Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
Owen, It's more like a chronic irritation than actual pain, but I hear your rebuke. I suppose that when the RWRDDA movement (Right Wing Religious Dumbing Down of America) movement becomes sufficiently intolerable to more of our scientific community, additional folks will begin to speak out on the subject. Perhaps if we get a Creationist Vice President the process will accelerate! Until then, I'll pipe down. --Doug On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Owen Densmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 2, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: How many people on this list *don't* think that religion has been , and continues to be a (the?) major factor in American politics? Doug, I really do feel your pain. But cut us a bit of slack, OK? Fundamentalism is certainly an issue, but not *all* religion is fundamentalist. Friam is a fairly rich and diverse community, a number of whom are religious. We have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and more. Show them some respect, please. Would it surprise you to know that one of the first publications on Chaos and Complexity is from the Vatican Observatory press? The first chapter includes Crutchfield, Farmer, Shaw, and Packard? Do you know that the current pope advised against single-issue voting on abortion, and advised that religious voters consider that hunger, homelessness, sickness, war, etc are also anti-life? What ever happened to the precept of separation of church and state, anyhow? Christ talks about it: render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. So do Buddhists. If politicians have forgotten that, then bad on them, not the church. I don't want to start a flame war on religion, but please remember you have religious family and friends who are kind, gentle, compassionate and as anti-fundamentalist as you are. -- Owen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
The Los Alamos High School teachers were told last year that they could no longer teach evolution in their classes. Pretty soon dogma will be all that is allowed to be taught. One way to eliminate competition... --Doug On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Marcus G. Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Douglas Roberts wrote: I suppose that when the RWRDDA movement (Right Wing Religious Dumbing Down of America) movement becomes sufficiently intolerable to more of our scientific community, additional folks will begin to speak out on the subject. Perhaps if we get a Creationist Vice President the process will accelerate! Speaking of Mavericks, there's an entertaining Nova called Hunting the Hidden Dimension starring among others Benoit Mandelbrot, and SFI's Geoffrey West, James Brown, and Brian Enquist. In particular, the program notes how the mathematics establishment regarded Mandelbrot's research as not being an important contribution. There are other sources of dogma besides from religious folks. Dogma also can be advanced when scientists have their prominence threatened by competing approaches... Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
I did not see that program, but Joe says he recently saw Mandelbrot (perhaps on that program) assigned by the interviewer credit for the butterfly effect. Instead of saying oh no, that was Ed Lorenz, he just sat there smiling, not contradicting. Bad form, very bad form. On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: Douglas Roberts wrote: I suppose that when the RWRDDA movement (Right Wing Religious Dumbing Down of America) movement becomes sufficiently intolerable to more of our scientific community, additional folks will begin to speak out on the subject. Perhaps if we get a Creationist Vice President the process will accelerate! Speaking of Mavericks, there's an entertaining Nova called Hunting the Hidden Dimension starring among others Benoit Mandelbrot, and SFI's Geoffrey West, James Brown, and Brian Enquist. In particular, the program notes how the mathematics establishment regarded Mandelbrot's research as not being an important contribution. There are other sources of dogma besides from religious folks. Dogma also can be advanced when scientists have their prominence threatened by competing approaches... Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org If ever there was a book calculated to make a man in love with its author, this appears to me to be the book. William Godwin, on reading Mary Wollstonecraft's first book FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
Los Alamos? And the parents rose up as one? On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: The Los Alamos High School teachers were told last year that they could no longer teach evolution in their classes. Pretty soon dogma will be all that is allowed to be taught. One way to eliminate competition... --Doug On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Marcus G. Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Douglas Roberts wrote: I suppose that when the RWRDDA movement (Right Wing Religious Dumbing Down of America) movement becomes sufficiently intolerable to more of our scientific community, additional folks will begin to speak out on the subject. Perhaps if we get a Creationist Vice President the process will accelerate! Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org If ever there was a book calculated to make a man in love with its author, this appears to me to be the book. William Godwin, on reading Mary Wollstonecraft's first book FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
I don't believe this is true about LAHS not teaching evolution. (It's easily verified.) It is very rare for a scientist not to support the teaching of evolution and freedom of education. What is the source of this information? This is something that would have both students and parents marching in the street...not silent. It is not as Republican a county as you think, the county is 50%-50% and very likely to go to Obama tomorrow. Kari A thundering silence was heard throughout the county. But then, it is a Republican county, by and large. The creeping, incipient USA religiou-fication process has gone largely unopposed, and not just in our state's smallest county. But I promised Owen I'd give it a break... On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Pamela McCorduck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Los Alamos? And the parents rose up as one? On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: The Los Alamos High School teachers were told last year that they could no longer teach evolution in their classes. Pretty soon dogma will be all that is allowed to be taught. One way to eliminate competition... --Doug On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Marcus G. Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Douglas Roberts wrote: I suppose that when the RWRDDA movement (Right Wing Religious Dumbing Down of America) movement becomes sufficiently intolerable to more of our scientific community, additional folks will begin to speak out on the subject. Perhaps if we get a Creationist Vice President the process will accelerate! Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org If ever there was a book calculated to make a man in love with its author, this appears to me to be the book. William Godwin, on reading Mary Wollstonecraft's first book FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
