Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Dale Schumacher]

I thought "woo woo" was simply the sound made by the Crazy Train.

Perhaps I should seeking better evidence for the _true_ origin of the term.

(* tongue firmly planted in cheek *)

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Rich Murray]

1. <http://woo-woo.urbanup.com/20579>woo woo
Share on twitter
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#> Share
on facebook <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#> Share
on more <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#>
*253* up <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#>, *126*
 down 
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#><http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#><http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#>
Unfounded or ludicrouse beliefs
Belief in talking to the dead, belief in telikenesis, in fact any belief
not founded on good evidence, the poorer the evidence the more Woo Woo the
belief.
buy woo woo mugs &
shirts<http://www.urbandictionary.com/products.php?term=woo%20woo&defid=20579>
by Russell <http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=Russell> Jan
14, 2003 add a 
video<http://www.urbandictionary.com/video.php?defid=20579&word=woo+woo>
2. <http://woo-woo.urbanup.com/2232939>woo woo
Share on twitter
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#> Share
on facebook <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#> Share
on more <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#>
*199* up <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#>, *94*
 down 
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#><http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#><http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#>
extraordinary beliefs for which it is felt there is insufficient
extraordinary evidence, and people who hold those beliefs.
The date was going fine, then she started to talk about taking her cat to
her Pet Psychic for an aura adjustment. Just a bit woo woo for me.
buy woo woo mugs &
shirts<http://www.urbandictionary.com/products.php?term=woo%20woo&defid=2232939>
bunk <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bunk>
airy-fairy<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=airy-fairy>
 new-agey <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=new-agey>
insane<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=insane>
 vapid <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vapid>
by Daikenn <http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=Daikenn> Feb
3, 2007 add a 
video<http://www.urbandictionary.com/video.php?defid=2232939&word=woo+woo>
3. <http://woo-woo.urbanup.com/99377>woo woo
Share on twitter
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#> Share
on facebook <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#> Share
on more <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#>
*219* up <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#>, *166*
 down 
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#><http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#><http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo#>
The sound the whistle tip makes.
"Its dat woo woo, no what im sayin? Den you got da flows, aint dat trippy
out da flowmastas and shit" "We do it fo da dekarayshunz man. Dats it and
dats all man, fo dekarayshunz." "You posed be up cookin brehfast fo
somebody, its like an alarm clock- woo woo!"


On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Dean Gerber  wrote:

> I thought woo was a FRIAM local-ism for the Santa Fe local-ism woo woo
> now in urban usage:
>
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo
>
> Dean Gerber
>
>   --
> *From:* Rich Murray 
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2013 11:13 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that
> the TED Controversy is Sending
>
> Urban Dictionary: woot<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot>
> .
>  woot
> Share on twitter <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot#> Share
> on facebook <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot#> Share
> on more <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot#>
> *4635* up <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot#>, *1141*
>  down 
> <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot#><http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot#><http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot#>
> Woot originated as a hacker term for root (or administrative) access to a
> computer. However, with the term as coincides with the gamer term, "w00t".
>
> "w00t" was originally an trunicated expression common among players of
> Dungeons and Dragons tabletop role-playing game for "Wow, loot!" Thus the
> term passed

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Dean Gerber]

I thought woo was a FRIAM local-ism for the Santa Fe local-ism woo woo now in 
urban usage:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo+woo


Dean Gerber



 From: Rich Murray 
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED 
Controversy is Sending
 

Urban Dictionary: woot.

woot 
Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on more 4635 up, 1141 down 
 Woot originated as a hacker term for root (or administrative) access to a 
computer. However, with the term as coincides with the gamer term, "w00t". 

"w00t" was originally an trunicated expression common among players of Dungeons 
and Dragons tabletop role-playing game for "Wow, loot!" Thus the term passed 
into the net-culture where it thrived in video game communities and lost its 
original meaning and is used simply as a term of excitement.
"I defeated the dark sorcerer! Woot!" 

"woot! i r teh flagmastar!" (Think Tribes) 

"Woot, I pwnzed this dude's boxen!' 
and there's wood, would, woof, Wookie, wool...


On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Arlo Barnes  wrote:

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


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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Rich Murray]

Urban Dictionary: woot 
.
woot
Share on twitter  Share
on facebook  Share on
more 
*4635* up , *1141*
 down 

Woot originated as a hacker term for root (or administrative) access to a
computer. However, with the term as coincides with the gamer term, "w00t".

"w00t" was originally an trunicated expression common among players of
Dungeons and Dragons tabletop role-playing game for "Wow, loot!" Thus the
term passed into the net-culture where it thrived in video game communities
and lost its original meaning and is used simply as a term of excitement.
"I defeated the dark sorcerer! Woot!"

"woot! i r teh flagmastar!" (Think Tribes)

"Woot, I pwnzed this dude's boxen!'
and there's wood, would, woof, Wookie, wool...

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Arlo Barnes  wrote:

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

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Arlo Barnes]

Compare Urban Dictionary:
woot
.
-Arlo James Barnes

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Rich Murray]

prescience:  piles of random woo

science: linear woo woo trains

unity: fractal woos within woos = WOO !

Rich


On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Arlo Barnes  wrote:

> Unfortunately I think I am coming into this a bit too late to read through
> the whole thread and respond, but I would like to present a couple of
> related topics and see what people think.
>
> The first is in response to 'would I like people to burst my
> placebo/nocebo bubble?': the latest issue of Science magazine has an
> article on recommendations by the American College of Medicine of whether
> people should be told without being asked that they have alleles that
> indicate an elevated risk of disease when looking at genes related to
> common diseases (mostly cancers and tissue defects) as a course of a
> full-genome analysis for another disease/syndrome/disorder (pointing out
> that people may already be in an emotionally fragile state from said
> disease). Link 
> here
> .
>
> Secondly, I agree that how likable a belief is relies not on how close to
> reality it is (although that helps) but how 'humble' it is, how willing to
> admit that it could be wrong (put another way, beliefs that come with an
> accurate measure of where they came from and therefore how widely they can
> be applied). So there is likable woo (cold fusion or the new cold fusion,
> LENR; based on my [admittedly minor] perusing of websites and documents the
> proponents seem to welcome outside experimentation/verification, and
> open-source device plans. That doesn't mean the device works as advertised,
> though) and dislikable woo (iridology?) with chemtrails in between (while
> it seems very paranoid, I wouldn't put it past refineries that produce jet
> fuel to get rid of waste chemicals through their product; and although
> neither that nor any other intentional human activity [unless we can count
> GHG emissions as intentional just through negligence now?] has effectively
> controlled the weather, it is not for lack of trying. Contemporary benign
> activities like silver iodide cloud seeding, speak to this) along with
> homeopathy (my school tutor keeps recommending this method, whatever that
> means in practice, and I just politely change the subject; While I don't
> understand the fractionation thing, the idea that it contains the cause of
> what it is treating gets some mental preparation from the idea of vaccines).
>  ICE[Ionosphere Communication Experiment] 
> Station Otto [Not to be confused with
> Ice Station Zebra], outside Vaughn, NM.>
> Similarly, there is likable and dislikable skepticism. I think the best
> part of science is the experimentation itself rather than the results per
> se (although obviously the fruitful part for society is the resulting tech
> or best practices); perhaps this is related to Feynman's pleasure of
> finding things out (I believe it was that book in which he stirs a pot of
> jello that he is holding out a window to see if it will congeal faster in
> the cold, or the one in which he and a classmate realise they have
> different ways of counting, one auditory, one visual). When this turns into
> ridiculing people, however justified, it becomes just no fun anymore.
>
> -Arlo James Barnes
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Arlo Barnes]

Unfortunately I think I am coming into this a bit too late to read through
the whole thread and respond, but I would like to present a couple of
related topics and see what people think.

The first is in response to 'would I like people to burst my placebo/nocebo
bubble?': the latest issue of Science magazine has an article on
recommendations by the American College of Medicine of whether people
should be told without being asked that they have alleles that indicate an
elevated risk of disease when looking at genes related to common diseases
(mostly cancers and tissue defects) as a course of a full-genome analysis
for another disease/syndrome/disorder (pointing out that people may already
be in an emotionally fragile state from said disease). Link
here
.

Secondly, I agree that how likable a belief is relies not on how close to
reality it is (although that helps) but how 'humble' it is, how willing to
admit that it could be wrong (put another way, beliefs that come with an
accurate measure of where they came from and therefore how widely they can
be applied). So there is likable woo (cold fusion or the new cold fusion,
LENR; based on my [admittedly minor] perusing of websites and documents the
proponents seem to welcome outside experimentation/verification, and
open-source device plans. That doesn't mean the device works as advertised,
though) and dislikable woo (iridology?) with chemtrails in between (while
it seems very paranoid, I wouldn't put it past refineries that produce jet
fuel to get rid of waste chemicals through their product; and although
neither that nor any other intentional human activity [unless we can count
GHG emissions as intentional just through negligence now?] has effectively
controlled the weather, it is not for lack of trying. Contemporary benign
activities like silver iodide cloud seeding, speak to this) along with
homeopathy (my school tutor keeps recommending this method, whatever that
means in practice, and I just politely change the subject; While I don't
understand the fractionation thing, the idea that it contains the cause of
what it is treating gets some mental preparation from the idea of vaccines).
http://photovalet.com/181459>[Ionosphere Communication Experiment]
Station Otto [Not to be confused with
Ice Station Zebra], outside Vaughn, NM.>
Similarly, there is likable and dislikable skepticism. I think the best
part of science is the experimentation itself rather than the results per
se (although obviously the fruitful part for society is the resulting tech
or best practices); perhaps this is related to Feynman's pleasure of
finding things out (I believe it was that book in which he stirs a pot of
jello that he is holding out a window to see if it will congeal faster in
the cold, or the one in which he and a classmate realise they have
different ways of counting, one auditory, one visual). When this turns into
ridiculing people, however justified, it becomes just no fun anymore.

-Arlo James Barnes

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Nicholas Thompson]

It think the Village Pragmatist would insist, contra Roger, that even as
there is an explosion of small doubts at the periphery of our collective
understanding, so also there is an explosion of the stuff that we have come
to agree about.  

Nick 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 10:58 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED
Controversy is Sending

Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/05/2013 08:23 AM:
> And given exponential growth in science, who knows first hand what the 
> variance in accepted scientific evidence actually is?

That's a great point.  It may help me articulate my objection to the concept
of "the singularity", the sense that technology will soon (has)
outstrip(ped) purely human intelligence/understanding.

It seems more like an explosion of effect[ors] than a "super intelligence"
or anything cognitive, thought-based like that.  Even if we constrain
ourselves to the maker community (3d printers, arduino,
etc.) and the recent pressure for open access to publications, it's
difficult for me to imagine any kind of convergence, to "science" or
anything else.  It just feels more like a divergence to me.

I wonder if there is a way to measure this?  In absolute terms, we can't
really use a "count the people who participate in domain X" measure.
The ratio of the poor and starving to those who have their basic needs met
well enough to participate is too high.  It would swamp that absolute
measure.  We'd have to normalize it.  To some extent, exploratory science
has always been pursued most effectively by the 1% and those they patronize.
Perhaps a measure of the variation in standards of evidence would correlate
fairly well with the waxing and waning of the middle class?

> Any claims to know what science "is" and what scientists "do", for the 
> purposes of distinguishing between science and non-science, are claims 
> to a revealed truth, not something that anyone has established 
> empirically.  Ouch.

