Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
king their share off of that, elbow to elbow at >>>> the same trough. >>>> >>>> We ship our (two hybrid strains of tomato and two germ-lines of >>>> beef) food halfway across the country (add coffee, avocados and >>>> bananas - world) from agri-industry-chemical soaked feed-lots and >>>> (formerly) fertile valleys and plains, burning fossil fuels (not >>>> just in the machines, but to make the hyper-fertilizer now >>>> needed). Whether we shop at Trader Joes, or Whole Foods, or Bob's >>>> Butcher or just order up Trump Steaks, we HAVE built a house of >>>> cards which is bending under the weight of this pandemic. >>>> >>>> Why does it feel like a segment of the population just wants to >>>> knock it down? >>>> >>>> Is there a constructive route up and out of this mess? The >>>> pandemic has exposed a LOT more of the weaknesses in our >>>> economy/society as this current administration has exposed the >>>> weaknesses in our government. It seems like an opportunity to try >>>> to rebuild thoughtfully rather than "tear it down" or "patch it >>>> back the way it was". >>>> >>>> Guardedly Hopeful, >>>> >>>> - Steve (574) >>>> >>>> >>>>> Nick, >>>>> >>>>> There is truth in what you say, but only a bit. >>>>> >>>>> I have certainly spoken as if "Science was a bunch of nasty people with >>>>> vested interests acting in an exclusionary manner." >>>>> >>>>> Hyperbole. >>>>> >>>>> A better metaphor / analogy would be the way we have hybridized our food >>>>> supply; e.g. 90 percent of all dairy cows have one of two bulls in their >>>>> ancestry, there are one or two tomato hybrids, one or two strains of >>>>> rice, wheat, corn, etc. >>>>> >>>>> This creates a huge vulnerability — a novel pest or disease and presto, >>>>> no food supply. >>>>> >>>>> Now imagine that there are multiple species of investigation, thinking, >>>>> knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> Since the Age of Enlightenment, the western world has been hell bent on >>>>> hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly, Science). >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a privileged status that >>>>> it tolerates no criticism and critics are "excommunicated" with prejudice. >>>>> >>>>> I would like to think of myself as someone interested in growing heritage >>>>> tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in taste and >>>>> texture and finding very deep value from the use of them in culinary >>>>> creations. >>>>> >>>>> davew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Dave, >>>>>> >>>>>> No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch >>>>>> of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding, >>>>>> has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that >>>>>> lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It >>>>>> is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble >>>>>> baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is >>>>>> a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for >>>>>> Archimedes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nick >>>>>> >>>>>> Nicholas Thompson >>>>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >>>>>> Clark University >>>>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> >>>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>> From: Friam >>>>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18,
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 11:41 AM wrote: > > > Of COURSE it would be you who would recognize “Red, Right, Returning”. > > > > I am surprised that some conservative magazine hasn’t adopted it as its > motto. > Might be a better motto for the centrists to keep Left of the Red markers. ie keep navigating toward the center of the channel where you don't destroy the ship on the rocks. .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
o try to rebuild thoughtfully rather than "tear it down" or >>> "patch it back the way it was". >>> Guardedly Hopeful, >>> - Steve (574) >>> >>>> Nick, There is truth in what you say, but only a bit. I have certainly spoken as if "Science was a bunch of nasty people with vested interests acting in an exclusionary manner." Hyperbole. A better metaphor / analogy would be the way we have hybridized our food supply; e.g. 90 percent of all dairy cows have one of two bulls in their ancestry, there are one or two tomato hybrids, one or two strains of rice, wheat, corn, etc. This creates a huge vulnerability — a novel pest or disease and presto, no food supply. Now imagine that there are multiple species of investigation, thinking, knowledge. Since the Age of Enlightenment, the western world has been hell bent on hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly, Science). Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a privileged status that it tolerates no criticism and critics are "excommunicated" with prejudice. I would like to think of myself as someone interested in growing heritage tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in taste and texture and finding very deep value from the use of them in culinary creations. davew On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dave, No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding, has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for Archimedes. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University >>>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions Nick, I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" — ergo there is no argument to lose. If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine, Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the most part, excluded from Science. davew On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dave, You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's science." I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch". Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University >>>>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their predictions. 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation), pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of winning the election. 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" he will win. 3- davew - Trump will win. # 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his prediction. The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc. to come to their conclusions. Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques he did
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