Believe what you want. My wife taught at LA High School for 20 years. She and her colleagues were told that they could no longer teach evolution in their science classes last year. Because of this, in part, she retired. On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Kari Sentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't believe this is true about LAHS not teaching evolution. (It's easily verified.) It is very rare for a scientist not to support the teaching of evolution and freedom of education. What is the source of this information? This is something that would have both students and parents marching in the street...not silent. It is not as Republican a county as you think, the county is 50%-50% and very likely to go to Obama tomorrow. Kari A thundering silence was heard throughout the county. But then, it is a Republican county, by and large. The creeping, incipient USA religiou-fication process has gone largely unopposed, and not just in our state's smallest county. But I promised Owen I'd give it a break... On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Pamela McCorduck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Los Alamos? And the parents rose up as one? On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: The Los Alamos High School teachers were told last year that they could no longer teach evolution in their classes. Pretty soon dogma will be all that is allowed to be taught. One way to eliminate competition... --Doug On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Marcus G. Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Douglas Roberts wrote: I suppose that when the RWRDDA movement (Right Wing Religious Dumbing Down of America) movement becomes sufficiently intolerable to more of our scientific community, additional folks will begin to speak out on the subject. Perhaps if we get a Creationist Vice President the process will accelerate! Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org If ever there was a book calculated to make a man in love with its author, this appears to me to be the book. William Godwin, on reading Mary Wollstonecraft's first book FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
Clarification (I just asked my wife for details): the (verbal) directive to not teach evolution in Los Alamos High School science classes was issued three years ago. Some of the teachers chose to circumvent this directive by teaching from the historical perspective of Darwin's life. On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Douglas Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Believe what you want. My wife taught at LA High School for 20 years. She and her colleagues were told that they could no longer teach evolution in their science classes last year. Because of this, in part, she retired. On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Kari Sentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't believe this is true about LAHS not teaching evolution. (It's easily verified.) It is very rare for a scientist not to support the teaching of evolution and freedom of education. What is the source of this information? This is something that would have both students and parents marching in the street...not silent. It is not as Republican a county as you think, the county is 50%-50% and very likely to go to Obama tomorrow. Kari A thundering silence was heard throughout the county. But then, it is a Republican county, by and large. The creeping, incipient USA religiou-fication process has gone largely unopposed, and not just in our state's smallest county. But I promised Owen I'd give it a break... On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Pamela McCorduck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Los Alamos? And the parents rose up as one? On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: The Los Alamos High School teachers were told last year that they could no longer teach evolution in their classes. Pretty soon dogma will be all that is allowed to be taught. One way to eliminate competition... --Doug On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Marcus G. Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Douglas Roberts wrote: I suppose that when the RWRDDA movement (Right Wing Religious Dumbing Down of America) movement becomes sufficiently intolerable to more of our scientific community, additional folks will begin to speak out on the subject. Perhaps if we get a Creationist Vice President the process will accelerate! Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org If ever there was a book calculated to make a man in love with its author, this appears to me to be the book. William Godwin, on reading Mary Wollstonecraft's first book FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Ruth Charney on Modeling with Cubes - The readable one
Here is the actual presentation that was unreadable on Youtube Ruth sent it to me and Steve reposted it at http://www.friam.org/Charney_MAA10-08.pdf She does remarkable work and thanks Tom for the heads up Will do the same with Marty Golibitskys similar presentation Patterns Patterns Everywhere when I get it ( : ( : pete Peter Baston *IDEAS* /www.ideapete.com/ http://www.ideapete.com/ Tom Johnson wrote: From the Internet Scout *Ruth Charney on Modeling with Cubes [Macromedia Flash Player]* http://www.maa.org/news/102308charney.html The Mathematical Association of America (MAA) continues to build on their already solid online presence with the addition of this lecture by noted mathematician and scholar Professor Ruth Charney. This particular lecture was given at the MAA's Carriage House Conference Center in the fall of 2008 and it deals with how cubes can be used to represent a variety of systems. As Charney notes, The geometry of these spaces is strange, complicated, and a lot of fun to study. Visitors to the site can watch several particularly lucid examples from Charney's talk, read her biography, and also read a detailed interview with her conducted by Michael Pearson. [KMG] https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1view=pagename=gpver=sh3fib53pgpk#11d532fd493691f2_team tj == J. T. Johnson Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA www.analyticjournalism.com http://www.analyticjournalism.com 505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h) http://www.jtjohnson.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. -- Buckminster Fuller == FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
