Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, etc.

I took issue not with Feynman as a person, but with the off-quoted "aphorism", 
attributed to him,  that scientists have no more use for philosophy of science 
than birds have for ornithology.  The only reason birds don't have use for 
ornithology is that they can't read.  I assume that that disability does not 
apply to the scientists mentioned in the aphorism. 

Nick  

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

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:03 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again

Since we recently went 'round about quoting and criticizing people who quote 
Feynman, I thought this would be interesting.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488

> if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing 
> chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner product 
> with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand above him, in 
> the same way that set theory transcends and stands above arithmetic by 
> constructing a model for it.  Feynman’s achievements don’t thereby become 
> your achievements.


--
☣ gⅼеɳ


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

I know.  I just thought it was an interesting post.  That we'd recently 
discussed Feynman was only a segue. I could also have used Russell as the 
segue, since Marcus quoted him in our thread.

The 1st part of Aaronson's post re: Gowers is more interesting than the later 
stuff.

On 10/12/2017 02:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I took issue not with Feynman as a person ...

> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488
> 
>> if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing 
>> chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner 
>> product with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand 
>> above him, in the same way that set theory transcends and stands above 
>> arithmetic by constructing a model for it.  Feynman’s achievements don’t 
>> thereby become your achievements.


-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again

[Marcus Daniels]

"Apex predator of the signaling world."  

Cute, know it well.

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:37 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again

I know.  I just thought it was an interesting post.  That we'd recently 
discussed Feynman was only a segue. I could also have used Russell as the 
segue, since Marcus quoted him in our thread.

The 1st part of Aaronson's post re: Gowers is more interesting than the later 
stuff.

On 10/12/2017 02:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I took issue not with Feynman as a person ...

> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488
> 
>> if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing 
>> chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner 
>> product with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand 
>> above him, in the same way that set theory transcends and stands above 
>> arithmetic by constructing a model for it.  Feynman’s achievements don’t 
>> thereby become your achievements.


--
☣ gⅼеɳ


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Yep.  One of my homunculi does that to his brethren.  This came out today:

  The Grandfather Of Alt-Science
  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/

Anyone whose spent any time in Oregon knows this whack job.  And my apex 
predator of the signaling world homunculus yells at me to hate him as the 
crackpot he clearly is, as well as his neolithic social postions.  But *most* 
of my other homunculi have immense respect for someone who hacks their own path 
through the thicket, going to bat for every wannabe crackpot or inventor who 
spends their spare time breathing solder smoke in the basement or suffers 
regular chemical burns because they care more about their objective than 
safety.  Yes, DIY biology is dangerous.  But hey, we can't all work in the 
belly of some bureaucratic leviathan.


On 10/12/2017 02:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> "Apex predator of the signaling world."  
> 
> Cute, know it well.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:37 PM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again
> 
> I know.  I just thought it was an interesting post.  That we'd recently 
> discussed Feynman was only a segue. I could also have used Russell as the 
> segue, since Marcus quoted him in our thread.
> 
> The 1st part of Aaronson's post re: Gowers is more interesting than the later 
> stuff.
> 
> On 10/12/2017 02:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> I took issue not with Feynman as a person ...
> 
>> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488
>>
>>> if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing 
>>> chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner 
>>> product with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand 
>>> above him, in the same way that set theory transcends and stands above 
>>> arithmetic by constructing a model for it.  Feynman’s achievements don’t 
>>> thereby become your achievements.
> 
> 
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
> 
> 
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> 
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> 

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again

[Marcus Daniels]

Like upsides to global warming, perhaps there are benefits to the irrationality 
of scientists, like Robinson's and others'.
It suggests that science is an activity or an algorithm, that can be conducted 
in parallel with arbitrary if closely-held beliefs.  
But I'm cynical.  I'm inclined to think the scientific method is just a weapon 
in the hands of a sufficiently wacko person to pummel the world into a form 
they think they can manage or profit from.   Better have more non-wacko people 
with the same skills to balance things out.   Sure, there is herd behavior in 
all kinds of people, even the science-policy elites in Washington.   Is there 
some harm being done by them other than to direct money in a worthy direction 
that happens not to be to him?   The contrarian needs to be clever to navigate 
these things and do more than complain.

Marcus

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our 
humanity." - Albert Einstein
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:01 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again

Yep.  One of my homunculi does that to his brethren.  This came out today:

  The Grandfather Of Alt-Science
  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/

Anyone whose spent any time in Oregon knows this whack job.  And my apex 
predator of the signaling world homunculus yells at me to hate him as the 
crackpot he clearly is, as well as his neolithic social postions.  But *most* 
of my other homunculi have immense respect for someone who hacks their own path 
through the thicket, going to bat for every wannabe crackpot or inventor who 
spends their spare time breathing solder smoke in the basement or suffers 
regular chemical burns because they care more about their objective than 
safety.  Yes, DIY biology is dangerous.  But hey, we can't all work in the 
belly of some bureaucratic leviathan.


