Steve,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I continue to fail in my attempts to
parameterize discussions because all of you are so dammed smart. But I try
again.
I wanted to make a simple prediction (the end of the pandemic) that contrasted
significantly with the prevailing prediction (yours included) that there will
be a round-two and a second lock down. Wait five weeks and see which one
appears to be closer to observations and then explore the underpinnings of each.
I conceded the "facts" that, I think, the prevailing prediction relies upon:
there will be spikes, the death toll will continue to increase, people will be
careless with regard masks and social distancing, new mysteries will arise, etc.
But, I claim, those facts are irrelevant to the outcome.
What I hoped to achieve with this prediction — if it comes to pass — is a
conversation about what variables, what data, what forces, what relationships,
what principles where overlooked / willfully ignored by those making the
prevailing predictions.
I hoped for Glen's reaction — pin this sucker and sharpen the knives while we
wait. (thereby assuming the not inconsiderable risk of being carved like a
Thanksgiving turkey come mid-June.)
Of course, I must believe I have an alternative perspective, think I have
alternative facts, possess alternative theories; all of which underlay the
prediction. Clearly, I have a not so hidden agenda. You called me on all of
this and I made the mistake of replying and therefore muddied the water.
In particular, my admission of a subtext was hopelessly unclear. I should have
spoke of alternative ways of "thinking," not "knowing." At the moment the whole
"acid epistemology" theme I have raised before is deferred and not particularly
useful. So to, the "cult" of science issue.
COVID presents a _*unique*_ problem. The government's, the media's, much of the
populace's response to that problem is to do "what the science tells us." FRIAM
is seemingly obsessed with determining what the science is and what it is
telling us to do.
But COVID, at least is most challenging aspects, does not present a scientific
problem. The problem is human and cultural. Focusing on "the science" blinds us
and causes us to ignore significant amounts of relevant information and
knowledge. Moreover, much of that information and knowledge is not reducible to
quantities and formal relationships.
And science is not the essential problem — the insanity of believing that
unless and until a discipline becomes "scientific" (mathematical, quantifiable,
etc.) it has little or no value. E.g. anthropology is ignored in favor of
sociology because the latter is far more formal, more scientific.
Malinowski had the insight and provided a thorough description of "satisficing"
along with all kinds of case studies of its application in Polynesian cultures
decades before Simon won his Nobel prize in economics for making the exact same
concept mathematical.
Similar things happen all the time when we insist on focusing on "the science"
and ignore the "art" and the insights of "non-scientific" disciplines and
fields of inquiry.
davew
On Mon, May 11, 2020, at 11:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> 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/
>
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... ....
. ...
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/