I suppose it would depend on what the motivation was for doing so in lieu of also teaching evolution. The reason for the teach no more evolution directive in Los Alamos was due to pressure from the Religious Right. That, and a hopelessly corrupted US-wide educational system which provided an environment that was prone to caving in to the demands of the Moral Majority. --Doug BTW, I'd like to point out that Creationism and Creationist beliefs fly in the face of modern cosmology. On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Owen Densmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you think it might be more successful to just teach genetics in high school? -- Owen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: I suppose it would depend on what the motivation was for doing so in lieu of also teaching evolution. The reason for the teach no more evolution directive in Los Alamos was due to pressure from the Religious Right. That, and a hopelessly corrupted US-wide educational system which provided an environment that was prone to caving in to the demands of the Moral Majority. That really is sad. I had no idea Los Alamos was so impaired. BTW, I'd like to point out that Creationism and Creationist beliefs fly in the face of modern cosmology. Yes, and they do not get modern cosmology tossed out of the schools. Why? Its solid formal foundations. If you go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution .. you'll see that evolution almost immediately discusses DNA structures and so on. They break away from the story of evolution into its most formalizable successes. I seriously doubt fundamentalists could cause DNA genetics to get tossed from our schools. Googling Evolution Textbook, I find similar results: they get to genetics etc pretty quickly. (Although I really appreciate other forms of evolution mechanics like Lynn Margulis: Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Microbial Evolution) It seems to me that God did a great job with evolution. I mean, such a great process. Create some stuff, invent time, set the clock ticking and you're done. Brilliant! Then He gets to focus on the things that really matter like compassion, karma, love and so on. (I'd better ground myself!) -- Owen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
Douglas Roberts wrote: Clarification (I just asked my wife for details): the (verbal) directive to not teach evolution in Los Alamos High School science classes was issued three years ago. Some of the teachers chose to circumvent this directive by teaching from the historical perspective of Darwin's life. I can report on contrasting (but similar) situation where a friend was teaching Laser Science and Holography in a High School in Missouri a couple of years ago. It might not surprise us that in Missouri, a teacher would be told not to teach Evolution. This friend was not told not to teach evolution (it wasn't in his curricula anyway), but after many months of intriguing young minds with the wonders of science and technology, he managed to make some statement (I can't remember the particulars) that tied lots of what he'd said to them to the dirtiest of words - Evolution. After the reactions of most of his promising young science students made him aware that he'd stepped in something messy, he went to the principal to ask what the school policy was (assuming the worst). The principal simply said "You are on your own". The implied message was that the school would not interfere if he wanted to (needed to) go into such things, but that neither would they defend him against irate parents (and students) either. Being an easy-going but determined sort, he continued (carefully) with his class to engage them in all things scientific that he could and when he stumbled into the no-man's land of dogma, he let them blow off their dogmatic steam against Evolution and whatnot. I suspect he made some very serious headway into changing "hearts and minds" in that little Missouri town, simply by showing them how interesting Science could be but not needing to confront their dogma directly. I can just see him listening to them spout dogma back at him with a twinkle in his eye and then go back to whatever clever science experiment he was into, knowing they had to hear the inanity of their own line, without him saying a word against it. Los Alamos is a different story. My daughters both went through the LA school systems and I found the DARE (Drugs Are Really Expensive) program started when my oldest was in 6th grade every bit as offensive as banning Evolution from Science. My very strong-willed daughter came home one day chanting "I will think for myself, I WILL think for myself, I will THINK for myself... " and told me all about the DARE program that one of LA's finest had come to tell them about. She was really excited. They were all being offered a chance to "think for themselves!" with a vengeance, what could be better? They were going to have a club whose motto was "I think for myself!". There was even a subtext that part of thinking for themselves was reporting to the club-meister ( a police officer ) anyone they knew of using illegal drugs. I have my own reasons (beyond security clearances, etc) for rejecting the pop-drug-culture, but this was patently offensive and wrong. The schools (and police) were one step away from creating something like the "Brown Shirts" of Nazi Germany. Fortunately, I was able to laugh it off and steer my 12 year old back onto her old track of *thinking for herself* and once she realized they were pandering to that part of her ego and in fact were asking her to do anything but *think for herself*, she was free of their mesmerization. Unfortunately at least half of her peer group ate it up like Doug's proverbial dog-vomit and proudly. I don't know what their parents told them... but I suspect they either didn't want to "rock the boat" or they actually thought teaching children to "think for themselves" amounted to teaching them how to recite that line while goose-stepping through the halls in cadence. Sad for such an educated and presumably enlightened community. With that backdrop, it is only a small step (in my mind) to the same administration and teachers going along with "no Evolution teaching". I am as surprised as most of you that there was not an uprising over the "banning of Evolution" (even) at LAHS. I can see why Doug might have developed an acute sense of (what do we call paranoia when it is well founded?). Do we have others with children or teachers in the LAHS system here to report? I would expect at the very least, for the thespians to write a scathing satire about this and perform it every semester. Doug? Maybe you can get this started? I am not a big fan of public school systems in general, but like Democracy, find them a lesser of evils, and the LA schools systems having the blessing of a good budget and some very motivated and capable teachers. I'm even a lesser fan of elite (often religious) private schools either BTW, and home-schooling as it is often done today (usually for elitist and/or religious reasons) sucks even more! I just can't be pleased, can I? There is very little that my daughters learned in school that I didn't have the opportunity (as with
[FRIAM] In Praise of Doubt, and ...
