Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

[Gillian Densmore]

@Steve
yeah I don't know that a person can stay sane and constantly question what
they do.
The maxim can probably be taken many different ways. Personally I take it
in a playfull, happy-go-lucky kind of way of
Kind of like OOH I wonder how (Coffe for example) works? OOOH it's black
and with a pinch of suger tastey, And OOOh that's how it works.


As to the Saros system, I mentioned because supposedly at one time it was
thought it might be one piece of why the weather and climate do what they
do.  From what I gather the idea is then that if this system somehow leads
to weather and climate patterns it'd be why the weather and climate are
generally cold or warm

Just tossing it out there for Nicks forum as it was one of  the Bazzilian
ways to (possibly) explain why the weather and climate might be doing what
ever it is they do.


On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Steve Smith  wrote:

> Gil-
>
> The Saros cycles are fascinating.  Of course I always "assumed" there was
> such periodicity and wondered if anyone had tried to correlate these
> conjunctions with earthly phenomena.  I don't see this undermining the
> anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, only perhaps a few of the
> attributable "evidence" for it.
>
> I don't think of scientists as "questioning everything" or at least not
> "everything all of the time" or at least not on an individual by individual
> basis.   Science is perhaps the earliest form of "crowd sourcing".
>
> The early scientific organizations like the Royal Society founded in 1660
> and the complex web of correspondence (mostly) throughout Europe during the
> age of enlightenment.  Their motto is "Nullius in verba" (take nobody's
> word for it).
>
> The cycle of hypothesis generation and testing has several phases of
> "question everything".   To get to a new and interesting hypothesis, one
> must ignore/forget/confront much of current established knowledge...   then
> once a fairly firm hypothesis is formed, one must deliberately look for
> counter-examples to undermine one's own hypothesis to avoid confirmation
> bias and to seek the easiest form of (dis)proof which is "by
> counter-example".   Once a hypothesis has been wrung out well and advanced
> to a "tentative" theory, it is time for the larger community to take the
> same crack at it... do their best to poke holes in it.Once it has been
> through "enough" of that kind of scrutiny, we tend to accept the theory as
> a tentative, conditional, temporary "truth".  Unfortunately non-scientists
> tend to glom onto that kind of "vetting" process as if it leads to a final,
> irrefutable and irreversible conclusion.   Scientists know that all
> knowledge is provisional, that it will get overturned, elaborated, or
> eclipsed somewhere down the line.
>
> Those who realized the earth was spherical, not flat got trumped when
> someone else eventually pointed out that it was more of an oblate
> spheroid!   And now, with Gil's Saros cycles we have to remember that
> complex tidal forces are even wracking it out of shape on a 14 year cycle!
>
> In a century (if there is anyone there to reflect on it) we will laugh at
> some of our strongest beliefs for (or against) climate change.  By then we
> will know a lot more, this is not a phenomena that is easy to "test",
> mostly we can only watch it play out like a slow motion 50 car pileup on
> the freeway!
>
> - Steve
>
> Glen (as typical) raises a good question what the purpose and thrust of
> this forum is.
>
> If you even know.
>
> A few scientists have even said that one of the truly awesome things about
> science is they "question everything".
>
> And there's been a theory that weather patterns are influenced somewhat by
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0451.pdf
>
>
>
> For what it's worth Neil De Grasse Tyson at one time noted on a Bill Myre
> (however it's spelled) talk He's conflicted if the perceived changes are
> part of a greater weather pattern,-
> Or if it's related to humans doing they're thing.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Gillian Densmore <
> gil.densm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wikipedia has a article about climate change skeptics
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Nick Thompson <
>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> G
>>>
>>> Think of Emerson and Thoreau.
>>>
>>> N
>>>
>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>> Clark University
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:30 PM
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam@redfish.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good 

Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

[Gillian Densmore]

Wikipedia has a article about climate change skeptics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming





On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> G
>
> Think of Emerson and Thoreau.
>
> N
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:30 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics
>
> On 09/21/2015 02:42 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together.  Is that a recognizable
> category, or do I need to say more.
>
> Heh, I suppose Illinois is too far away:
>
>
> http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/21/pope-francis-is-on-the-path-to-paganism/
>https://www.heartland.org/gene-koprowski
>
> being from Texas, I'm incapable of distinguishing one yankee from another.
>
> --
> ⇔ glen
>
> 
> 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] Good climate change skeptics

[Gillian Densmore]

Glen (as typical) raises a good question what the purpose and thrust of
this forum is.

If you even know.

A few scientists have even said that one of the truly awesome things about
science is they "question everything".

And there's been a theory that weather patterns are influenced somewhat by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0451.pdf



For what it's worth Neil De Grasse Tyson at one time noted on a Bill Myre
(however it's spelled) talk He's conflicted if the perceived changes are
part of a greater weather pattern,-
Or if it's related to humans doing they're thing.




