Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
Doesn't the most dangerous knowledge often come from having a blind spot to the danger? That's often the problem when people dont recognize the meaning of changes in scale or kind, like looking for 'bigger' solutions (the bigger bomb or bigger shovel approach) when the nature of the problem changes unexpectedly with scale. Would you include that in your problem statement? Phil Henshaw -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 4:13 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge I believe this is an important but subtle topic that deserves much more discussion. I believe that the sfComplex should host a series of live discussions, probably starting with a Panel presentation by a handful of people representing differing but well-considered points of view. I have been considering this since we opened our doors in June, but find that it is a very difficult topic. Perhaps the most difficult is the polarization that seems to come with it. I have a lot of strong opinions on this subject, some of which I've begun to try to share here. This thread (and the one it emerged from) have tapped a few of the ideas and opinions that need to be discussed. We would need a format and possibly a good moderator to help avoid the many opportunities for spinning out. Ideas, issues, topics are welcome. - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
When I first read this question, I thought that it was somewhat off topic. It is asking about policy rather than science. But the implication of that perspective is that there is no science of policy, i.e., that political science or sociology isn't a science. But of course it should be. In fact it should be one of the sciences of the complex. -- Russ On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Phil Henshaw s...@synapse9.com wrote: Doesn't the most dangerous knowledge often come from having a blind spot to the danger? That's often the problem when people don't recognize the meaning of changes in scale or kind, like looking for 'bigger' solutions (the bigger bomb or bigger shovel approach) when the nature of the problem changes unexpectedly with scale. Would you include that in your problem statement? Phil Henshaw -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 4:13 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge I believe this is an important but subtle topic that deserves much more discussion. I believe that the sfComplex should host a series of live discussions, probably starting with a Panel presentation by a handful of people representing differing but well-considered points of view. I have been considering this since we opened our doors in June, but find that it is a very difficult topic. Perhaps the most difficult is the polarization that seems to come with it. I have a lot of strong opinions on this subject, some of which I've begun to try to share here. This thread (and the one it emerged from) have tapped a few of the ideas and opinions that need to be discussed. We would need a format and possibly a good moderator to help avoid the many opportunities for spinning out. Ideas, issues, topics are welcome. - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
Thanks, yes that way of asking it does expose the fact that I often deal with the issues of poorly explained complex systems like those one finds all over the place in societies and ecologies.Science is a policy to understand things better, though, with the knowns ultimately nested in unknowns, so the posture is still basically similar. For less defined systems the main system model is not in a computer, though, but in the experience of the people involved, reflected mostly in their way of making snap judgments or asking probing questions, say, about whether it's time to use the opposite rule as before. You can have interacting systems requiring alternating choices, for example, like when driving on a road where you'd expect a left turn to follow a right turn and so forth, like a period of adding followed by one of subtracting to keep a balance, and not always make progress by turning in the same direction as before. It can be both necessary and rather difficult to convince people with institutional habits to consider remarkable concept like that. ;-) Phil Henshaw From: Russ Abbott [mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:07 PM To: s...@synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge When I first read this question, I thought that it was somewhat off topic. It is asking about policy rather than science. But the implication of that perspective is that there is no science of policy, i.e., that political science or sociology isn't a science. But of course it should be. In fact it should be one of the sciences of the complex. -- Russ On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Phil Henshaw s...@synapse9.com wrote: Doesn't the most dangerous knowledge often come from having a blind spot to the danger? That's often the problem when people don't recognize the meaning of changes in scale or kind, like looking for 'bigger' solutions (the bigger bomb or bigger shovel approach) when the nature of the problem changes unexpectedly with scale. Would you include that in your problem statement? Phil Henshaw -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 4:13 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge I believe this is an important but subtle topic that deserves much more discussion. I believe that the sfComplex should host a series of live discussions, probably starting with a Panel presentation by a handful of people representing differing but well-considered points of view. I have been considering this since we opened our doors in June, but find that it is a very difficult topic. Perhaps the most difficult is the polarization that seems to come with it. I have a lot of strong opinions on this subject, some of which I've begun to try to share here. This thread (and the one it emerged from) have tapped a few of the ideas and opinions that need to be discussed. We would need a format and possibly a good moderator to help avoid the many opportunities for spinning out. Ideas, issues, topics are welcome. - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
Russ Abbott wrote: Let's assume that you discovered that human beings were built in such a way that a certain kind of virus would wipe most of us out. The killer 1918 Flu virus has been pieced together [1] and a synthetic polio virus has been made too [2]. This will only get easier and I'm sure the know-how will incrementally find its way into commercial hardware/software systems. In the not so far off future I expect that instantiating certain classes of synthetic proteins and assembling them will involve not so much more as loading up a genome into a sequence/protein editor, doing some simulations, and then doing a build/run cycle. There are good reasons and strong market pressures to have this technology be fast and reliable in order to develop therapies for naturally-occurring bugs. Meanwhile, understanding what these synthetic proteins actually could do will be difficult and expensive. Unfortunately, sooner or later, this is a scenario that will tend to invite organizations to the game that have `issues', but no issues at all with the risk. On the other hand, if you had informed people, perhaps the word would have gotten out and triggered a biological arms race. Yes. [1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8103 [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2122619.stm FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
