[FRIAM] Today's meeting
All - Frank and I will be a bit late this morning, but we are coming. Should be safely there by 9.45. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org http://www.cusf.org/ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
But they do promise life everlasting. On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert that science is the only procedure capable of producing lasting consensus. The other methods various forms of torture, mostly ... do not produce such enduring results. N -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 6:12 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:45 PM: I was using evidence in the scientific sense, You say that as if everyone agrees on the scientific sense of the term, which of course they don't. Even reputable scientists disagree on what constitutes evidence. I know you're willing to insult anyone with whom you disagree. But the fact remains that standards of evidence differ depending on the context of the discussion, the domain of inquiry, etc. Evidence in, say, cosmology or evolution is very different from evidence in, say, biology or physics. And that's without leaping out into the softer sciences. -- == glen e. p. ropella Looked pretty horny if I do say FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
[FRIAM] good news about apple
I'm sure you Apple fans have heard this news, already. Apple's iMessage encryption trips up feds' surveillance http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57577887-38/apples-imessage-encryption-trips-up-feds-surveillance/ -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you. -- Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/04/2013 10:03 PM: Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert that science is the only procedure capable of producing lasting consensus. The other methods various forms of torture, mostly ... do not produce such enduring results. N While I agree with you in the abstract, it still doesn't address the meaning of scientific evidence. My assertion is that the variance exhibited by the many meanings of evidence within science is wide enough to cast doubt on the stability (or perhaps even coherence) of the term in science. And if that's the case, then claims for the superiority of scientific evidence over other meanings of evidence are suspicious claims ... deserving of at least as much skepticism as anecdotal evidence or even personal epiphany. Rather than assume an oversimplified projection onto a one dimensional partial order, perhaps there are as many different types of evidence as there are foci of attention, a multi-dimensional space, with an orthogonal partial ordering in each dimension. -- == glen e. p. ropella This body of mine, man I don't wanna turn android FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
+1 On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote: Just one small teensy note of clarification: I usually only insult people who disagree with me when they are/have been complete assholes about it. Which fortunately narrows the field down a bit. -Doug I can testify to this, as I disagree with Doug often and he only insults me when he's being a complete asshole about it grin! - Steve On Apr 4, 2013 6:11 PM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:45 PM: I was using evidence in the scientific sense, You say that as if everyone agrees on the scientific sense of the term, which of course they don't. Even reputable scientists disagree on what constitutes evidence. I know you're willing to insult anyone with whom you disagree. But the fact remains that standards of evidence differ depending on the context of the discussion, the domain of inquiry, etc. Evidence in, say, cosmology or evolution is very different from evidence in, say, biology or physics. And that's without leaping out into the softer sciences. -- == glen e. p. ropella Looked pretty horny if I do say FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
And given exponential growth in science, who knows first hand what the variance in accepted scientific evidence actually is? Any claims to know what science is and what scientists do, for the purposes of distinguishing between science and non-science, are claims to a revealed truth, not something that anyone has established empirically. Ouch. -- rec -- On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:12 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/04/2013 10:03 PM: Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert that science is the only procedure capable of producing lasting consensus. The other methods various forms of torture, mostly ... do not produce such enduring results. N While I agree with you in the abstract, it still doesn't address the meaning of scientific evidence. My assertion is that the variance exhibited by the many meanings of evidence within science is wide enough to cast doubt on the stability (or perhaps even coherence) of the term in science. And if that's the case, then claims for the superiority of scientific evidence over other meanings of evidence are suspicious claims ... deserving of at least as much skepticism as anecdotal evidence or even personal epiphany. Rather than assume an oversimplified projection onto a one dimensional partial order, perhaps there are as many different types of evidence as there are foci of attention, a multi-dimensional space, with an orthogonal partial ordering in each dimension. -- == glen e. p. ropella This body of mine, man I don't wanna turn android FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/05/2013 08:23 AM: And given exponential growth in science, who knows first hand what the variance in accepted scientific evidence actually is? That's a great point. It may help me articulate my objection to the concept of the singularity, the sense that technology will soon (has) outstrip(ped) purely human intelligence/understanding. It seems more like an explosion of effect[ors] than a super intelligence or anything cognitive, thought-based like that. Even if we constrain ourselves to the maker community (3d printers, arduino, etc.) and the recent pressure for open access to publications, it's difficult for me to imagine any kind of convergence, to science or anything else. It just feels more like a divergence to me. I wonder if there is a way to measure this? In absolute terms, we can't really use a count the people who participate in domain X measure. The ratio of the poor and starving to those who have their basic needs met well enough to participate is too high. It would swamp that absolute measure. We'd have to normalize it. To some extent, exploratory science has always been pursued most effectively by the 1% and those they patronize. Perhaps a measure of the variation in standards of evidence would correlate fairly well with the waxing and waning of the middle class? Any claims to know what science is and what scientists do, for the purposes of distinguishing between science and non-science, are claims to a revealed truth, not something that anyone has established empirically. Ouch. Absolutely! (Sorry, I had to slip in a contradictory affirmation.) This goes directly back to Popper, I think. There is no entry exam for science. Every speculation is welcome. -- == glen e. p. ropella Me and myself got a world to save FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
[FRIAM] just the facts
From Abortion, Climate Change, Gun Control to Social Security and Taxes, the http://www.justfacts.com/ offers just the [distilled] facts on about 14 major topics. I thought this site with its emphasis on objectivity might perhaps be useful to the group. The sister (brother|sibling) site http://www.justfactsdaily.com/ may be more politically motivated and picking and choosing what to discuss. Thanks Robert C FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote: Roger/Glen - Good stuff... I find both topics very compelling: 1. How do we define/recognize valid measures of evidence? In the case of the chemtrail faithful I can safely characterize their measure (singular) of evidence as: Look! See the chemtrails? 'They' are trying to poison us!!! 1. Is the current exponential growth in tech divergent or convergent? I believe that the true source of divergence (in what? you might ask, in everything, I might answer: politics, technology, religion, ...) is that too many people are complete, embarrassingly ignorant assholes. And thanks for asking. --Doug -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
[FRIAM] Thanks for All the Fish!
Doug - 1. How do we define/recognize valid measures of evidence? In the case of the chemtrail faithful I can safely characterize their measure (singular) of evidence as: Look! See the chemtrails? 'They' are trying to poison us!!! No argument there but *why* are they trying to poison us!!! Wait... I'm on the skeptics side... nevermind... 1. Is the current exponential growth in tech divergent or convergent? I believe that the true source of divergence (in what? you might ask, in everything, I might answer: politics, technology, religion, ...) is that too many people are complete, embarrassingly ignorant assholes. And just what is your measure of evidence about what the multi-objective function of /complete, embarassing, ignorant, /and/asshole/? And what *does* the pareto frontier of that look like in these 4 dimensions? Anyone who doesn't understand the question or it's import are /complete, embarassingly ignorant assholes/ (by one measure)! And thanks for asking. You are most welcome (as always)... anything else you would like me to ask grin? For some reason this last line of yours makes me imagine that you are channelling Doug(las) Adams (aka Roberts?): So Long and Thanks for All the Fish! by Douglas Adams (RIP) So long and thanks for all the fish So sad that it should come to this We tried to warn you all but oh dear? You may not share our intellect Which might explain your disrespect For all the natural wonders that grow around you So long, so long and thanks for all the fish The world's about to be destroyed There's no point getting all annoyed Lie back and let the planet dissolve(around you) Despite those nets of tuna fleets We thought that most of you were sweet Especially tiny tots and your pregnant women So long, so long, so long, so long, so long So long, so long, so long, so long, so long So long, so long and thanks for all the fish If I had just one last wish I would like a tasty fish If we could just change one thing We would all learn how to sing Come one and all Man and Mammal Side by Side in life's great gene pool (hhh hhh oooaah- ah ahh) So long, so long, so long, so long, so long So long, so long, so long, so long, so long So long, so long and, !Thanks! for all the fish! - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Thanks for All the Fish!