Absolutely! (Sorry, I had to slip in a contradictory affirmation.)  This
goes directly back to Popper, I think.  There is no entry exam for science.
Every speculation is welcome.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Me and myself got a world to save



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



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

Steve Smith wrote at 04/05/2013 10:54 AM:

  1. How do we define/recognize valid measures of evidence?
  2. Is the current "exponential" growth in tech divergent or convergent?


...

Well, the first thing to cover is that the definition won't necessarily
be pre-statable.  In order for it to be an accurate measure, it will
have to evolve with the thing(s) being measured.
This is an important point that I'd like to hear more about...  I have 
my own views and ideas on it but get the feeling you may have a more 
formal or specific idea about this?


Both these suggest skepticism toward the _unification_ of validity or
trustworthiness.  Evidence boils down to a context-sensitive
aggregation, which is why Bayesian methods are so attractive.  But I'm
sure they aren't the only way to install context sensitivity.  Recently,
I've been trying to understand Feferman's "schematic axiom systems"
http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/godelnagel.pdf and how a
schema might be extracted from a formal system in such a way as to
provide provide reasoning structures that are sensitive to application.
  (My complete and embarrassing ignorance slows my progress, of course.)
I've downloaded and will read the paper and if my own complete and 
arrogant ignorance (thanks for the succinct description of this state 
Doug!) doesn't bog me down even worse, I'll try to respond to that under 
separate cover.

  2. [...] What I'm equally interested in is if there is a
 similar divergence in thinking.  [...] I believe
 that humans have a natural time constant around belief (and as a
 consequence, understanding, knowledge, paradigms?) on the order of
 years if not decades or a full lifetime.   That time-constant may be
 shrinking, but I rarely believe someone when they claim during or
 after an arguement to have "changed their mind"... at best, they are
 acknowledging that a seed has sprouted which in a few years or
 decades might grow into a garden.

Obviously, I'm still not convinced that _thinking_ is all that
important.  It strikes me that _doing_ is far more important.  My
evidence for this lies mostly in the (apparent) decoupled relationship
between what people say and what they do.  I can see fairly strong maps
between immediate, short-term thoughts like "Ice cream is good" and
actions like walking to the freezer, scooping some out, and eating it.
But I see fairly convoluted maps between, e.g., "Logging your data is
good" and what bench scientists actually end up writing in their logs.
I *do* appreciate the harping you have been doing about doing vs 
thinking (or talking or posturing or gesturing) and take it painfully to 
heart.   My prolificness (prolificacy? wot?) here suggests that I prefer 
to talk and think to do.   That is not *completely* true, as a lot of my 
"doing" happens at the same keyboard and screen as my "talking" and 
"thinking" on the other hand, the new heating element to my dryer 
came in yesterday and I *still* haven't installed it.  And Spring is 
springing and I *still* haven't bled the brakes on my dumptruck to go 
get my usual Springtime loads of manure and woodchips... and I am 
*still* yammering away here as April 15 looms over the horizon and my 
P&L records are still woefully under-attended... and ...  well, you get 
the picture.   Talk *is* (relatively) cheap, though not without a price.


I also appreciate what you probably *really* intended to illuminate... 
that what we *do* says more than what we *say*.   But the two *are* 
duals... even if some of us *say* one thing and *do* another, there is a 
correlation.   In fact, those of us who protest most loudly about this 
or that might be the best suspects for acting differently.   Anecdotally 
it is a given that rabid homophobes are likely to be gay and it is easy 
enough for me to believe that those who proselytize most grandly might 
be compensating for their own lack of belief.


But the point I was trying to make, independent of the measure (I think) 
is that human time scales, the time between beginning to 
accept/understand/experience/act differently and a "full embrace" of it 
can be quite long.   This feels like a bit of a ceiling (more aptly 
"floor") to constrain any runaway acceleration of thinking OR action?


I could be arguing for your point (even more than intended) as I know 
that if I can encode an idea into an action and an action into a habit, 
it often doesn't take long for me to shift from one mode to another...  
there is a power of tactile/embodied habituation that mere 
thinking/talking doesn't touch.


Thanks
 - Steve



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Nicholas Thompson]

Roger, 

 

Speaking in my role as the Village Pragmatist, I think I would insist that
your implication is incorrect that there is no purchase on the slipperly
slope you describe.  Your despair is premature.  

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:24 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED
Controversy is Sending

 

And given exponential growth in science, who knows first hand what the
variance in accepted scientific evidence actually is?  

 

Any claims to know what science "is" and what scientists "do", for the
purposes of distinguishing between science and non-science, are claims to a
revealed truth, not something that anyone has established empirically.
Ouch.

 

-- rec --

 

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:12 AM, glen  wrote:

Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/04/2013 10:03 PM:

> Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert
that
> science is the only procedure capable of producing lasting consensus.  The
> other methods  various forms of torture, mostly ... do not produce
such
> enduring results.  N

While I agree with you in the abstract, it still doesn't address the
meaning of "scientific evidence".  My assertion is that the variance
exhibited by the many meanings of evidence within science is wide enough
to cast doubt on the stability (or perhaps even coherence) of the term
in science.

And if that's the case, then claims for the superiority of scientific
evidence over other meanings of evidence are suspicious claims ...
deserving of at least as much skepticism as anecdotal evidence or even
personal epiphany.

Rather than assume an oversimplified projection onto a one dimensional
partial order, perhaps there are as many different types of evidence as
there are foci of attention, a multi-dimensional space, with an
orthogonal partial ordering in each dimension.


--
=><= glen e. p. ropella

This body of mine, man I don't wanna turn android




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

 


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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Nicholas Thompson]

Well, you may all soon tire of my attempt to channel the classical
pragmatist, C.S Peirce, but it is an interesting perspective, one that has
had broad influence on our thought, but whose foundations have gotten
trampled into the intellectual midden in the last 100 years, and therefore,
I think, worth digging up and dusting off.  

I think the classical pragmatic answer to Glen's comment would be, whatever
produces consensus in the very long run is science.  So, as glen would point
out, this does not, by itself, produce demarcations between good thought ...
experimental thought, in the broadest sense ... and the other kinds.  But
Peirce was much taken by the period in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries in which a tremendous amount of opinion was settled ... a
consensus was reached ... on the nature of the elements, a consensus that
mainly endures until today.  So I think he would advise us to turn to the
methods of that period and say, use these as a guide to conduct our search
for the truth in the future.  He would agree that such advice is provisional
... fallible is the term he would use ... but he is contemptible of anything
that smacked of Cartesian skeptism.  Nobody, he would say, is skeptical as a
matter of fact.  Doubt is not something we entertain (except as sophists);
it is something that is forced upon us and it is a painful state that we try
to resolve in favor of belief.  So, it is important to talk not about what
we "can" doubt, but what we "do" doubt.  And when we do that, when we look
at which methods we have confidence in and which we actually doubt,  we will
see that we have ways of arriving at consensus ... in the long run ... about
which methods to use.  And yes that is quasi-tautological.  

Nick 
The Village Pragmatist

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:12 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED
Controversy is Sending

Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/04/2013 10:03 PM:
> Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert 
> that science is the only procedure capable of producing lasting 
> consensus.  The other methods  various forms of torture, mostly 
> ... do not produce such enduring results.  N

While I agree with you in the abstract, it still doesn't address the meaning
of "scientific evidence".  My assertion is that the variance exhibited by
the many meanings of evidence within science is wide enough to cast doubt on
the stability (or perhaps even coherence) of the term in science.

And if that's the case, then claims for the superiority of scientific
evidence over other meanings of evidence are suspicious claims ...
deserving of at least as much skepticism as anecdotal evidence or even
personal epiphany.

Rather than assume an oversimplified projection onto a one dimensional
partial order, perhaps there are as many different types of evidence as
there are foci of attention, a multi-dimensional space, with an orthogonal
partial ordering in each dimension.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
This body of mine, man I don't wanna turn android



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



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[glen]

Steve Smith wrote at 04/05/2013 10:54 AM:
>  1. How do we define/recognize valid measures of evidence?
>  2. Is the current "exponential" growth in tech divergent or convergent?
> 
>  1. I have worked on several projects involving the formal management of
> evidence and belief which makes me cynical when people suggest that
> there is "one true form of evidence".   Most of it ended up off in
> high dimensional pareto fronts with multiple measures of
> confidence.  The underlying theory (much just beyond my grasp to
> regurgitate) is based in variants of Dempster-Shaffer and Fuzzy
> Sets/Intervals.   There is always a Bayesian in the crowd that
> starts "Baying" (sorry) about how "Bayesian Methods are the *only*
> thing anyone ever needs".  This specific example in statistics and
> probability theory is but one.   Similarly, it took a long time for
> anyone to accept far-from-equilibrium systems as being worth
> studying simply because their tools didn't work there.   Like
> looking for your lost keys under the streetlamp because the "light
> is too bad in the alley where you dropped them".

Well, the first thing to cover is that the definition won't necessarily
be pre-statable.  In order for it to be an accurate measure, it will
have to evolve with the thing(s) being measured.

The second consideration is whatever you mean by "valid".  If I give you
the benefit of the doubt, I assume you mean "trustworthy" or
"credentialed" in some sense.  And, again, I'd settle that by tying
trustworthiness to the thing being measured.  I typically do this by
asking the participants in a domain whether any given measure of their
domain is acceptable/irritating.  Measures of local hacker spaces is a
good anecdote for me, lately.  With the growth of the maker community,
it's informative to ask various participants what they think of things
like techshop vs. dorkbot (or our local variants).

Both these suggest skepticism toward the _unification_ of validity or
trustworthiness.  Evidence boils down to a context-sensitive
aggregation, which is why Bayesian methods are so attractive.  But I'm
sure they aren't the only way to install context sensitivity.  Recently,
I've been trying to understand Feferman's "schematic axiom systems"
http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/godelnagel.pdf and how a
schema might be extracted from a formal system in such a way as to
provide provide reasoning structures that are sensitive to application.
 (My complete and embarrassing ignorance slows my progress, of course.)

>  2. [...] What I'm equally interested in is if there is a
> similar divergence in thinking.  [...] I believe
> that humans have a natural time constant around belief (and as a
> consequence, understanding, knowledge, paradigms?) on the order of
> years if not decades or a full lifetime.   That time-constant may be
> shrinking, but I rarely believe someone when they claim during or
> after an arguement to have "changed their mind"... at best, they are
> acknowledging that a seed has sprouted which in a few years or
> decades might grow into a garden.

Obviously, I'm still not convinced that _thinking_ is all that
important.  It strikes me that _doing_ is far more important.  My
evidence for this lies mostly in the (apparent) decoupled relationship
between what people say and what they do.  I can see fairly strong maps
between immediate, short-term thoughts like "Ice cream is good" and
actions like walking to the freezer, scooping some out, and eating it.
But I see fairly convoluted maps between, e.g., "Logging your data is
good" and what bench scientists actually end up writing in their logs.

-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
All the lies I tell myself



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Douglas Roberts]

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  Roger/Glen -
>
> Good stuff... I find both topics very compelling:
>
>
>1. How do we define/recognize valid measures of evidence?
>
> In the case of the chemtrail faithful I can safely characterize their
measure (singular) of evidence as: "Look! See the chemtrails? 'They' are
trying to poison us!!!"


