Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Nick Thompson]

Hi Carl, 

I like Steve's idea (Was it Steve's? I am having a hard time following!)
that as scientists we live in a network of other scientists, and our own
behavior is not so important as the constraints enforced on us as part of
the network.  So, my wonder at the fact that we make decisions in our
personal lives so unscientifically is really based on what Ryle would call a
category error ... an expectation that the behavior of an entity at once
level of organization (the scientist) should mirror the behavior of the
entity at the next level up (the science).  So, we shouldn't expect our
decision making processes with respect to hot dogs to be any more scientific
than the ordinary Joe's.  

But then I get back to where I got started on this quest -- our Friday
morning discussions on global warming, or some of these other tricky issues
on which there is a scientific consensus, and yet there is a public debate.
Why do we not ALL -- as scientists -- agree that there exists a scientific
consensus on this matter and that that is the end of the discussion, until
further notice.  Not only do we not think scientifically with respect to
these issues, but we fail to accept the authority of the network of which we
are part.  

Isn't that odd?  

By the way, I think the heart disease thing is caused by sugar, not fat.
See, now I am doing it.  

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 Carl
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 10:07 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Speaking as a mammal, who has gone to some efforts to be well preserved, 
it now appears that I am carcinogenic if consumed.   I am unsure as to 
whether to be disappointed or elated.  Certainly a caution to those of
cannibalistic bent.

This does raise the issue that if I am indeed carcinogenic, why am I less so
to myself in the similar way that I  might be to others?

Ticks carry other nasty things, even without the Lyme problem.  I know 
people who have Lyme, it is unpleasant for them.   I like beets, and 
curry, irrespective of their supposed benefits, so am predisposed to 
hear nice things about their benefits.   I believe most diagnoses of 
arthritis are bogus because I don't wish to believe I am of an age
susceptible to such and because I can with some attention to detail fix 
it most of the time.   Smoking is an obnoxious habit, perpetrated by 
those who have little regard for themselves or others.   I'm sorry if it 
causes them cancer.   I believed animal fats caused cardiovascular 
issues since some hyperlipidemia runs in my family and have seen first 
hand the devastation cardiovascular diseases  can cause.   However, I 
have become convinced that (a) I feel noticeably better with some meat in my
diet and (b) my social group thinks that cholesterol is perhaps not as
strong a factor in heart disease as other things and (c) as I read up on
these things I see that the disease (like cancer) is not a 
single thing with unique causes per individual.   I live next to pigs 
and goats and chickens and am likely under no illusions about what "farm 
fresh" in the grocery store means.   I am trying to make an organic 
garden at my hut and am increasingly impressed with the difficulty of 
defining the term.   Generally, I try to follow a fish and rice and 
veggies Japanese diet; it feels "cleaner", which is an mental model brought
on by my very long standing Japanophilia as much as anything else.

There.   I see statements to the effect of "statistically, meat causes 
cancer" and I laugh.  Thanks for playing.   Two Martian potatoes out of 
a possible five.

C


On 10/27/15 11:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Dear Friam members,
>
> As those of you in the mother church are already aware, I have been 
> trying to foment a conversation about what rationality consists of and 
> how does it relate to a purported scientific consensus.  I assume that 
> you are all, more or less, rational people.  How exactly, then, did 
> each of you come to the conclusion that, say, animal fats do or do not 
> cause heart disease, smoking does or does not cause cancer, human 
> activity does or does not cause global warming, that tick bites do (or 
> do not) cause a syndrome called chronic Lyme disease, that, say, beet 
> powder improves metabolism (?), or that turmeric does or does not 
> alleviate arthritis.  Or, perhaps more important, how did you decide to
act on these beliefs?  Or not?
>
> A friend of mine is always trying to change my eating habits and now 
> assaults me with evidence that red meat, particularly if processed, is 
> increasing my risk of cancer.  She includes in her email several links 
> that are designed to convince me.  I include those below.
>
> The question I would like us to consider is not really the substance 
> of the matter.  I am effing 77 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Carl]

Speaking as a mammal, who has gone to some efforts to be well preserved, 
it now appears that I am carcinogenic if consumed.   I am unsure as to 
whether to be disappointed or elated.  Certainly a caution to those of 
cannibalistic bent.


This does raise the issue that if I am indeed carcinogenic, why am I 
less so to myself in the similar way that I  might be to others?


Ticks carry other nasty things, even without the Lyme problem.  I know 
people who have Lyme, it is unpleasant for them.   I like beets, and 
curry, irrespective of their supposed benefits, so am predisposed to 
hear nice things about their benefits.   I believe most diagnoses of 
arthritis are bogus because I don't wish to believe I am of an age 
susceptible to such and because I can with some attention to detail fix 
it most of the time.   Smoking is an obnoxious habit, perpetrated by 
those who have little regard for themselves or others.   I'm sorry if it 
causes them cancer.   I believed animal fats caused cardiovascular 
issues since some hyperlipidemia runs in my family and have seen first 
hand the devastation cardiovascular diseases  can cause.   However, I 
have become convinced that (a) I feel noticeably better with some meat 
in my diet and (b) my social group thinks that cholesterol is perhaps 
not as strong a factor in heart disease as other things and (c) as I 
read up on these things I see that the disease (like cancer) is not a 
single thing with unique causes per individual.   I live next to pigs 
and goats and chickens and am likely under no illusions about what "farm 
fresh" in the grocery store means.   I am trying to make an organic 
garden at my hut and am increasingly impressed with the difficulty of 
defining the term.   Generally, I try to follow a fish and rice and 
veggies Japanese diet; it feels "cleaner", which is an mental model 
brought on by my very long standing Japanophilia as much as anything else.