Good find Russ... Freeman Dyson is quoted as saying It is better to be wrong than vague When Juxtaposed with Feynman's It is perfectly consistent to be unsure I think we are reaching the heart of the problem with human nature. We want to be correct and we want to be precise and we want to be sure. Human nature, on the other hand, doesn't care and would generally rather have simple, easy, clear answers, even if they are dead wrong. On Modeling and Human Nature: In my own work with scientists and engineers and decision makers I constantly find them wanting me to help them find simple, clear, absolute answers and only the best of them are delighted when the find I can only help them with the simplest answer of all - "it depends" and then clarify (somewhat) with "and this is what it depends on and how". I too feel Doug's pain (or chronic irritation) but mine extends beyond the bounds of fundamentalist religion to wide swaths of our population who are not religious and if they are to be called fundamentalist, their fundamentalism is in their unerring belief in things like their own privelige, their own entitlement, the rightness of the systems they participate in or perhaps the rightness in the ones they would replace the ones they are trying to tear down. It is easy to be a critic, an armchair quarterback. As a youth, I was attracted to Science for the open-minded inquiry it represented. I was attracted to technology for the miracles it could wring out of Science. I was attracted to Democracy for the implied social fairness and egalitarianism. I was attracted to free-markets for the opportunity afforded hard, smart work. I was attracted to capitalism for the seeming rightness (in an industrial economy at least) that capital resources facilitate productivity and those who create and maintain such resources should also be rewarded along with those who provide labor/talent/etc. On Liberal vs Conservative: There is an old saying which I cannot attribute: If you are not liberal when you are young, there is something wrong with you. If you are not conservative when you are old, there is something wrong with you. I think this is well motivated and intended but I find otherwise. At 51 many of you will find me still "young" but I only remember being "younger" and now feel quite "old", and at least by today's terminology, find I am going the "other way" toward a more "Liberal" viewpoint. The point, however, is that in you youth I was quick to adopt idealisms which were happy and bright and promising which is where the Democrats/Liberals might tend to err, while over time and the enduring of hard-knocks, I have learned that the world is often somewhat less than cooperative with such idealism and pragmatism calls for a certain kind of pessimism or at least very careful optimism. This might in fact, be the basis of the prescribed swing from liberal to conservative with age, but in our current mapping of liberal (to Dems) and conservative (to Repubs), I have not been able to maintain this track so well. There is something amiss (or aright) here. I find myself more aligned *against* the Republicans than ever and more aligned *with* the Democrats than ever. On introspection, I think that education through experience helped me a lot. I think that I learned a lot about what *really* happens when you apply the ideals of either side to the real world. I still find all (most) politicians suspect of hypocrisy and Dems erring on the Pollyanna side but the neoCons at least seem to be nothing but a big ugly wad of hypocrisy and short-sighted selfish stupidity. I don't like the implied axis of Left/Right or Liberal/Conservative. I think that these can be applied roughly to social and economic issues ( I'm liberal socially, but conservative economically is a common statement in my circles ). The term "Progressive" has been used often in place of "Liberal" and in many ways it fits better. Progressives seem to be interested in looking for ways to change our society to improve the human condition while non-Progressives (Conservatives) can be seen to be trying to preserve the aspects of society which maintain the current better qualities of the human condition while trying to avoid the (un)intended consequences of progress. I am very sympathetic with both points of view however, I find a good deal of what we call "progress" blind faith that "change is good" with opportunists stirring change for changes' sake so they can "take advantage". Similarly I find that resistance to change is often motivated by those holding power not wanting to risk trying to keep it in a shifting landscape. On Power: So the central theme turns out to be "opportunism" or "power". Power Corrupts A friend of mine insists Power is Corruption. I tend to agree, recognizing that it is not only a consequence of having power that one becomes "corrupt", taking advantage (because advantage is
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
Douglas Roberts wrote: That, and a hopelessly corrupted US-wide educational system which provided an environment that was prone to caving in to the demands of the Moral Majority. Another dimension of the Republican world view is found in trickle-down economics. In this view, there are people that create wealth (business owners) and those that depend on that wealth (workers). Those that create wealth are a subset of society, and are identified in the natural process of their participation in the economy. (Presumably they are exceptionally hard working and smart.) Of course, those that create or have wealth do also depend on the workers, so it does not seem surprising to me that they aren't bothered by the possibility of rigid schooling and indoctrination. After all, they want the workers out in the work force as soon as possible and don't want a lot of trouble. I'm not worried about rigid indoctrination, I'm worried about the blurring