On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Gillian Densmore 
wrote:

> Wikipedia has a article about climate change skeptics
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Nick Thompson  > wrote:
>
>> G
>>
>> Think of Emerson and Thoreau.
>>
>> N
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>> Clark University
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:30 PM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > >
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics
>>
>> On 09/21/2015 02:42 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> > It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together.  Is that a recognizable
>> category, or do I need to say more.
>>
>> Heh, I suppose Illinois is too far away:
>>
>>
>> http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/21/pope-francis-is-on-the-path-to-paganism/
>>https://www.heartland.org/gene-koprowski
>>
>> being from Texas, I'm incapable of distinguishing one yankee from another.
>>
>> --
>> ⇔ glen
>>
>> 
>> 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] Good climate change skeptics

[Steve Smith]

  
  
Gil-
  
  The Saros cycles are fascinating.  Of course I always "assumed"
  there was such periodicity and wondered if anyone had tried to
  correlate these conjunctions with earthly phenomena.  I don't see
  this undermining the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, only
  perhaps a few of the attributable "evidence" for it.
  
  I don't think of scientists as "questioning everything" or at
  least not "everything all of the time" or at least not on an
  individual by individual basis.   Science is perhaps the earliest
  form of "crowd sourcing".   
  
  The early scientific organizations like the Royal Society founded
  in 1660 and the complex web of correspondence (mostly) throughout
  Europe during the age of enlightenment.  Their motto is "Nullius
  in verba" (take nobody's word for it).   
  
  The cycle of hypothesis generation and testing has several phases
  of "question everything".   To get to a new and interesting
  hypothesis, one must ignore/forget/confront much of current
  established knowledge...   then once a fairly firm hypothesis is
  formed, one must deliberately look for counter-examples to
  undermine one's own hypothesis to avoid confirmation bias and to
  seek the easiest form of (dis)proof which is "by
  counter-example".   Once a hypothesis has been wrung out well and
  advanced to a "tentative" theory, it is time for the larger
  community to take the same crack at it... do their best to poke
  holes in it.    Once it has been through "enough" of that kind of
  scrutiny, we tend to accept the theory as a tentative,
  conditional, temporary "truth".  Unfortunately non-scientists tend
  to glom onto that kind of "vetting" process as if it leads to a
  final, irrefutable and irreversible conclusion.   Scientists know
  that all knowledge is provisional, that it will get overturned,
  elaborated, or eclipsed somewhere down the line.   
  
  Those who realized the earth was spherical, not flat got trumped
  when someone else eventually pointed out that it was more of an
  oblate spheroid!   And now, with Gil's Saros cycles we have to
  remember that complex tidal forces are even wracking it out of
  shape on a 14 year cycle!
  
  In a century (if there is anyone there to reflect on it) we will
  laugh at some of our strongest beliefs for (or against) climate
  change.  By then we will know a lot more, this is not a phenomena
  that is easy to "test", mostly we can only watch it play out like
  a slow motion 50 car pileup on the freeway!
  
  - Steve


  Glen (as typical) raises a good question what the
purpose and thrust of this forum is.


If you even know.


A few scientists have even said that one of the truly
  awesome things about science is they "question everything".


And there's been a theory that weather patterns are
  influenced somewhat by 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)



http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0451.pdf







For what it's worth Neil De Grasse Tyson at one time noted
  on a Bill Myre (however it's spelled) talk He's conflicted if
  the perceived changes are part of a greater weather pattern,-
Or if it's related to humans doing they're thing.






  
  
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM,
  Gillian Densmore 
  wrote:
  
Wikipedia has a article about climate change
  skeptics
  
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  


  

  On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:34
PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:
G
  
  Think of Emerson and Thoreau.
  
N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]
On Behalf Of glen
  

Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

[Steve Smith]

  
  
Gil -
  
  I think it takes a certain perspective and maybe training to be a
  proper "Skeptic".
  
  I think as far as the Saros thing goes, I can imagine it having an
  effect on annual weather patterns with periods relevant to the
  periods of the sun/moon/earth alignments but those are on the
  scale of years and decades.  Climate change is on the scale of
  decades and centuries and millenia.   Saros-effect weather/climate
  should be detectible in the historical record... I don't think
  most of the current artifacts of climate change fit that pattern. 
  But I could be wrong, I don't study it closely.
  
  I  *am* skeptical of many of the details of anthropogenic climate
  change (pro and con), but around 2000 I used *another* rule of
  thumb that governs my every day life.  If the stakes are high
  enough, err on the "safe" side and establish "failsafes"
  wherever possible.   When walking along a narrow ridge with sheer
  drops on both sides, I am *very* careful and try always to have a
  contingency plan such that if I trip, I fall in a stable
  configuration on top of the ridge.   Climate deniers, in my
  opinion, are not only ignoring the precipice nearby but all but
  trying to shove others (third world, poverty, etc.) over that edge
  because in their mind, *they* can use their wealth/privilege to
  avoid the worst of the consequences.   *they* (we) are walking the
  highwire with a net while 90% of the world does not have that net.
  