I think I'm always channeling Douglas Adams. Thanks for asking. --Doug On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote: Doug - 1. How do we define/recognize valid measures of evidence? In the case of the chemtrail faithful I can safely characterize their measure (singular) of evidence as: Look! See the chemtrails? 'They' are trying to poison us!!! No argument there but *why* are they trying to poison us!!! Wait... I'm on the skeptics side... nevermind... 1. Is the current exponential growth in tech divergent or convergent? I believe that the true source of divergence (in what? you might ask, in everything, I might answer: politics, technology, religion, ...) is that too many people are complete, embarrassingly ignorant assholes. And just what is your measure of evidence about what the multi-objective function of *complete, embarassing, ignorant, *and* asshole*? And what *does* the pareto frontier of that look like in these 4 dimensions? Anyone who doesn't understand the question or it's import are *complete, embarassingly ignorant assholes* (by one measure)! And thanks for asking. You are most welcome (as always)... anything else you would like me to ask grin? For some reason this last line of yours makes me imagine that you are channelling Doug(las) Adams (aka Roberts?): So Long and Thanks for All the Fish! by Douglas Adams (RIP) So long and thanks for all the fish So sad that it should come to this We tried to warn you all but oh dear? You may not share our intellect Which might explain your disrespect For all the natural wonders that grow around you So long, so long and thanks for all the fish The world's about to be destroyed There's no point getting all annoyed Lie back and let the planet dissolve(around you) Despite those nets of tuna fleets We thought that most of you were sweet Especially tiny tots and your pregnant women So long, so long, so long, so long, so long So long, so long, so long, so long, so long So long, so long and thanks for all the fish If I had just one last wish I would like a tasty fish If we could just change one thing We would all learn how to sing Come one and all Man and Mammal Side by Side in life's great gene pool (hhh hhh oooaah- ah ahh) So long, so long, so long, so long, so long So long, so long, so long, so long, so long So long, so long and, !Thanks! for all the fish! - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] just the facts
That looked cool. I was particularily interested in what they said about gun control( http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp ). I went to the source of their information and it was totally different from what they reported. They attribute the data to the source *[120] Dataset: 20 Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths, United States, 2007. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed September 1, 2010 at http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html* And here is their graph. Notice that firearm deaths is 16th. Here is the exact data i got from from http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html for 2007 Notice than firearm deaths are ranked both 4th and 5th. What is going on here? Is this a Fox news source. Also, why did they just choose 2007? The data goes back to 1999 10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths, United States 2007, All Races, Both Sexes Age Groups Rank11-85 1 Unintentional Suffocation 959Unintentional MV Traffic 41,900 2 Homicide Unspecified 174Unintentional Poisoning 29,824 3 Unintentional MV Traffic 122Unintentional Fall 22,605 4 Homicide Other Spec., classifiable 86Suicide Firearm 17,350 5 Unintentional Drowning 57Homicide Firearm 12,608 6 Unintentional Fire/burn 39Suicide Suffocation 8,161 7 Undetermined Suffocation 34Suicide Poisoning 6,356 8 Homicide Suffocation 30Unintentional Unspecified 6,005 9 Undetermined Unspecified 28Unintentional Suffocation 5,038 10 Unintentional Fall 24Undetermined Poisoning 3,759***WISQARS**TM**Produced By: Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention**Data Source: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital Statistics System* On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: From Abortion, Climate Change, Gun Control to Social Security and Taxes, the http://www.justfacts.com/ offers just the [distilled] facts on about 14 major topics. I thought this site with its emphasis on objectivity might perhaps be useful to the group. The sister (brother|sibling) site http://www.justfactsdaily.com/ may be more politically motivated and picking and choosing what to discuss. Thanks Robert C ==**== FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/**listinfo/friam_redfish.comhttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] just the facts
Lying with statistics, I don't think that firearm homicide or firearm suicide (the categories in the second table) count as firearm accidental deaths (the category in the first graph). -- rec -- On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM, cody dooderson d00d3r...@gmail.com wrote: That looked cool. I was particularily interested in what they said about gun control( http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp ). I went to the source of their information and it was totally different from what they reported. They attribute the data to the source *[120] Dataset: 20 Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths, United States, 2007. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed September 1, 2010 at http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html* And here is their graph. Notice that firearm deaths is 16th. Here is the exact data i got from from http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html for 2007 Notice than firearm deaths are ranked both 4th and 5th. What is going on here? Is this a Fox news source. Also, why did they just choose 2007? The data goes back to 1999 10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths, United States 2007, All Races, Both Sexes Age Groups Rank1 1-85 1 Unintentional Suffocation 959Unintentional MV Traffic 41,900 2 Homicide Unspecified 174Unintentional Poisoning 29,824 3 Unintentional MV Traffic 122Unintentional Fall 22,605 4 Homicide Other Spec., classifiable 86Suicide Firearm 17,350 5 Unintentional Drowning 57Homicide Firearm 12,608 6 Unintentional Fire/burn 39Suicide Suffocation 8,161 7 Undetermined Suffocation 34Suicide Poisoning 6,356 8 Homicide Suffocation 30Unintentional Unspecified 6,005 9 Undetermined Unspecified 28Unintentional Suffocation 5,038 10 Unintentional Fall 24Undetermined Poisoning 3,759***WISQARS**TM* *Produced By: Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention* *Data Source: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital Statistics System*** ** On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: From Abortion, Climate Change, Gun Control to Social Security and Taxes, the http://www.justfacts.com/ offers just the [distilled] facts on about 14 major topics. I thought this site with its emphasis on objectivity might perhaps be useful to the group. The sister (brother|sibling) site http://www.justfactsdaily.com/ may be more politically motivated and picking and choosing what to discuss. Thanks Robert C ==**== FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/**listinfo/friam_redfish.comhttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
Steve Smith wrote at 04/05/2013 10:54 AM: 1. How do we define/recognize valid measures of evidence? 2. Is the current exponential growth in tech divergent or convergent? 1. I have worked on several projects involving the formal management of evidence and belief which makes me cynical when people suggest that there is one true form of evidence. Most of it ended up off in high dimensional pareto fronts with multiple measures of confidence. The underlying theory (much just beyond my grasp to regurgitate) is based in variants of Dempster-Shaffer and Fuzzy Sets/Intervals. There is always a Bayesian in the crowd that starts Baying (sorry) about how Bayesian Methods are the *only* thing anyone ever needs. This specific example in statistics and probability theory is but one. Similarly, it took a long time for anyone to accept far-from-equilibrium systems as being worth studying simply because their tools didn't work there. Like looking for your lost keys under the streetlamp because the light is too bad in the alley where you dropped them. Well, the first thing to cover is that the definition won't necessarily be pre-statable. In order for it to be an accurate measure, it will have to evolve with the thing(s) being measured. The second consideration is whatever you mean by valid. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I assume you mean trustworthy or credentialed in some sense. And, again, I'd settle that by tying trustworthiness to the thing being measured. I typically do this by asking the participants in a domain whether any given measure of their domain is acceptable/irritating. Measures of local hacker spaces is a good anecdote for me, lately. With the growth of the maker community, it's informative to ask various participants what they think of things like techshop vs. dorkbot (or our local variants). Both these suggest skepticism toward the _unification_ of validity or trustworthiness. Evidence boils down to a context-sensitive aggregation, which is why Bayesian methods are so attractive. But I'm sure they aren't the only way to install context sensitivity. Recently, I've been trying to understand Feferman's schematic axiom systems http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/godelnagel.pdf and how a schema might be extracted from a formal system in such a way as to provide provide reasoning structures that are sensitive to application. (My complete and embarrassing ignorance slows my progress, of course.) 