of education and indoctrination. In a free society, I think rigid indoctrination soon leads to new generation of independent thinkers. Such an educational system will self-correct sooner or later. What will take longer to correct is a situation where education further devolves into two different colors of teachers and curriculums, each pushing different agendas. A deeper problem, it seems to me, is there is little faith in people to learn, and little effort made to create the conditions where it can occur in an unrestrained way. In the U.S., most people very strongly expect education to be completed in the 20s and for that learning to be conducted by an institution ensuring certain specific results (skill sets). It is this set of expectations, and the many institutions that are invested in them, as much as religious organizations, that inhibit intrinsic motivation and independent thought. Happily, in this nation and others, there is so much money in technology that competition forces the development of novel technical skills. This even occurs independently from traditional educational organizations (e.g. the software industry). Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
Thanks, Steve, but no thanks. I'm a big believer in Darwinism. ;-} I firmly subscribe to the belief that people (in the aggregate) largely get what they deserve. The lack of public outcry about LAHS's three year old Religious Right science teaching policy tells me that the current crop of parents up on The Hill have earned the right of having fostered a new generation of educationally deprived children. Extend this philosophy a bit: The people of the United States have richly earned the rewards from having voted Bush into office for subsequent terms. Extend this philosophy a bit more: The humans of this planet have richly earned the pleasures that our daily cesspool provides, such as well-attended Fundamentalist-inspired 13 year old rape victim stonings; Abu Graib; melamine-laced baby formula; teenagers breaking into a German zoo, attacking and wounding a 75 year old blind bird; and billion dollar golden parachutes as rewards for corrupt banking CEOs. Let's see a mathematical model that rigorously captures all of these societal behavior gems, and can replicate the behavior in a simulation. In other words, true change comes from within, if you have to impose it, it is not true change. If the race survives long enough, human society might eventually evolve into a more civilized form, but I'm not sure I'd bet on it. --Doug On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Steve Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am as surprised as most of you that there was not an uprising over the banning of Evolution (even) at LAHS. I can see why Doug might have developed an acute sense of (what do we call paranoia when it is well founded?). Do we have others with children or teachers in the LAHS system here to report? I would expect at the very least, for the thespians to write a scathing satire about this and perform it every semester. Doug? Maybe you can get this started? FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Why Model? Exactly so and vote for the best model or image of 1 of all time
I cannot help thinking that there is a huge oxymoron when a defense of modeling is made with TEXT When modeling can demonstrate its causality and need ( TOTALLY explain itself ) using its functions ( Right Brain ) Demonstrate your technology with your technology then we are moving along the right track until then we are pontificating or a possible delusion. Still pondering the implications of Marty Golubitsky who quoted Rene Thom statement / When you build a model its really just a theory and may have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world except in the opinion of the modelers / As for phenomenal models and I will include images of potential models that SPEAK for themselves with awesome potential http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters Minards 1812 poster and go to Tufte's seminar it will blow your mind ( Figuratively speaking or not depending on who you are with ) Next challenge for Steve and Owen How do we use cloud technology illustrate and investigate model technology in its full multi dimensional glory Heck Monty Python did in more ways than wun. ( : ( : pete Peter Baston *IDEAS* /www.ideapete.com/ http://www.ideapete.com/ Robert Holmes wrote: Hmmm anyone else troubled by the fact that both definitions of indoctrination seem to be wholly applicable to the Epstein piece? Robert On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Douglas Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I prefer the dictionary definition: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html - Cite This Source http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=indoctrinationia=luna - Share This http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indoctrination#sharethis in·doc·tri·nate http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/I01/I0137800 /?n?d?ktr??ne?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-*dok*-tr/uh/-neyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation --verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing. 1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view. On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Marcus G. Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Douglas Roberts wrote: Why think, when there is dogma to save you the bother? A quick check of Wikipedia might suggest an explanation.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
[FRIAM] EMOTICONS at TED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYyN_6GmzWI I just had to post this -- Peter Baston *IDEAS* /www.ideapete.com/ http://www.ideapete.com/ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