Bill Joy was ripped for his observation that new technologies are almost certain to be misused, and suggested the knowledge be guarded .. i.e. censored in some sense. Why the future doesn't need us http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html His later talk was better received: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bill_joy_muses_on_what_s_next.html Most of the scientists who ripped him in his Stanford Talk that resulted in the Wired article have moved much closer to his position. -- Owen On Jan 2, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: Russ Abbott wrote: Let's assume that you discovered that human beings were built in such a way that a certain kind of virus would wipe most of us out. The killer 1918 Flu virus has been pieced together [1] and a synthetic polio virus has been made too [2]. This will only get easier and I'm sure the know-how will incrementally find its way into commercial hardware/software systems. In the not so far off future I expect that instantiating certain classes of synthetic proteins and assembling them will involve not so much more as loading up a genome into a sequence/protein editor, doing some simulations, and then doing a build/run cycle. There are good reasons and strong market pressures to have this technology be fast and reliable in order to develop therapies for naturally-occurring bugs. Meanwhile, understanding what these synthetic proteins actually could do will be difficult and expensive. Unfortunately, sooner or later, this is a scenario that will tend to invite organizations to the game that have `issues', but no issues at all with the risk. On the other hand, if you had informed people, perhaps the word would have gotten out and triggered a biological arms race. Yes. [1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8103 [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2122619.stm FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
Owen Densmore wrote: Bill Joy was ripped for his observation that new technologies are almost certain to be misused, and suggested the knowledge be guarded .. For all of his reservations about the fragility of technology and the limitations of human design, the Internet did happen. That came from the heroic efforts of a relatively small cadre of engineers, who could see so plainly what was needed. The implications over the last twenty years for human communication have been profound and by in large good. For example, the cognitive surplus in the post-television world and the enormous economic and intangible benefits of that.Certainly by the time there were viruses on the internet there were also people that could disassemble and disable them. I think the same will be true for robotics and genetic engineering. The malevolent users of the technology will be relatively ignorant and inexperienced compared to the creators of it. The creators will have already witnessed and contemplated the many ways in which things can go wrong. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
It seems to me that the real problem is with nature. The argument seems to go that knowledge about (dangerous possibility) phenomenon X might be put to bad use. Therefore we should destroy or at least control that knowledge. I don't think that's completely off the mark. To the extent that we can control knowledge we may be able to develop a bit of a safety buffer for ourselves. I have no problem with a policy that attempts to minimize the spread of information about building nuclear weapons. But the real problem isn't with knowledge about dangerous phenomenon X, it's with X itself. Presumably there is nothing we can do so that X is not part of the world. We can't change nature so that E ≠ MC2. In other words, don't blame the messenger (science) for the message (the world is dangerous) and its corollary (someone who may misuse knowledge about that danger may find out). -- Russ On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Marcus G. Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.comwrote: Owen Densmore wrote: Bill Joy was ripped for his observation that new technologies are almost certain to be misused, and suggested the knowledge be guarded .. For all of his reservations about the fragility of technology and the limitations of human design, the Internet did happen. That came from the heroic efforts of a relatively small cadre of engineers, who could see so plainly what was needed. The implications over the last twenty years for human communication have been profound and by in large good. For example, the cognitive surplus in the post-television world and the enormous economic and intangible benefits of that.Certainly by the time there were viruses on the internet there were also people that could disassemble and disable them. I think the same will be true for robotics and genetic engineering. The malevolent users of the technology will be relatively ignorant and inexperienced compared to the creators of it. The creators will have already witnessed and contemplated the many ways in which things can go wrong. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
Russ Abbott wrote: The argument seems to go that knowledge about (dangerous possibility) phenomenon X might be put to bad use. Therefore we should destroy or at least control that knowledge. I don't think that's completely off the mark. To the extent that we can control knowledge we may be able to develop a bit of a safety buffer for ourselves. Another approach is to think about what bad things could happen in theory, and actively develop tools to detect and counter those things. Things are a superset of people, so espionage can only go so far for anticipating danger. It's dangerous if sealevels rise 10 feet, or millions die in an epidemic, just as if jihadists try to blow up important buildings.. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
I believe this is an important but subtle topic that deserves much more discussion. I believe that the sfComplex should host a series of live discussions, probably starting with a Panel presentation by a handful of people representing differing but well-considered points of view. I have been considering this since we opened our doors in June, but find that it is a very difficult topic. Perhaps the most difficult is the polarization that seems to come with it. I have a lot of strong opinions on this subject, some of which I've begun to try to share here. This thread (and the one it emerged from) have tapped a few of the ideas and opinions that need to be discussed. We would need a format and possibly a good moderator to help avoid the many opportunities for spinning out. Ideas, issues, topics are welcome. - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
To this end, I would suggest including Susan Oberlander, State Librarian.