2. [...] What I'm equally interested in is if there is a similar divergence in thinking. [...] I believe that humans have a natural time constant around belief (and as a consequence, understanding, knowledge, paradigms?) on the order of years if not decades or a full lifetime. That time-constant may be shrinking, but I rarely believe someone when they claim during or after an arguement to have changed their mind... at best, they are acknowledging that a seed has sprouted which in a few years or decades might grow into a garden. Obviously, I'm still not convinced that _thinking_ is all that important. It strikes me that _doing_ is far more important. My evidence for this lies mostly in the (apparent) decoupled relationship between what people say and what they do. I can see fairly strong maps between immediate, short-term thoughts like Ice cream is good and actions like walking to the freezer, scooping some out, and eating it. But I see fairly convoluted maps between, e.g., Logging your data is good and what bench scientists actually end up writing in their logs. -- == glen e. p. ropella All the lies I tell myself FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] just the facts
On 4/5/13 11:34 AM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote: From Abortion, Climate Change, Gun Control to Social Security and Taxes, the http://www.justfacts.com/ offers just the [distilled] facts on about 14 major topics. I thought this site with its emphasis on objectivity might perhaps be useful to the group. I took a gander (mostly at my favorite hot-button topics) and found that while the site *does* emit an *air* of unbiasedness... I'm pretty sure their distillation is somewhat deliberately selective.It wasn't hard, for example, for me to guess what the (big)Brother site was going to espouse. In fact this site seems to be entirely designed to support the arguments of the more (obviously) biased and opinionated site. The unbiased site seems to have been salted with facts that contradict the position of the biased site but when I *then* read the more biased site, I found that they had convenient dismissals ready for the inconvenient facts while glomming on to the convenient ones. Other, important and inconvenient facts were not mentioned either place. Go figure. I suspect a similar pair of sites might exist with the opposite leaning with similar features. I spent most of the 80's, 90's in constant horror at the same kind of rhetoric used to support any number of politically correct positions. It is not just one side of the political division in this country that resorts to such rhetoric, but somehow it seems to have gotten heavily unbalanced in the last 10-15 years (might just be my shifting perspective?). The sister (brother|sibling) site http://www.justfactsdaily.com/ may be more politically motivated and picking and choosing what to discuss. http://www.justfactsdaily.com/the-anti-science-accusation comes on clear and strong... I was expecting (hoping for) a *more* unbiased pro/con discussion... the kind where when the arguments are complete there are still something left standing on both sides, not ones where one side has been trampled down and the other stands victorious, foot on the other's chest to a roaring crowd of sycophants... waiting for the thumbs down! Carry On, - Steve PS... good followup Cody... do remember that both Fox News and Rush Limbaugh *claim* to be entertainment... which explains why roughly 50% of the population is *rabidly* fascinated and the other 50% is *morbidly* fascinated by their antics! FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
Well, you may all soon tire of my attempt to channel the classical pragmatist, C.S Peirce, but it is an interesting perspective, one that has had broad influence on our thought, but whose foundations have gotten trampled into the intellectual midden in the last 100 years, and therefore, I think, worth digging up and dusting off. I think the classical pragmatic answer to Glen's comment would be, whatever produces consensus in the very long run is science. So, as glen would point out, this does not, by itself, produce demarcations between good thought ... experimental thought, in the broadest sense ... and the other kinds. But Peirce was much taken by the period in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in which a tremendous amount of opinion was settled ... a consensus was reached ... on the nature of the elements, a consensus that mainly endures until today. So I think he would advise us to turn to the methods of that period and say, use these as a guide to conduct our search for the truth in the future. He would agree that such advice is provisional ... fallible is the term he would use ... but he is contemptible of anything that smacked of Cartesian skeptism. Nobody, he would say, is skeptical as a matter of fact. Doubt is not something we entertain (except as sophists); it is something that is forced upon us and it is a painful state that we try to resolve in favor of belief. So, it is important to talk not about what we can doubt, but what we do doubt. And when we do that, when we look at which methods we have confidence in and which we actually doubt, we will see that we have ways of arriving at consensus ... in the long run ... about which methods to use. And yes that is quasi-tautological. Nick The Village Pragmatist -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:12 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/04/2013 10:03 PM: Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert that science is the only procedure capable of producing lasting consensus. The other methods various forms of torture, mostly ... do not produce such enduring results. N While I agree with you in the abstract, it still doesn't address the meaning of scientific evidence. My assertion is that the variance exhibited by the many meanings of evidence within science is wide enough to cast doubt on the stability (or perhaps even coherence) of the term in science. And if that's the case, then claims for the superiority of scientific evidence over other meanings of evidence are suspicious claims ... deserving of at least as much skepticism as anecdotal evidence or even personal epiphany. Rather than assume an oversimplified projection onto a one dimensional partial order, perhaps there are as many different types of evidence as there are foci of attention, a multi-dimensional space, with an orthogonal partial ordering in each dimension. -- == glen e. p. ropella This body of mine, man I don't wanna turn android FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] just the facts
I also spent 15 minutes or so perusing some of the more politically polarizing topics, and it didn't take long to realize the site tilts pretty heavily toward the right. It's easy to cherry pick just the facts that support one's own position. Does anyone have suggestions for a site that actually accomplishes what this one purports to do? Of course everyone's idea of what is right vs left differs. My brother considers Fox News to be objective and CNN to be liberal. Other friends find CNN to be conservative and Democracy Now to be objective. Personally, I think CNN does a reasonable job of being in the middle, DN cherry picks for the left, and FN cherry picks for the right. ;; Gary FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
Roger, Speaking in my role as the Village Pragmatist, I think I would insist that your implication is incorrect that there is no purchase on the slipperly slope you describe. Your despair is premature. From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:24 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending And given exponential growth in science, who knows first hand what the variance in accepted scientific evidence actually is? Any claims to know what science is and what scientists do, for the purposes of distinguishing between science and non-science, are claims to a revealed truth, not something that anyone has established empirically. Ouch. -- rec -- On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:12 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/04/2013 10:03 PM: Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert that science is the only procedure capable of producing lasting consensus. The other methods various forms of torture, mostly ... do not produce such enduring results. N While I agree with you in the abstract, it still doesn't address the meaning of scientific evidence. My assertion is that the variance exhibited by the many meanings of evidence within science is wide enough to cast doubt on the stability (or perhaps even coherence) of the term in science. And if that's the case, then claims for the superiority of scientific evidence over other meanings of evidence are suspicious claims ... deserving of at least as much skepticism as anecdotal evidence or even personal epiphany. Rather than assume an oversimplified projection onto a one dimensional partial order, perhaps there are as many different types of evidence as there are foci of attention, a multi-dimensional space, with an orthogonal partial ordering in each dimension. -- == glen e. p. ropella This body of mine, man I don't wanna turn android FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