>
>1. Is the current "exponential" growth in tech divergent or convergent?
>
>
I believe that the true source of divergence (in what? you might ask, in
everything, I might answer: politics, technology, religion, ...) is that
too many people are complete, embarrassingly ignorant assholes.   And
thanks for asking.

--Doug

-- 
*Doug Roberts
d...@parrot-farm.net*
*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*
* 
505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile*

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Steve Smith]

Roger/Glen -

Good stuff... I find both topics very compelling:

1. How do we define/recognize valid measures of evidence?
2. Is the current "exponential" growth in tech divergent or convergent?

1. I have worked on several projects involving the formal management of
   evidence and belief which makes me cynical when people suggest that
   there is "one true form of evidence". Most of it ended up off in
   high dimensional pareto fronts with multiple measures of
   confidence.  The underlying theory (much just beyond my grasp to
   regurgitate) is based in variants of Dempster-Shaffer and Fuzzy
   Sets/Intervals.   There is always a Bayesian in the crowd that
   starts "Baying" (sorry) about how "Bayesian Methods are the *only*
   thing anyone ever needs". This specific example in statistics and
   probability theory is but one.   Similarly, it took a long time for
   anyone to accept far-from-equilibrium systems as being worth
   studying simply because their tools didn't work there.   Like
   looking for your lost keys under the streetlamp because the "light
   is too bad in the alley where you dropped them".
2. I'm not a Singularian myself but I *am* fascinated by the same
   phenomena most of them are.  I would liken the recent past, current
   present, and near future to the Cambrian Explosion.  It as if
   thresholds on many technological fronts have lowered and innovation
   is gushing everywhere, compounding itself, etc.I agree with
   Glen's judgement that (my paraphrase) "an explosion doth not a
   singularity make".   What I'm equally interested in is if there is a
   similar divergence in thinking.  We've been rattling on here about
   religion (including Science and Woo and Science v Woo) and implying
   (for the most part I think) that the (arbitrary) constraints it puts
   on thinking is harmful.  Of course, many here will agree that
   "constraint provides form" and acknowledge that constraints can also
   be useful, and not *just* to contain the otherwise unruly.   I had
   *more* hope for immediate results from the Arab Spring (does anyone
   *else* besides me keep up with former FRIAMite Mohammed El-Beltagy
   and his Whispers from a Seeker
   blog, out of Cairo?)  I believe
   that humans have a natural time constant around belief (and as a
   consequence, understanding, knowledge, paradigms?) on the order of
   years if not decades or a full lifetime.   That time-constant may be
   shrinking, but I rarely believe someone when they claim during or
   after an arguement to have "changed their mind"... at best, they are
   acknowledging that a seed has sprouted which in a few years or
   decades might grow into a garden.

-Steve

Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/05/2013 08:23 AM:

And given exponential growth in science, who knows first hand what the
variance in accepted scientific evidence actually is?

That's a great point.  It may help me articulate my objection to the
concept of "the singularity", the sense that technology will soon (has)
outstrip(ped) purely human intelligence/understanding.

It seems more like an explosion of effect[ors] than a "super
intelligence" or anything cognitive, thought-based like that.  Even if
we constrain ourselves to the maker community (3d printers, arduino,
etc.) and the recent pressure for open access to publications, it's
difficult for me to imagine any kind of convergence, to "science" or
anything else.  It just feels more like a divergence to me.

I wonder if there is a way to measure this?  In absolute terms, we can't
really use a "count the people who participate in domain X" measure.
The ratio of the poor and starving to those who have their basic needs
met well enough to participate is too high.  It would swamp that
absolute measure.  We'd have to normalize it.  To some extent,
exploratory science has always been pursued most effectively by the 1%
and those they patronize.  Perhaps a measure of the variation in
standards of evidence would correlate fairly well with the waxing and
waning of the middle class?


Any claims to know what science "is" and what scientists "do", for the
purposes of distinguishing between science and non-science, are claims
to a revealed truth, not something that anyone has established
empirically.  Ouch.

Absolutely! (Sorry, I had to slip in a contradictory affirmation.)  This
goes directly back to Popper, I think.  There is no entry exam for
science. Every speculation is welcome.




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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[glen]

Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/05/2013 08:23 AM:
> And given exponential growth in science, who knows first hand what the
> variance in accepted scientific evidence actually is?  

That's a great point.  It may help me articulate my objection to the
concept of "the singularity", the sense that technology will soon (has)
outstrip(ped) purely human intelligence/understanding.

It seems more like an explosion of effect[ors] than a "super
intelligence" or anything cognitive, thought-based like that.  Even if
we constrain ourselves to the maker community (3d printers, arduino,
etc.) and the recent pressure for open access to publications, it's
difficult for me to imagine any kind of convergence, to "science" or
anything else.  It just feels more like a divergence to me.

I wonder if there is a way to measure this?  In absolute terms, we can't
really use a "count the people who participate in domain X" measure.
The ratio of the poor and starving to those who have their basic needs
met well enough to participate is too high.  It would swamp that
absolute measure.  We'd have to normalize it.  To some extent,
exploratory science has always been pursued most effectively by the 1%
and those they patronize.  Perhaps a measure of the variation in
standards of evidence would correlate fairly well with the waxing and
waning of the middle class?

> Any claims to know what science "is" and what scientists "do", for the
> purposes of distinguishing between science and non-science, are claims
> to a revealed truth, not something that anyone has established
> empirically.  Ouch.

Absolutely! (Sorry, I had to slip in a contradictory affirmation.)  This
goes directly back to Popper, I think.  There is no entry exam for
science. Every speculation is welcome.

-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Me and myself got a world to save



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Roger Critchlow]

And given exponential growth in science, who knows first hand what the
variance in accepted scientific evidence actually is?

Any claims to know what science "is" and what scientists "do", for the
purposes of distinguishing between science and non-science, are claims to a
revealed truth, not something that anyone has established empirically.
 Ouch.

-- rec --


On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:12 AM, glen  wrote:

> Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/04/2013 10:03 PM:
> > Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert
> that
> > science is the only procedure capable of producing lasting consensus.
>  The
> > other methods  various forms of torture, mostly ... do not produce
> such
> > enduring results.  N
>
> While I agree with you in the abstract, it still doesn't address the
> meaning of "scientific evidence".  My assertion is that the variance
> exhibited by the many meanings of evidence within science is wide enough
> to cast doubt on the stability (or perhaps even coherence) of the term
> in science.
>
> And if that's the case, then claims for the superiority of scientific
> evidence over other meanings of evidence are suspicious claims ...
> deserving of at least as much skepticism as anecdotal evidence or even
> personal epiphany.
>
> Rather than assume an oversimplified projection onto a one dimensional
> partial order, perhaps there are as many different types of evidence as
> there are foci of attention, a multi-dimensional space, with an
> orthogonal partial ordering in each dimension.
>
> --
> =><= glen e. p. ropella
> This body of mine, man I don't wanna turn android
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Douglas Roberts]

+1

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>
>  Just one small teensy note of clarification: I usually only insult
> people who disagree with me when they are/have been complete assholes about
> it.  Which fortunately narrows the field down a bit.
>
>  -Doug
>
> I can testify to this, as I disagree with Doug often and he only insults
> me when he's being a complete asshole about it !
>
>  - Steve
>
>  On Apr 4, 2013 6:11 PM, "glen"  wrote:
>
>> Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:45 PM:
>> >  I was using "evidence" in the scientific sense,
>>
>> You say that as if everyone agrees on the scientific sense of the term,
>> which of course they don't.  Even reputable scientists disagree on what
>> constitutes evidence.  I know you're willing to insult anyone with whom
>> you disagree.  But the fact remains that standards of evidence differ
>> depending on the context of the discussion, the domain of inquiry, etc.
>>
>> Evidence in, say, cosmology or evolution is very different from evidence
>> in, say, biology or physics.  And that's without leaping out into the
>> softer sciences.
>>
>> --
>> =><= glen e. p. ropella
>> Looked pretty horny if I do say
>>
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>



-- 
*Doug Roberts
d...@parrot-farm.net*
*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*
* 
505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile*

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[glen]

Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/04/2013 10:03 PM:
> Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert that
> science is the only procedure capable of producing lasting consensus.  The
> other methods  various forms of torture, mostly ... do not produce such
> enduring results.  N

While I agree with you in the abstract, it still doesn't address the
meaning of "scientific evidence".  My assertion is that the variance
exhibited by the many meanings of evidence within science is wide enough
to cast doubt on the stability (or perhaps even coherence) of the term
in science.

And if that's the case, then claims for the superiority of scientific
evidence over other meanings of evidence are suspicious claims ...
deserving of at least as much skepticism as anecdotal evidence or even
personal epiphany.

Rather than assume an oversimplified projection onto a one dimensional
partial order, perhaps there are as many different types of evidence as
there are foci of attention, a multi-dimensional space, with an
orthogonal partial ordering in each dimension.

-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
This body of mine, man I don't wanna turn android



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Douglas Roberts]

But they do promise life everlasting.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert that
> science is the only procedure capable of producing lasting consensus.  The
> other methods  various forms of torture, mostly ... do not produce such
> enduring results.  N
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 6:12 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the
> TED
> Controversy is Sending
>
> Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:45 PM:
> >  I was using "evidence" in the scientific sense,
>
> You say that as if everyone agrees on the scientific sense of the term,
> which of course they don't.  Even reputable scientists disagree on what
> constitutes evidence.  I know you're willing to insult anyone with whom you
> disagree.  But the fact remains that standards of evidence differ depending
> on the context of the discussion, the domain of inquiry, etc.
>
> Evidence in, say, cosmology or evolution is very different from evidence
> in,
> say, biology or physics.  And that's without leaping out into the softer
> sciences.
>
> --
> =><= glen e. p. ropella
> Looked pretty horny if I do say
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>



-- 
*Doug Roberts
d...@parrot-farm.net*
*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*<http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins>
* <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins>
505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile*

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Nicholas Thompson]

Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert that
science is the only procedure capable of producing lasting consensus.  The
other methods  various forms of torture, mostly ... do not produce such
enduring results.  N

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 6:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED
Controversy is Sending

Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:45 PM:
>  I was using "evidence" in the scientific sense,

You say that as if everyone agrees on the scientific sense of the term,
which of course they don't.  Even reputable scientists disagree on what
constitutes evidence.  I know you're willing to insult anyone with whom you
disagree.  But the fact remains that standards of evidence differ depending
on the context of the discussion, the domain of inquiry, etc.

Evidence in, say, cosmology or evolution is very different from evidence in,
say, biology or physics.  And that's without leaping out into the softer
sciences.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Looked pretty horny if I do say



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



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Steve Smith]

Just one small teensy note of clarification: I usually only insult 
people who disagree with me when they are/have been complete assholes 
about it.  Which fortunately narrows the field down a bit.


-Doug

I can testify to this, as I disagree with Doug often and he only insults 
me when he's being a complete asshole about it !


 - Steve
On Apr 4, 2013 6:11 PM, "glen" > wrote:


Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:45 PM:
>  I was using "evidence" in the scientific sense,

You say that as if everyone agrees on the scientific sense of the
term,
which of course they don't.  Even reputable scientists disagree on
what
constitutes evidence.  I know you're willing to insult anyone with
whom
you disagree.  But the fact remains that standards of evidence differ
depending on the context of the discussion, the domain of inquiry,
etc.