There.   I see statements to the effect of "statistically, meat causes 
cancer" and I laugh.  Thanks for playing.   Two Martian potatoes out of 
a possible five.


C


On 10/27/15 11:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dear Friam members,

As those of you in the mother church are already aware, I have been trying
to foment a conversation about what rationality consists of and how does it
relate to a purported scientific consensus.  I assume that you are all, more
or less, rational people.  How exactly, then, did each of you come to the
conclusion that, say, animal fats do or do not cause heart disease, smoking
does or does not cause cancer, human activity does or does not cause global
warming, that tick bites do (or do not) cause a syndrome called chronic Lyme
disease, that, say, beet powder improves metabolism (?), or that turmeric
does or does not alleviate arthritis.  Or, perhaps more important, how did
you decide to act on these beliefs?  Or not?

A friend of mine is always trying to change my eating habits and now
assaults me with evidence that red meat, particularly if processed, is
increasing my risk of cancer.  She includes in her email several links that
are designed to convince me.  I include those below.

The question I would like us to consider is not really the substance of the
matter.  I am effing 77 years old, with a dozen things wrong with me that
are likely to kill me long before tomorrow's hotdog will.  I am more
interested in the process by which each of you will decide whether or not to
change your habits on the basis of this new evidence, or try to change the
habits of your children or grandchildren.  In what sense will that process
be "reasonable?"

Discuss.

Nick

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

-Original Message-
From: EMAIL
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:31 PM
To: Nick Thompson 
Subject: Re: Meat

Here's a thoughtful look at what the WHO had to say about meat and cancer:

http://examine.com/blog/scientists-just-found-that-red-meat-causes-cancer--o
r-did-they/?utm_source=Examine.com+Insiders_campaign=34d0d95b1b-Red_mead
10_27_2015_medium=email_term=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945=t(R
ed_mead10_27_2015)=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945_cid=34d0d95b1b
c_eid=3edf56d922

Apparently the WHO looked at 800 different studies.  That's a lot of
studies.  Is it a meta study?

R


On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


R

I always wait for the metastudy.

n

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


-Original Message-
From: EMAIL
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:35 PM
To: Nick Thompson 
Subject: Meat

Nick,

Are you freaking out about the meat/cancer news?  Here's an article
that puts it in perspective:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2015/oct/26/me
at-and

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[glen]

I really like the idea of virtuous argumentation.  It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior 
duality.  But, this seems right in line with my tendencies against (naive) realism.  You tend 
to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions (including the more extreme 
postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching, apparently on the grounds that 
social context is at least somewhat powerful.  Do you admit a full spectrum of power: realism 
<-> constructivism?  Or is the rant against MOOCs just a "get off my lawn" and, 
deep down, you stick with hard-line realism?

RE: Cowspiracy -- Before chemo, I was approaching vegetarian.  I ate meat once 
a week, fish once a month or so, eggs maybe twice/month.  I admit I ate quite a 
bit of cheese, though, perhaps thrice per week.  During chemo, I craved meat so 
much, it seemed crazy to avoid it and after eating it, I felt like a god 
(comparatively, anyway).  T rebuild after treatment, I started eating ~4-6 eggs 
per week.  Now that I've mostly recovered from the treatment, though, I've been 
lazy about returning to my low-animal diet.  Cowspiracy is just the rhetorical 
stimulus I need.  But it's not the climate impact that drives me so much as the 
water footprint.  If my math is right, this site: 
http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/ lists 
3-4x higher waterprint rates for beef, cheese, and eggs.  The consistency of 
the difference implies the relative amounts are about the same between the 
movie and the website.


On 10/30/2015 08:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

You saw the question I asked and got to the question I really wanted to ask.  I 
was a professor for years and in that role I tried to foster face to face 
conversation on tricky, intricate, issues.  WHY?  Face to face education is 
under a tremendous attack these days.  Why not 32 MOOKS followed each by an 
objective test.  Save on dormitories.  Save on the whole /in loco parentis/ 
thing.  Who cares if they drink too much, take drugs, and rape each other if 
it's not on OUR watch?  Higher ed could be so much more efficient.  Do we 
really need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to teach kids how to GROOM?


--
⇔ 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] FW: Meat

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Glen, 

 

Interesting response.  As I get older, I see the asymptote on which I am 
converging is that by the time I die I will know nothing.  Thus, it's quite 
possible that I am just being inconsistent.  But let's look into it.  See 
below. 