Glen - Steve Smith wrote at 04/05/2013 10:54 AM: 1. How do we define/recognize valid measures of evidence? 2. Is the current exponential growth in tech divergent or convergent? ... Well, the first thing to cover is that the definition won't necessarily be pre-statable. In order for it to be an accurate measure, it will have to evolve with the thing(s) being measured. This is an important point that I'd like to hear more about... I have my own views and ideas on it but get the feeling you may have a more formal or specific idea about this? Both these suggest skepticism toward the _unification_ of validity or trustworthiness. Evidence boils down to a context-sensitive aggregation, which is why Bayesian methods are so attractive. But I'm sure they aren't the only way to install context sensitivity. Recently, I've been trying to understand Feferman's schematic axiom systems http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/godelnagel.pdf and how a schema might be extracted from a formal system in such a way as to provide provide reasoning structures that are sensitive to application. (My complete and embarrassing ignorance slows my progress, of course.) I've downloaded and will read the paper and if my own complete and arrogant ignorance (thanks for the succinct description of this state Doug!) doesn't bog me down even worse, I'll try to respond to that under separate cover. 2. [...] What I'm equally interested in is if there is a similar divergence in thinking. [...] I believe that humans have a natural time constant around belief (and as a consequence, understanding, knowledge, paradigms?) on the order of years if not decades or a full lifetime. That time-constant may be shrinking, but I rarely believe someone when they claim during or after an arguement to have changed their mind... at best, they are acknowledging that a seed has sprouted which in a few years or decades might grow into a garden. Obviously, I'm still not convinced that _thinking_ is all that important. It strikes me that _doing_ is far more important. My evidence for this lies mostly in the (apparent) decoupled relationship between what people say and what they do. I can see fairly strong maps between immediate, short-term thoughts like Ice cream is good and actions like walking to the freezer, scooping some out, and eating it. But I see fairly convoluted maps between, e.g., Logging your data is good and what bench scientists actually end up writing in their logs. I *do* appreciate the harping you have been doing about doing vs thinking (or talking or posturing or gesturing) and take it painfully to heart. My prolificness (prolificacy? wot?) here suggests that I prefer to talk and think to do. That is not *completely* true, as a lot of my doing happens at the same keyboard and screen as my talking and thinking on the other hand, the new heating element to my dryer came in yesterday and I *still* haven't installed it. And Spring is springing and I *still* haven't bled the brakes on my dumptruck to go get my usual Springtime loads of manure and woodchips... and I am *still* yammering away here as April 15 looms over the horizon and my PL records are still woefully under-attended... and ... well, you get the picture. Talk *is* (relatively) cheap, though not without a price. I also appreciate what you probably *really* intended to illuminate... that what we *do* says more than what we *say*. But the two *are* duals... even if some of us *say* one thing and *do* another, there is a correlation. In fact, those of us who protest most loudly about this or that might be the best suspects for acting differently. Anecdotally it is a given that rabid homophobes are likely to be gay and it is easy enough for me to believe that those who proselytize most grandly might be compensating for their own lack of belief. But the point I was trying to make, independent of the measure (I think) is that human time scales, the time between beginning to accept/understand/experience/act differently and a full embrace of it can be quite long. This feels like a bit of a ceiling (more aptly floor) to constrain any runaway acceleration of thinking OR action? I could be arguing for your point (even more than intended) as I know that if I can encode an idea into an action and an action into a habit, it often doesn't take long for me to shift from one mode to another... there is a power of tactile/embodied habituation that mere thinking/talking doesn't touch. Thanks - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
[FRIAM] Fwd: Re: The nature of Discussion Fora
Glen, et al - Here is a response from a friend/colleague (some of you knew him when he was at BIOS) who attempted to CC FRIAM and I'm sure it bounced as he is not a subscriber. - Steve Original Message Subject:Re: [FRIAM] The nature of Discussion Fora Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:56:16 -0700 From: David R. Thompson david.thomp...@storyresolution.org To: Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com CC: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com Steve, Thank you for forwarding this twitching message. I realize that this thread is probably long past its prime, though I wanted to mention my appreciation. The term twitching bugged me at first, and this was a good thing. My pejorative interpretation poked at me, probably because its connotation rings with some important truth for me. My interest in our storied lives is parallel with my interest in the Buddhist notion of our conditioned lives, our lives wherein we break the world world down into - this vs. that -, and see our arbitrary ontologies as real, and see the entities in our arbitrary ontologies as containing their own (self generated) essence. Though the entities of our conditioned views are powerfully useful fictions of individuality, when mistaken as real they (and we) become unwitting actors in unquestionable stories (people, trees, cars, chairs ...). Put another way, if I connect this with my understanding of the radical and 2500 year old Buddhist view, the twitching (and the ensuing dukkha driving the twitching) arise from seeing our useful fictions, our conditioned worlds and the stories we weave about them, as hard reality. When our stories are hard reality, rather than a way of attempting to negotiate our infinite ignorance in the world, we act from them as the subject of our doing. When lost in stories as the subject from which we act, we cannot see or question them, their relative nature is unthinkable, so we twitch and dance to our stories. My understanding is that, when we wake up to see the practicality of our stories and ontologies, that they are useful fictions and partial understandings, and that essence is only in the dance of the broader interaction, we can make our subject views and stories into objects. We can act directly on our operational stories and become authors. And, as evinced by the discipline required to retain authorship (the path), it is hard to be in authorship in a world where so many forces tell us that we must act in someone elses' stories to be safe. Creating and maintaining these roles and perceptions of ourselves is the core of the pain pointed to in anatta (not self, or no self). Thank you for the insightful twitching term Glen! It has stuck in my mind for a couple of weeks. David __ David R. Thompson -- Problem Resolution Advocate Blog : http://storyresolution.org/ Email: david.thomp...@storyresolution.org home : 509.624.1018 cell : 509.263.0792 Clumsy is the dance of one brain clapping __ On 3/19/2013 3:08 PM, Steve Smith wrote: Glen - This is twitchin awesome! But for some unexplained reason, I feel pithed about it. (lame puns intended, punning being one of *my* twitches). I'm still enjoying my illusion of free-will and get a little skitchy around overstated pre-determination (or a fully mechanistic model of the universe?). This is probably just a twitch itself? I do think that a great deal of what we (think we) do consciously is some level of twitch as you call it. Coupled dynamical systems, all of us in one great grand ensemble of twitching frog-legs all wired together... or in Stephenson's Diamond Age like the Drummers (sorry Carl). I also accept the idea that *much* of what we think we understand or control is just a post-hoc rationalization of what happened without even our involvement much less understanding. You have referred to yourself in the past as a simulant which I took to mean that you are a professional creator of simulations (simulation scientist?) despite the fact that it was too close to Replicant from Blade Runner and sounded more like you were claiming that you were just a somewhat modularized region in a giant simulation. This of course wanders me into Fredkin/Wolfram/Chaitin land where their digitally updated version of Leibnitz' Monist Metaphysics is expressed variously as Digital Philosophy or Digital Physics. In some circles it is a truism the we are what we eat... which suggests that someone who eats simulations for a living is likely to become a simulation at least in their own mind. Or perhaps it is your twitch that you *are* a simulation scientist *because* you see the world as one grande simulation and the ones you create and execute are just modularized simulations within the simulation? In my offline conversations with Rich Murray, it is becoming apparent that we (he and I) share the feeling that by