She has been supportive of some of our projects in the past and would, I'm
sure, be glad to participate. For those of you who have not taken advantage
of the NM State Library, I highly recommend the collection, the building and
most of all those who work there. First-rate in all regards.
And for those who want a bit of brush-up on you online literature search
skills, see:
http://tiny.cc/6EE7m
Magazines Online Webinar [image:
Print]javascript:void%20window.open('http://www.nmstatelibrary.org/index2.php?option=com_eventstask=view_detailagid=52year=month=day=Itemid=134pop=1',%20'win2',%20'status=no,toolbar=no,scrollbars=yes,titlebar=no,menubar=no,resizable=yes,width=600,height=400,directories=no,location=no');
Tuesday, January 06 2009, 10:00am - 11:00am
The State Library is pleased to offer follow-up training on *Magazines
Online *-- the premiere database resource provided to all libraries in New
Mexico. The training will be offered as a Webinar, which will take place on
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 from 10:00 am to 11 am. Kurt Stovall of
Gale/Cengage, the company that provides the databases in *Magazines Online*,
will provide the training. The training is free and open to all libraries
in New Mexico as well as any interested state employee. For further
details, please click
here.http://www.nmstatelibrary.org/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=625:mags-online-registration-infocatid=1:latest-news
--tj
On 1/2/09, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote:
I believe this is an important but subtle topic that deserves much more
discussion.
I believe that the sfComplex should host a series of live discussions,
probably starting with a Panel presentation by a handful of people
representing differing but well-considered points of view.
I have been considering this since we opened our doors in June, but find
that it is a very difficult topic. Perhaps the most difficult is the
polarization that seems to come with it. I have a lot of strong opinions
on this subject, some of which I've begun to try to share here. This thread
(and the one it emerged from) have tapped a few of the ideas and opinions
that need to be discussed.
We would need a format and possibly a good moderator to help avoid the many
opportunities for spinning out.
Ideas, issues, topics are welcome.
- Steve
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
==
J. T. Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
www.analyticjournalism.com
505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h)
http://www.jtjohnson.com t...@jtjohnson.com
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the
existing model obsolete.
-- Buckminster Fuller
==
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
Russ Abbott wrote: We can't change nature so that E ≠ MC^2 . ? FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
Owen, A very interesting The Bill Joy TED talk qas very interesting particularly pertinent as Rivernetwork, our national river protection and restoration NGO discusses its future. I have some qustions about his reliance on market forces to regulate future decissions. Thanks Paul -Original Message- From: Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com Sent: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 6:01 pm Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge On Jan 2, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: Bill Joy was ripped for his observation that new technologies are almost certain to be misused, and suggested the knowledge be guarded .. i.e. censored in some sense. Why the future doesn't need us http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html His later talk was better received: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bill_joy_muses_on_what_s_next.html ... I went back and read/looked at the two links above. This lead me to collect the article, along with several responses, into a single file, attached. I'm struck how thoughtful he is, and his story about writing a book on the topic of the dangers of science and the proliferation of knowledge. It was during the writing of the book, in New York city, that 9/11 occurred. Note: From our earlier discussions, I decided not to attach the document in its .rtf version, nor in .doc -- not all of us can rea d those. So, because the Browser is the Computer, its in html. -- Owen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
The issue of what to do with knowledge is certainly not an easy one to resolve. Let's assume that you discovered that human beings were built in such a way that a certain kind of virus would wipe most of us out. Let's also assume that you were the only one who knew that. What would you do? Would you attempt to destroy that knowledge knowing how potentially deadly it is? If you did that, how would feel if a nihilistically inclined sociopath discovered the same thing a year later and set off the deadly viral chain reaction? Perhaps if you had informed someone and started to work on a defense, we would not have been so vulnerable to what turned out to be a surprise attack. On the other hand, if you had informed people, perhaps the word would have gotten out and triggered a biological arms race. I'm not claiming there are easy answers to these questions. But I do think it's important not to deny the nature of the universe. The premise of my thought experiment was that we were built with a certain kind of vulnerability. Not knowing about it is not necessarily the best way to proceed. But knowing about it may be dangerous as well. Sometimes there are no good options. But it is not an option simply to wish that the world were different. (Of course it is an option, but it doesn't make the world different.) The same probably holds for nuclear weapons. Whether or not science discovered that matter could be converted into energy in what could be very destructive ways, the fact is that matter can be converted into energy in very destructive ways. It does no good to wish that this weren't the case or that no one would every find out about it. That's an act of denial about how the world is. And denial is not a good way to live. -- Russ On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Ann Racuya-Robbins ad...@wkbank.com wrote: -- Ann Racuya-Robbins Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.com The theory of general relativity is a theory about the structure of nature. It is not noble. It is not evil. It is a theory. Russ Abbott We cannot separate everything into clear categories and thus avoid the tragic consequencesTheories come about because people create them...their(people's) agency cannot be removed nor in the theories' consequnces. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