Evidence in, say, cosmology or evolution is very different from
evidence
in, say, biology or physics.  And that's without leaping out into the
softer sciences.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Looked pretty horny if I do say



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




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



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Gillian Densmore]

your certain kind of zeel would make for a great sith lord-
Just need to figure out how get you intune with the force enough to get
people to come attend at the new sith temple


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:

> Doug if I may observe that you and Howl(sp) seem to have a great noes for
> asshoelery though in your case from what I can tell your ire for at least
> google and people not linux friendly goes up almost instantly.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
>> Just one small teensy note of clarification: I usually only insult people
>> who disagree with me when they are/have been complete assholes about it.
>> Which fortunately narrows the field down a bit.
>>
>> -Doug
>> On Apr 4, 2013 6:11 PM, "glen"  wrote:
>>
>>> Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:45 PM:
>>> >  I was using "evidence" in the scientific sense,
>>>
>>> You say that as if everyone agrees on the scientific sense of the term,
>>> which of course they don't.  Even reputable scientists disagree on what
>>> constitutes evidence.  I know you're willing to insult anyone with whom
>>> you disagree.  But the fact remains that standards of evidence differ
>>> depending on the context of the discussion, the domain of inquiry, etc.
>>>
>>> Evidence in, say, cosmology or evolution is very different from evidence
>>> in, say, biology or physics.  And that's without leaping out into the
>>> softer sciences.
>>>
>>> --
>>> =><= glen e. p. ropella
>>> Looked pretty horny if I do say
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Gillian Densmore]

Doug if I may observe that you and Howl(sp) seem to have a great noes for
asshoelery though in your case from what I can tell your ire for at least
google and people not linux friendly goes up almost instantly.


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> Just one small teensy note of clarification: I usually only insult people
> who disagree with me when they are/have been complete assholes about it.
> Which fortunately narrows the field down a bit.
>
> -Doug
> On Apr 4, 2013 6:11 PM, "glen"  wrote:
>
>> Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:45 PM:
>> >  I was using "evidence" in the scientific sense,
>>
>> You say that as if everyone agrees on the scientific sense of the term,
>> which of course they don't.  Even reputable scientists disagree on what
>> constitutes evidence.  I know you're willing to insult anyone with whom
>> you disagree.  But the fact remains that standards of evidence differ
>> depending on the context of the discussion, the domain of inquiry, etc.
>>
>> Evidence in, say, cosmology or evolution is very different from evidence
>> in, say, biology or physics.  And that's without leaping out into the
>> softer sciences.
>>
>> --
>> =><= glen e. p. ropella
>> Looked pretty horny if I do say
>>
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Gillian Densmore]

I think the church of satan grotos do that.

Maybe we can start a sith and or jedi temple.


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> I personally find it disappointing that so many people are willing to
> adopt a belief set with no evidence, based solely on what someone said was
> The Truth.
>
> On a related note, now would appear to be an excellent time to start a
> church, impose mandatory weekly attendance upon the faithful, and charge
> $20 a head at the door each week.
>
> --Doug
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes but …..
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I didn’t believe Watergate the first few times I heard about it, either.
>> “You aren’t telling me that a president that was going to win an election
>> in a walk actually sent Burglars into the Democratic Headquarters?”  I just
>> could not believe that they could be so stupid.  I fell for Colin Powell’s
>> thing at the UN;  my wife didn’t buy it for a moment.  I have to say, that
>> in most contexts, I believe in gullibility.  I think a little bit of
>> gullibility is the best program for getting on in life.  But I have been
>> known to carry it too far.  
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Nick 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas
>> Roberts
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 3:39 PM
>>
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that
>> the TED Controversy is Sending
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> There are a surprising number of them on facebook, Nick.  To nobody's
>> great surprise, I guess.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Doug, 
>>
>>  
>>
>> Somebody laid the chemtrails thing on me the other day … an otherwise
>> perfectly sensible neighbor … and I was left standing in the street with my
>> jaw hanging open.   What do you say when somebody your sort of like,
>> touches you on the upper arm, points skyward and says, “Call me nuts, but
>> ….”  ****
>>
>>  
>>
>> I guess, “You’re nuts!”
>>
>>  
>>
>> N
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas
>> Roberts
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 12:14 PM
>>
>>
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that
>> the TED Controversy is Sending
>>
>>  
>>
>> Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how
>> about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant
>> segment of the US population who fervently believe that "they" are
>> poisoning us, on purpose.  But only on those days that the jets leave con
>> ... er ... chemtrails.  No proof necessary, just *look* at those chemtrails.
>> 
>>
>>  
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman  wrote:
>> 
>>
>> But you're missing the point.:  *something* is working for them if they
>> believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is.  The
>> question is how does it work?  No, that's not good enough, because it too
>> easily leads back to premature assumptions.  The question is:  how can
>> placebo be improved.  Not set aside but improved.
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen  wrote:
>>
>> Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:
>>
>> > I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
>> > patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
>> > can fool all of ….").
>>
>> A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
>> chronic back and neck pain.  There's a zealot in our local CfI
>> (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
>> shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
>> is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
>> I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
>> with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
>> p

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Douglas Roberts]

Just one small teensy note of clarification: I usually only insult people
who disagree with me when they are/have been complete assholes about it.
Which fortunately narrows the field down a bit.

-Doug
On Apr 4, 2013 6:11 PM, "glen"  wrote:

> Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:45 PM:
> >  I was using "evidence" in the scientific sense,
>
> You say that as if everyone agrees on the scientific sense of the term,
> which of course they don't.  Even reputable scientists disagree on what
> constitutes evidence.  I know you're willing to insult anyone with whom
> you disagree.  But the fact remains that standards of evidence differ
> depending on the context of the discussion, the domain of inquiry, etc.
>
> Evidence in, say, cosmology or evolution is very different from evidence
> in, say, biology or physics.  And that's without leaping out into the
> softer sciences.
>
> --
> =><= glen e. p. ropella
> Looked pretty horny if I do say
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[glen]

Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:45 PM:
>  I was using "evidence" in the scientific sense,

You say that as if everyone agrees on the scientific sense of the term,
which of course they don't.  Even reputable scientists disagree on what
constitutes evidence.  I know you're willing to insult anyone with whom
you disagree.  But the fact remains that standards of evidence differ
depending on the context of the discussion, the domain of inquiry, etc.

Evidence in, say, cosmology or evolution is very different from evidence
in, say, biology or physics.  And that's without leaping out into the
softer sciences.

-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Looked pretty horny if I do say



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Douglas Roberts]

I'm guessing I would have liked your dad, Steve.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  Doug -
>
>  On a related note, now would appear to be an excellent time to start a
> church, impose mandatory weekly attendance upon the faithful, and charge
> $20 a head at the door each week.
>
> Clearly you haven't been to FRIAM (in person) lately... you are in arrears
> on your dues!  We'll take it out of the royalties on your eBook.
>
> Tangenting again...  my parents were both of Applachian stock where those
> who "had Christ" used their bibles to access him without benefit of a
> church or preacher.
>
> My mother liked to go to church Christmas and Easter and I think the last
> (and only?) time my father came with her, when the collection plate came
> by, he reached in, then pulled his hand back empty and said "no thank you,
> I think I have enough" and passed it on.
>
> - Steve
>
>
>  --Doug
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>  Yes but …..
>>
>>
>>
>> I didn’t believe Watergate the first few times I heard about it, either.
>> “You aren’t telling me that a president that was going to win an election
>> in a walk actually sent Burglars into the Democratic Headquarters?”  I just
>> could not believe that they could be so stupid.  I fell for Colin Powell’s
>> thing at the UN;  my wife didn’t buy it for a moment.  I have to say, that
>> in most contexts, I believe in gullibility.  I think a little bit of
>> gullibility is the best program for getting on in life.  But I have been
>> known to carry it too far.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas
>> Roberts
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 3:39 PM
>>
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that
>> the TED Controversy is Sending
>>
>>
>>
>> There are a surprising number of them on facebook, Nick.  To nobody's
>> great surprise, I guess.
>>
>>
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Doug,
>>
>>
>>
>> Somebody laid the chemtrails thing on me the other day … an otherwise
>> perfectly sensible neighbor … and I was left standing in the street with my
>> jaw hanging open.   What do you say when somebody your sort of like,
>> touches you on the upper arm, points skyward and says, “Call me nuts, but
>> ….”
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess, “You’re nuts!”
>>
>>
>>
>> N
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas
>> Roberts
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 12:14 PM
>>
>>
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that
>> the TED Controversy is Sending
>>
>>
>>
>> Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how
>> about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant
>> segment of the US population who fervently believe that "they" are
>> poisoning us, on purpose.  But only on those days that the jets leave con
>> ... er ... chemtrails.  No proof necessary, just *look* at those chemtrails.
>>
>>
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman  wrote:
>>
>> But you're missing the point.:  *something* is working for them if they
>> believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is.  The
>> question is how does it work?  No, that's not good enough, because it too
>> easily leads back to premature assumptions.  The question is:  how can
>> placebo be improved.  Not set aside but improved.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen  wrote:
>>
>> Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:
>>
>> > I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
>> > patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
>> > can fool all of ….").
>>
>> A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
>> chronic back and neck pain.  There's a zealot in our local CfI
>> (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
>> shouts about acupuncture bein

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Steve Smith]

Doug -
On a related note, now would appear to be an excellent time to start a 
church, impose mandatory weekly attendance upon the faithful, and 
charge $20 a head at the door each week.
Clearly you haven't been to FRIAM (in person) lately... you are in 
arrears on your dues!  We'll take it out of the royalties on your eBook.


Tangenting again...  my parents were both of Applachian stock where 
those who "had Christ" used their bibles to access him without benefit 
of a church or preacher.


My mother liked to go to church Christmas and Easter and I think the 
last (and only?) time my father came with her, when the collection plate 
came by, he reached in, then pulled his hand back empty and said "no 
thank you, I think I have enough" and passed it on.


- Steve


--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson 
mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>> wrote:


Yes but .

I didn't believe Watergate the first few times I heard about it,
either.  "You aren't telling me that a president that was going to
win an election in a walk actually sent Burglars into the
Democratic Headquarters?"  I just could not believe that they
could be so stupid.  I fell for Colin Powell's thing at the UN; 
my wife didn't buy it for a moment.  I have to say, that in most

contexts, I believe in gullibility.  I think a little bit of
gullibility is the best program for getting on in life.  But I
have been known to carry it too far.

Nick

*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts
*Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 3:39 PM


*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
    *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message
that the TED Controversy is Sending

There are a surprising number of them on facebook, Nick.  To
nobody's great surprise, I guess.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson
mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>>
wrote:

Doug,

Somebody laid the chemtrails thing on me the other day ... an
otherwise perfectly sensible neighbor ... and I was left standing
in the street with my jaw hanging open.   What do you say when
somebody your sort of like, touches you on the upper arm, points
skyward and says, "Call me nuts, but "

I guess, "You're nuts!"

N

*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts
*Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 12:14 PM


    *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message
that the TED Controversy is Sending

Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets,
how about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not
insignificant segment of the US population who fervently believe
that "they" are poisoning us, on purpose.  But only on those days
that the jets leave con ... er ... chemtrails.  No proof
necessary, just *look* at those chemtrails.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman mailto:ron.new...@gmail.com>> wrote:

But you're missing the point.:  *something* is working for them if
they believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't
believe it is.  The question is how does it work?  No, that's not
good enough, because it too easily leads back to premature
assumptions.  The question is:  how can placebo be improved.  Not
set aside but improved.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen mailto:g...@ropella.name>> wrote:

Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:

> I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> can fool all of ").