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
It think the Village Pragmatist would insist, contra Roger, that even as there is an explosion of small doubts at the periphery of our collective understanding, so also there is an explosion of the stuff that we have come to agree about. Nick -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 10:58 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/05/2013 08:23 AM: And given exponential growth in science, who knows first hand what the variance in accepted scientific evidence actually is? That's a great point. It may help me articulate my objection to the concept of the singularity, the sense that technology will soon (has) outstrip(ped) purely human intelligence/understanding. It seems more like an explosion of effect[ors] than a super intelligence or anything cognitive, thought-based like that. Even if we constrain ourselves to the maker community (3d printers, arduino, etc.) and the recent pressure for open access to publications, it's difficult for me to imagine any kind of convergence, to science or anything else. It just feels more like a divergence to me. I wonder if there is a way to measure this? In absolute terms, we can't really use a count the people who participate in domain X measure. The ratio of the poor and starving to those who have their basic needs met well enough to participate is too high. It would swamp that absolute measure. We'd have to normalize it. To some extent, exploratory science has always been pursued most effectively by the 1% and those they patronize. Perhaps a measure of the variation in standards of evidence would correlate fairly well with the waxing and waning of the middle class? Any claims to know what science is and what scientists do, for the purposes of distinguishing between science and non-science, are claims to a revealed truth, not something that anyone has established empirically. Ouch. Absolutely! (Sorry, I had to slip in a contradictory affirmation.) This goes directly back to Popper, I think. There is no entry exam for science. Every speculation is welcome. -- == glen e. p. ropella Me and myself got a world to save FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] just the facts
Take your own data. Excellent suggestion! For some reason, it made me remember this site. The Centre for Investigative Journalism http://www.tcij.org/ I think there is a middle ground between the sensationalism of our infotainment outlets and the often daunting task of gathering our own data. But I have yet to find a reliable middle ground. Each source of news I find turns out to seem biased (to me). That leads me to question what type of person becomes a journalist. What types of journalists are there? Etc. I actually dated a journalism major in my last years of college and a few years after graduation. Aside from the obvious, I was drawn to her unbias and devotion to rationality in the face of all the prejudice surrounding us. That unbias eventually turned into apathy and the need for extraordinary stimulus ... like hanging out with the hippies across the street who didn't bother to bathe, much less wash dishes or clean house. She started listening to Blues Traveler 24/7 and finally dumped me for an alpha hippie (a weird breed, actually). Arlo Barnes wrote at 04/05/2013 12:32 PM: I don't think Democracy! Now purports to be 'just the facts' - while of course they wouldn't say they /distort/ the truth, mostly they are devoted to news and interviews about left-leaning topics, or civil/humanitarian rights in general. Fox News, on the other hand, is equally focussed on conservative viewpoints, and occasionally makes stuff up. CNN is going for whatever draws viewers (controversy) without angering them (any perception of sidedness, even where it is an inapplicable concept). Ultimately it is up to the viewer to attempt to perceive, intuit, and presume biases and to gestalt multiple sources to try to construct an accurate view of the world. So if one wants 'just the facts', they will have to go where facts are generated - firsthand sources and data. For example, in the so-called 'Climategate' issue, why not find a general journal you have access to, and sample papers that have been published about climate change - do most of them have data showing causes as being anthropogenic, or not? And because papers cite other papers, you can see what responses have been to any given study. This is a lot of work if done properly and does not guarantee you a fairer worldview but it certainly helps. -Arlo James Barnes -- == glen e. p. ropella Beams of darkness streak across the sky FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] just the facts
Arlo - I don't think Democracy! Now purports to be 'just the facts' - while of course they wouldn't say they /distort/ the truth, mostly they are devoted to news and interviews about left-leaning topics, or civil/humanitarian rights in general. Fox News, on the other hand, is equally focussed on conservative viewpoints, and occasionally makes stuff up. CNN is going for whatever draws viewers (controversy) without angering them (any perception of sidedness, even where it is an inapplicable concept). I generally agree with your analysis, and in fact appreciate it's insightfulness. I limit my push media to DN! but with a fairly good awareness that it is very *selective*. I listen to it *for* it's strong progressive voice. I am fairly confident in their honesty and accuracy within the limits of their bias. I cannot say the same for Fox News. I am pretty sure that they are strongly in the camp of the ends justifies the means and say anything. Their 2008 mascot, ms. I can see Russia from here and they ARE coming, let's go shoot some wolves from helicopters, I'm a Maverick was such a huge caricature of that kind of form over substance that I gag when I see their talking heads and banners (who *IS* that woman commentator with the constantly flaring nostrils?). CNN is a very commercial beast as you point out... my confidence in them fell 25 years ago when my sister and brother-in-law moved from Spain (where all media was government controlled) to Chile (where they had access to Satellite media from the US and Europe). This was during some of the big unrest in Santiago. My brother in law drove past the Capital building *every day* and then would come home to watch Riots and other things happening on CNN *at the Capital* that had patently NOT happened. WTF?! He and I were roughly crossing poltical/ideological paths at that point. He was a young (but older than I) highly charged progressive/liberal and I was somewhat caught up in the rhetoric of the conservative/libertarian world. This was about the point where he (who had become a successful exploration geologist) was starting to believe in the message his International Corporate (backed by the US, UK, etc. govts) bread-provider was telling him and *I*, was starting to *doubt* the nationalistic/patriotic truisms of the National Laboratories, Big Government, and Mutual Assured Destruction rhetoric. His TV now runs Fox News 24/7, and of course, I spend all my time and attention yammering on FRIAM and up to an hour a day listening to Amy Goodman's voice reel off all of the horrors against humanity (sometimes even including white males) of the day. Ultimately it is up to the viewer to attempt to perceive, intuit, and presume biases and to gestalt multiple sources to try to construct an accurate view of the world. So if one wants 'just the facts', they will have to go where facts are generated - firsthand sources and data. Absolutely. *this* is what makes the internet as powerful (for me) as it is. I have *half a chance* of getting within one or two degrees of separation of *source material*. I have regular correspondence with several people who live in the middle east (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) who are variously US ex-pats and Westernized Muslims. I *can* find raw data from many sources (though it is always hard to be sure how raw or cooked some sources are) and I *can* find others who have the expertise to help me cook it to my own liking whilst at least acknowledging their own biases. For example, in the so-called 'Climategate' issue, why not find a general journal you have access to, and sample papers that have been published about climate change - do most of them have data showing causes as being anthropogenic, or not? And because papers cite other papers, you can see what responses have been to any given study. This is a lot of work if done properly and does not guarantee you a fairer worldview but it certainly helps. It is a bit trickier than that. Up until about 2000, even though I had fairly direct access to a variety of climate scientists (LANL, NOAA, NCAR, etc.) I was not convinced of anthropogenic climate change. I was *inclined* to believe it, but I wasn't convinced by the facts I could find that anyone knew for sure. And it seemed pretty arrogant to assume so much power for our puny little selves. I don't remember a specific factoid that broke this camel's back, but I did notice that when I was standing on the beach in New Zealand on Boxing day December 2000 and got a *sunburn* in less than 10 minutes (having come from 7000 ft elevation, I am used to humid sea-level locations giving me *much* more time to frolic without bubbling skin). This experience didn't make suddenly *believe* in the ozone hole, it just made it *palpable*! I already had an abstract belief in the (anthropogenic) ozone hole (by that time already healing), but with it's