  - Steve


  @Steve
yeah I don't know that a person can stay sane and
  constantly question what they do.
The maxim can probably be taken many different ways.
  Personally I take it in a playfull, happy-go-lucky kind of way
  of 
Kind of like OOH I wonder how (Coffe for example) works?
  OOOH it's black and with a pinch of suger tastey, And OOOh
  that's how it works. 




As to the Saros system, I mentioned because supposedly at
  one time it was thought it might be one piece of why the
  weather and climate do what they do.  From what I gather the
  idea is then that if this system somehow leads to weather and
  climate patterns it'd be why the weather and climate are
  generally cold or warm


Just tossing it out there for Nicks forum as it was one of
   the Bazzilian ways to (possibly) explain why the weather and
  climate might be doing what ever it is they do.


  
  
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Steve
  Smith 
  wrote:
  

  Gil-

The Saros cycles are fascinating.  Of course I always
"assumed" there was such periodicity and wondered if
anyone had tried to correlate these conjunctions with
earthly phenomena.  I don't see this undermining the
anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, only perhaps a
few of the attributable "evidence" for it.

I don't think of scientists as "questioning everything"
or at least not "everything all of the time" or at least
not on an individual by individual basis.   Science is
perhaps the earliest form of "crowd sourcing".   

The early scientific organizations like the Royal
Society founded in 1660 and the complex web of
correspondence (mostly) throughout Europe during the age
of enlightenment.  Their motto is "Nullius in verba"
(take nobody's word for it).   

The cycle of hypothesis generation and testing has
several phases of "question everything".   To get to a
new and interesting hypothesis, one must
ignore/forget/confront much of current established
knowledge...   then once a fairly firm hypothesis is
formed, one must deliberately look for counter-examples
to undermine one's own hypothesis to avoid confirmation
bias and to seek the easiest form of (dis)proof which is
"by counter-example".   Once a hypothesis has been wrung
out well and advanced to a "tentative" theory, it is
time for the larger community to take the same crack at
it... do their best to poke holes in it.    Once it has
been through "enough" of that kind of scrutiny, we tend
to accept the theory as a tentative, conditional,
temporary "truth".  Unfortunately non-scientists tend to
glom onto 

Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

[glen]

Y'all do a good job of highlighting the importance of the context for such a 
forum.  Here's another time-wasting anecdote:

I spend way too much time trying to make peace with the local atheists.  When I go to 
their meetings and the topics of faith or the supernatural or mystical come up, I have to 
be very careful about the sheer pleasure I get out of stories about occult beliefs, 
conspiracy theories, and alternatives to accepted scientific theories.  I have to be 
careful, I think, because most of these people (atheists who need the social support of 
other atheists) are ex-theists.  It's like a support group for alcoholics or cancer 
caregivers.  I kinda have to treat it like a "sacred space".  That means _not_ 
defending concepts like faith, either in the Kierkegaard conception or Nick's (faith the 
floor is there when I get out of bed), the former of which I've tried and failed 
miserably.  Defending a subtle concept of faith to this crowd is like arguing for 
moderation instead of abstinence at an AA meeting. //*

So, if I were a climate scientist, regardless of what I believed about AGW, I 
would avoid this forum.  By contrast, if I were a climate activist, I'd want to 
be there.


On 09/23/2015 07:52 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:

yeah I don't know that a person can stay sane and constantly question what they 
do.


I think it's easier than we might think.  I think the key doesn't lie in questioning (everything) one does.  
The key lies (as you point out) in how seriously you take things, especially your own actions.  Actually, 
"seriousness" is the wrong concept.  The right concept is "commitment", how committed you 
are to your actions, including your beliefs.  If you're committed (convinced, convicted, with conviction), 
then you're doomed.  Skepticism depends on the ability to retract previous (tentative) commitments when it's 
appropriate to do so.  And that includes physical actions as well as thoughts.  A good fighter can tweak her 
strike at any point along its path.  Competent strikes, like assertions of belief, should never be "fire 
and forget".  As you bring your foot to the floor in the morning, if the floor doesn't push back as 
expected, _don't_ get out of bed, just yet. 8^)



On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Steve Smith > wrote:
In a century (if there is anyone there to reflect on it) we will laugh at 
some of our strongest beliefs


I strongly hold that laughability and strongly held beliefs are correlated.

--
⇔ glen


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] Good climate change skeptics

[Marcus Daniels]

"Defending a subtle concept of faith to this crowd is like arguing for 
moderation instead of abstinence at an AA meeting."

As long as they can be held in solitary confinement, and prevented  from 
organizing, they can have all of the "moderation" they want!  But if as they 
have organized, then those who have seen the consequences of that organization 
and don't much like it, must also organize.  Such is the way of power and 
politics.