A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
chronic back and neck pain.  There's a zealot in our local CfI
(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy.
(Seriously...
is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly
nonsense
with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
points and nerve clusters.  But nothing that an evidence-based
masseuse
couldn't achieve more effectively.

But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's
worked so
far.  My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated
injury.
 He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than hi

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Douglas Roberts]

Well, I suppose.  I was using "evidence" in the scientific sense, rather
than the political one, or the one which so many idiots prefer to use which
could loosely defined as "I choose to believe, so there is plenty of
evidence to support my belief."

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM, glen  wrote:

> Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:21 PM:
> > I personally find it disappointing that so many people are willing to
> adopt
> > a belief set with no evidence, based solely on what someone said was The
> > Truth.
>
> Yeah, but the real problem is equivocation around the word "evidence".
>
> --
> =><= glen e. p. ropella
> It's already in their eyes.
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>



-- 
*Doug Roberts
d...@parrot-farm.net*
*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*
* 
505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile*

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[glen]

Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:21 PM:
> I personally find it disappointing that so many people are willing to adopt
> a belief set with no evidence, based solely on what someone said was The
> Truth.

Yeah, but the real problem is equivocation around the word "evidence".

-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
It's already in their eyes.



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Douglas Roberts]

I personally find it disappointing that so many people are willing to adopt
a belief set with no evidence, based solely on what someone said was The
Truth.

On a related note, now would appear to be an excellent time to start a
church, impose mandatory weekly attendance upon the faithful, and charge
$20 a head at the door each week.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Yes but …..
>
> ** **
>
> I didn’t believe Watergate the first few times I heard about it, either.
> “You aren’t telling me that a president that was going to win an election
> in a walk actually sent Burglars into the Democratic Headquarters?”  I just
> could not believe that they could be so stupid.  I fell for Colin Powell’s
> thing at the UN;  my wife didn’t buy it for a moment.  I have to say, that
> in most contexts, I believe in gullibility.  I think a little bit of
> gullibility is the best program for getting on in life.  But I have been
> known to carry it too far.  
>
> ** **
>
> Nick 
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas
> Roberts
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 3:39 PM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that
> the TED Controversy is Sending
>
> ** **
>
> There are a surprising number of them on facebook, Nick.  To nobody's
> great surprise, I guess.
>
> ** **
>
> --Doug
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Doug, 
>
>  
>
> Somebody laid the chemtrails thing on me the other day … an otherwise
> perfectly sensible neighbor … and I was left standing in the street with my
> jaw hanging open.   What do you say when somebody your sort of like,
> touches you on the upper arm, points skyward and says, “Call me nuts, but
> ….”  
>
>  
>
> I guess, “You’re nuts!”
>
>  
>
> N
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas
> Roberts
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 12:14 PM
>
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that
> the TED Controversy is Sending
>
>  
>
> Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how
> about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant
> segment of the US population who fervently believe that "they" are
> poisoning us, on purpose.  But only on those days that the jets leave con
> ... er ... chemtrails.  No proof necessary, just *look* at those chemtrails.
> 
>
>  
>
> --Doug
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman  wrote:*
> ***
>
> But you're missing the point.:  *something* is working for them if they
> believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is.  The
> question is how does it work?  No, that's not good enough, because it too
> easily leads back to premature assumptions.  The question is:  how can
> placebo be improved.  Not set aside but improved.
>
>  
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen  wrote:
>
> Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:
>
> > I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> > patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> > can fool all of ….").
>
> A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
> chronic back and neck pain.  There's a zealot in our local CfI
> (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
> shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
> is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
> I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
> with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
> points and nerve clusters.  But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
> couldn't achieve more effectively.
>
> But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
> far.  My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
>  He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
> chiropractor.  I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
> with her placebo effect.
>
> Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
> analysis of my lack of action.  Would I want someone to burst my placebo
> effect bubble?  If so, when? 

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Steve Smith]

Nick -

There are two kinds of people in the world, those who take Gullibility 
to excess and those who take Skepticism to excess.


I happen to be of the third kind, one who tends to take *both* to 
excess...  I'm not sure if that helps me get on the world, but I'm not 
sure I have a choice anymore than the hardline Gulls or hardline Skepts 
do here.   In deference to Glen's "twitch", I guess I twitch both ways.


Just don't tell me you look it up every time someone tells you 
"Gullible" isn't in the dictionary!


- Steve


Yes but .

I didn't believe Watergate the first few times I heard about it, 
either.  "You aren't telling me that a president that was going to win 
an election in a walk actually sent Burglars into the Democratic 
Headquarters?"  I just could not believe that they could be so 
stupid.  I fell for Colin Powell's thing at the UN;  my wife didn't 
buy it for a moment.  I have to say, that in most contexts, I believe 
in gullibility.  I think a little bit of gullibility is the best 
program for getting on in life.  But I have been known to carry it too 
far.


Nick

*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas 
Roberts

*Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 3:39 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that 
the TED Controversy is Sending


There are a surprising number of them on facebook, Nick.  To nobody's 
great surprise, I guess.


--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson 
mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>> wrote:


Doug,

Somebody laid the chemtrails thing on me the other day ... an 
otherwise perfectly sensible neighbor ... and I was left standing in 
the street with my jaw hanging open.   What do you say when somebody 
your sort of like, touches you on the upper arm, points skyward and 
says, "Call me nuts, but "


I guess, "You're nuts!"

N

*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts

*Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 12:14 PM


*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that 
the TED Controversy is Sending


Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how 
about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not 
insignificant segment of the US population who fervently believe that 
"they" are poisoning us, on purpose.  But only on those days that the 
jets leave con ... er ... chemtrails.  No proof necessary, just *look* 
at those chemtrails.


--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman <mailto:ron.new...@gmail.com>> wrote:


But you're missing the point.:  *something* is working for them if 
they believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe 
it is.  The question is how does it work?  No, that's not good enough, 
because it too easily leads back to premature assumptions.  The 
question is:  how can placebo be improved.  Not set aside but improved.


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen <mailto:g...@ropella.name>> wrote:


Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:

> I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> can fool all of ").

A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
chronic back and neck pain.  There's a zealot in our local CfI
(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
points and nerve clusters.  But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
couldn't achieve more effectively.

But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
far.  My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
 He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
chiropractor.  I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
with her placebo effect.

Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
analysis of my lack of action.  Would I want someone to burst my placebo
effect bubble?  If so, when?  Immediately?  Or perhaps after some window
of time as the placebo effect decays and it bumps up against the hard
biophysical/physiological limits?


--
=><= glen e. p. ropella

I can't get no peace until I get into motion




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Frid

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Nicholas Thompson]

Yes but ...

 

I didn't believe Watergate the first few times I heard about it, either.
"You aren't telling me that a president that was going to win an election in
a walk actually sent Burglars into the Democratic Headquarters?"  I just
could not believe that they could be so stupid.  I fell for Colin Powell's
thing at the UN;  my wife didn't buy it for a moment.  I have to say, that
in most contexts, I believe in gullibility.  I think a little bit of
gullibility is the best program for getting on in life.  But I have been
known to carry it too far.  

 

Nick 

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 3:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED
Controversy is Sending

 

There are a surprising number of them on facebook, Nick.  To nobody's great
surprise, I guess.

 

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson
 wrote:

Doug, 

 

Somebody laid the chemtrails thing on me the other day . an otherwise
perfectly sensible neighbor . and I was left standing in the street with my
jaw hanging open.   What do you say when somebody your sort of like, touches
you on the upper arm, points skyward and says, "Call me nuts, but .."  

 

I guess, "You're nuts!"

 

N

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 12:14 PM


To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED
Controversy is Sending

 

Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how about
if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant segment of
the US population who fervently believe that "they" are poisoning us, on
purpose.  But only on those days that the jets leave con ... er ...
chemtrails.  No proof necessary, just *look* at those chemtrails.

 

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman  wrote:

But you're missing the point.:  *something* is working for them if they
believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is.  The
question is how does it work?  No, that's not good enough, because it too
easily leads back to premature assumptions.  The question is:  how can
placebo be improved.  Not set aside but improved.

 

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen  wrote:

Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:

> I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> can fool all of ..").

A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
chronic back and neck pain.  There's a zealot in our local CfI
(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
points and nerve clusters.  But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
couldn't achieve more effectively.

But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
far.  My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
 He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
chiropractor.  I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
with her placebo effect.

Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
analysis of my lack of action.  Would I want someone to burst my placebo
effect bubble?  If so, when?  Immediately?  Or perhaps after some window
of time as the placebo effect decays and it bumps up against the hard
biophysical/physiological limits?


--
=><= glen e. p. ropella

I can't get no peace until I get into motion




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





 

-- 
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com <http://www.Ideatree.us> 
The World Happiness Meter <http://worldhappinessmeter.com> 



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





 

-- 

Doug Roberts
d...@parrot-farm.net

 <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins>
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins


505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile



FRIAM Applied Complexity Gro

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Douglas Roberts]

There are a surprising number of them on facebook, Nick.  To nobody's great
surprise, I guess.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Doug, 
>
> ** **
>
> Somebody laid the chemtrails thing on me the other day … an otherwise
> perfectly sensible neighbor … and I was left standing in the street with my
> jaw hanging open.   What do you say when somebody your sort of like,
> touches you on the upper arm, points skyward and says, “Call me nuts, but
> ….”  
>
> ** **
>
> I guess, “You’re nuts!”
>
> ** **
>
> N
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas
> Roberts
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 12:14 PM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that
> the TED Controversy is Sending
>
> ** **
>
> Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how
> about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant
> segment of the US population who fervently believe that "they" are
> poisoning us, on purpose.  But only on those days that the jets leave con
> ... er ... chemtrails.  No proof necessary, just *look* at those chemtrails.
> 
>
> ** **
>
> --Doug
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman  wrote:*
> ***
>
> But you're missing the point.:  *something* is working for them if they
> believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is.  The
> question is how does it work?  No, that's not good enough, because it too
> easily leads back to premature assumptions.  The question is:  how can
> placebo be improved.  Not set aside but improved.
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen  wrote:
>
> Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:
>
> > I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> > patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> > can fool all of ….").
>
> A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
> chronic back and neck pain.  There's a zealot in our local CfI
> (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
> shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
> is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
> I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
> with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
> points and nerve clusters.  But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
> couldn't achieve more effectively.
>
> But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
> far.  My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
>  He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
> chiropractor.  I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
> with her placebo effect.
>
> Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
> analysis of my lack of action.  Would I want someone to burst my placebo
> effect bubble?  If so, when?  Immediately?  Or perhaps after some window
> of time as the placebo effect decays and it bumps up against the hard
> biophysical/physiological limits?
>
>
> --
> =><= glen e. p. ropella
>
> I can't get no peace until I get into motion
>
>
>
> 
> 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
>
>
>
> 
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Ron Newman, Founder
> MyIdeatree.com <http://www.Ideatree.us>
> The World Happiness Meter <http://worldhappinessmeter.com>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
>
> 
>
> ** **
>
> -- 
>
> *Doug Roberts
> d...@parrot-farm.net*
>
> *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*<http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins>
> 
>
> *
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-672-8213 - Mobile*
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>



-- 
*Doug Roberts
d...@parrot-farm.net*
*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*<http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins>
* <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins>
505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile*

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Nicholas Thompson]

Doug, 

 

Somebody laid the chemtrails thing on me the other day . an otherwise
perfectly sensible neighbor . and I was left standing in the street with my
jaw hanging open.   What do you say when somebody your sort of like, touches
you on the upper arm, points skyward and says, "Call me nuts, but .."  