Re: [FRIAM] just the facts
It is understandable that many people can't believe that we puny humans could possibly have a big impact on the environment. My parents used to refer with reverence and awe to the inexhaustible sea.. Bruce FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] just the facts
Glen - Take your own data. Excellent suggestion! For some reason, it made me remember this site. The Centre for Investigative Journalism http://www.tcij.org/ Our own Tom Johnson! No, that is: http://www.analyticjournalism.com/ ... My own holy grail is *context*. I appreciate pointers to *facts* but without *context* they mean nothing. It is context that moves data into information and in another way information into knowledge and (IMO) at the apex, knowledge into wisdom. Unfortunately this is a steep and slippery slope to climb. I am seeking (waiting for it to land on me?) an application of self-organizing behaviour and emergence to make sense of this chain. Does data somehow magically (I mean emergently) exhibit it's own metadata/context enough to bootstrap into becoming information? My work around the edge of data mining and visual analytics suggests it might. And my work around the edges of ontologies, etc suggests the same for information into knowledge... knowledge into wisdom is way trickier... maybe as you suggest, *practice* is the only way up that last bit to the top? The term (used here in another thread?) of Received Wisdom suggests a form of Faux Wisdom... which is what the likes of (a few?) of us reject. While it fills the same niche as Really Real Wisdom I think it is intrinsically contingent on sharing a particular world view. I *do* accept that you (Glen) will likely suggest that what I'm seeking is a mirage and it is not beneath me to accept that you might be right. I think there is a middle ground between the sensationalism of our infotainment outlets and the often daunting task of gathering our own data. But I have yet to find a reliable middle ground. Each source of news I find turns out to seem biased (to me). That leads me to question what type of person becomes a journalist. What types of journalists are there? Etc. Oh boy! When I was getting totally jaded by my work as a PI in the late 1970's, it was partly because I had come to learn through my jobs, way too much about the upstanding citizens and the institutions I was living amongst. I flirted briefly with shifting over to Investigative Journalism to capitalize on what I already knew and the skills I'd developed in just looking (Yogi Berra was my mentor).My acute sense of integrity (lame, but acute) at the time told me that I couldn't in good conscience take all the things I'd learned (mostly about my clients while working for them) and cash in on them... I would be violating some kind of implicit confidentiality relationship. I also realized that I was getting tired of squirming around in the muck with the other vermin (Lawyers, Judges, LEOs, criminals, and businessmen)... I'd had enough of the seamy underbelly... So off I went to help build weapons of mass destruction instead! (ok... capture high speed protons and teach them to do a round dance). I never meant my Physics/Math/CS education to be *practical* but it did turn out that way. Ronnie Raygun's Buck Rogers planssounded pretty cool to me (at the time) and where better to put a giant sixgun than in the sky over the evil enemies heads! - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] just the facts
On 4/5/13 2:45 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote: It is understandable that many people can't believe that we puny humans could possibly have a big impact on the environment. My parents used to refer with reverence and awe to the inexhaustible sea.. My favorite example is the line (paraphrased) from Larry McMurtry's characters, Jim Ragg and Bartle Bone, a pair of unlikely mountain men in a typical discussion. Remember when we used to be able to catch a 100 Beav' in a winter right here at this bend in the river? We been coming here for 30 years or more and now we can't hardly find a one anymore? What happened to 'em all? - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] just the facts
This website pisses me off every time i try to check their sources. Why did they even put sources in if they were going to blatantly lie about what they contain. Their caption reads * The following pictures are of U.S. submarines surfacing at the North Pole in March of 1959 and August of 1962: Notice that the real description from http://navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm does not actually say anything about the north pole [image: Skate]Three crew-members of the *Skate (SSN-578)* checking the ice on deck while above the Arctic Circle in 1959. US Navy photo courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory. This is what the pictures of the north pole look like [image: Skate] On 17 March 1959, *Skate (SSN-578)* surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste.Text courtesy of DANFS. USN photo # NPC 1149126 courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory,http://navsource.org/archives/08/0857815.jpgScott Koen ussnewyork.com http://www.ussnewyork.com/. They might of well of put a picture like this up, since they are deliberately trying to deceive readers On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote: On 4/5/13 2:45 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote: It is understandable that many people can't believe that we puny humans could possibly have a big impact on the environment. My parents used to refer with reverence and awe to the inexhaustible sea.. My favorite example is the line (paraphrased) from Larry McMurtry's characters, Jim Ragg and Bartle Bone, a pair of unlikely mountain men in a typical discussion. Remember when we used to be able to catch a 100 Beav' in a winter right here at this bend in the river? We been coming here for 30 years or more and now we can't hardly find a one anymore? What happened to 'em all? - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] just the facts
good point On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Roger Critchlow r...@elf.org wrote: Oh no, someone is wrong on the internet! -- rec -- On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, cody dooderson d00d3r...@gmail.comwrote: This website pisses me off every time i try to check their sources. Why did they even put sources in if they were going to blatantly lie about what they contain. Their caption reads * The following pictures are of U.S. submarines surfacing at the North Pole in March of 1959 and August of 1962: Notice that the real description from http://navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm does not actually say anything about the north pole [image: Skate] Three crew-members of the *Skate (SSN-578)* checking the ice on deck while above the Arctic Circle in 1959. US Navy photo courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory. This is what the pictures of the north pole look like [image: Skate] On 17 March 1959, *Skate (SSN-578)* surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste.Text courtesy of DANFS. USN photo # NPC 1149126 courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory,http://navsource.org/archives/08/0857815.jpgScott Koen ussnewyork.com http://www.ussnewyork.com/. They might of well of put a picture like this up, since they are deliberately trying to deceive readers On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote: On 4/5/13 2:45 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote: It is understandable that many people can't believe that we puny humans could possibly have a big impact on the environment. My parents used to refer with reverence and awe to the inexhaustible sea.. My favorite example is the line (paraphrased) from Larry McMurtry's characters, Jim Ragg and Bartle Bone, a pair of unlikely mountain men in a typical discussion. Remember when we used to be able to catch a 100 Beav' in a winter right here at this bend in the river? We been coming here for 30 years or more and now we can't hardly find a one anymore? What happened to 'em all? - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] just the facts