 

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: Monday, November 02, 2015 9:45 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

 

 

I really like the idea of virtuous argumentation.

[NST==>I think this is my Deweyish upbringing asserting itself.  I can’t really 
defend it.  It just seems to me that if we don’t have ways to converge (other 
than raw power) we are doomed to live by the sword.  I am not very good at 
swordplay.<==nst] 

  It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior duality. 

[NST==>Do I know that duality?  I am guessing that I think of them in terms of 
levels of organization.  Can you say more?  <==nst] 

 But, this seems right in line with my tendencies against (naive) realism. 

[NST==>Glen, how familiar are with Peirce’s weird form of [idealistic] realism. 
 And how it leads both to tough scientism and blousy postmodernism, in 
different hands. <==nst] 

 You tend to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions (including 
the more extreme postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching, 
apparently on the grounds that social context is at least somewhat powerful.  
Do you admit a full spectrum of power: realism <-> constructivism?  Or is the 
rant against MOOCs just a "get off my lawn" and, deep down, you stick with 
hard-line realism?

[NST==>I am sure there is a contradiction in here somewhere, but I don’t yet 
see it.  Couldn’t I believe that conversation with other well-informed people 
is the best way to arrive at the real?  Or, at least, one of several methods, 
all of which make a contribution?  Could you say  a bit more?  <==nst] 

 

RE: Cowspiracy -- Before chemo, I was approaching vegetarian.  I ate meat once 
a week, fish once a month or so, eggs maybe twice/month.

[NST==>Again, I have not very coherent feelings about this domain.  I recently 
read THE BIG FAT SURPRISE and decided to believe it hook line and sinker.  I 
think there is an awful lot “food witness” going on, where people express their 
individuality by not eating this and that. More of the narcissism of the IMac 
and the You-tube generation.   As the family cook, I find it’s just a pain in 
the ass.  But just about the time I get on my high horse about “people like 
that”, I encounter somebody with Crohn’s Syndrome, and such like, and am 
completely humiliated.  Not much of philosophical interest in all of that.  
<==nst] 

  I admit I ate quite a bit of cheese, though, perhaps thrice per week.  During 
chemo, I craved meat so much, it seemed crazy to avoid it and after eating 
it, I felt like a god (comparatively, anyway).  T rebuild after treatment, I 
started eating ~4-6 eggs per week.  Now that I've mostly recovered from the 
treatment, though, I've been lazy about returning to my low-animal diet.  
Cowspiracy is just the rhetorical stimulus I need.  But it's not the climate 
impact that drives me so much as the water footprint.  If my math is right, 
this site:  
 
http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/ lists 
3-4x higher waterprint rates for beef, cheese, and eggs.  The consistency of 
the difference implies the relative amounts are about the same between the 
movie and the website.

 

 

On 10/30/2015 08:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> You saw the question I asked and got to the question I really wanted to ask.  
> I was a professor for years and in that role I tried to foster face to face 
> conversation on tricky, intricate, issues.  WHY?  Face to face education is 
> under a tremendous attack these days.  Why not 32 MOOKS followed each by an 
> objective test.  Save on dormitories.  Save on the whole /in loco parentis/ 
> thing.  Who cares if they drink too much, take drugs, and rape each other if 
> it's not on OUR watch?  Higher ed could be so much more efficient.  Do we 
> really need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to teach kids how to GROOM?

 

--

⇔ 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 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[glen]

On 11/02/2015 08:44 AM, glen wrote:

On 11/02/2015 01:55 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:



   It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior duality.


[NST==>Do I know that duality?  I am guessing that I think of them in terms of 
levels of organization.  Can you say more?  <==nst]


So, in the 20 or so minutes I've spent thinking about virtue argumentation (obviously enough to make me an 
expert), shifting judgements of "good" arguing from the argument to the arguers is enlightening.  
It reminds me of considering things like "white space" in a document or a GUI, or "negative 
space" in an image.  In math (or computation, or both), there's a duality between things and activity, 
objects vs processes, state vs. behavior, nodes vs. edges.  I suppose we see it in physics as well, with mass 
vs. energy.  Most consideration of argumentation focuses on the arguments.  Switching to think more about the 
arguers is interesting in that same sense as particle vs. wave flip-flopping is interesting.



[NST==>Glen, how familiar are with Peirce’s weird form of [idealistic] realism.  
And how it leads both to tough scientism and blousy postmodernism, in different 
hands. <==nst]


I'm not at all familiar!  So, now I have something else to learn about.


  You tend to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions (including the more 
extreme postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching, apparently on the grounds 
that social context is at least somewhat powerful.  Do you admit a full spectrum of power: 
realism <-> constructivism?  Or is the rant against MOOCs just a "get off my 
lawn" and, deep down, you stick with hard-line realism?