On 10/12/2017 02:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> "Apex predator of the signaling world."  
> 
> Cute, know it well.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:37 PM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again
> 
> I know.  I just thought it was an interesting post.  That we'd recently 
> discussed Feynman was only a segue. I could also have used Russell as the 
> segue, since Marcus quoted him in our thread.
> 
> The 1st part of Aaronson's post re: Gowers is more interesting than the later 
> stuff.
> 
> On 10/12/2017 02:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> I took issue not with Feynman as a person ...
> 
>> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488
>>
>>> if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing 
>>> chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner 
>>> product with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand 
>>> above him, in the same way that set theory transcends and stands above 
>>> arithmetic by constructing a model for it.  Feynman’s achievements don’t 
>>> thereby become your achievements.
> 
> 
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
> 
> 
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove 
> 
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> 

--
☣ gⅼеɳ


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

On 10/12/2017 03:25 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> 
>>   The Grandfather Of Alt-Science
>>   https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/
> 
> Like upsides to global warming, perhaps there are benefits to the 
> irrationality of scientists, like Robinson's and others'.
> It suggests that science is an activity or an algorithm, that can be 
> conducted in parallel with arbitrary if closely-held beliefs.  
> But I'm cynical.  I'm inclined to think the scientific method is just a 
> weapon in the hands of a sufficiently wacko person to pummel the world into a 
> form they think they can manage or profit from.   Better have more non-wacko 
> people with the same skills to balance things out.   Sure, there is herd 
> behavior in all kinds of people, even the science-policy elites in 
> Washington.   Is there some harm being done by them other than to direct 
> money in a worthy direction that happens not to be to him?   The contrarian 
> needs to be clever to navigate these things and do more than complain.

I agree for the most part, especially given the false reification surrounding 
the scientific method.  Woo peddlers and conspiracy theorists rely on the real 
hermeneutical depth of real science as cover for their rhetoric.  The real 
benefit of thinking seriously about Robinson (or other pseudoscience like 
acupuncture, or even things like informal fallacies) is as a foil for learning 
what *to* do, from examples of what *not* to do.  If the Robinsons of the world 
were earnest failures, they'd be wholesome contributors to science.  But 
because they're deluded, blind to their failures, it is difficult to learn from 
them.

This post makes the argument nicely:

  The Case for Contrarianism
  http://quillette.com/2017/10/10/the-case-for-contrarianism/

from the post:
> So even if Gilley’s paper does as little to support its conclusion as its 
> critics seem to think, it nonetheless might have provided a valuable service 
> to the anti-colonial literature, by making a case at all. That would provide 
> anti-colonial academics something to point to and say: “Here is the best case 
> for colonialism available. It’s very bad, and so it’s reasonable to conclude 
> that the case against colonialism is much stronger than the case for 
> colonialism.” This helps actually to buttress the field’s theoretical 
> foundations, especially as a pedagogical matter. Nor will it do for critics 
> to say simply that the paper could find a place in a discipline with 
> different foundations. If we hope to achieve with our intellectual inquiry 
> even roughly objective knowledge of reality, we must go beyond having a field 
> that assumes P and a field that assumes not-P – we must investigate whether 
> or not P is actually true.

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again

[Steven A Smith]

Glen/Marcus -

Once again, a nicely chewy (if mildly pithy) exchange here:

To try to summarize my own responses...   I think Glen is suggesting 
(via Aaronson quotes/references) that some folks believe that by 
invoking an aphorism of a well-respected/famous person and finding fault 
with it (sneering?) that they thereby gain some of the power that person 
has (socially?) not unlike a cannibal-warrior eating a vanquished 
opponent's organ of choice. Or racing for pink slips?


As for "Apex Predator of the Signalling World", I assume that the 
allusion is to replacing the actual discussion at hand in an arguement 
or investigation with a meta-discussion, a superset of ad-hominism?   
FWIW I've just been watching Hugh Laurie's new (to me) role as Dr. 
Chance (Neuropsychologist cum Vigilante) in the Hulu series of that name 
(Chance), who is doing his own version of Walter White-style breaking 
bad, and there are a lot of parallels to what I *think* you are pointing 
out here.