So is the consensus that justfacts.com http://www.justfacts.com/index.asp is perhaps not just wrong but misleading and deliberately deceptive while claiming http://www.justfacts.com/aboutus.asp not to be so at the same time? We really need unbiased investigative journalism. Does the Center for Investigative Journalism http://cironline.org/about-cir do a better job or the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ or FactCheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/? The thing is, the [honorable] idea behind justfacts.com is a good one. -- Robert C Trust me, never trust anyone who says trust me! On 4/5/13 4:01 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: Oh no, someone is wrong on the internet! -- rec -- On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, cody dooderson d00d3r...@gmail.com mailto:d00d3r...@gmail.com wrote: This website pisses me off every time i try to check their sources. Why did they even put sources in if they were going to blatantly lie about what they contain. Their caption reads * The following pictures are of U.S. submarines surfacing at the North Pole in March of 1959 and August of 1962: Notice that the real description from http://navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm does not actually say anything about the north pole Skate Three crew-members of the */Skate/ (SSN-578)* checking the ice on deck while above the Arctic Circle in 1959. US Navy photo courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory. This is what the pictures of the north pole look like Skate On 17 March 1959, */Skate/ (SSN-578)* surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste. Text courtesy of DANFS. USN photo # NPC 1149126 courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory, http://navsource.org/archives/08/0857815.jpgScott Koen ussnewyork.com http://www.ussnewyork.com/. They might of well of put a picture like this up, since they are deliberately trying to deceive readers On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com mailto:sasm...@swcp.com wrote: On 4/5/13 2:45 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote: It is understandable that many people can't believe that we puny humans could possibly have a big impact on the environment. My parents used to refer with reverence and awe to the inexhaustible sea.. My favorite example is the line (paraphrased) from Larry McMurtry's characters, Jim Ragg and Bartle Bone, a pair of unlikely mountain men in a typical discussion. Remember when we used to be able to catch a 100 Beav' in a winter right here at this bend in the river? We been coming here for 30 years or more and now we can't hardly find a one anymore? What happened to 'em all? - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] just the facts
Democracy Now - PBS TV 9.1 - on now (4/5/13 5:30pm) ! Just talked to the author Robert W. McChesney of Digital Disconnect http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Disconnect-Capitalism-Internet-Democracy/dp/1595588671 about problems with journalism. Coincidence? -- Robert C On 4/5/13 4:30 PM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote: So is the consensus that justfacts.com http://www.justfacts.com/index.asp is perhaps not just wrong but misleading and deliberately deceptive while claiming http://www.justfacts.com/aboutus.asp not to be so at the same time? We really need unbiased investigative journalism. Does the Center for Investigative Journalism http://cironline.org/about-cir do a better job or the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ or FactCheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/? The thing is, the [honorable] idea behind justfacts.com is a good one. -- Robert C Trust me, never trust anyone who says trust me! On 4/5/13 4:01 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: Oh no, someone is wrong on the internet! -- rec -- On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, cody dooderson d00d3r...@gmail.com mailto:d00d3r...@gmail.com wrote: This website pisses me off every time i try to check their sources. Why did they even put sources in if they were going to blatantly lie about what they contain. Their caption reads * The following pictures are of U.S. submarines surfacing at the North Pole in March of 1959 and August of 1962: Notice that the real description from http://navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm does not actually say anything about the north pole Skate Three crew-members of the */Skate/ (SSN-578)* checking the ice on deck while above the Arctic Circle in 1959. US Navy photo courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory. This is what the pictures of the north pole look like Skate On 17 March 1959, */Skate/ (SSN-578)* surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste. Text courtesy of DANFS. USN photo # NPC 1149126 courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory, http://navsource.org/archives/08/0857815.jpgScott Koen ussnewyork.com http://www.ussnewyork.com/. They might of well of put a picture like this up, since they are deliberately trying to deceive readers On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com mailto:sasm...@swcp.com wrote: On 4/5/13 2:45 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote: It is understandable that many people can't believe that we puny humans could possibly have a big impact on the environment. My parents used to refer with reverence and awe to the inexhaustible sea.. My favorite example is the line (paraphrased) from Larry McMurtry's characters, Jim Ragg and Bartle Bone, a pair of unlikely mountain men in a typical discussion. Remember when we used to be able to catch a 100 Beav' in a winter right here at this bend in the river? We been coming here for 30 years or more and now we can't hardly find a one anymore? What happened to 'em all? - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
Unfortunately I think I am coming into this a bit too late to read through the whole thread and respond, but I would like to present a couple of related topics and see what people think. The first is in response to 'would I like people to burst my placebo/nocebo bubble?': the latest issue of Science magazine has an article on recommendations by the American College of Medicine of whether people should be told without being asked that they have alleles that indicate an elevated risk of disease when looking at genes related to common diseases (mostly cancers and tissue defects) as a course of a full-genome analysis for another disease/syndrome/disorder (pointing out that people may already be in an emotionally fragile state from said disease). Link herehttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6127/1507.full?sid=7561e634-f578-431a-8299-e86ef03891f4 . Secondly, I agree that how likable a belief is relies not on how close to reality it is (although that helps) but how 'humble' it is, how willing to admit that it could be wrong (put another way, beliefs that come with an accurate measure of where they came from and therefore how widely they can be applied). So there is likable woo (cold fusion or the new cold fusion, LENR; based on my [admittedly minor] perusing of websites and documents the proponents seem to welcome outside experimentation/verification, and open-source device plans. That doesn't mean the device works as advertised, though) and dislikable woo (iridology?) with chemtrails in between (while it seems very paranoid, I wouldn't put it past refineries that produce jet fuel to get rid of waste chemicals through their product; and although neither that nor any other intentional human activity [unless we can count GHG emissions as intentional just through negligence now?] has effectively controlled the weather, it is not for lack of trying. Contemporary benign activities like silver iodide cloud seeding, speak to this) along with homeopathy (my school tutor keeps recommending this method, whatever that means in practice, and I just politely change the subject; While I don't understand the fractionation thing, the idea that it contains the cause of what it is treating gets some mental preparation from the idea of vaccines). May be unrelated: the discovery of the sodium layer, and the ICEhttp://photovalet.com/181459[Ionosphere Communication Experiment] Station Otto [Not to be confused with Ice Station Zebra], outside Vaughn, NM. Similarly, there is likable and dislikable skepticism. I think the best part of science is the experimentation itself rather than the results per se (although obviously the fruitful part for society is the resulting tech or best practices); perhaps this is related to Feynman's pleasure of finding things out (I believe it was that book in which he stirs a pot of jello that he is holding out a window to see if it will congeal faster in the cold, or the one in which he and a classmate realise they have different ways of counting, one auditory, one visual). When this turns into ridiculing people, however justified, it becomes just no fun anymore. -Arlo James Barnes FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