Roger! Great to hear from you! Are you At Sea!? Of COURSE it would be you who would recognize “Red, Right, Returning”. I am surprised that some conservative magazine hasn’t adopted it as its motto. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 10:17 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions I've watched people leave red to port on their returns, and some even get away with it. -- rec -- On Sun, Apr 19, 2020, 12:09 PM Nicholas Thompson mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote: Hi, Dave n all, "Outlook" has collapsed leaving me in gmail, which I don't understand.. So forgive me if... etc. The thunder lightening thing is both apt and strange, because of course nothing is possible between lightning and thunder EXCEPT that it is going to thunder. CF living in SFO or Seattle. You've seen the lightening, folks! "One banana, two bananas.three bananas ….." Yet I still like the aphorism. By the way, how many people on this list have heard the expression, "Red, Right, Returning" and know to what it refers. Ach! I don't know how you all tolerate this interface. Nick On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 9:31 AM Steven A Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote: Dave - I do remember your reference to the Bellamyists and probably wrote a long-winded (well-over 300) commentary which I then deleted. What I remember of that (my aborted response) was somewhat reactionary to Utopianism and Nationalism. In the spirit of productive optimism, I realize(d) my reactionaryisms was maybe not very productive. I don't want to devolve into the splitting of hairs we are so fond of here in this forum. With that caveat... I am struggling against those two things I impute to what little I know of "the Bellamyists". "One (hu)man's Utopia is another's Dystopia". And. "Nationalism is (dangerously) out-of-scale Tribalism". I guess I would ask why such a grandiose scale structure would need to be put in place? Would not an emergence from discussions among small groups (such as the threads on FriAM) not be a more practical and perhaps "safer" route? Is such a structure/container required, or perhaps it might be inevitable? But then it would not be Bellamyists, but rather DaveWestist? With that in mind... perhaps it is worth discussing the Bellamyites primary focus (as claimed in the Wikipedia Article that is my only source) of "nationalizing industry". That seems to be what the Left is leaning toward... or at least regulating/taxing industry at the federal level to the point that it IS effectively nationalized? What is the Right's version of that? In the spirit of NeoLiberalism and free-markets of which the Right is most fond, nationalization is anathema. And yet, it seems that the "free market" is best at innovation... and once an industry has been commodified, perhaps the next step IS to nationalization. There might have been a time when gasoline stations had something significantly different to offer, one from the other, but even the detergents and oxygenators seem to have become pretty standard(?lame assertion?) and the only difference is how big is the big-gulp soda in the convenience store, is it filled from the Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola pantheon and are more triggered by a giant yellow clam-shell logo or a green baby brontosaurus? I'm entirely with you on the diversity of foodstuffs referenced earlier... but IF/When I'm going to feed from the same trough of the same hybrids as my fellow piggies, why put so many different (or any?) labels on them? And then why not plant your own garden with seeds exchanged with friends and neighbors, localized to your conditions, and buy/trade what you can't grow from small (tiny) farms within a short drive (walk)? And I agree on the liminal, though I see liminality everywhere at all scales, like the fractality of an estuary and this moment is more acute and offering/demanding more focused/proaction? If we did live in our everyday liminality more-better, then this would just be an extrema(ish) of scale... but since we (mostly) don't, it feels like a change in quality in it's quantity. There I go, splitting hairs? - Steve Steve, This should be a time between lightning and thunder, liminal, a time "when all things are possible." I would love to be optimistic, even guarded
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 10:17 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions I've watched people leave red to port on their returns, and some even get away with it. -- rec -- On Sun, Apr 19, 2020, 12:09 PM Nicholas Thompson mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote: Hi, Dave n all, "Outlook" has collapsed leaving me in gmail, which I don't understand.. So forgive me if... etc. The thunder lightening thing is both apt and strange, because of course nothing is possible between lightning and thunder EXCEPT that it is going to thunder. CF living in SFO or Seattle. You've seen the lightening, folks! "One banana, two bananas.three bananas ….." Yet I still like the aphorism. By the way, how many people on this list have heard the expression, "Red, Right, Returning" and know to what it refers. Ach! I don't know how you all tolerate this interface. Nick On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 9:31 AM Steven A Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote: Dave - I do remember your reference to the Bellamyists and probably wrote a long-winded (well-over 300) commentary which I then deleted. What I remember of that (my aborted response) was somewhat reactionary to Utopianism and Nationalism. In the spirit of productive optimism, I realize(d) my reactionaryisms was maybe not very productive. I don't want to devolve into the splitting of hairs we are so fond of here in this forum. With that caveat... I am struggling against those two things I impute to what little I know of "the Bellamyists". "One (hu)man's Utopia is another's Dystopia". And. "Nationalism is (dangerously) out-of-scale Tribalism". I guess I would ask why such a grandiose scale structure would need to be put in place? Would not an emergence from discussions among small groups (such as the threads on FriAM) not be a more practical and perhaps "safer" route? Is such a structure/container required, or perhaps it might be inevitable? But then it would not be Bellamyists, but rather DaveWestist? With that in mind... perhaps it is worth discussing the Bellamyites primary focus (as claimed in the Wikipedia Article that is my only source) of "nationalizing industry". That seems to be what the Left is leaning toward... or at least regulating/taxing industry at the federal level to the point that it IS effectively nationalized? What is the Right's version of that? In the spirit of NeoLiberalism and free-markets of which the Right is most fond, nationalization is anathema. And yet, it seems that the "free market" is best at innovation... and once an industry has been commodified, perhaps the next step IS to nationalization. There might have been a time when gasoline stations had something significantly different to offer, one from the other, but even the detergents and oxygenators seem to have become pretty standard(?lame assertion?) and the only difference is how big is the big-gulp soda in the convenience store, is it filled from the Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola pantheon and are more triggered by a giant yellow clam-shell logo or a green baby brontosaurus? I'm entirely with you on the diversity of foodstuffs referenced earlier... but IF/When I'm going to feed from the same trough of the same hybrids as my fellow piggies, why put so many different (or any?) labels on them? And then why not plant your own garden with seeds exchanged with friends and neighbors, localized to your conditions, and buy/trade what you can't grow from small (tiny) farms within a short drive (walk)? And I agree on the liminal, though I see liminality everywhere at all scales, like the fractality of an estuary and this moment is more acute and offering/demanding more focused/proaction? If we did live in our everyday liminality more-better, then this would just be an extrema(ish) of scale... but since we (mostly) don't, it feels like a change in quality in it's quantity. There I go, splitting hairs? - Steve Steve, This should be a time between lightning and thunder, liminal, a time "when all things are possible." I would love to be optimistic, even guardedly, Prerequisite, perhaps, is for everyone to accept Hywel's dictum, "Ah, but it is more complicated than that" coupled with a heady dose of agonizing reappraisal of one's unexamined positions. Healthy doses, of