Marcus

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] Good climate change skeptics

[glen]

On 09/23/2015 11:38 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

As long as they can be held in solitary confinement, and prevented  from organizing, they 
can have all of the "moderation" they want!  But if as they have organized, 
then those who have seen the consequences of that organization and don't much like it, 
must also organize.  Such is the way of power and politics.


Several groups are organizing in response: the moderation management groups 
(http://www.moderation.org/), an apparent minority of addiction researchers working to 
overturn the "disease model", Sam Harris and fans clustering around the 
horrible concept of spirituality without religion, methodological ritualists (e.g. yoga 
or meditation), etc.

And as much as I agree with your dialectical position of opposite organizing, I maintain 
that the deeper problem is the inherent commitment involved.  Power and politics are not 
really about organizing opposites.  It's about steadily punching (small) holes in the 
convictions of the arlready organized.  We see this practically in someone like Bernie 
Sanders, a career politician if there ever was such a thing.  But he can 
self-consistently deny that he's a "career politician" by citing his 
anti-authoritarian hole-punching.  Another example might be the hidden powerful in the 
beltway... the people who would rule us completely if we installed term limits on all 
elected offices.  Those people don't organize, at least not dialectically, so much as 
they navigate whatever constellation of agents and objects exist at any given time ... 
the skill is to flip-flop (abandon commitments) when the landscape suggests it's right to 
flip-flop.  That skill is power ... and so few of us have it (thank Ct
hulhu).

--
⇔ glen


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] Good climate change skeptics

[Marcus Daniels]

In practice, the tactic of creating doubt tends to be more about creating fear, 
and decreasing the resolve of the opponent, than it is about increasing the 
prevalence of skeptical thinking.   I think flip-flopping is not that hard of a 
skill to master, it's whether one wants to devote the needed attention to segue 
between today's lie and tomorrow's in a sufficiently smooth way.At some 
level, any competence can be self-reinforcing and even enjoyable.

Marcus

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

On 09/23/2015 11:38 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> As long as they can be held in solitary confinement, and prevented  from 
> organizing, they can have all of the "moderation" they want!  But if as they 
> have organized, then those who have seen the consequences of that 
> organization and don't much like it, must also organize.  Such is the way of 
> power and politics.

Several groups are organizing in response: the moderation management groups 
(http://www.moderation.org/), an apparent minority of addiction researchers 
working to overturn the "disease model", Sam Harris and fans clustering around 
the horrible concept of spirituality without religion, methodological 
ritualists (e.g. yoga or meditation), etc.

And as much as I agree with your dialectical position of opposite organizing, I 
maintain that the deeper problem is the inherent commitment involved.  Power 
and politics are not really about organizing opposites.  It's about steadily 
punching (small) holes in the convictions of the arlready organized.  We see 
this practically in someone like Bernie Sanders, a career politician if there 
ever was such a thing.  But he can self-consistently deny that he's a "career 
politician" by citing his anti-authoritarian hole-punching.  Another example 
might be the hidden powerful in the beltway... the people who would rule us 
completely if we installed term limits on all elected offices.  Those people 
don't organize, at least not dialectically, so much as they navigate whatever 
constellation of agents and objects exist at any given time ... the skill is to 
flip-flop (abandon commitments) when the landscape suggests it's right to 
flip-flop.  (thank Ct hulhu).

--
⇔ glen


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] Good climate change skeptics

[glen]

On 09/23/2015 02:15 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Diet and Heart Disease
Chronic Lyme Disease
Fibromyalgia
Diet and Cancer
Vaccination and autism
 and Alzheimer's
Chronic fatigue syndrome
Environmental sensitivity syndrome

First of all, I would like to recruit this list to identify other issues where 
at least one of us Global Warming Believers departs from some other equally 
strong scientific consensus.


Unfortunately, I don't know the consensus in most of those categories.  I can 
wander off what my oncologist claims about diet and cancer, though.  But my 
oncologist was trained as a DO, which puts her credentials at risk in some 
people's eyes:

   http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html

So, the fact that she takes the very conservative position that we just don't 
know enough about the ties between diet and (my type of) cancer, is interesting 
to me.


AND then, I would like to have a discussion concerning  why and when we feel 
qualified to depart from a scientific consensus.


