Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

[Merle Lefkoff]

Dear Nick,

Hello from the front lines of global climate change in Barrow, Alaska,
where I had an incredible meeting today with Inupiat leader Rosemary
Pilchuck, the Erin Brockovitch of Alaska.  I am so thankful that the
activists we are gathering for our big ECOS conference in Santa Fe next
fall are DOING SOMETHING about climate change, instead of just talking
about it.

And by the way.  There is indeed a choir, but it's not singing
together--the pop-up movements are not connected.  And we're DOING
SOMETHING about that!

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Shawn Barr  wrote:

> Hi Nick,
>
> Sorry for not responding sooner.  Richard Lindzen is pretty well regarded
> among the climate change "skeptics."  Here's a link to a recent talk of his:
>
> ​https://youtu.be/eRwYZV-hYnA​
>
>
> Shawn
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Nick Thompson <
> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> I will be repatriated to Santa Fe soon and look forward to seeing you in
>> October.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the meantime, could you possibly help me with the following.  Clark
>> University is proposing a forum on climate change.  I want that forum to be
>> honest, so I am wondering if anybody in this group can propose me the names
>> of some skeptics who are sober, thoughtful, and have not resorted to
>> throwing snowballs in the senate, so I could propose those names to the
>> convening committee.  My thought was that in a forum on climate change,
>> which would include, of course, many sessions on consequences and
>> remediation, should be at least one in which the whole consensus is put in
>> doubt.
>>
>>
>>
>> My note to the committee is appended below, in case you are curious.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *My fear here is that this will be one of those discussions where the
>> choir sings to itself.  In Santa Fe, I sit with a group of highly trained
>> engineers and hard scientists among whom are a few who are climate-change
>> doubters.  These are folks who seem otherwise rational, so I have to take
>> them seriously.  Now, I think it’s fair to say that every conversation
>> amongst the climate change faithful  should not be gummed up by a few folks
>> who doubt that it is happening at all.  For instance, we need to talk
>> amongst ourselves about justice issues, How to respond so that its
>> consequences will not fall disproportionately upon the weak and poor,
>> However, I also think we should devote at least one session to bridging the
>> gap between doubters and us faithful.  I suggest a session title, “Can a
>> rational person doubt human-originated climate change?” and see who you can
>> find that can explore the weaknesses in our consensus with the hope that
>> such testing will make us more rational.  *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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

[Shawn Barr]

Hi Nick,

Sorry for not responding sooner.  Richard Lindzen is pretty well regarded
among the climate change "skeptics."  Here's a link to a recent talk of his:

​https://youtu.be/eRwYZV-hYnA​


Shawn


On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> I will be repatriated to Santa Fe soon and look forward to seeing you in
> October.
>
>
>
> In the meantime, could you possibly help me with the following.  Clark
> University is proposing a forum on climate change.  I want that forum to be
> honest, so I am wondering if anybody in this group can propose me the names
> of some skeptics who are sober, thoughtful, and have not resorted to
> throwing snowballs in the senate, so I could propose those names to the
> convening committee.  My thought was that in a forum on climate change,
> which would include, of course, many sessions on consequences and
> remediation, should be at least one in which the whole consensus is put in
> doubt.
>
>
>
> My note to the committee is appended below, in case you are curious.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *My fear here is that this will be one of those discussions where the
> choir sings to itself.  In Santa Fe, I sit with a group of highly trained
> engineers and hard scientists among whom are a few who are climate-change
> doubters.  These are folks who seem otherwise rational, so I have to take
> them seriously.  Now, I think it’s fair to say that every conversation
> amongst the climate change faithful  should not be gummed up by a few folks
> who doubt that it is happening at all.  For instance, we need to talk
> amongst ourselves about justice issues, How to respond so that its
> consequences will not fall disproportionately upon the weak and poor,
> However, I also think we should devote at least one session to bridging the
> gap between doubters and us faithful.  I suggest a session title, “Can a
> rational person doubt human-originated climate change?” and see who you can
> find that can explore the weaknesses in our consensus with the hope that
> such testing will make us more rational.  *
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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

[qef]

Greetings, all --


Nick, further to my observation that William Nordhaus may offer a thoughtful 
contrast, he has written a review of Pope Francis's recent encyclical:


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/oct/08/pope-and-market/


I don't agree with everything Nordhaus (or, for that matter, Pope Francis) 
says, but it gives you an idea of his thinking.


