID19 virus is not
significantly greater than the myriad current threats to our lives and
health. Several responded to that directly, and while I didn't double
check their numbers or sources, I generally believe that in fact,
COVID19 has been more devastating to life and health than any other
threat, and that being a network-transmission "condition", critical
intervention can (and did) change the exponent on it's propagation with
huge results in rates and absolute numbers. Your post seemed to imply
that the measures taken to reduce the exposure/transmission rates were
not useful in reducing that exponent. It also seemed to imply that the
threat of overdriving the medical system's capacity (as already
demonstrated in Italy and elsewhere) was not worth trying to answer
either.
I share some of Marcus' cynicism which might suggest that an
*unmitigated* COVID-19 pandemic *might* factor in well on the "save the
planet (and humans) from humans" side of the equation, but I don't think
that was your claim. It is possible that a crushed industrial
commodity might be a better remedy than a simple reduction of
population... not sure. I also share what might be your point, that we
*could have* possibly achieved a similar effect with significantly less
economic impact. Due to collaborations with people in Sweden, I have
been very aware of and have been tracking *their* alternative results
and *wish for us* that *we* were capable of a similar response. While
you may claim that the Swedish gov't/media is who is different and
therefore who made their (tentatively successful alternative) a success,
I would claim that it is the people/culture themselves. The
open-carry, red hat wearing, "Liberate XXXXX" protestors sent out by the
greatest red-hat of them all to try to rattle (mostly Democrat)
Governors into opening prematurely, as well as the hero-worshiped
scofflaws around the country (including POTUS and VPOTUS) are examples
of WHY this country can't pull off what Sweden *seems to be* doing.
Sweden asked a lot MORE of it's people because they have demonstrated
that they are a lot MORE able than we are on average. I have nothing
more than my gut-instinct to back that up... after-action analysis may
well prove me wrong.
The game isn't over yet, so we don't know... but if *I* had to make a
prediction, I'd say that by your "Mission Accomplished, There Was Never
Really Anything to Worry About but Worry Itself" date of Mid June, we
will see spikes in the number of new cases, leading to a new threat on
the medical system capacity/fatigue, and an attendant death rate (not to
mention new and previously masked or unrecognized comorbidities and
harsh symptoms). Science will have a better handle on the problem
which will include myriad new anomolous data sources, suggesting many
more subtleties, not an overall "nevermind" as I *think* you implied
would emerge.
I DO think that relatively low-density states and regions of states with
limited mixing may fare well (on average, but with huge deviations with
specific contexts such as on the Navajo Nation and perhaps the meat
packeing plants in the mid-west). NM and UT may get off fairly easily
(as we already have), but the big urban/industrial centers, unless they
are very careful are surely going to see a lot more spiking in
infections, and deaths before we either find a new/good way of limiting
the replication exponent through changed behaviour, herd immunity,
vaccine immunity. I would like to *hope* that it is all just rhetoric
and that as we return to "social mixing" the bogey-man in the closet
will show to be just bad lighting shown by the crazed liberals,
mainstream media, fake science, and opportunistic elite alarmists.
Thanks to Glen for putting a pin in your prophesy. Mine is perhaps a
little more vague, so harder to measure... but I'll try to think of
something more specific and then get a pin in that as well.
- Steve
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... ....
. ...
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/