[NST==>I am sure there is a contradiction in here somewhere, but I don’t yet see 
it.  Couldn’t I believe that conversation with other well-informed people is the best 
way to arrive at the real?  Or, at least, one of several methods, all of which make a 
contribution?  Could you say  a bit more?  <==nst]


Well, you could argue "parallax", the idea that none of us have (or can have) perfectly 
accurate opinions, but that collections of us have more accurate opinions than individuals.  To me, 
though, this gives weight to things like postmodernism (at least in my own almost private 
understanding of what "postmodernism" means).  Here is the reasoning:

One important aspect of postmodernism is that guiding towards a vanishing point 
(reality) by navigating opinions is only as effective as the abstraction layers 
between the target and the opinions.  The further removed you are from the 
banal, the crazier the navigation gets.  This is why we see so much symbol 
reuse ... so much so that the symbols take on and lose entire (distinct) 
meanings along the way.  I.e. postmodernism is a reduction to absurdity, which 
can be used to argue _for_ (or against) realism.

So, by allowing all the myriad symbols, the rich interconnections between 2 
face 2 face arguers, you're allowing for a large number of abstraction layers.  
E.g. something said with a giggle is different from that very same thing said 
with disgust.  Something said with vocal fry can be very different than 
something said valley girl style. ... #whatever

Therefore, if you're arguing for _more_ abstraction layers (physical presence 
in classrooms), then you're arguing for the same layered abstraction used to 
make the Postmodernism Point(TM).

I would think a hard-core (naive) realist would be all for eliminating, for example, the 
physical characteristics of a professor, facial ticks, gesticulating arms, etc. and 
getting straight at the argument, focusing less and less on the arguers.  So, realists 
should LOVE the idea of a MOOC and dislike "virtue argumentation".


[NST==>Again, I have not very coherent feelings about this domain.  I recently 
read THE BIG FAT SURPRISE and decided to believe it hook line and sinker.  I think 
there is an awful lot “food witness” going on, where people express their 
individuality by not eating this and that. More of the narcissism of the IMac and the 
You-tube generation.   As the family cook, I find it’s just a pain in the ass.  But 
just about the time I get on my high horse about “people like that”, I encounter 
somebody with Crohn’s Syndrome, and such like, and am completely humiliated.  Not 
much of philosophical interest in all of that.  <==nst]


Yes, but there is a boon to such "narcissism".  I'm beginning to think 
differently about that.  All this selfie-taking, facebook-obsessed, soundbite culture, 
may well be the opposite of narcissism.  It may be a visible/measurable stage of the hive 
mind required for an earth with 15 billion people on it.  Perhaps we're evolving from 
herds to biofilms ... from cells to tissue?

--
⇔ 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] FW: Meat

[Steve Smith]

  
  
Nick/Glen -
  
  I haven't tracked the details of this thread, but the bits I've
  skimmed have been interesting.
  
  My own experience has more to do with "entrainment" than
  "deference to authority".   
  
  Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I
  find it impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to
  even pretend to understand the issue and data well enough to make
  a "scientific decision".  I think those who "pretend" to do so are
  rarely being honest.   As those here who have actually *done*
  science, know, it is far from trivial to really track down all the
  data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc. to begin to "prove
  anything" to oneself.    
  
  More to the point, I think, is using "scientific thinking" to
  follow the popular material provided on a given topic and
  *discount* some of the wilder claims (pro or con) on any given
  topic.  But I don't think any of us can discount "entrainment" in
  the memetic flow.   If we hear enough people we respect (or not)
  rattle on (with psuedo-scientific psuedo-evidence) long enough, we
  tend to believe (or reject) it.   I think it is very deep in the
  human psyche to join our "tribe" in it's belief and/or take on an
  anti-position with "the other tribe"... thus our hugely bifurcated
  politics, etc. today.
  
  To try to answer Nick's question ("how do *I* make decisions on
  these topics?").   I listen to the "buzz" in the popular
  literature/media and do some quick "triage" on the outliers... the
  ideas which are fairly clearly driven by paranoia or wishful
  thinking, in particular.   The conspiracy theories (positive and
  negative), as it were.   A "new" idea, rarely piques my interest
  beyond mild curiosity... I know to give the new idea a few months
  or even years to shake out.  Let other people get wound up over
  them for a while before I take them very seriously.  And of course
  things that are "too good (or bad) to be true" don't really get me
  wound up very easily.   But watching others get wound up *does*
  entertain me.
  
  Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as
  possible.  Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat
  as an example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian
  from age 15-32 when I was essentially "boycotting" the meat
  *industry* which I saw as an exploitative and abusive industry.  
  I currently follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living... 
  entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is best for me".  
  With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat important to my
  diet, it is probably also important for it to come to me
  infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating
  strategy *might* be a big juicy steak or three once every couple
  of weeks and a LOT of green and tuberous vegetables.   I *do*
  respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that are
  based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT
  Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).   
  
  I also acknowledge that there is very little survival of the
  species value to living much past childbearing/childraising age
  (30-50?), and that short of extreme malnutrition or starvation, my
  diet as a young person probably wasn't very counter-survival...
  Sure enough, a diet too rich in red meat/fat/etc.  might well lead
  to colon cancer or heart disease, etc in my 50's++   but what does
  evolution care?  Sure wise/capable/skilled "grandparents" carry
  *some* survival value for the group, but generally not as much as
  healthy young parents and early middle age folks carrying the
  heavy end of the groups burdens (literally and figuratively).    
  