I feel qualified to depart from what she tells me because of my personal experience about 
what has worked for me during chemo and the course of my experimental drug.  But these 
departures do _not_ extend (by induction) to any general population.  I can only say that 
what she tried failed and what I tried worked.  Granted, this is not about diet and 
cancer so much as diet and cancer intervention.  I can, however, proceed by deduction and 
suggest that I'm probably not an entirely unique subject.  There are probably some 
generalizations that could be made and I can explore the space of conclusions to 
speculate on what those might be.  To be concrete, here's an example.  About 2 cycles 
into my treatment, I began to experience a "welling up" in my throat, 
especially when bending over or going upside down on my inversion table.  She tentatively 
diagnosed it as GERD.  She put me on proton pump inhibitors and when they didn't work, 
motility promoters.  Neither worked.  But I discovered that i
nsoluble fiber _did_ work.  She doubts me to this day.  And, to be honest, I 
often doubt myself.  Another issue where I disagree with her is on the subject 
of fasting.  There are these somewhat controversial papers that indicate 
medium-term fasting (more than 48 hours) assists the therapy in triggering 
apoptosis (good cell death that minimizes free toxins) and reducing necrosis 
(bad cell death where toxins roam a bit more freely).  She maintains that 
people on chemo need to eat in order to sustain themselves in the face of the 
poison.  I maintain that as long as we're poisoning ourselves anyway, why not 
do a proper job of it?


--
⇔ glen


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] Good climate change skeptics

[glen]

On 09/23/2015 02:43 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

The question is not "Should one use doubt to create fear?", the question is "Will 
someone use doubt to create fear?"  (Someone almost always will.)  The crafty campaign 
strategist will anticipate the audience experiencing the fear and assess whether that group is 
sufficiently important to penetrate.  Or it may be a better use of resources to treat them as 
hopeless and find other votes/money/etc.


You're having a different conversation than I am (and what I thought Gil and 
Steve were having).  I'm talking about skepticism as a way of life.  You're 
talking about how to manipulate non-skeptics with ideological imagery.  My 
claim is the truly powerful do _not_ manipulate in the way you're describing.  
They are more surgical in their methods.  The power gained by your coarser 
manipulation is temporary and fickle.  The power gained by steadily punching 
holes in convictions is more permanent.


--
⇔ glen


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] Good climate change skeptics

[Marcus Daniels]

"My claim is the truly powerful do _not_ manipulate in the way you're 
describing.  They are more surgical in their methods.  The power gained by your 
coarser manipulation is temporary and fickle.  The power gained by steadily 
punching holes in convictions is more permanent."

Persuasion happens between minds.  What you are describing is not scalable.
The surgical intervention has to be done on the right people, not individuals 
of low conviction.   They just fall in line to the right manipulator.  

Marcus


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] Good climate change skeptics

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, 

I want to make a distinction between the discussion at Clark university (which 
seems more and more to be directed toward moral chest beating by Global Warming 
Enthusiasts, and a discussion that I want to have with you, and others, about 
when we (i.e., you, me, and others like us) are led to deny a scientific 
consensus.   My observation is that while "we" probably all agree about global 
warming, more or less, that one or more of us will peel off from the scientific 
consensus on one or of the following issues. 

Diet and Heart Disease
Chronic Lyme Disease
Fibromyalgia 
Diet and Cancer
Vaccination and autism
 and Alzheimer's
Chronic fatigue syndrome
Environmental sensitivity syndrome

First of all, I would like to recruit this list to identify other issues where 
at least one of us Global Warming Believers departs from some other equally 
strong scientific consensus.  

AND then, I would like to have a discussion concerning  why and when we feel 
qualified to depart from a scientific consensus.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics


Y'all do a good job of highlighting the importance of the context for such a 
forum.  Here's another time-wasting anecdote:

I spend way too much time trying to make peace with the local atheists.  When I 
go to their meetings and the topics of faith or the supernatural or mystical 
come up, I have to be very careful about the sheer pleasure I get out of 
stories about occult beliefs, conspiracy theories, and alternatives to accepted 
scientific theories.  I have to be careful, I think, because most of these 
people (atheists who need the social support of other atheists) are ex-theists. 
 It's like a support group for alcoholics or cancer caregivers.  I kinda have 
to treat it like a "sacred space".  That means _not_ defending concepts like 
faith, either in the Kierkegaard conception or Nick's (faith the floor is there 
when I get out of bed), the former of which I've tried and failed miserably.  
Defending a subtle concept of faith to this crowd is like arguing for 
moderation instead of abstinence at an AA meeting. //*

So, if I were a climate scientist, regardless of what I believed about AGW, I 
would avoid this forum.  By contrast, if I were a climate activist, I'd want to 
be there.


On 09/23/2015 07:52 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> yeah I don't know that a person can stay sane and constantly question what 
> they do.

I think it's easier than we might think.  I think the key doesn't lie in 
questioning (everything) one does.  The key lies (as you point out) in how 
seriously you take things, especially your own actions.  Actually, 
"seriousness" is the wrong concept.  The right concept is "commitment", how 
committed you are to your actions, including your beliefs.  If you're committed 
(convinced, convicted, with conviction), then you're doomed.  Skepticism 
depends on the ability to retract previous (tentative) commitments when it's 
appropriate to do so.  And that includes physical actions as well as thoughts.  
A good fighter can tweak her strike at any point along its path.  Competent 
strikes, like assertions of belief, should never be "fire and forget".  As you 
bring your foot to the floor in the morning, if the floor doesn't push back as 
expected, _don't_ get out of bed, just yet. 8^)


> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Steve Smith  > wrote:
> In a century (if there is anyone there to reflect on it) we will 
> laugh at some of our strongest beliefs

I strongly hold that laughability and strongly held beliefs are correlated.