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
Nick - > > The thunder lightening thing is both apt and strange, because of > course nothing is possible between lightning and thunder EXCEPT that > it is going to thunder. CF living in SFO or Seattle. You've seen the > lightening, folks! "One banana, two bananas.three bananas > ….." Yet I still like the aphorism. I would claim it is a "failure of imagination" to believe that nothing is possible in that banana-time. But that would be too blunt. Unless the the lightning/thunder pair appears simultaneous (and your horse throws you and you claim later that you were "struck by lightning" yet have no melted belt-buckle or burn-scars to back it up) then there is at least a tiny-bit of banana between one and the other. What we do with that time is the point... While human reactions are often too slow to do more than cower or fling up one's arm, I attribute the term/sentiment to the north American Plains Indians who were as often as not watching/hearing lightning strike far away with seconds (or bananas) to wait. And on the plains one often can be *surrounded* by thunderstorms... lightning flashing on every horizon for an hour or more... *plenty* of time to contemplate the best/worst cases afoot as the thunder rolls across the plains, echoing complexly off of this bluff and that. a contemplation of many forms of imminent causality? In this moment (roughly the last month) we have been watching lightning dance on the horizons (months ago across the Pacific in Wuhan, Singapore, Korea) and waiting to hear the death toll on our nightly news... not unlike many here might remember during the 60's and Viet Nam (I was too young, had no TV but I heard stories). Now I feel like the lightning is things like the people up in arms (carrying arms), yelling at their governors to "let them back to work", and the thunder will be the rise in infections that will happen a week or three after they do followed by echoing peals of "I Tole You So!" and "Fake News" and "Democrat Hoax!" and "Freedom isn't Free" and "Don't Tread on Me!" and "I wish I wuz in Dixie!" The metaphor of lightning/thunder is stretched here, and it feels a bit more like "tickling the tail of the dragon" in slow-motion... watching one flash of fission trigger another and listening to the Geiger counter... (just don't drop one shell onto the other)! We are playing with chain reactions here and most of us just aren't tuned to think that way. Even a Tsunami or Earthquake or Hurricane is beyond our ken, and *they* are relatively linear in progression. > > By the way, how many people on this list have heard the expression, > "Red, Right, Returning" and know to what it refers. "Red, Right, Returning" I know of as a mnemonic device used in coastal navigation, extended from the more general starboard/larboard red/green navigational lighting standards? How might that map to this moment of (presumed) returning (toward) (a new?) normalcy? > > Ach! I don't know how you all tolerate this interface. I don't I use Thunderbird. Gmail is at best a Frienemy. "Tickling the forked tail end of anthropological observations", - Steve .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
he way it was". >> >> Guardedly Hopeful, >> >> - Steve (574) >> >> >> Nick, >> >> There is truth in what you say, but only a bit. >> >> I have certainly spoken as if "Science was a bunch of nasty people with >> vested interests acting in an exclusionary manner." >> >> Hyperbole. >> >> A better metaphor / analogy would be the way we have hybridized our food >> supply; e.g. 90 percent of all dairy cows have one of two bulls in their >> ancestry, there are one or two tomato hybrids, one or two strains of rice, >> wheat, corn, etc. >> >> This creates a huge vulnerability — a novel pest or disease and presto, no >> food supply. >> >> Now imagine that there are multiple species of investigation, thinking, >> knowledge. >> >> Since the Age of Enlightenment, the western world has been hell bent on >> hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly, Science). >> >> Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a privileged status that it >> tolerates no criticism and critics are "excommunicated" with prejudice. >> >> I would like to think of myself as someone interested in growing heritage >> tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in taste and texture >> and finding very deep value from the use of them in culinary creations. >> >> davew >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> Dave, >> >> No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch >> of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding, >> has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that >> lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It >> is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble >> baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is >> a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for >> Archimedes. >> >> Nick >> >> Nicholas Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >> Clark >> UniversityThompNickSon2@gmail.comhttps://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Friam On >> Behalf Of Prof David West >> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM >> To: friam@redfish.com >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of >> anthropological observtions >> >> Nick, >> >> I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative >> means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability >> THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" — >> ergo there is no argument to lose. >> >> If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion >> — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid >> Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine, >> Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the >> most part, excluded from Science. >> >> davew >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> Dave, >> >> You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any >> investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to >> declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that >> discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and >> you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a >> method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical >> structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's >> science." >> >> I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must >> have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch". >> >> Nick >> >> Nicholas Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University >> thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Friam On >> Behalf Of Prof David West >> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM >> To: friam@redfish.com >> Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of >> anthropological observtions >> >&
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