Marcus G. Daniels wrote: Douglas Roberts wrote: That, and a hopelessly corrupted US-wide educational system which provided an environment that was prone to caving in to the demands of the Moral Majority. Another dimension of the Republican world view is found in trickle-down economics. In this view, there are people that create wealth (business owners) and those that depend on that wealth (workers). And a slightly inverted view is that business owners (Capitalists) do not create wealth, but rather aggregate it (Capital) and that the actual creation of wealth (Productivity) is done by the workers (Labor). The two can operate in synergy or in opposition, depending on the level of enlightenment on both sides. The belief that workers are lazy and undisciplined leads to institutions (workplaces, governments, education) that actually reinforces that. I'm not worried about rigid indoctrination, I'm worried about the blurring of education and indoctrination. In a free society, I think rigid indoctrination soon leads to new generation of independent thinkers. Such an educational system will self-correct sooner or later. What will take longer to correct is a situation where education further devolves into two different colors of teachers and curriculums, each pushing different agendas. I do think there are natural oscillations, a dynamic balance more robust than any utopian static-balance we can make up. A deeper problem, it seems to me, is there is little faith in people to learn, and little effort made to create the conditions where it can occur in an unrestrained way. In the U.S., most people very strongly expect education to be completed in the 20s and for that learning to be conducted by an institution ensuring certain specific results (skill sets). I think our education system conspires against us in several ways. First, it is mostly about indoctrinating us in a factory model. Learning to sit a desk, follow assembly-line-like learning plans, etc. Second, it believes in *teaching* and *performing* more than *learning* as evidenced by *standardized testing* and exacerbated by No Child Left Behind doctrines. We never give our children a chance to learn, we are too busy teaching them. Thirdly, it delays our maturity. An 18 year old in our society is still a child. We often do not allow our young adults to be adults until they have endured several rounds of hazing... from Middle-School to High School to University to Graduate Program to PostDoc. We come into our adult bodies and hormones in our mid-teens, but are not allowed (or expected) to act on the emotions and experiences that yields in any responsible way for nearly as many more years. It is this set of expectations, and the many institutions that are invested in them, as much as religious organizations, that inhibit intrinsic motivation and independent thought. Even our PhDs are blue-collar in many cases. Happily, in this nation and others, there is so much money in technology that competition forces the development of novel technical skills. This even occurs independently from traditional educational organizations (e.g. the software industry). But as this becomes a commodity this force is undermined. While it has not fully taken effect, it does not surprise me that much of our software today is being created in sweat shops in India or (more recently) eastern Europe. We may be able to continue to surf this wave of innovation, but just as the skilled craftsman got run over (eventually) by the industrial age and the factory worker eventually got run over by the information age, the knowledge worker will be run over by whatever is emerging now. I don't mean this as doom and gloom, just as an awareness that we are all responsible for our own future and that even when the tide seems to be on our side, it can reverse in a moment. - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
Doug - I firmly subscribe to the belief that people (in the aggregate) largely get what they deserve. The lack of public outcry about LAHS's three year old Religious Right science teaching policy tells me that the current crop of parents up on The Hill have earned the right of having fostered a new generation of educationally deprived children. Extend this philosophy a bit: The people of the United States have richly earned the rewards from having voted Bush into office for subsequent terms. Extend this philosophy a bit more: The humans of this planet have richly earned the pleasures that our daily cesspool provides, such as well-attended Fundamentalist-inspired 13 year old rape victim stonings; Abu Graib; melamine-laced baby formula; teenagers breaking into a German zoo, attacking and wounding a 75 year old blind bird; and billion dollar golden parachutes as rewards for corrupt banking CEOs. I agree with all of this in principle. It feeds my deepest vein of Morbid Fascination. But I also seek (and live by) an opposing optimism that despite all the *unenlightened* self-interest in the world, we are capable (in the small, if not the large) of enlightened self interest, and I encourage and participate in it every opportunity I see. Let's see a mathematical model that rigorously captures all of these societal behavior gems, and can replicate the behavior in a simulation. In other words, true change comes from within, if you have to impose it, it is not true change. If the race survives long enough, human society might eventually evolve into a more civilized form, but I'm not sure I'd bet on it. Agreed. Let's have a beer! - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
On Nov 3, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Steve Smith wrote: snip Agreed. Let's have a beer! - Steve Actually, I'd like to get back to that. We used to have a Friam beer now and again, what's a good time for folks? Cowgirl? Second Street? -- Owen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] In Praise of Doubt, and ...