Kindest regards,


- Claiborne -



-Original Message-
From: Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com>
Sent: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 8:38 pm
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics


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 <friam@redfish.com>
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
 

FRIAM Applied Comp

Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

[glen]

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

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


So what _are_ the consensuses for these topics?  I'll provide a couple of 
ignorant guesses at the consensuses:


Diet and Heart Disease  --  heavily correlated, particularly salt and animal 
products
Diet and Cancer  --  weakly correlated, except with heavy use of processing 
chemicals and except for obesity
Vaccination and autism  -- no correlation



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.


Non-celiac Gluten Sensitivity  -- weak evidence in few cases
GMO Safety --  perfectly safe in the near term
  - GMO consequences -- ???
Sitting vs. standing desks -- ???
Chiropracty -- can help some people, mostly psychosomatic, a bit dangerous
Acupuncture -- all psychosomatic, but pacifies some of those pesky chronic pain 
people
Exercise-induced ketonic starvation -- bad for you

Of all of them, I'd most like to see some people seriously apply themselves to the long-term consequences of 
GMOs (including plants and animals for food, drugs, pest resistance, synthetic biology, etc.).  All we ever 
hear about is their "safety" for immediate consumption, about which I couldn't give a damn.  I want 
to understand it in the context of species domestication and the interaction between artificial and natural 
evolution.  I'm a big fan of GMOs.  I'd modify myself if I knew how!  But the consensus story that they're 
safe, in any _interesting_ definition of the word "safe", is just nonsense.  Sure, I can eat 
them... but I can also drink large doses of poison (e.g. ethanol) with no medium-term consequences ... and 
have large doses of poison (chemo) injected directly into my bloodstream with no long-term consequences.  So, 
that's not really a very interesting definition of the word "safe".

That's a point the scientismists don't ever seem to grok.


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


I would _bet_ that we'll never get to that part of the discussion.  Our 
appetite is too small. ;-)

--
⇔ 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 05:37 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I think you have nailed one of the origins of science-doubters: the relation 
> between the nomothetic and the idiographic

Thanks.  It's nice to know the names.  I think science-doubting is just one 
symptom, though.  The deeper problem has something to do with "schizophrenic" 
components of a system, where the split is caused by incommensurate scopes.  
For example, humans behaviors are systemic (as Marcus points out where people 
react to their environment first, then rationalize it later) in their behavior. 
 Their behaviors have 1 scope, extent of impact.  E.g. lawn fertilizer run-off. 
 Then their ideological scope is different, usually smaller.  The things in 
their heads don't extend as far as the impact of their behavior.  And vice 
versa sometimes.  There are idealists whose actions have very small scope, 
thinking very big thoughts, but their actions blow away with a strong breeze.

Scope incommensurability is the deeper problem.

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

Of course.  Thanks.  But just to be argumentative, that's like saying you wish 
I didn't have blue eyes.  Or, better yet, you wish I weren't bald. >8^)  My 
cancer is a part of me.  I probably wouldn't feel as strongly about it if it 
were a tumor-forming type of cancer.  But since it's systemic, spread 
throughout my lymph system (part of how we tell self from non-self), it's 
definitely part of me.  It is me.  I am cancer.  It's probably not true of all 
cancers, though.  Here's a similar interesting tidbit:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43041/title/Cancer-Driving-Mutations-Common-in-Normal-Skin-Cells/

-- 
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
Look beyond your own horizons



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]

>>>
>>> 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>
>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>

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]

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

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 <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 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]

 -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


  



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]

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
  
  

  



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

[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 <friam@redfish.com>
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 <friam@redfish.com>
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 <sasm...@swcp.com 
> <mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> 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 <friam@redfish.com>
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 <friam@redfish.com>
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 <gil.densm...@gmail.com>
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 <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 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 <merlelefk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It's NEVER NEVER either/or!  Try both/and.
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Gillian Densmore <gil.densm...@gmail.com>
> 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 <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 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 <friam@redfish.com>
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

[glen]

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

Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

[Nick Thompson]

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

Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Claiborne,

 

I will look into these. 