  There are *myriad* studies indicating a wild array of dietary
  extremes from pure vegan to nearly pure fat diets...  most sound
  like "wishful thinking" to me, though (despite my own well-fed
  physique) I do believe that ultra-lean diets (as long as they
  aren't missing important nutrients) are probably the best thing
  for longevity...   
  
  Outside of diet, I think the topic of climate change and pollution
  to be another good example.  I thought the alarm raised before
  about 1990 on climate change was alarmist whackadoodle talk, but
  by the early 2000 I had come to hear the right-wing, "drill baby
  drill" message and "climate denier" talk as yet more evidence that
  there probably *IS* a real problem.   My current belief in
  anthropocentric climate change arises partly from the
  "entrainment" (I hear enough people I want to believe claiming it
  is true and I too start to act as 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Rich Murray]

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:48 PM, glen  wrote:

> On 11/02/2015 08:44 AM, glen wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2015 01:55 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior duality.
>>>
>>> [NST==>Do I know that duality?  I am guessing that I think of them in
>> terms of levels of organization.  Can you say more?  <==nst]
>>
>
> So, in the 20 or so minutes I've spent thinking about virtue argumentation
> (obviously enough to make me an expert), shifting judgements of "good"
> arguing from the argument to the arguers is enlightening.  It reminds me of
> considering things like "white space" in a document or a GUI, or "negative
> space" in an image.  In math (or computation, or both), there's a duality
> between things and activity, objects vs processes, state vs. behavior,
> nodes vs. edges.  I suppose we see it in physics as well, with mass vs.
> energy.  Most consideration of argumentation focuses on the arguments.
> Switching to think more about the arguers is interesting in that same sense
> as particle vs. wave flip-flopping is interesting.
>
>
> [NST==>Glen, how familiar are with Peirce’s weird form of [idealistic]
>> realism.  And how it leads both to tough scientism and blousy
>> postmodernism, in different hands. <==nst]
>>
>
> I'm not at all familiar!  So, now I have something else to learn about.
>
>   You tend to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions
>>> (including the more extreme postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2
>>> face teaching, apparently on the grounds that social context is at least
>>> somewhat powerful.  Do you admit a full spectrum of power: realism <->
>>> constructivism?  Or is the rant against MOOCs just a "get off my lawn" and,
>>> deep down, you stick with hard-line realism?
>>>
>>> [NST==>I am sure there is a contradiction in here somewhere, but I don’t
>> yet see it.  Couldn’t I believe that conversation with other well-informed
>> people is the best way to arrive at the real?  Or, at least, one of several
>> methods, all of which make a contribution?  Could you say  a bit more?
>> <==nst]
>>
>
> Well, you could argue "parallax", the idea that none of us have (or can
> have) perfectly accurate opinions, but that collections of us have more
> accurate opinions than individuals.  To me, though, this gives weight to
> things like postmodernism (at least in my own almost private understanding
> of what "postmodernism" means).  Here is the reasoning:
>
> One important aspect of postmodernism is that guiding towards a vanishing
> point (reality) by navigating opinions is only as effective as the
> abstraction layers between the target and the opinions.  The further
> removed you are from the banal, the crazier the navigation gets.  This is
> why we see so much symbol reuse ... so much so that the symbols take on and
> lose entire (distinct) meanings along the way.  I.e. postmodernism is a
> reduction to absurdity, which can be used to argue _for_ (or against)
> realism.
>
> So, by allowing all the myriad symbols, the rich interconnections between
> 2 face 2 face arguers, you're allowing for a large number of abstraction
> layers.  E.g. something said with a giggle is different from that very same
> thing said with disgust.  Something said with vocal fry can be very
> different than something said valley girl style. ... #whatever
>
> Therefore, if you're arguing for _more_ abstraction layers (physical
> presence in classrooms), then you're arguing for the same layered
> abstraction used to make the Postmodernism Point(TM).
>
> I would think a hard-core (naive) realist would be all for eliminating,
> for example, the physical characteristics of a professor, facial ticks,
> gesticulating arms, etc. and getting straight at the argument, focusing
> less and less on the arguers.  So, realists should LOVE the idea of a MOOC
> and dislike "virtue argumentation".
>
> [NST==>Again, I have not very coherent feelings about this domain.  I
>> recently read THE BIG FAT SURPRISE and decided to believe it hook line and
>> sinker.  I think there is an awful lot “food witness” going on, where
>> people express their individuality by not eating this and that. More of the
>> narcissism of the IMac and the You-tube generation.   As the family cook, I
>> find it’s just a pain in the ass.  But just about the time 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[glen]

At first, I struggled to find something to argue with.  But I finally found it!

On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it impossible to do enough research on any 
"popular" topic to even pretend to understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific 
decision".  I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest.   As those here who have 
actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to really track down all the data and reproduce all of the 
experiments, etc. to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.


But one can't actually *do* science.  Science is a collective thing, perhaps 
even an entraining thing.  While there are plenty who admit that it's mostly a 
behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction preclude any 
individual from *doing* science.  At best, we can only *participate*.  We can't 
_do_ it.  We can only _be_ it.