 

I guess, "You're nuts!"

 

N

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 12:14 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED
Controversy is Sending

 

Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how about
if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant segment of
the US population who fervently believe that "they" are poisoning us, on
purpose.  But only on those days that the jets leave con ... er ...
chemtrails.  No proof necessary, just *look* at those chemtrails.

 

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman  wrote:

But you're missing the point.:  *something* is working for them if they
believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is.  The
question is how does it work?  No, that's not good enough, because it too
easily leads back to premature assumptions.  The question is:  how can
placebo be improved.  Not set aside but improved.

 

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen  wrote:

Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:

> I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> can fool all of ..").

A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
chronic back and neck pain.  There's a zealot in our local CfI
(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
points and nerve clusters.  But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
couldn't achieve more effectively.

But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
far.  My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
 He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
chiropractor.  I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
with her placebo effect.

Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
analysis of my lack of action.  Would I want someone to burst my placebo
effect bubble?  If so, when?  Immediately?  Or perhaps after some window
of time as the placebo effect decays and it bumps up against the hard
biophysical/physiological limits?


--
=><= glen e. p. ropella

I can't get no peace until I get into motion




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





 

-- 
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com <http://www.Ideatree.us> 
The World Happiness Meter <http://worldhappinessmeter.com> 



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





 

-- 

Doug Roberts
d...@parrot-farm.net

 <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins>
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins


505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile


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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Steve Smith]

Ron -

I get your point, Doug.  I had to suppress the desire to roll my eyes 
when once I met someone who looked up at the sky and spoke confidently 
of chemtrails.
I generally feel the same way, and this is usually abutted with 
something about crop circles and maybe a reference to the grassy knoll.


I *did* get caught off guard recently when reading about technological 
"remedies" to global warming via releasing sulfur compounds into the 
upper atmosphere... someone "suggested" that the (govt, corp, etc.) was 
*already* doing it by introducing said chemistry into jet fuel.   I was 
briefly a "true believer".  It still seems like too much to put past 
everyone (jet fuel providers, mechanics, EPA, etc.) but for at least a 
second I was ready to believe that large scale atmospheric manipulation 
was already underway.


I think it is the "confidence" coming from someone who normally 
(usually) has no interest in anything technical or analytical claiming 
they "know for a fact" something that at best they "have on good authority".


- Steve


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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Gillian Densmore]

All this contrasery over the sigh.
I think sigh and sighing is a good thing it can lead to interesting
conversations. :P

On 4/4/13, Ron Newman  wrote:
> I get your point, Doug.  I had to suppress the desire to roll my eyes when
> once I met someone who looked up at the sky and spoke confidently of
> chemtrails.
>
> I'm reminded of something Joseph Campbell said - who looked as deeply into
> the beliefs of human beings across history as anyone.  He said that the
> closer you get to something of distilled wisdom, the more crazies there are
> standing around.  I try to keep that in mind when I'm tempted to throw
> something out while teasing the "signal from the noise".
>
> I once knew an anesthesiologist who patented a device and started a company
> around it.  The thing located nerves accurately for surgeons.  As an
> anecdotal aside, he told me that the places where nerves crossed each other
> tended to correlate with acupuncture points.  One possibility.
>
> Regarding placebo, if we were talking about solar power, 30% efficiency
> would be a great starting point.
>
> Ron
>
> --
> Ron Newman, Founder
> MyIdeatree.com 
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Douglas Roberts
> wrote:
>
>> Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how
>> about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant
>> segment of the US population who fervently believe that "they" are
>> poisoning us, on purpose.  But only on those days that the jets leave con
>> ... er ... chemtrails.  No proof necessary, just *look* at those
>> chemtrails.
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>>
>>
>


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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Bruce Sherwood]

There have also been scientific studies involving something called that
"nocebo" effect, in which expectations of harm are self-fulfilling. I
apologize that I can't at the moment find references to the following two
examples.

People who felt themselves sensitive or insensitive to cell phone radiation
were put in a functional MRI machine with a cell phone near the head that
could be turned on or off. The insensitives when told the phone was turned
on showed no change in brain function, but the sensitives showed activity
in the brain locations associated with real pain. Although in fact the cell
phone was never turned on, the sensitives apparently experienced real pain.
The pain is real, but not caused by cell phone radiation -- "nocebo".

An experiment was performed on the efficacy of prayer for those in need.
People were recruited to pray for hospital patients, with various
conditions of the study. The only effect that was found was that if
patients were told that they were being prayed for, those patients did
worse, presumably because they thought that if people were going to the
trouble of praying for them, they must be in worse shape than they had
thought. Again, "nocebo".

Bruce

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[glen]

Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/04/2013 11:37 AM:
> you often see what you look for.

I'll raise you and assert that you _always_ see what you look for ...

which takes me back to Kauffman's paper and his failure to cite Robert
Rosen's treatment of anticipatory systems (aka final cause).  Our
expectations are a kind of forcing structure or, at least, a box of
constraints upon our dynamics.

The fans of "woo" I _like_ tend to have big boxes within which they can
wiggle a lot.  They do not build prisons from their expectations.  Many
hard core materialists (e.g. the New Atheists) and many consipiracy nuts
have such tightly wound expectations, such convictions, that they are no
longer open enough to wiggle.

-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I have gazed beyond today



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Ron Newman]

I get your point, Doug.  I had to suppress the desire to roll my eyes when
once I met someone who looked up at the sky and spoke confidently of
chemtrails.

I'm reminded of something Joseph Campbell said - who looked as deeply into
the beliefs of human beings across history as anyone.  He said that the
closer you get to something of distilled wisdom, the more crazies there are
standing around.  I try to keep that in mind when I'm tempted to throw
something out while teasing the "signal from the noise".

I once knew an anesthesiologist who patented a device and started a company
around it.  The thing located nerves accurately for surgeons.  As an
anecdotal aside, he told me that the places where nerves crossed each other
tended to correlate with acupuncture points.  One possibility.

Regarding placebo, if we were talking about solar power, 30% efficiency
would be a great starting point.

Ron

-- 
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com 


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how
> about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant
> segment of the US population who fervently believe that "they" are
> poisoning us, on purpose.  But only on those days that the jets leave con
> ... er ... chemtrails.  No proof necessary, just *look* at those chemtrails.
>
> --Doug
>
>
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Roger Critchlow]

I've restricted my participation in this discussion because I started a new
schedule of medications yesterday and I wasn't sure whence my enthusiasm
came.  That's sort of a transcebo effect, everything I take appears to have
subtle side effects, but appearances can be deceiving, and you often see
what you look for.

-- rec --

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Bruce Sherwood]

Actually, I think there is active scientific research trying to understand
the placebo effect, because the effect and its benefits have been well
documented. As Feynman points out, better understanding could lead to
improved placebo effect.

Bruce

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Ron Newman  wrote:

> If the placebo is double blind I've heard the percentage shoots up.  But
> the fact remains that a mere thought, or belief, is affecting something.
>  If science were untainted that would be the basis for massive
> investigation.
>
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[glen]

Ron Newman wrote at 04/04/2013 10:57 AM:
> But you're missing the point.:  *something* is working for them if they
> believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is.  The
> question is how does it work?  No, that's not good enough, because it too
> easily leads back to premature assumptions.  The question is:  how can
> placebo be improved.  Not set aside but improved.

No, I'm not missing that point at all.  The primary clinical problems
are if, when, and how to _intervene_.  This is the first question you
should be asking.  Even in a scientific context, the first question is
about how to manipulate the system so that cause and effect can be
teased out of the noise.  The point is if, when, and how to manipulate.

The question of improvement only comes after addressing the question of
manipulation.

-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I'm a king ??



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Douglas Roberts]

Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how
about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant
segment of the US population who fervently believe that "they" are
poisoning us, on purpose.  But only on those days that the jets leave con
... er ... chemtrails.  No proof necessary, just *look* at those chemtrails.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman  wrote:

> But you're missing the point.:  *something* is working for them if they
> believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is.  The
> question is how does it work?  No, that's not good enough, because it too
> easily leads back to premature assumptions.  The question is:  how can
> placebo be improved.  Not set aside but improved.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen  wrote:
>
>> Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:
>> > I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
>> > patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
>> > can fool all of ….").
>>
>> A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
>> chronic back and neck pain.  There's a zealot in our local CfI
>> (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
>> shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
>> is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
>> I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
>> with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
>> points and nerve clusters.  But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
>> couldn't achieve more effectively.
>>
>> But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
>> far.  My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
>>  He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
>> chiropractor.  I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
>> with her placebo effect.
>>
>> Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
>> analysis of my lack of action.  Would I want someone to burst my placebo
>> effect bubble?  If so, when?  Immediately?  Or perhaps after some window
>> of time as the placebo effect decays and it bumps up against the hard
>> biophysical/physiological limits?
>>
>> --
>> =><= glen e. p. ropella
>> I can't get no peace until I get into motion
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Newman, Founder
> MyIdeatree.com 
> The World Happiness Meter 
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>



-- 
*Doug Roberts
d...@parrot-farm.net*
*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*
* 
505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile*

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Ron Newman]

But you're missing the point.:  *something* is working for them if they
believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is.  The
question is how does it work?  No, that's not good enough, because it too
easily leads back to premature assumptions.  The question is:  how can
placebo be improved.  Not set aside but improved.


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen  wrote:

> Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:
> > I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> > patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> > can fool all of ….").
>
> A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
> chronic back and neck pain.  There's a zealot in our local CfI
> (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
> shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
> is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
> I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
> with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
> points and nerve clusters.  But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
> couldn't achieve more effectively.
>
> But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
> far.  My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
>  He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
> chiropractor.  I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
> with her placebo effect.
>
> Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
> analysis of my lack of action.  Would I want someone to burst my placebo
> effect bubble?  If so, when?  Immediately?  Or perhaps after some window
> of time as the placebo effect decays and it bumps up against the hard
> biophysical/physiological limits?
>
> --
> =><= glen e. p. ropella
> I can't get no peace until I get into motion
>
>
> 
> 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
>



-- 
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com 
The World Happiness Meter 

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[glen]

Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:
> I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> can fool all of ….").

A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
chronic back and neck pain.  There's a zealot in our local CfI
(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
points and nerve clusters.  But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
couldn't achieve more effectively.

But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
far.  My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
 He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
chiropractor.  I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
with her placebo effect.

Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
analysis of my lack of action.  Would I want someone to burst my placebo
effect bubble?  If so, when?  Immediately?  Or perhaps after some window
of time as the placebo effect decays and it bumps up against the hard
biophysical/physiological limits?

-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I can't get no peace until I get into motion



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Ron Newman]

If the placebo is double blind I've heard the percentage shoots up.  But
the fact remains that a mere thought, or belief, is affecting something.
 If science were untainted that would be the basis for massive
investigation.


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Barry MacKichan <
barry.mackic...@mackichan.com> wrote:

> I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the patient
> discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You can fool all of
> ….").
>
> --Barry
>
> On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Ron Newman  wrote:
>
> There's no money in it (actually, there's a lot of money in it) but the
> effects - 30% efficacy I heard once - are impressive, without side effects.
>
>
>
> 
> 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
>



-- 
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com 
The World Happiness Meter 

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Barry MacKichan]

I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the patient 
discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You can fool all of 
….").