 

In a week I will be back in St. Johns marvelous coffee shop.  Any chance of 
seeing you there?

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of q...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:12 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

 

Nick -- 

 

Probably the most prominent skeptics in recent times have been Bjorn Lomborg of 
the Copenhagen Consensus (he suggests that it's important, but perhaps not as 
important as other matters) and William Nordhaus of Yale (who likewise talks 
about severity and outcomes). Their writings and speeches may offer some 
insight.

 

I hope it's a productive conversation.

 

All the best,

 

- Claiborne Booker -



-Original Message-
From: Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net <mailto:o...@backspaces.net> >
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Sent: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 3:28 am
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

Yeah, I know! But the audience is. :) 

 

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Merle Lefkoff <merlelefk...@gmail.com 
<mailto:merlelefk...@gmail.com> > wrote: 

He's not a sceptic.  In fact, he's all in on climate change. 

 

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net 
<mailto:o...@backspaces.net> > wrote: 

Pope Francis. 


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

[qef]

Nick --


Probably the most prominent skeptics in recent times have been Bjorn Lomborg of 
the Copenhagen Consensus (he suggests that it's important, but perhaps not as 
important as other matters) and William Nordhaus of Yale (who likewise talks 
about severity and outcomes). Their writings and speeches may offer some 
insight.


I hope it's a productive conversation.


All the best,


- Claiborne Booker -



-Original Message-
From: Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 3:28 am
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics


 
  
Yeah, I know! But the audience is. :)  
  
   
   
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Merle Lefkoff <merlelefk...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

 
  
He's not a sceptic.  In fact, he's all in on climate change.   
  
 
 
  
   


On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Owen Densmore  <o...@backspaces.net> 
wrote: 
 
  
   
Pope Francis.   
  
 

   
  
 

   
  
 
 


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

[Owen Densmore]

Yeah, I know! But the audience is. :)

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Merle Lefkoff 
wrote:

> He's not a sceptic.  In fact, he's all in on climate change.
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Owen Densmore 
> wrote:
>
>> Pope Francis.
>>
>

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]

He's not a sceptic.  In fact, he's all in on climate change.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net> wrote:

> Pope Francis.
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net
> > wrote:
>
>> Glen,
>>
>> It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together.  Is that a recognizable
>> category, or do I need to say more.
>>
>> 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: Monday, September 21, 2015 1:42 PM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
>> >
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics
>>
>>
>> I can't help directly.  But it seems to me that there's a requirement
>> missing from your request.  The missing requirement is the _purpose_ of the
>> forum.  Is it scientific, in which case, scientists are allowed to be what
>> they normally are: skeptical of everything?  Is it political, in which
>> case, the best participants will be popularizers or public intellectuals?
>> Is it social, in which case, there's a need for science/policy crossovers?
>>
>> I think filling that missing link will lead to a more effective choice of
>> the "doubter" you seek.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/21/2015 10:35 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> > In the meantime, could you possibly help me with the following.  Clark
>> > University is proposing a forum on climate change.  I want that forum
>> > to be honest, so I am wondering if anybody in this group can propose
>> > me the names of some skeptics who are sober, thoughtful, and have not
>> > resorted to throwing snowballs in the senate, so I could propose those
>> > names to the convening committee.  My thought was that in a forum on
>> > climate change, which would include, of course, many sessions on
>> > consequences and remediation, should be at least one in which the
>> > whole consensus is put in doubt.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ⇔ 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

[Owen Densmore]