So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does not make "scientific 
decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't done enough research.  I can do so 
_without_ agreeing with the reasoning by which you reached your conclusion.  It's because 
"scientific decisions" is a contradiction in terms.  Decisions are intra-individual, 
cognitive things, whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing.

This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree with 
reasoning but agree with conclusions.


Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as possible.  Since you used the topic of 
diet and the eating of meat as an example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was 
essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an exploitative and abusive industry. I currently 
follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is 
best for me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat important to my diet, it is probably also 
important for it to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a 
big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT of green and tuberous vegetables.   I *do* respond to the 
more complex and well researched ideas that are based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT Of 
animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).


This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows function 
arguments, too, right?  Or do you allow for layers of removal between form and 
function?



To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in our 
own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the consequences, 
albeit after a huge period of adjustment.


I find this belief the most interesting.  Apophenically, it seems techies tend 
to think this way.  They're also the most likely to think we can invent our way 
out of various calamaties.  They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of 
any given technology (or technique).  Etc.  But I see a similar aspect with 
non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example, seem to 
be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and fridge contents.  
People who can paint (or have other visual imagination) seem to see things 
others don't.  Etc.

So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems 
(generalized from one or more domains in which they are plastic/resourceful) 
gives them the optimism that they will find solutions, even in the face of 
uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.



--
⇔ 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] FW: Meat

[Roger Critchlow]

speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release today,
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43,
anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of anything to
be done at this point?

-- rec --


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen  wrote:

>
> At first, I struggled to find something to argue with.  But I finally
> found it!
>
> On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
>> Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it
>> impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to
>> understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision".
>> I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest.   As those
>> here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to
>> really track down all the data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc.
>> to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.
>>
>
> But one can't actually *do* science.  Science is a collective thing,
> perhaps even an entraining thing.  While there are plenty who admit that
> it's mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction
> preclude any individual from *doing* science.  At best, we can only
> *participate*.  We can't _do_ it.  We can only _be_ it.
>
> So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does
> not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't
> done enough research.  I can do so _without_ agreeing with the reasoning by
> which you reached your conclusion.  It's because "scientific decisions" is
> a contradiction in terms.  Decisions are intra-individual, cognitive
> things, whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing.
>
> This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree
> with reasoning but agree with conclusions.
>
> Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as
>> possible.  Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an
>> example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32
>> when I was essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an
>> exploitative and abusive industry. I currently follow the general
>> guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define
>> "what is best for me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat
>> important to my diet, it is probably also important for it to come to me
>> infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy
>> *might* be a big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT
>> of green and tuberous vegetables.   I *do* respond to the more complex and
>> well researched ideas that are based in the indigenous diets of various
>> cultures (some eat a LOT Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost
>> none).
>>
>
> This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows function
> arguments, too, right?  Or do you allow for layers of removal between form
> and function?
>
>
> To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in
>> our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the
>> consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.
>>
>
> I find this belief the most interesting.  Apophenically, it seems techies
> tend to think this way.  They're also the most likely to think we can
> invent our way out of various calamaties.  They tend to be more tolerant of
> the ill-effects of any given technology (or technique).  Etc.  But I see a
> similar aspect with non-techie yet methodical people... people who can
> cook, for example, seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare
> cabinets and fridge contents.  People who can paint (or have other visual
> imagination) seem to see things others don't.  Etc.
>
> So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems
> (generalized from one or more domains in which they are
> plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find solutions,
> even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ⇔ 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] FW: Meat

[Roger Critchlow]

Sorry, misquoted the abstract in a particularly alarming way by
paraphrasing journalistic sources: 60 years of continuing destabilization
of the Amundsen Basin, as is currently being observed, leads to a
subsequent collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and an eventual 3m sea
rise.

-- rec --

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Roger Critchlow  wrote:

> speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release today,
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43,
> anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of anything to
> be done at this point?
>
> -- rec --
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen  wrote:
>
>>
>> At first, I struggled to find something to argue with.  But I finally
>> found it!
>>
>> On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it
>>> impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to
>>> understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision".
>>> I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest.   As those
>>> here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to
>>> really track down all the data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc.
>>> to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.
>>>
>>
>> But one can't actually *do* science.  Science is a collective thing,
>> perhaps even an entraining thing.  While there are plenty who admit that
>> it's mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction
>> preclude any individual from *doing* science.  At best, we can only
>> *participate*.  We can't _do_ it.  We can only _be_ it.
>>
>> So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does
>> not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't
>> done enough research.  I can do so _without_ agreeing with the reasoning by
>> which you reached your conclusion.  It's because "scientific decisions" is
>> a contradiction in terms.  Decisions are intra-individual, cognitive
>> things, whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing.
>>
>> This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree
>> with reasoning but agree with conclusions.
>>
>> Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as
>>> possible.  Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an
>>> example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32
>>> when I was essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an
>>> exploitative and abusive industry. I currently follow the general
>>> guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define
>>> "what is best for me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat
>>> important to my diet, it is probably also important for it to come to me
>>> infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy
>>> *might* be a big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT
>>> of green and tuberous vegetables.   I *do* respond to the more complex and
>>> well researched ideas that are based in the indigenous diets of various
>>> cultures (some eat a LOT Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost
>>> none).
>>>
>>
>> This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows
>> function arguments, too, right?  Or do you allow for layers of removal
>> between form and function?
>>
>>
>> To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in
>>> our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the
>>> consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.
>>>
>>
>> I find this belief the most interesting.  Apophenically, it seems techies
>> tend to think this way.  They're also the most likely to think we can
>> invent our way out of various calamaties.  They tend to be more tolerant of
>> the ill-effects of any given technology (or technique).  Etc.  But I see a
>> similar aspect with non-techie yet methodical people... people who can
>> cook, for example, seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare
>> cabinets and fridge contents.  People who can paint (or have other visual
>> imagination) seem to see things others don't.  Etc.
>>
>> So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems
>> (generalized from one or more domains in which they are
>> plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find solutions,
>> even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ⇔ 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 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Carl]

Well, one eventually gets 3m from the West Antarctica collapse alone, if 
that happens.   However there are other 
possibly-soon-to-be-not-so-frozen bits on the planet (Greenland, the 
Arctic, other parts of Antarctica, etc) which are outside that 
particular study.   So one could imagine 3m to be conservative. Even one 
foot would certainly command a certain quality of attention.   And with 
most of these kinds of predictions, the consequences seem to be 
back-loaded.Warmer oceans of greater surface area will have other 
effects one could be concerned about if so inclined.


Nature bats last, as least far as the South China Sea is concerned.

So, there ya go.   I read science articles to get a greater sense of 
interconnectedness, unexpected interactions between events, rather than 
some clear policy decisions.   This leads me to a more "what kinds of 
principled studies could you do that would lead to more coherent 
models", or "what is the space of coherent models" rather than just 
adding to the mass of data.


Carl

On 11/2/15 6:12 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
Sorry, misquoted the abstract in a particularly alarming way by 
paraphrasing journalistic sources: 60 years of continuing 
destabilization of the Amundsen Basin, as is currently being observed, 
leads to a subsequent collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and an 
eventual 3m sea rise.


-- rec --

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Roger Critchlow > wrote:


speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release
today,

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43,
anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of
anything to be done at this point?

-- rec --


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen > wrote:


At first, I struggled to find something to argue with.  But I
finally found it!

On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially
though?) I find it impossible to do enough research on any
"popular" topic to even pretend to understand the issue
and data well enough to make a "scientific decision". I
think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being
honest.   As those here who have actually *done* science,
know, it is far from trivial to really track down all the
data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc. to begin
to "prove anything" to oneself.


But one can't actually *do* science.  Science is a collective
thing, perhaps even an entraining thing.  While there are
plenty who admit that it's mostly a behavior, the requirements
for repetition and prediction preclude any individual from
*doing* science.  At best, we can only *participate*.  We
can't _do_ it.  We can only _be_ it.

So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one --
you -- does not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that
it's because one hasn't done enough research.  I can do so
_without_ agreeing with the reasoning by which you reached
your conclusion.  It's because "scientific decisions" is a
contradiction in terms.  Decisions are intra-individual,
cognitive things, whereas science is an inter-individual
collective thing.

This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability
to disagree with reasoning but agree with conclusions.

Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of
principles as possible. Since you used the topic of diet
and the eating of meat as an example, I will admit to
having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was
essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw
as an exploitative and abusive industry. I currently
follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living...
entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is best for
me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat
important to my diet, it is probably also important for it
to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging
quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a big
juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT
of green and tuberous vegetables.   I *do* respond to the
more complex and well researched ideas that are based in
the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT
Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).


This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form
follows function arguments, too, right?  Or do you allow for
layers of removal between form and function?

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Steve Smith]

Glen -


>At first, I struggled to find something to argue with.  But I finally 
found it!

Well struggled, well found!
>> As those here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far 
from trivial to really track down all the data and reproduce all of 
the >>experiments, etc. to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.


>But one can't actually *do* science.  Science is a collective thing, 
perhaps even an entraining thing.  While there are plenty who admit 
that it's >mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and 
prediction preclude any individual from *doing* science.  At best, we 
can only >*participate*.  We can't _do_ it.  We can only _be_ it.
Excellent point!  And I suppose by analogy or extension, (which is the 
extension of which), Nick's original concept of "being rational" suffers 
the same issue.


So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- 
does not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because 
one hasn't done enough research.  I can do so _without_ agreeing with 
the reasoning by which you reached your conclusion. It's because 
"scientific decisions" is a contradiction in terms. Decisions are 
intra-individual, cognitive things, whereas science is an 
inter-individual collective thing.
Also well pointed-out.   I think it might be obvious that my point was 
that in anything but the most dedicated circumstances can one even 
credibly *pretend* to have done enough research to make a "scientific 
decision".  And if I understand your point, even then, it is at best, 
"in the limit" good enough to make a tentative/interim conclusion.   So 
to contradict your analysis of my description, I would say that we are 
not in disagreement, that in fact what you describe as "the reasoning by 
which I reached my conclusion" was a mis-statement.  Your own 
description is more appropriate to what I meant, rather than what I said.