prescience: piles of random woo science: linear woo woo trains unity: fractal woos within woos = WOO ! Rich On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Arlo Barnes arlo.bar...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately I think I am coming into this a bit too late to read through the whole thread and respond, but I would like to present a couple of related topics and see what people think. The first is in response to 'would I like people to burst my placebo/nocebo bubble?': the latest issue of Science magazine has an article on recommendations by the American College of Medicine of whether people should be told without being asked that they have alleles that indicate an elevated risk of disease when looking at genes related to common diseases (mostly cancers and tissue defects) as a course of a full-genome analysis for another disease/syndrome/disorder (pointing out that people may already be in an emotionally fragile state from said disease). Link herehttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6127/1507.full?sid=7561e634-f578-431a-8299-e86ef03891f4 . Secondly, I agree that how likable a belief is relies not on how close to reality it is (although that helps) but how 'humble' it is, how willing to admit that it could be wrong (put another way, beliefs that come with an accurate measure of where they came from and therefore how widely they can be applied). So there is likable woo (cold fusion or the new cold fusion, LENR; based on my [admittedly minor] perusing of websites and documents the proponents seem to welcome outside experimentation/verification, and open-source device plans. That doesn't mean the device works as advertised, though) and dislikable woo (iridology?) with chemtrails in between (while it seems very paranoid, I wouldn't put it past refineries that produce jet fuel to get rid of waste chemicals through their product; and although neither that nor any other intentional human activity [unless we can count GHG emissions as intentional just through negligence now?] has effectively controlled the weather, it is not for lack of trying. Contemporary benign activities like silver iodide cloud seeding, speak to this) along with homeopathy (my school tutor keeps recommending this method, whatever that means in practice, and I just politely change the subject; While I don't understand the fractionation thing, the idea that it contains the cause of what it is treating gets some mental preparation from the idea of vaccines). May be unrelated: the discovery of the sodium layer, and the ICEhttp://photovalet.com/181459[Ionosphere Communication Experiment] Station Otto [Not to be confused with Ice Station Zebra], outside Vaughn, NM. Similarly, there is likable and dislikable skepticism. I think the best part of science is the experimentation itself rather than the results per se (although obviously the fruitful part for society is the resulting tech or best practices); perhaps this is related to Feynman's pleasure of finding things out (I believe it was that book in which he stirs a pot of jello that he is holding out a window to see if it will congeal faster in the cold, or the one in which he and a classmate realise they have different ways of counting, one auditory, one visual). When this turns into ridiculing people, however justified, it becomes just no fun anymore. -Arlo James Barnes FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
Compare Urban Dictionary: woothttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot . -Arlo James Barnes FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
Urban Dictionary: woot http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot . woot Share on twitter http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot# Share on facebook http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot# Share on more http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot# *4635* up http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot#, *1141* down http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot# Woot originated as a hacker term for root (or administrative) access to a computer. However, with the term as coincides with the gamer term, w00t. w00t was originally an trunicated expression common among players of Dungeons and Dragons tabletop role-playing game for Wow, loot! Thus the term passed into the net-culture where it thrived in video game communities and lost its original meaning and is used simply as a term of excitement. I defeated the dark sorcerer! Woot! woot! i r teh flagmastar! (Think Tribes) Woot, I pwnzed this dude's boxen!' and there's wood, would, woof, Wookie, wool... On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Arlo Barnes arlo.bar...@gmail.com wrote: Compare Urban Dictionary: woothttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot . -Arlo James Barnes FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
1. http://woo-woo.urbanup.com/20579woo woo Share on twitter http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo# Share on facebook http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo# Share on more http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo# *253* up http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#, *126* down http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo# Unfounded or ludicrouse beliefs Belief in talking to the dead, belief in telikenesis, in fact any belief not founded on good evidence, the poorer the evidence the more Woo Woo the belief. buy woo woo mugs shirtshttp://www.urbandictionary.com/products.php?term=woo%20woodefid=20579 by Russell http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=Russell Jan 14, 2003 add a videohttp://www.urbandictionary.com/video.php?defid=20579word=woo+woo 2. http://woo-woo.urbanup.com/2232939woo woo Share on twitter http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo# Share on facebook http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo# Share on more http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo# *199* up http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#, *94* down http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo# extraordinary beliefs for which it is felt there is insufficient extraordinary evidence, and people who hold those beliefs. The date was going fine, then she started to talk about taking her cat to her Pet Psychic for an aura adjustment. Just a bit woo woo for me. buy woo woo mugs shirtshttp://www.urbandictionary.com/products.php?term=woo%20woodefid=2232939 bunk http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bunk airy-fairyhttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=airy-fairy new-agey http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=new-agey insanehttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=insane vapid http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vapid by Daikenn http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=Daikenn Feb 3, 2007 add a videohttp://www.urbandictionary.com/video.php?defid=2232939word=woo+woo 3. http://woo-woo.urbanup.com/99377woo woo Share on twitter http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo# Share on facebook http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo# Share on more http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo# *219* up http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#, *166* down http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo# The sound the whistle tip makes. Its dat woo woo, no what im sayin? Den you got da flows, aint dat trippy out da flowmastas and shit We do it fo da dekarayshunz man. Dats it and dats all man, fo dekarayshunz. You posed be up cookin brehfast fo somebody, its like an alarm clock- woo woo! On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Dean Gerber pd_ger...@yahoo.com wrote: I thought woo was a FRIAM local-ism for the Santa Fe local-ism woo woo now in urban usage: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo Dean Gerber -- *From:* Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com *Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2013 11:13 PM *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending Urban Dictionary: woothttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot . woot Share on twitter http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot# Share on facebook http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot# Share on more http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot# *4635* up http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot#, *1141* down http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot# Woot originated as a hacker term for root (or administrative) access to a computer. However, with the term as coincides with the gamer term, w00t. w00t was originally an trunicated expression common among players of Dungeons and Dragons tabletop role-playing game for Wow, loot! Thus the term passed into the net-culture where it thrived in video game communities and lost its original meaning and is used simply as a term of excitement. I defeated the dark sorcerer! Woot! woot! i r teh flagmastar! (Think Tribes) Woot, I pwnzed this dude's boxen!' and there's wood, would, woof, Wookie, wool... On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Arlo Barnes arlo.bar...@gmail.com wrote: Compare Urban Dictionary: woothttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot . -Arlo James Barnes