--
⇔ glen


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] Good climate change skeptics

[glen]

On 09/23/2015 01:46 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

People react to the forces in their environment first -- wrong or right -- and 
second rationalize them.   Create a path of least resistance for the undecided, 
and give them arguments to rationalize their decision.For those that are 
taking the path of most resistance, having arguments serve to create social 
cohesion so they are force to be reckoned with.


But both the path of least resistance and the cohesiveness of a social group depend, in fundamental 
ways, on a lack of conviction.  In the case of paths of least resistance, we make the boundaries 
between any set of "positions" prickly, perhaps fractal -- e.g. political correctness -- 
one has to be in a tight feedback loop with one's environment, ready to adjust their position 
"live".  In the case of social cohesiveness, one has to be willing to allow for the many 
small differences between intra-group members in order to present a boundary between us and them.

Hence, both types of power depend fundamentally on a lack of conviction.

--
⇔ glen


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] Good climate change skeptics

[Marcus Daniels]

"But both the path of least resistance and the cohesiveness of a social group 
depend, in fundamental ways, on a lack of conviction."

The question is not "Should one use doubt to create fear?", the question is 
"Will someone use doubt to create fear?"  (Someone almost always will.)  The 
crafty campaign strategist will anticipate the audience experiencing the fear 
and assess whether that group is sufficiently important to penetrate.  Or it 
may be a better use of resources to treat them as hopeless and find other 
votes/money/etc.

Marcus

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] Good climate change skeptics

[glen]

On 09/23/2015 02:54 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Persuasion happens between minds.  What you are describing is not scalable.
The surgical intervention has to be done on the right people, not individuals 
of low conviction.   They just fall in line to the right manipulator.


Perhaps I was too opaque.  It does scale.  My chosen example is political correctness, 
that bogeyman of old or isolated people everywhere.  Scaling this up requires a "big 
data" (for lack of a better term) approach.  You create a prickly environment that 
can explode on anyone whose interface with the environment isn't tightly coupled.  It can 
explode on people who are tightly coupled to the environment, too.  (E.g. Ben Afleck's 
reaction to Sam Harris or Effie Brown's reaction to Matt Damon.)  The chance that it will 
explode on you if you make the smallest faux pas is a surgical hole-poking method.

Perhaps it doesn't scale quite as easily as fear-based ideology/imagery.  But 
it does scale.

--
⇔ glen


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] Good climate change skeptics

[Marcus Daniels]

"There are these somewhat controversial papers that indicate medium-term 
fasting (more than 48 hours) assists the therapy in triggering apoptosis (good 
cell death that minimizes free toxins) and reducing necrosis (bad cell death 
where toxins roam a bit more freely).  She maintains that people on chemo need 
to eat in order to sustain themselves in the face of the poison."

How about eat, but do intensive interval training?   At least then there is a 
positive side effect, i.e. fitness.

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

On 09/23/2015 02:15 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Diet and Heart Disease
> Chronic Lyme Disease
> Fibromyalgia
> Diet and Cancer
> Vaccination and autism
>  and Alzheimer's
> Chronic fatigue syndrome
> Environmental sensitivity syndrome
>
> First of all, I would like to recruit this list to identify other issues 
> where at least one of us Global Warming Believers departs from some other 
> equally strong scientific consensus.

Unfortunately, I don't know the consensus in most of those categories.  I can 
wander off what my oncologist claims about diet and cancer, though.  But my 
oncologist was trained as a DO, which puts her credentials at risk in some 
people's eyes:

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html

So, the fact that she takes the very conservative position that we just don't 
know enough about the ties between diet and (my type of) cancer, is interesting 
to me.

> AND then, I would like to have a discussion concerning  why and when we feel 
> qualified to depart from a scientific consensus.

I feel qualified to depart from what she tells me because of my personal 
experience about what has worked for me during chemo and the course of my 
experimental drug.  But these departures do _not_ extend (by induction) to any 
general population.  I can only say that what she tried failed and what I tried 
worked.  Granted, this is not about diet and cancer so much as diet and cancer 
intervention.  I can, however, proceed by deduction and suggest that I'm 
probably not an entirely unique subject.  There are probably some 
generalizations that could be made and I can explore the space of conclusions 
to speculate on what those might be.  To be concrete, here's an example.  About 
2 cycles into my treatment, I began to experience a "welling up" in my throat, 
especially when bending over or going upside down on my inversion table.  She 
tentatively diagnosed it as GERD.  She put me on proton pump inhibitors and 
when they didn't work, motility promoters.  Neither worked.  But I discovered 
that i nsoluble fiber _did_ work.  She doubts me to this day.  And, to be 
honest, I often doubt myself.  Another issue where I disagree with her is on 
the subject of fasting.  There are these somewhat controversial papers that 
indicate medium-term fasting (more than 48 hours) assists the therapy in 
triggering apoptosis (good cell death that minimizes free toxins) and reducing 
necrosis (bad cell death where toxins roam a bit more freely).  She maintains 
that people on chemo need to eat in order to sustain themselves in the face of 
the poison.  I maintain that as long as we're poisoning ourselves anyway, why 
not do a proper job of it?