This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to 
disagree with reasoning but agree with conclusions.
And even within oneself.   I believe that we often use "surrogate 
reasoning"... we tell stories that are either easier to articulate or 
perhaps just easier to agree with.   Perhaps in the vein of the Red 
Queen, I find myself in this mode of analysis/description believing a 
continuous stream of (logically?) impossible things... or more to the 
point, articulating them in place of a deeper, more intuitive, possibly 
unstate-able understanding?


 I *do* respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that 
are based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT 
Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).


This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows 
function arguments, too, right?  Or do you allow for layers of removal 
between form and function?
Well, when put that way, I do admit multiple levels of indirection  
but still ascribe to the basic concept of Form=>Function...  though 
often through multiple layers: e.g. high-fiber diets keep the colon more 
clear and therefore magically prevent or reduce colon cancer.
To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn 
in our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the 
consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.


I find this belief the most interesting.  Apophenically, it seems 
techies tend to think this way.  They're also the most likely to think 
we can invent our way out of various calamaties.
I'd say "innovate" and I don't necessarily mean "technologically". I 
think my "confidence" pivots around the diverstiy of our natures... our 
ability to adapt physically (as warm blooded mammals) as well as 
socially (as complex social creatures with an existing significant 
diversity in modes of living in groups) and personally (put 50 bozos on 
50 deserted islands and *some* of them will survive in spite of being 
bozos).
  They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of any given 
technology (or technique).  Etc.  But I see a similar aspect with 
non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example, 
seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and 
fridge contents.  People who can paint (or have other visual 
imagination) seem to see things others don't.  Etc.


So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve 
problems (generalized from one or more domains in which they are 
plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find 
solutions, even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.
You may misunderstand that *I* imagine that *I* (or my progeny) will 
survive (well)...   I imagine that we (humans, first-worlders, 
caucasians, etc) will NOT be as successful at surviving our own mistakes 
as, say, cockroaches, but we may well do better than say, whales or 
gorillas.   I'm not sure that first-world technologists will generally 
do better than say natives currently living in semi-harsh, 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Marcus Daniels]

Surely someone has collected the digital elevation models (DEM) to find 
potential growth areas near areas that would be impacted by such a water rise?  
 You know, as investment opportunities.  (Or to systematically short-sell 
them.)  New Orleans lost half their population after Katrina..


From: Friam  on behalf of Roger Critchlow 

Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 6:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Sorry, misquoted the abstract in a particularly alarming way by paraphrasing 
journalistic sources: 60 years of continuing destabilization of the Amundsen 
Basin, as is currently being observed, leads to a subsequent collapse of the 
West Antarctic Ice Sheet and an eventual 3m sea rise.

-- rec --

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Roger Critchlow 
> wrote:
speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release today, 
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43,
 anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of anything to be 
done at this point?

-- rec --


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen 
> wrote:

At first, I struggled to find something to argue with.  But I finally found it!

On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it 
impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to 
understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision".  I 
think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest.   As those here who 
have actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to really track down 
all the data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc. to begin to "prove 
anything" to oneself.

But one can't actually *do* science.  Science is a collective thing, perhaps 
even an entraining thing.  While there are plenty who admit that it's mostly a 
behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction preclude any 
individual from *doing* science.  At best, we can only *participate*.  We can't 
_do_ it.  We can only _be_ it.

So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does not 
make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't done 
enough research.  I can do so _without_ agreeing with the reasoning by which 
you reached your conclusion.  It's because "scientific decisions" is a 
contradiction in terms.  Decisions are intra-individual, cognitive things, 
whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing.

This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree with 
reasoning but agree with conclusions.

Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as possible.  
Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an example, I will 
admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was essentially 
"boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an exploitative and abusive 
industry. I currently follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living... 
entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is best for me". With that in 
mind, I suspect that not only is meat important to my diet, it is probably also 
important for it to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging 
quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a big juicy steak or three once 
every couple of weeks and a LOT of green and tuberous vegetables.   I *do* 
respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that are based in the 
indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT Of animal protein/fat 
while others eat almost none).

This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows function 
arguments, too, right?  Or do you allow for layers of removal between form and 
function?


To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in our 
own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the consequences, 
albeit after a huge period of adjustment.

I find this belief the most interesting.  Apophenically, it seems techies tend 
to think this way.  They're also the most likely to think we can invent our way 
out of various calamaties.  They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of 
any given technology (or technique).  Etc.  But I see a similar aspect with 
non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example, seem to 
be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and fridge contents.  
People who can paint (or have other visual imagination) seem to see things 
others don't.  Etc.

So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems 
(generalized from one or more domains in which they are plastic/resourceful) 
gives them the optimism that they will find solutions, even in the face of 
uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.