Yea, sort of like teaching creationism for science is teaching determinism for life.. Phil Henshaw From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:37 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] In Praise of Doubt, and ... Good find Russ... Freeman Dyson is quoted as saying It is better to be wrong than vague When Juxtaposed with Feynman's It is perfectly consistent to be unsure I think we are reaching the heart of the problem with human nature. We want to be correct and we want to be precise and we want to be sure. Human nature, on the other hand, doesn't care and would generally rather have simple, easy, clear answers, even if they are dead wrong. On Modeling and Human Nature: In my own work with scientists and engineers and decision makers I constantly find them wanting me to help them find simple, clear, absolute answers and only the best of them are delighted when the find I can only help them with the simplest answer of all - it depends and then clarify (somewhat) with and this is what it depends on and how. I too feel Doug's pain (or chronic irritation) but mine extends beyond the bounds of fundamentalist religion to wide swaths of our population who are not religious and if they are to be called fundamentalist, their fundamentalism is in their unerring belief in things like their own privelige, their own entitlement, the rightness of the systems they participate in or perhaps the rightness in the ones they would replace the ones they are trying to tear down. It is easy to be a critic, an armchair quarterback. As a youth, I was attracted to Science for the open-minded inquiry it represented. I was attracted to technology for the miracles it could wring out of Science. I was attracted to Democracy for the implied social fairness and egalitarianism. I was attracted to free-markets for the opportunity afforded hard, smart work. I was attracted to capitalism for the seeming rightness (in an industrial economy at least) that capital resources facilitate productivity and those who create and maintain such resources should also be rewarded along with those who provide labor/talent/etc. On Liberal vs Conservative: There is an old saying which I cannot attribute: If you are not liberal when you are young, there is something wrong with you. If you are not conservative when you are old, there is something wrong with you. I think this is well motivated and intended but I find otherwise. At 51 many of you will find me still young but I only remember being younger and now feel quite old, and at least by today's terminology, find I am going the other way toward a more Liberal viewpoint. The point, however, is that in you youth I was quick to adopt idealisms which were happy and bright and promising which is where the Democrats/Liberals might tend to err, while over time and the enduring of hard-knocks, I have learned that the world is often somewhat less than cooperative with such idealism and pragmatism calls for a certain kind of pessimism or at least very careful optimism. This might in fact, be the basis of the prescribed swing from liberal to conservative with age, but in our current mapping of liberal (to Dems) and conservative (to Repubs), I have not been able to maintain this track so well. There is something amiss (or aright) here. I find myself more aligned *against* the Republicans than ever and more aligned *with* the Democrats than ever. On introspection, I think that education through experience helped me a lot. I think that I learned a lot about what *really* happens when you apply the ideals of either side to the real world. I still find all (most) politicians suspect of hypocrisy and Dems erring on the Pollyanna side but the neoCons at least seem to be nothing but a big ugly wad of hypocrisy and short-sighted selfish stupidity. I don't like the implied axis of Left/Right or Liberal/Conservative. I think that these can be applied roughly to social and economic issues ( I'm liberal socially, but conservative economically is a common statement in my circles ). The term Progressive has been used often in place of Liberal and in many ways it fits better. Progressives seem to be interested in looking for ways to change our society to improve the human condition while non-Progressives (Conservatives) can be seen to be trying to preserve the aspects of society which maintain the current better qualities of the human condition while trying to avoid the (un)intended consequences of progress. I am very sympathetic with both points of view however, I find a good deal of what we call progress blind faith that change is good with opportunists stirring change for changes' sake so they can take advantage. Similarly I find that resistance to change is often motivated by those holding power not wanting to risk trying to keep it in a shifting
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
I have written the principal of LAHS to verify this. She has sent me an initial response that she was contacting the Department chairs for further information. (Not to doubt you Doug...I wrote her immediately after our first exchange.) In addition, I have spoken to a number of LAHS parents and community members who were appalled at the thought of excluding evolution in course curriculum. Evolution plays an important part in the science at LANL...at least in its computational, biological, and medical research. This should be reflected in the education of the community's children. (Not to say one way or the other that it is.) The changing demographic in Los Alamos county will hopefully be evidenced tomorrow. I'll let you know what I find out. Kari !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN html head meta content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type /head body bgcolor=#ff text=#00 Douglas Roberts wrote: blockquote cite=mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] type=citeClarification (I just asked my wife for details):nbsp; the (verbal) directive to not teach evolution innbsp; Los Alamos High School science classes was issued three years ago.nbsp; Some of the teachers chose to circumvent this directive by teaching from the historical perspective of Darwin's life.br br /blockquote br I can report on contrasting (but similar) situation where a friend was teaching Laser Science and Holography in a High School in Missouri a couple of years ago.nbsp; It might not surprise us that in Missouri, a teacher would be told not to teach Evolution.nbsp; This friend was not told not to teach evolution (it wasn't in his curricula anyway), but after many months of intriguing young minds with the wonders of science and technology, he managed to make some statement (I can't remember the particulars) that tied lots of what he'd said to them to the dirtiest of words - iEvolution/i.nbsp;nbsp; After the reactions of most of his promising young science students made him aware that he'd stepped in something messy, he went to the principal to ask what the school policy was (assuming the worst).nbsp;nbsp; The principal simply said You are on your own.nbsp; The implied message was that the school would not interfere if he wanted to (needed to) go into such things, but that neither would they defend him against irate parents (and students) either.br nbsp;br Being an easy-going but determined sort, he continued (carefully) with his class to engage them in all things scientific