--
⇔ glen


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] Good climate change skeptics

[Marcus Daniels]

Right, but meanwhile, a larger consensus is forming that makes racist belief 
system increasingly untenable and isolated.   Similarly, it was more important 
the gay community stick together and create a political/economic force than it 
was to persuade social conservatives that a gay lifestyle was their right or 
their need.   People react to the forces in their environment first -- wrong or 
right -- and second rationalize them.   Create a path of least resistance for 
the undecided, and give them arguments to rationalize their decision.For 
those that are taking the path of most resistance, having arguments serve to 
create social cohesion so they are force to be reckoned with.  

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 2:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics


I completely disagree.  It seems to me that fear causes people to dig 
themselves further into their convictions ... or even to create convictions 
that were, up to that point, just tendencies.  It's relatively easy to imagine 
that's the case with modern racists.  Up to the point of being challenged, they 
may not think anything explicitly racist, just have a general tendency to 
associate with those that look/talk like themselves.  But when faced with some 
pressure like fear, their implicit racism may snap into an explicit one.

The way _out_ of such fear-induced convictions is to weasel your way into their 
world and poke a bunch of little holes in it, then step back and watch them 
slowly evolve out of their commitment.

It's very difficult for people to learn how to change their mind (aka 
flip-flopping), even when faced with contradictory evidence.  And I'll take 
that opinion to my grave. //*


On 09/23/2015 12:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> In practice, the tactic of creating doubt tends to be more about creating 
> fear, and decreasing the resolve of the opponent, than it is about increasing 
> the prevalence of skeptical thinking.   I think flip-flopping is not that 
> hard of a skill to master, it's whether one wants to devote the needed 
> attention to segue between today's lie and tomorrow's in a sufficiently 
> smooth way.At some level, any competence can be self-reinforcing and even 
> enjoyable.


--
⇔ glen


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] Good climate change skeptics

[glen]

I completely disagree.  It seems to me that fear causes people to dig 
themselves further into their convictions ... or even to create convictions 
that were, up to that point, just tendencies.  It's relatively easy to imagine 
that's the case with modern racists.  Up to the point of being challenged, they 
may not think anything explicitly racist, just have a general tendency to 
associate with those that look/talk like themselves.  But when faced with some 
pressure like fear, their implicit racism may snap into an explicit one.

The way _out_ of such fear-induced convictions is to weasel your way into their 
world and poke a bunch of little holes in it, then step back and watch them 
slowly evolve out of their commitment.

It's very difficult for people to learn how to change their mind (aka 
flip-flopping), even when faced with contradictory evidence.  And I'll take 
that opinion to my grave. //*


On 09/23/2015 12:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

In practice, the tactic of creating doubt tends to be more about creating fear, 
and decreasing the resolve of the opponent, than it is about increasing the 
prevalence of skeptical thinking.   I think flip-flopping is not that hard of a 
skill to master, it's whether one wants to devote the needed attention to segue 
between today's lie and tomorrow's in a sufficiently smooth way.At some 
level, any competence can be self-reinforcing and even enjoyable.



--
⇔ glen


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] Good climate change skeptics

[Merle Lefkoff]

It's NEVER NEVER either/or!  Try both/and.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Gillian Densmore 
wrote:

> Glen (as typical) raises a good question what the purpose and thrust of
> this forum is.
>
> If you even know.
>
> A few scientists have even said that one of the truly awesome things about
> science is they "question everything".
>
> And there's been a theory that weather patterns are influenced somewhat by
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0451.pdf
>
>
>
> For what it's worth Neil De Grasse Tyson at one time noted on a Bill Myre
> (however it's spelled) talk He's conflicted if the perceived changes are
> part of a greater weather pattern,-
> Or if it's related to humans doing they're thing.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Gillian Densmore 
> wrote:
>
>> Wikipedia has a article about climate change skeptics
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Nick Thompson <
>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> G
>>>
>>> Think of Emerson and Thoreau.
>>>
>>> N
>>>
>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>> Clark University
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:30 PM
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam@redfish.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics
>>>
>>> On 09/21/2015 02:42 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>> > It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together.  Is that a recognizable
>>> category, or do I need to say more.
>>>
>>> Heh, I suppose Illinois is too far away:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/21/pope-francis-is-on-the-path-to-paganism/
>>>https://www.heartland.org/gene-koprowski
>>>
>>> being from Texas, I'm incapable of distinguishing one yankee from
>>> another.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ⇔ glen
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
me...@emergentdiplomacy.org
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merlelefkoff