Pope Francis.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Glen,
>
> It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together.  Is that a recognizable
> category, or do I need to say more.
>
> 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: Monday, September 21, 2015 1:42 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics
>
>
> I can't help directly.  But it seems to me that there's a requirement
> missing from your request.  The missing requirement is the _purpose_ of the
> forum.  Is it scientific, in which case, scientists are allowed to be what
> they normally are: skeptical of everything?  Is it political, in which
> case, the best participants will be popularizers or public intellectuals?
> Is it social, in which case, there's a need for science/policy crossovers?
>
> I think filling that missing link will lead to a more effective choice of
> the "doubter" you seek.
>
>
>
> On 09/21/2015 10:35 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > In the meantime, could you possibly help me with the following.  Clark
> > University is proposing a forum on climate change.  I want that forum
> > to be honest, so I am wondering if anybody in this group can propose
> > me the names of some skeptics who are sober, thoughtful, and have not
> > resorted to throwing snowballs in the senate, so I could propose those
> > names to the convening committee.  My thought was that in a forum on
> > climate change, which would include, of course, many sessions on
> > consequences and remediation, should be at least one in which the
> > whole consensus is put in doubt.
>
>
> --
> ⇔ 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

[glen]

I can't help directly.  But it seems to me that there's a requirement missing 
from your request.  The missing requirement is the _purpose_ of the forum.  Is 
it scientific, in which case, scientists are allowed to be what they normally 
are: skeptical of everything?  Is it political, in which case, the best 
participants will be popularizers or public intellectuals?  Is it social, in 
which case, there's a need for science/policy crossovers?

I think filling that missing link will lead to a more effective choice of the 
"doubter" you seek.



On 09/21/2015 10:35 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

In the meantime, could you possibly help me with the following.  Clark
University is proposing a forum on climate change.  I want that forum to be
honest, so I am wondering if anybody in this group can propose me the names
of some skeptics who are sober, thoughtful, and have not resorted to
throwing snowballs in the senate, so I could propose those names to the
convening committee.  My thought was that in a forum on climate change,
which would include, of course, many sessions on consequences and
remediation, should be at least one in which the whole consensus is put in
doubt.



--
⇔ 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] Good climate change skeptics

[Nick Thompson]

Dear colleagues,  

 

I will be repatriated to Santa Fe soon and look forward to seeing you in
October. 

 

In the meantime, could you possibly help me with the following.  Clark
University is proposing a forum on climate change.  I want that forum to be
honest, so I am wondering if anybody in this group can propose me the names
of some skeptics who are sober, thoughtful, and have not resorted to
throwing snowballs in the senate, so I could propose those names to the
convening committee.  My thought was that in a forum on climate change,
which would include, of course, many sessions on consequences and
remediation, should be at least one in which the whole consensus is put in
doubt.  

 

My note to the committee is appended below, in case you are curious.  

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

My fear here is that this will be one of those discussions where the choir
sings to itself.  In Santa Fe, I sit with a group of highly trained
engineers and hard scientists among whom are a few who are climate-change
doubters.  These are folks who seem otherwise rational, so I have to take
them seriously.  Now, I think it's fair to say that every conversation
amongst the climate change faithful  should not be gummed up by a few folks
who doubt that it is happening at all.  For instance, we need to talk
amongst ourselves about justice issues, How to respond so that its
consequences will not fall disproportionately upon the weak and poor,
However, I also think we should devote at least one session to bridging the
gap between doubters and us faithful.  I suggest a session title, "Can a
rational person doubt human-originated climate change?" and see who you can
find that can explore the weaknesses in our consensus with the hope that
such testing will make us more rational.  

 

 


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, 

It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together.  Is that a recognizable category, 
or do I need to say more. 

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: Monday, September 21, 2015 1:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics


I can't help directly.  But it seems to me that there's a requirement missing 
from your request.  The missing requirement is the _purpose_ of the forum.  Is 
it scientific, in which case, scientists are allowed to be what they normally 
are: skeptical of everything?  Is it political, in which case, the best 
participants will be popularizers or public intellectuals?  Is it social, in 
which case, there's a need for science/policy crossovers?

I think filling that missing link will lead to a more effective choice of the 
"doubter" you seek.



On 09/21/2015 10:35 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> In the meantime, could you possibly help me with the following.  Clark 
> University is proposing a forum on climate change.  I want that forum 
> to be honest, so I am wondering if anybody in this group can propose 
> me the names of some skeptics who are sober, thoughtful, and have not 
> resorted to throwing snowballs in the senate, so I could propose those 
> names to the convening committee.  My thought was that in a forum on 
> climate change, which would include, of course, many sessions on 
> consequences and remediation, should be at least one in which the 
> whole consensus is put in doubt.


--
⇔ 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