western world has been hell bent on > hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly, Science). > > Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a privileged status that it > tolerates no criticism and critics are "excommunicated" with prejudice. > > I would like to think of myself as someone interested in growing heritage > tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in taste and texture > and finding very deep value from the use of them in culinary creations. > > davew > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Dave, > > No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch > of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding, > has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that > lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It > is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble > baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is > a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for > Archimedes. > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > Clark UniversityThompNickSon2@gmail.comhttps://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf > Of Prof David West > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of > anthropological observtions > > Nick, > > I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative > means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability > THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" — > ergo there is no argument to lose. > > If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion > — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid > Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine, > Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the > most part, excluded from Science. > > davew > > > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Dave, > > You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any > investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to > declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that > discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and > you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a > method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical > structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's > science." > > I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must > have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch". > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University > thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf > Of Prof David West > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of > anthropological observtions > > Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their > predictions. > > 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as > everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation), > pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of > winning the election. > > 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" he will > win. > > 3- davew - Trump will win. > > # 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his prediction. > > The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc. > to come to their conclusions. > > Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his > book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques > he did use. > > davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty. > > QUESTIONS: Are there different approaches, different avenues, > different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I am being vague here > because I do not know how to make the question precise. But it would > have something to do with different definitions of what is considered > data and different techniques/tools for digesting that data to form > conclusions — in this instance predictions. > > If there are different
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
the differences in taste and texture >>> and finding very deep value from the use of them in culinary creations. >>> >>> davew >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dave, >>>> >>>> No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch >>>> of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding, >>>> has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that >>>> lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It >>>> is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble >>>> baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is >>>> a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for >>>> Archimedes. >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> Nicholas Thompson >>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >>>> Clark University >>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> >>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: Friam <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >>>> On Behalf Of Prof David West >>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM >>>> To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of >>>> anthropological observtions >>>> >>>> Nick, >>>> >>>> I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative >>>> means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability >>>> THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" — >>>> ergo there is no argument to lose. >>>> >>>> If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion >>>> — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid >>>> Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine, >>>> Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the >>>> most part, excluded from Science. >>>> >>>> davew >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dave, >>>>> >>>>> You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any >>>>> investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to >>>>> declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that >>>>> discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and >>>>> you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a >>>>> method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical >>>>> structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's >>>>> science." >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must >>>>> have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch". >>>>> >>>>> Nick >>>>> >>>>> Nicholas Thompson >>>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University >>>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> >>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Original Message- >>>>> From: Friam >>>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West >>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM >>>>> To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> >>>>> Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of >>>>> anthropological observtions >>>>> >>>>> Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their >>>>> predictions. >>>>> >>>>> 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as >>>>> everyone notes, the citation wa
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