--Barry

On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Ron Newman  wrote:

> There's no money in it (actually, there's a lot of money in it) but the 
> effects - 30% efficacy I heard once - are impressive, without side effects.


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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Ron Newman]

I agree with Feynman.  Sort of, with a caveat to follow after a short
digression.

What about the placebo effect, a standard reference for FDA approval of
 medications?  There's no money in it (actually, there's a lot of money in
it) but the effects - 30% efficacy I heard once - are impressive, without
side effects.

A P 
Dijsterkuis
is doing the Feynman thing with methods of decision-making and how the
conscious - and unconscious - mind works.

The obstacle as I see it is cultural - a sense of glee and "see, we told
you so" on the part of the woo faction which is singularly unattractive;
and on the other hand a "harrumph...highly irregular" (spoken with an
English accent) on the part of the materialists, which also smells of
crusty religion.

To go beyond either, now that's a stretch.

Back to Feynman, I agree with him, and also see that he's following his own
bent, a love for analysis, that not everyone will share.  Plus when you
factor in Heisenberg and the observer's effect on the experiment, etc., at
some point we just have to throw up our hands and shake our heads at our
own humanity.

Ron


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:

> Feynman had a nice comment on this, Nick. He suggests that faith healers
> don't take their faith seriously.
>
> Retrieved from http://faculty.randolphcollege.edu/tmichalik/feynman.htm
>
> "There is an infinite amount of crazy stuff, which, put another way, is
> that the environment is actively, intensely unscientific. There is talk of
> telepathy still, although it's dying out. There is faith-healing galore,
> all over. There is a whole religion of faith-healing. There's a miracle at
> Lourdes where healing goes on. Now, it might be true that astrology is
> right. It might be true that if you go to the dentist on the day that Mars
> is at right angles to Venus, that it is better than if you go on a
> different day. It might be true that you can be cured by the miracle of
> Lourdes. But if it is true, it ought to be investigated. Why? To improve
> it. If it is true, then maybe we can find out if the stars do influence
> life; that we could make the system more powerful by investigating
> statistically, scientifically judging the evidence objectively, more
> carefully. If the healing process works at Lourdes, the question is how far
> from the site of the miracle can the person, who is ill, stand? Have they
> in fact made a mistake and the back row is really not working? Or is it
> working so well that there is plenty of room for more people to be arranged
> near the place of the miracle? Or is it possible, as it is with the saints
> which have recently been created in the United States - there is a saint
> who cured leukemia apparently indirectly - that ribbons that are touched to
> the sheet of the sick person (the ribbon having previously touched some
> relic of the saint) increase the cure of leukemia - the question is, is it
> gradually being diluted? You may laugh, but if you believe in the truth of
> the healing, then you are responsible to investigate it, to improve its
> efficiency and to make it satisfactory instead of cheating. For example, it
> may turn out that after a hundred touches it doesn't work anymore. Now it's
> also possible that the results of this investigation have other
> consequences, namely, that nothing is there."
>
> FROM: "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out", by Richard P. Feynman, Helix
> Books, 1999, pgs. 106-107.
>
> 
> 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
>



-- 
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com 
The World Happiness Meter 

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Rich Murray]

Owen,

I lost track of your question -- just used Google -- I like it! ... the
natural resurgence of inner experience in a world religion that is capable,
deep, complex, and subtle enough to evolve radically and swiftly to meet
the remarkable, unavoidable opportunities of these decades:

http://www.taize.fr/en_article15337.html

*We encounter him in the very poor. Jesus had a special love for them.*

“What you do for one of the very least of my brothers and sisters, you do
for me” (Matthew 25:40), we would like to confirm the truth of these words
of Christ for our gathering in 2015.

*We can encounter him when we look to the witnesses who rely on him.*

Let us go, alone or with a few others, to meet and speak with a woman or a
man whose life was changed by an encounter with Christ.

Or let us read together the life of a witness to the faith: Francis of
Assisi, Josephine Bakhita, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mother Teresa, Oscar
Romero, Alexander Men, and many others.

*They were all very different from one another, each one with their unique
gifts. We should not try to copy them but to see how their trust in Christ
transformed them.*

They had their faults. But they all spoke to God in prayer, even if some of
them experienced inner nights. Friendship with Christ made them free, and
in this way what was best in them was able to flourish.
--
Third Proposal - Look for ways of relying on God
--

*Believing in God, trusting in him, means relying on him. Having faith does
not mean being able to explain everything or having an easier life, but
finding stability and a starting point.*

It means not being dependent on our successes or failures, and thus
ultimately on ourselves, but on Another who loves us.

*Nobody can live without something to rely on and so, in this sense,
everyone believes something. Jesus invites us to rely on God, as he did and
because he did. He teaches us to pray “Our Father in heaven.”*

Silent worship nourishes reflection and understanding. But more
importantly, it places us before and within the mystery of God.

Developing “Sabbath” moments, times when we stop and do nothing, offering
our time to open a nearby church for a couple of hours a week, praying with
others, joining the local Church each week to recall the death and
resurrection of Christ...all this allows God to find a place in our daily
lives.

*In every human being there is an inner life, where light and shadows, joys
and fears, trust and doubt mingle. Amazing breakthroughs can take place
there.*

When we know we are loved or when we love, when we experience bonds of
friendship, or when the beauty of creation or human creativity touches us,
it strikes us that life is indeed beautiful. These moments can take us by
surprise; they may arise even in a period of suffering, like a light that
comes from elsewhere.

*In them we can see, in simplicity, the presence of the Holy Spirit in our
lives.*

In our day, when many experience broken relationships and unexpected
changes in their lives, the relationship with Christ can provide continuity
and meaning.

*Faith does not cause our inner contradictions to vanish, but the Holy
Spirit disposes us to live a life of joy and love.*
--
Fourth Proposal - Be open without fear to the future and to others
--

*The conviction of faith does not close us up in ourselves. Trust in Christ
opens us to trust in the future and to trust in others. It encourages us to
face the problems of our time and of our own lives with courage.*

Faith is like an anchor that gives us a firm attachment in the future of
God, in the risen Christ with whom it binds us inseparably. The Gospel
offers no room for speculation about life after death, but it holds out to
us the hope that we will see Christ, who is already our life.

*Faith leads us not to be afraid of the future or of others any longer.*

The trusting of faith is not naive. It is aware of the evil that is present
in humanity, and even in our own hearts. But it does not forget that Christ
came for all.

*Trust in God brings to birth in us a new way of looking at others, at the
world, and at the future—a way of looking that involves gratitude and hope,
and attentiveness to beauty.*

Trust in God frees us to be creative.

*And then we can sing with Saint Gregory of the fourth century: “You who
are beyond all things, what mind can grasp you? All beings celebrate you.
The desire of all reaches out to you.”*

[image: PDF - 109.9 kb] *Four
Proposals 2013*pdf format

Last updated: 18 February 2013
So, I flexibly fully agree with the above, while unable to appreciate unity
as a "person" on any level -- in fact, I have no ability to appreciate
anyone as a "person" -- "person" for me is a lovely poetic metaphor -- "I"
indeed love these powerful, lyric, profound poetic hints -- I understand as
experience what the code refers 

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Owen Densmore]

Rich: you never got back to me on Taize .. are you aware of the movement?

   -- Owen

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Bruce Sherwood]

Feynman had a nice comment on this, Nick. He suggests that faith healers
don't take their faith seriously.

Retrieved from http://faculty.randolphcollege.edu/tmichalik/feynman.htm

"There is an infinite amount of crazy stuff, which, put another way, is
that the environment is actively, intensely unscientific. There is talk of
telepathy still, although it's dying out. There is faith-healing galore,
all over. There is a whole religion of faith-healing. There's a miracle at
Lourdes where healing goes on. Now, it might be true that astrology is
right. It might be true that if you go to the dentist on the day that Mars
is at right angles to Venus, that it is better than if you go on a
different day. It might be true that you can be cured by the miracle of
Lourdes. But if it is true, it ought to be investigated. Why? To improve
it. If it is true, then maybe we can find out if the stars do influence
life; that we could make the system more powerful by investigating
statistically, scientifically judging the evidence objectively, more
carefully. If the healing process works at Lourdes, the question is how far
from the site of the miracle can the person, who is ill, stand? Have they
in fact made a mistake and the back row is really not working? Or is it
working so well that there is plenty of room for more people to be arranged
near the place of the miracle? Or is it possible, as it is with the saints
which have recently been created in the United States - there is a saint
who cured leukemia apparently indirectly - that ribbons that are touched to
the sheet of the sick person (the ribbon having previously touched some
relic of the saint) increase the cure of leukemia - the question is, is it
gradually being diluted? You may laugh, but if you believe in the truth of
the healing, then you are responsible to investigate it, to improve its
efficiency and to make it satisfactory instead of cheating. For example, it
may turn out that after a hundred touches it doesn't work anymore. Now it's
also possible that the results of this investigation have other
consequences, namely, that nothing is there."

FROM: "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out", by Richard P. Feynman, Helix
Books, 1999, pgs. 106-107.

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Ron Newman]

So far in this thread I hear opinions mixed with some desire to examine
evidence, but no discussion of the evidence itself.  We are ourselves
 demonstrating one of the points made in the original blog post that
spawned this thread - that it's about culture and assumptions, not science.

I don't have time to read the links to further discussion and experimental
data given in that post, but would enjoy hearing on this list from those
that do.


-- 
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com 

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Bruce Sherwood]

A small personal comment on related matters: It's not uncommon to hear
statements of the form "Science can never explain X". Solving for X, one of
the common solutions is "consciousness", but there are other popular
solutions to the equation. Step back about 500 years, and humans were not
in a position to understand a vast range of phenomena, from orbits to
lightning to disease to speciation to oxidation. Little by little, it was
science that provided insight. Given this hugely expanded and rapidly
expanding region of understanding, I would not bet on the validity of the
equation for most values of X.

Bruce

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Steve Smith]

Roger/Glen -

Dysrhetorica even better!

 Humpty-Dumpty-itis... more cynical perhaps.

"I am who you think I think I am" also seems relevant.

 It is perhaps why the most stubborn of us in our own self-image seem 
to be the easiest to deal with (one way or the other).  If we offer no 
doubt about who we think we are (or what our words mean) then others are 
not puzzled or confused about how to respond to us.


This is the scant charm I find in those who stubbornly stick to their 
extreme positions (psuedoscientists, religious fanatics, conspiracy 
theorists) with or without effective argumentation or evidence in 
support of it.


What this topic still leaves me open to seek is an understanding of what 
parts, if any, of the psuedoscientists and/or woo peddlers ideas that 
TED is trying to ignore/exclude/silence might have some validity.   The 
whole baby/bathwater duality?


- Steve

You're right, dyslexia is a bad match.

Probably should have called it dysrhetorica, failure to recognize the 
significance of your own arguments, as evidenced by your dismay when 
people tell you what they heard you say.


Or maybe it should be humpty-dumpty-itis, as in the words mean just 
what I meant them to mean, and it is very hurtful to me that you heard 
them mean something else.




-- rec --


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:24 PM, glen > wrote:


Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/03/2013 11:04 AM:
> I think it's a form of rhetorical dyslexia -- what one thinks one is
> arguing is not the argument that others hear one making.