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] Good climate change skeptics

[Merle Lefkoff]

What's the risk if the sceptics win?  Scepticism is surely the easy way out
on this one.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Merle Lefkoff 
wrote:

> It's NEVER NEVER either/or!  Try both/and.
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Gillian Densmore 
> wrote:
>
>> Glen (as typical) raises a good question what the purpose and thrust of
>> this forum is.
>>
>> If you even know.
>>
>> A few scientists have even said that one of the truly awesome things
>> about science is they "question everything".
>>
>> And there's been a theory that weather patterns are influenced somewhat
>> by
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0451.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> For what it's worth Neil De Grasse Tyson at one time noted on a Bill Myre
>> (however it's spelled) talk He's conflicted if the perceived changes are
>> part of a greater weather pattern,-
>> Or if it's related to humans doing they're thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Gillian Densmore > > wrote:
>>
>>> Wikipedia has a article about climate change skeptics
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Nick Thompson <
>>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
 G

 Think of Emerson and Thoreau.

 N

 Nicholas S. Thompson
 Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
 Clark University
 http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 -Original Message-
 From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
 Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:30 PM
 To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
 friam@redfish.com>
 Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

 On 09/21/2015 02:42 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
 > It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together.  Is that a recognizable
 category, or do I need to say more.

 Heh, I suppose Illinois is too far away:


 http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/21/pope-francis-is-on-the-path-to-paganism/
https://www.heartland.org/gene-koprowski

 being from Texas, I'm incapable of distinguishing one yankee from
 another.

 --
 ⇔ glen

 
 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
> me...@emergentdiplomacy.org
> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
> skype:  merlelefkoff
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
me...@emergentdiplomacy.org
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merlelefkoff

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] Good climate change skeptics

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, 

I think you have nailed one of the origins of science-doubters: the relation 
between the nomothetic and the idiographic (which you can google, if you want 
to know more).  Briefly, there is no strong reason to believe that a 
probabilistic generalization applies to my individual case.  Well, let me put 
that round the other way: there is always some reason to believe that it 
doesn’t.  So people will disbelieve science if the cost to them of doing so is 
low, and the possible gains are great.  So, I think you have nailed one of the 
sources of anti-scientific irrationalism.  

Having said that, am I allowed to say, "Crap!  I wish you didn't have cancer!'

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

On 09/23/2015 02:15 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Diet and Heart Disease
> Chronic Lyme Disease
> Fibromyalgia
> Diet and Cancer
> Vaccination and autism
>  and Alzheimer's
> Chronic fatigue syndrome
> Environmental sensitivity syndrome
>
> First of all, I would like to recruit this list to identify other issues 
> where at least one of us Global Warming Believers departs from some other 
> equally strong scientific consensus.

Unfortunately, I don't know the consensus in most of those categories.  I can 
wander off what my oncologist claims about diet and cancer, though.  But my 
oncologist was trained as a DO, which puts her credentials at risk in some 
people's eyes:

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html

So, the fact that she takes the very conservative position that we just don't 
know enough about the ties between diet and (my type of) cancer, is interesting 
to me.

> AND then, I would like to have a discussion concerning  why and when we feel 
> qualified to depart from a scientific consensus.

I feel qualified to depart from what she tells me because of my personal 
experience about what has worked for me during chemo and the course of my 
experimental drug.  But these departures do _not_ extend (by induction) to any 
general population.  I can only say that what she tried failed and what I tried 
worked.  Granted, this is not about diet and cancer so much as diet and cancer 
intervention.  I can, however, proceed by deduction and suggest that I'm 
probably not an entirely unique subject.  There are probably some 
generalizations that could be made and I can explore the space of conclusions 
to speculate on what those might be.  To be concrete, here's an example.  About 
2 cycles into my treatment, I began to experience a "welling up" in my throat, 
especially when bending over or going upside down on my inversion table.  She 
tentatively diagnosed it as GERD.  She put me on proton pump inhibitors and 
when they didn't work, motility promoters.  Neither worked.  But I discovered 
that i nsoluble fiber _did_ work.  She doubts me to this day.  And, to be 
honest, I often doubt myself.  Another issue where I disagree with her is on 
the subject of fasting.  There are these somewhat controversial papers that 
indicate medium-term fasting (more than 48 hours) assists the therapy in 
triggering apoptosis (good cell death that minimizes free toxins) and reducing 
necrosis (bad cell death where toxins roam a bit more freely).  She maintains 
that people on chemo need to eat in order to sustain themselves in the face of 
the poison.  I maintain that as long as we're poisoning ourselves anyway, why 
not do a proper job of it?


--
⇔ glen


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