; Guardedly Hopeful, > - Steve (574) > >> Nick, There is truth in what you say, but only a bit. I have certainly spoken as if "Science was a bunch of nasty people with vested interests acting in an exclusionary manner." Hyperbole. A better metaphor / analogy would be the way we have hybridized our food supply; e.g. 90 percent of all dairy cows have one of two bulls in their ancestry, there are one or two tomato hybrids, one or two strains of rice, wheat, corn, etc. This creates a huge vulnerability — a novel pest or disease and presto, no food supply. Now imagine that there are multiple species of investigation, thinking, knowledge. Since the Age of Enlightenment, the western world has been hell bent on hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly, Science). Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a privileged status that it tolerates no criticism and critics are "excommunicated" with prejudice. I would like to think of myself as someone interested in growing heritage tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in taste and texture and finding very deep value from the use of them in culinary creations. davew On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Dave, No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding, has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for Archimedes. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University >>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions Nick, I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" — ergo there is no argument to lose. If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine, Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the most part, excluded from Science. davew On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> Dave, You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's science." I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch". Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University >>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their predictions. 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation), pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of winning the election. 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" he will win. 3- davew - Trump will win. # 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his prediction. The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc. to come to their conclusions. Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques he did use. davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty. QUESTIONS: Are there different approaches, different avenues, different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I am being vague here because I do not
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
addendum: I was interrupted mid-post Just as a new strain of ergot might pose a severe challenge to hybridized wheat, a new "strain" of problem might pose a severe challenge to a hybridized mode of thinking. I would posit that challenges like Covid-19, global warming, and even The Donald are akin to a new strain of ergot vis-a-vis wheat. Our ability to address or solve those challenges might be, I am certain it would be, enhanced if we could bring to bear some "heritage modes of thought." My expressed antipathy for Science derives from the tendency of scientists to simply dismiss any alternative ideas or arguments as anti-scientific and therefore invalid. The reason I said that you and I are in fundamental agreement, is that, I think, both of us would accept into our garden of thought" any sufficiently viable, and tasty, mode of thinking. davew On Sun, Apr 19, 2020, at 6:24 AM, Prof David West wrote: > Nick, > > There is truth in what you say, but only a bit. > > I have certainly spoken as if "Science was a bunch of nasty people with > vested interests acting in an exclusionary manner." > > Hyperbole. > > A better metaphor / analogy would be the way we have hybridized our > food supply; e.g. 90 percent of all dairy cows have one of two bulls in > their ancestry, there are one or two tomato hybrids, one or two strains > of rice, wheat, corn, etc. > > This creates a huge vulnerability — a novel pest or disease and presto, > no food supply. > > Now imagine that there are multiple species of investigation, thinking, > knowledge. > > Since the Age of Enlightenment, the western world has been hell bent on > hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly, Science). > > Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a privileged status > that it tolerates no criticism and critics are "excommunicated" with > prejudice. > > I would like to think of myself as someone interested in growing > heritage tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in > taste and texture and finding very deep value from the use of them in > culinary creations. > > davew > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > Dave, > > > > No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch > > of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding, > > has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that > > lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It > > is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble > > baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is > > a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for > > Archimedes. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West > > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM > > To: friam@redfish.com > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of > > anthropological observtions > > > > Nick, > > > > I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative > > means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability > > THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" — > > ergo there is no argument to lose. > > > > If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion > > — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid > > Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine, > > Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the > > most part, excluded from Science. > > > > davew > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Dave, > > > > > > You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any > > > investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to > > > declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that > > > discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and > > > you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a > > > method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical > > > structures such as the
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
nk of myself as someone interested in growing heritage > tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in taste and texture > and finding very deep value from the use of them in culinary creations. > > davew > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >> Dave, >> >> No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch >> of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding, >> has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that >> lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It >> is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble >> baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is >> a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for >> Archimedes. >> >> Nick >> >> Nicholas Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >> Clark University >> thompnicks...@gmail.com >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West >> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM >> To: friam@redfish.com >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of >> anthropological observtions >> >> Nick, >> >> I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative >> means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability >> THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" — >> ergo there is no argument to lose. >> >> If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion >> — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid >> Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine, >> Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the >> most part, excluded from Science. >> >> davew >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Dave, >>> >>> You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any >>> investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to >>> declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that >>> discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and >>> you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a >>> method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical >>> structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's >>> science." >>> >>> I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must >>> have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch". >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> Nicholas Thompson >>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University >>> thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West >>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM >>> To: friam@redfish.com >>> Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of >>> anthropological observtions >>> >>> Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their >>> predictions. >>> >>> 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as >>> everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation), >>> pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of >>> winning the election. >>> >>> 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" he will >>> win. >>> >>> 3- davew - Trump will win. >>> >>> # 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his prediction. >>> >>> The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc. >>> to come to their conclusions. >>> >>> Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his >>> book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques >>> he did use. >>> >>> davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty. >>> >>> QUESTIONS: Are there different approaches, different avenues, >>> different means, for acquiring &
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
Nick, There is truth in what you say, but only a bit. I have certainly spoken as if "Science was a bunch of nasty people with vested interests acting in an exclusionary manner." Hyperbole. A better metaphor / analogy would be the way we have hybridized our food supply; e.g. 90 percent of all dairy cows have one of two bulls in their ancestry, there are one or two tomato hybrids, one or two strains of rice, wheat, corn, etc. This creates a huge vulnerability — a novel pest or disease and presto, no food supply. Now imagine that there are multiple species of investigation, thinking, knowledge. Since the Age of Enlightenment, the western world has been hell bent on hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly, Science). Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a privileged status that it tolerates no criticism and critics are "excommunicated" with prejudice. I would like to think of myself as someone interested in growing heritage tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in taste and texture and finding very deep value from the use of them in culinary creations. davew On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Dave, > > No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch > of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding, > has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that > lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It > is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble > baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is > a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for > Archimedes. > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > Clark University > thompnicks...@gmail.com > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of > anthropological observtions > > Nick, > > I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative > means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability > THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" — > ergo there is no argument to lose. > > If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion > — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid > Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine, > Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the > most part, excluded from Science. > > davew > > > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > Dave, > > > > You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any > > investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to > > declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that > > discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and > > you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a > > method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical > > structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's > > science." > > > > I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must > > have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch". > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University > > thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West > > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM > > To: friam@redfish.com > > Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of > > anthropological observtions > > > > Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their > > predictions. > > > > 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as > > everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation), > > pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of > > winning the election. > > > > 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" he will > > win. > > > > 3- davew - Trump will win. > > > > # 3 is a fool because he made n
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
Tip the scales, Florida! https://www.newsweek.com/florida-beaches-florida-moron-twitter-1498750 https://twitter.com/search?q=%23FloridaMorons&src=typed_query On 4/18/20, 4:07 PM, "Friam on behalf of Prof David West" wrote: Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their predictions. 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation), pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of winning the election. 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" he will win. 3- davew - Trump will win. # 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his prediction. The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc. to come to their conclusions. Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques he did use. davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty. QUESTIONS: Are there different approaches, different avenues, different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I am being vague here because I do not know how to make the question precise. But it would have something to do with different definitions of what is considered data and different techniques/tools for digesting that data to form conclusions — in this instance predictions. If there are different approaches, is a comparative analysis of them possible? desirable? Different approaches — useful in different contexts? How to determine appropriate contexts. Or, is there but one avenue to knowledge — Science — and all else is idiosyncratic opinion? Personally, I think there is use in pursuing this type of question and then using the answers / insights to makes sense of the multiple conversations concerning COVID and the response thereto. davew .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