that he could and when he stumbled into the no-man's land of dogma, he let them blow off their dogmatic steam against iEvolution and whatnot/i.nbsp; I suspect he made some very serious headway into changing hearts and minds in that little Missouri town, simply by showing them how interesting Science could be but not needing to confront their dogma directly.nbsp; I can just see him listening to them spout dogma back at him with a twinkle in his eye and then go back to whatever clever science experiment he was into, knowing they had to hear the inanity of their own line, without him saying a word against it.br br Los Alamos is a different story.nbsp;nbsp; My daughters both went through the LA school systems and I found the DARE (Drugs Are Really Expensive) program started when my oldest was in 6th grade every bit as offensive as banning Evolution from Science.nbsp;nbsp; My very strong-willed daughter came home one day chanting I will think for myself, I WILL think for myself, I will THINK for myself... nbsp; and told me all about the DARE program that one of LA's finest had come to tell them about.nbsp; She was really excited.nbsp; They were all being offered a chance to think for themselves! with a vengeance, what could be better?nbsp; They were going to have a club whose motto was I think for myself!.nbsp;nbsp; There was even a subtext that part of thinking for themselves was reporting to the club-meister ( a police officer ) anyone they knew of using illegal drugs.nbsp;nbsp; br br I have my own reasons (beyond security clearances, etc) for rejecting the pop-drug-culture, but this was patently offensive and wrong.nbsp;nbsp; The schools (and police) were one step away from creating something like the Brown Shirts of Nazi Germany.nbsp;nbsp; Fortunately, I was able to laugh it off and steer my 12 year old back onto her old track of *thinking for herself* and once she realized they were pandering to that part of her ego and in fact were asking her to do anything but *think for herself*, she was free of their mesmerization.nbsp; Unfortunately at least half of her peer group ate it up like Doug's proverbial dog-vomit and proudly.nbsp;nbsp; I don't know what their parents told them... but I suspect they either didn't want to rock the boat or they actually thought teaching children to think for themselves amounted to teaching them how to recite that line while
Re: [FRIAM] Fundamentalist-based Republicanism
Marcus, Your example of our weird faith people have in trickle down economics points to a specific instance of magical thinking, in the usual form, that we think our stereotypes have causal value in physical systems of the world. The data reads to me as that globally increasing investment generally had the claimed effect, prior to 1970, and then largely stopped. That somewhat coincides with the rise in fanatical belief in the principle just when it no longer worked. The effect of believing your stereotypes means that changing the world is simply a matter of convincing others to have the other stereotypes... I think that's what I observe in most politics and why I'm nearly as disappointed in the level of insight into our problems by the republicans as by the democrats. They ALL have crazy fictions about how to change the complex systems of our world, that independently develop organization and behavior of their own almost no one happens to watch. We just give label with the latest news story stereotype and that settles it! I dont think education seems to fix that disease in the situation where everyone apparently has it. Phil Henshaw FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
[FRIAM] Commentary by Paul Krugman
2008 Nobel prize winner for economics Paul Krugman has a few interesting things to say about The Republican Rump http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1ref=todayspaperoref=slogin *[...] Why will the G.O.P. become more, not less, extreme? For one thing, projections suggest that this election will drive many of the remaining Republican moderates out of Congress, while leaving the hard right in place. [...] But the G.O.P.'s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat.* * * ;-} -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
[FRIAM] Elections illustrate that there is no meta level
The subject pretty much says it. I have long thought that one of the features of complex systems is that there is no meta-level. By that I mean that no matter what framework-like structure the system provides for elements within it, that framework is itself manipulable from within the system. Elections are supposed to be a mechanism that collects votes. It is supposed to operate on a meta-level, independent of the actual vote preferences. It is not supposed to be part of the electioneering process. But as we all know, the election process itself is subject to manipulation by parties to the election. A common example is that polling places aren't staffed sufficiently, leading to long lines and discouraged voters. Of course that happens in districts that are not favorable to the party in control of the election mechanism. That sort of thing is not supposed to happen. But obviously it does. This also illustrates one of the weaknesses of modeling--to return to yesterday's thread. Models are always meta-level frameworks. No model that I know of is flexible enough that the elements within the model can change the underlying model assumptions. -- Russ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
[FRIAM] The Redskins Rule: Obama wins!
OK, its over. Obama won. Why? There is a weird statistic that goes like this: If you can not wait to see who will win the United States election on Tuesday night, there may be a way to find out 24 hours beforehand — thanks to the Washington Redskins. The outcome of the Redskins’ last home game before a presidential election has been an accurate barometer for which party gets in the White House 17 of the last 18 times. If the Redskins win, the incumbent party stays in power. If the Redskins lose, the opposing party wins. Well, the game was tight, fast and dramatic! .. and the Redskins LOST! Thus tomorrow, according to the Redskin Rule, Obama will WIN! Whoot! The first time the Redskins Rule failed was in 2004, when Washington lost its last home game before Election Day, and George W. Bush still returned to power. Then again, that could have been because of another election superstition related to sports. If a team named after an animal wins the Rose Bowl in election year, then the Democrats go to the White House. In 2004 the University of Southern Calilfornia Trojans beat the Michigan Wolverines in the Rose Bowl. This year, the Redskins (6-2) will host the Pittsburgh Steelers (5-2) on Monday Night Football — Washington’s first pre-election Monday night home game since 1984, when Washington won and Ronald Reagan was re-elected. ESPN will air interviews with both Barack Obama and John McCain during the Monday night game. Yup, believe it or not, Monday Night Football copped an interview with both candidates. Obama won that too. The Redskins, McCain will be happy to know, are two-point favourites. The Redskins did not score even one touchdown, their quarterback was sacked for the first time this year, not only once, but twice. It was an overwhelming win by Pittsburgh. McCain is out. -- Owen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