I don't grok the map to dyslexia.  But the disconnect between the
thoughts of the sender and those of the receiver is quite clear
... the
best evidence against "psi" ... or perhaps with a softening like the
"rare earth hypothesis", that psi is so rare it may as well not exist.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I learned how to lie well and somebody blew up



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] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Robert J. Cordingley]

I like the two quotes:

   /What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to
   believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is
   supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined.
   Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. /- Carl Sagan

   /I think you think you heard what I said but I don't think you heard
   what I meant./ - a mentor

- Robert C

On 4/3/13 12:24 PM, glen wrote:

Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/03/2013 11:04 AM:

I think it's a form of rhetorical dyslexia -- what one thinks one is
arguing is not the argument that others hear one making.

I don't grok the map to dyslexia.  But the disconnect between the
thoughts of the sender and those of the receiver is quite clear ... the
best evidence against "psi" ... or perhaps with a softening like the
"rare earth hypothesis", that psi is so rare it may as well not exist.




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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Roger Critchlow]

You're right, dyslexia is a bad match.

Probably should have called it dysrhetorica, failure to recognize the
significance of your own arguments, as evidenced by your dismay when people
tell you what they heard you say.

Or maybe it should be humpty-dumpty-itis, as in the words mean just what I
meant them to mean, and it is very hurtful to me that you heard them mean
something else.

-- rec --


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:24 PM, glen  wrote:

> Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/03/2013 11:04 AM:
> > I think it's a form of rhetorical dyslexia -- what one thinks one is
> > arguing is not the argument that others hear one making.
>
> I don't grok the map to dyslexia.  But the disconnect between the
> thoughts of the sender and those of the receiver is quite clear ... the
> best evidence against "psi" ... or perhaps with a softening like the
> "rare earth hypothesis", that psi is so rare it may as well not exist.
>
> --
> =><= glen e. p. ropella
> I learned how to lie well and somebody blew up
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[glen]

Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/03/2013 11:04 AM:
> I think it's a form of rhetorical dyslexia -- what one thinks one is
> arguing is not the argument that others hear one making.

I don't grok the map to dyslexia.  But the disconnect between the
thoughts of the sender and those of the receiver is quite clear ... the
best evidence against "psi" ... or perhaps with a softening like the
"rare earth hypothesis", that psi is so rare it may as well not exist.

-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I learned how to lie well and somebody blew up



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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Roger Critchlow]

Dang, I missed the thermodynamic reference.

I think there's a parallel between Sam Harris being outraged that people
think he's a racist islamophobe (
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2/ ) and the woo
peddlers being outraged that TED doesn't think their ideas are worth
spreading.

I think it's a form of rhetorical dyslexia -- what one thinks one is
arguing is not the argument that others hear one making.

-- rec --


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> Psi = sigh = psychology = pounds per square inch = ?
>
> ** **
>
> Am I close?
>
> ** **
>
> How were Galveston and the trip back?
>
> ** **
>
> Frank
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Frank C. Wimberly
>
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
>
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> ** **
>
> wimber...@gmail.com wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu
>
> Phone:  (505) 995-8715  Cell:  (505) 670-9918
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nicholas
> Thompson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:49 AM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that
> the TED Controversy is Sending
>
> ** **
>
> [psi]
>
> ** **
>
> N
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Rich Murray
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:41 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Rich Murray
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the
> TED Controversy is Sending
>
> ** **
>
>  The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending (skeptics
> kill talks about wider views)
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: *The Weiler Psi* 
> Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM
> Subject: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is
> Sending
> To: rmfor...@gmail.com
>
> craigweiler posted: "TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've
> been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks,
> I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been
> pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site v" 
>
> Respond to this post by replying above this line
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
> New post on *The Weiler Psi* 
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>
> ** **
>
> *Error! Filename not 
> specified.*<http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/author/craigweiler/>
> 
> The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is 
> Sending<http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-loud-and-clear-message-that-the-ted-controversy-is-sending/>
> 
>
> by craigweiler <http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/author/craigweiler/> **
> **
>
> TED <http://www.ted.com/pages/about> talks is actually pretty cool.
> Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past
> couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth
> is, they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site
> views by 500% over this past month and pushed my blog into the top 5% of
> internet blogs in general, by views.  What's not to like?  They have picked
> sides in a growing controversy, which has galvanized the pro-psi camp in
> ways that have never been seen before.  Indeed, a lot is happening that has
> never been seen before and I'm delighted to be in the middle of it.  My
> battle was never with TED, it's with the skeptics pulling the 
> strings<http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/ted-revokes-license-for-tedx-west-hollywood-event/>behind
>  the scenes at TED.
> 
>
> Which brings me to my point.  The loud and clear message that has been
> sent is that there IS a major scientific controversy brewing and
> institutions, from TED to all of academia and the media need to stop taking
> sides.  They need to step out of the way and let the controversy play
> itself out or suffer huge PR 
> damage<http://blog.ted.com/2013/04/01/a-note-to-the-ted-community-on-the-withdrawal-of-the-tedxwesthollywood-license/>as
>  a consequence.  The new thing that is happening is that change isn't
> coming from within the hallowed, starched halls of academia and within the
> confines of scientific conferences, but from the outside.  The ideas that
> skeptics so quickly dismiss are gaining mas acceptance and are starting to
> redefine the power structure.  From what I can see, this is very confusing
> to everyone on the skeptical side of th

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Frank Wimberly]

Psi = sigh = psychology = pounds per square inch = ?

 

Am I close?

 

How were Galveston and the trip back?

 

Frank

 

 

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

 

 <mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> wimber...@gmail.com
<mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu> wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu

Phone:  (505) 995-8715  Cell:  (505) 670-9918

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas
Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:49 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED
Controversy is Sending

 

[psi]

 

N

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Rich Murray
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Rich Murray
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED
Controversy is Sending

 

 The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending (skeptics
kill talks about wider views)

-- Forwarded message --
From: The Weiler Psi 
Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Subject: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is
Sending
To: rmfor...@gmail.com


craigweiler posted: "TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been
talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I
don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been
pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site v" 



Respond to this post by replying above this line

 




 



New post on The Weiler Psi 

Error! Filename not specified.

 




 <http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/author/craigweiler/> Error! Filename
not specified.


 
<http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-loud-and-clear-message-th
at-the-ted-controversy-is-sending/> The Loud and Clear Message that the TED
Controversy is Sending


by craigweiler <http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/author/craigweiler/>  

 <http://www.ted.com/pages/about> TED talks is actually pretty cool.
Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past
couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is,
they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site views by
500% over this past month and pushed my blog into the top 5% of internet
blogs in general, by views.  What's not to like?  They have picked sides in
a growing controversy, which has galvanized the pro-psi camp in ways that
have never been seen before.  Indeed, a lot is happening that has never been
seen before and I'm delighted to be in the middle of it.  My battle was
never with TED, it's with
<http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/ted-revokes-license-for-
tedx-west-hollywood-event/> the skeptics pulling the strings behind the
scenes at TED.

Which brings me to my point.  The loud and clear message that has been sent
is that there IS a major scientific controversy brewing and institutions,
from TED to all of academia and the media need to stop taking sides.  They
need to step out of the way and let the controversy play itself out or
suffer
<http://blog.ted.com/2013/04/01/a-note-to-the-ted-community-on-the-withdrawa
l-of-the-tedxwesthollywood-license/> huge PR damage as a consequence.  The
new thing that is happening is that change isn't coming from within the
hallowed, starched halls of academia and within the confines of scientific
conferences, but from the outside.  The ideas that skeptics so quickly
dismiss are gaining mas acceptance and are starting to redefine the power
structure.  From what I can see, this is very confusing to everyone on the
skeptical side of the debate.

(For those not familiar with the debate, it can be oversimplified thusly:
On the one side we have materialists/reductionists/skeptics who see the
universe as a lifeless machine that can be understood by figuring out its
mechanics.  On the other side we have Biocentrists, for lack of a better
term, who see consciousness and life as being fundamental to the universe.
In other words, they see the universe as a giant thought.  You generally
won't hear much about the second theory, but the evidence is much better
than most people realize.  Mainstream science does not acknowledge this
which is pretty much why there's a big controversy.)

Science, after all, is decided by scientists, right?  What gives the
ordinary rabble the right to intrude on discussions about the fundamental
nature of the universe?  This needs to be decided by people with advanced
degrees who have studied these matters their whole adult lives.  Surely only
they have the requisite knowledge to decide?  That certainly holds true for
most areas of science; the public is more than willing to just accept what
they are told.  What makes the psi debate so dif

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Nicholas Thompson]

[psi]

 

N

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Rich Murray
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Rich Murray
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED
Controversy is Sending

 

 The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending (skeptics
kill talks about wider views)

-- Forwarded message --
From: The Weiler Psi 
Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Subject: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is
Sending
To: rmfor...@gmail.com




craigweiler posted: "TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been
talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I
don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been
pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site v" 



Respond to this post by replying above this line

 




 



New post on The Weiler Psi 

Error! Filename not specified.

 




  Error! Filename
not specified.


 
 The Loud and Clear Message that the TED
Controversy is Sending


by craigweiler   

  TED talks is actually pretty cool.
Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past
couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is,
they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site views by
500% over this past month and pushed my blog into the top 5% of internet
blogs in general, by views.  What's not to like?  They have picked sides in
a growing controversy, which has galvanized the pro-psi camp in ways that
have never been seen before.  Indeed, a lot is happening that has never been
seen before and I'm delighted to be in the middle of it.  My battle was
never with TED, it's with
 the skeptics pulling the strings behind the
scenes at TED.

Which brings me to my point.  The loud and clear message that has been sent
is that there IS a major scientific controversy brewing and institutions,
from TED to all of academia and the media need to stop taking sides.  They
need to step out of the way and let the controversy play itself out or
suffer
 huge PR damage as a consequence.  The
new thing that is happening is that change isn't coming from within the
hallowed, starched halls of academia and within the confines of scientific
conferences, but from the outside.  The ideas that skeptics so quickly
dismiss are gaining mas acceptance and are starting to redefine the power
structure.  From what I can see, this is very confusing to everyone on the
skeptical side of the debate.

(For those not familiar with the debate, it can be oversimplified thusly:
On the one side we have materialists/reductionists/skeptics who see the
universe as a lifeless machine that can be understood by figuring out its
mechanics.  On the other side we have Biocentrists, for lack of a better
term, who see consciousness and life as being fundamental to the universe.
In other words, they see the universe as a giant thought.  You generally
won't hear much about the second theory, but the evidence is much better
than most people realize.  Mainstream science does not acknowledge this
which is pretty much why there's a big controversy.)

Science, after all, is decided by scientists, right?  What gives the
ordinary rabble the right to intrude on discussions about the fundamental
nature of the universe?  This needs to be decided by people with advanced
degrees who have studied these matters their whole adult lives.  Surely only
they have the requisite knowledge to decide?  That certainly holds true for
most areas of science; the public is more than willing to just accept what
they are told.  What makes the psi debate so different?  What the heck is
happening?

In a word, this particular area of science is being crowdsourced.  While
people obviously aren't out conducting experiments en mass and publishing
them in scientific journals, they are able to substantially verify
scientific claims such as "there is no evidence for psychic phenomena."  If
this phrase is uttered by a scientist and turns up in a mainstream news
article it is a relatively simple matter to browse the comment section to
find more substantial sources of information.  Often these days, links with
real scientific information will be shared by a knowledgeable person
effectively demonstrating that the statement was false.  This scenario has
gotten pretty common.

It's precisely this kind of thing that has sent TED reeling these