Dave, No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding, has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for Archimedes. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions Nick, I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" — ergo there is no argument to lose. If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine, Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the most part, excluded from Science. davew On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Dave, > > You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any > investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to > declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that > discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and > you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a > method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical > structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's > science." > > I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must > have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch". > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University > thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of > anthropological observtions > > Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their > predictions. > > 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as > everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation), > pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of > winning the election. > > 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" he will > win. > > 3- davew - Trump will win. > > # 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his prediction. > > The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc. > to come to their conclusions. > > Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his > book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques > he did use. > > davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty. > > QUESTIONS: Are there different approaches, different avenues, > different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I am being vague here > because I do not know how to make the question precise. But it would > have something to do with different definitions of what is considered > data and different techniques/tools for digesting that data to form > conclusions — in this instance predictions. > > If there are different approaches, is a comparative analysis of them > possible? desirable? > > Different approaches — useful in different contexts? How to determine > appropriate contexts. > > Or, is there but one avenue to knowledge — Science — and all else is > idiosyncratic opinion? > > Personally, I think there is use in pursuing this type of question and > then using the answers / insights to makes sense of the multiple > conversations concerning COVID and the response thereto. > > davew > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- > ... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/fri
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
Nick, I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" — ergo there is no argument to lose. If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine, Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the most part, excluded from Science. davew On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Dave, > > You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any > investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to declare > to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that > discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and you > can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a method, > and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical structures > such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's science." > > I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must > have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch". > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > Clark University > thompnicks...@gmail.com > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of > anthropological observtions > > Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their > predictions. > > 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as > everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation), > pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of > winning the election. > > 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" he will > win. > > 3- davew - Trump will win. > > # 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his prediction. > > The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc. > to come to their conclusions. > > Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his > book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques > he did use. > > davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty. > > QUESTIONS: Are there different approaches, different avenues, > different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I am being vague here > because I do not know how to make the question precise. But it would > have something to do with different definitions of what is considered > data and different techniques/tools for digesting that data to form > conclusions — in this instance predictions. > > If there are different approaches, is a comparative analysis of them > possible? desirable? > > Different approaches — useful in different contexts? How to determine > appropriate contexts. > > Or, is there but one avenue to knowledge — Science — and all else is > idiosyncratic opinion? > > Personally, I think there is use in pursuing this type of question and > then using the answers / insights to makes sense of the multiple > conversations concerning COVID and the response thereto. > > davew > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- > ... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- > ... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
Dave, You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's science." I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch". Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their predictions. 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation), pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of winning the election. 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" he will win. 3- davew - Trump will win. # 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his prediction. The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc. to come to their conclusions. Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques he did use. davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty. QUESTIONS: Are there different approaches, different avenues, different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I am being vague here because I do not know how to make the question precise. But it would have something to do with different definitions of what is considered data and different techniques/tools for digesting that data to form conclusions — in this instance predictions. If there are different approaches, is a comparative analysis of them possible? desirable? Different approaches — useful in different contexts? How to determine appropriate contexts. Or, is there but one avenue to knowledge — Science — and all else is idiosyncratic opinion? Personally, I think there is use in pursuing this type of question and then using the answers / insights to makes sense of the multiple conversations concerning COVID and the response thereto. davew .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of anthropological observtions
Dave writes: "Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques he did use." If that is the world people want, maybe the world just needs to go ahead and burn. Take off the masks, go back to work. Pump out all the oil and burn it. Let's get this done. Marcus .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