Regarding this Robinson fellow, he does *seem to be* a lot more credible 
(or grounded, or ???) than most of his brethren in arms.   Given that 
both of you have a strong contrarian streak of your own, I want to be 
careful in observing that "contrarianism" is one of the stronger signals 
(in my experience) for conspiracy whackadoodlery.  Just as with cinema, 
food, literary and really any form of criticism it is generally easier 
to let someone else do the heavy lifting of building something up and 
then just come along and chisel away at some of the weak spots and claim 
to have done something equally worthy (or meaningful or utilitarian?), 
not unlike the original point made by Aaronson above.    Another 
signature element in my experience is strong examples of confirmation 
bias.   "mainstream science" is also guilty of same, and perhaps that is 
what "alt science" legitimately has a claim against them (us?) for, is 
that there are *structural* biases built into funding and 
peer-review/publication.


That said, there has to be some useful "corollary" to the idea of "just 
because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!".   
Maybe "just because you recognize and call out the biases of that which 
is mainstream doesn't make YOUR contrarian biases any more legitimate"?


I'm not personally that focused on cancer itself, but am generally 
interested in human metabolism and the effects of the "diseases of 
affluence" that our first-world lives lead us to.  I find this to be an 
interesting microcosm of the global scale issues such as global climate 
change, travel-aggravated-epidemics, and diversity collapse.


I found it acutely interesting that Robinson (and colleagues) would play 
the "hedge" of "if there is climate change, it seems to be good for 
humanity!".   Why can't they take those two issues fully independently 
and corroborate the "mainstream"s observations about the anthropogenic 
effects they CAN observe and then maybe (or not) make their own case for 
evaluating (not cherry picking) models of ways that might "help" the 
biosphere (or even the anthroposphere)?   I may be being sloppy, but it 
seems to me that there is a strong correlation between mere "contrarian" 
and a more insidious "strong conflation".


This leaves me wondering if there are natural language processing tools 
suitable for identifying these kinds of structural failures in written 
discussion/arguement?   Maybe Google is doing this already and using the 
results to mine what is superficially fringe/crackpot/pseudo-science for 
the real thing (revolutionary science marginalized by the mainstream?)


Carry On,

 - Steve



On 10/12/17 4:25 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Like upsides to global warming, perhaps there are benefits to the irrationality 
of scientists, like Robinson's and others'.
It suggests that science is an activity or an algorithm, that can be conducted 
in parallel with arbitrary if closely-held beliefs.
But I'm cynical.  I'm inclined to think the scientific method is just a weapon 
in the hands of a sufficiently wacko person to pummel the world into a form 
they think they can manage or profit from.   Better have more non-wacko people 
with the same skills to balance things out.   Sure, there is herd behavior in 
all kinds of people, even the science-policy elites in Washington.   Is there 
some harm being done by them other than to direct money in a worthy direction 
that happens not to be to him?   The contrarian needs to be clever to navigate 
these things and do more than complain.

Marcus

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our 
humanity." - Albert Einstein
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Thursday, Octobe

Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again

[cody dooderson]

's and others'.
>> It suggests that science is an activity or an algorithm, that can be
>> conducted in parallel with arbitrary if closely-held beliefs.
>> But I'm cynical.  I'm inclined to think the scientific method is just a
>> weapon in the hands of a sufficiently wacko person to pummel the world into
>> a form they think they can manage or profit from.   Better have more
>> non-wacko people with the same skills to balance things out.   Sure, there
>> is herd behavior in all kinds of people, even the science-policy elites in
>> Washington.   Is there some harm being done by them other than to direct
>> money in a worthy direction that happens not to be to him?   The contrarian
>> needs to be clever to navigate these things and do more than complain.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>> "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our
>> humanity." - Albert Einstein
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
>> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:01 PM
>> To: FriAM 
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again
>>
>> Yep.  One of my homunculi does that to his brethren.  This came out today:
>>
>>The Grandfather Of Alt-Science
>>https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/
>>
>> Anyone whose spent any time in Oregon knows this whack job.  And my apex
>> predator of the signaling world homunculus yells at me to hate him as the
>> crackpot he clearly is, as well as his neolithic social postions.  But
>> *most* of my other homunculi have immense respect for someone who hacks
>> their own path through the thicket, going to bat for every wannabe crackpot
>> or inventor who spends their spare time breathing solder smoke in the
>> basement or suffers regular chemical burns because they care more about
>> their objective than safety.  Yes, DIY biology is dangerous.  But hey, we
>> can't all work in the belly of some bureaucratic leviathan.
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2017 02:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> "Apex predator of the signaling world."
>>>
>>> Cute, know it well.
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:37 PM
>>> To: FriAM 
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again
>>>
>>> I know.  I just thought it was an interesting post.  That we'd recently
>>> discussed Feynman was only a segue. I could also have used Russell as the
>>> segue, since Marcus quoted him in our thread.
>>>
>>> The 1st part of Aaronson's post re: Gowers is more interesting than the
>>> later stuff.
>>>
>>> On 10/12/2017 02:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I took issue not with Feynman as a person ...
>>>> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488
>>>>
>>>> if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing
>>>>> chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner
>>>>> product with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand
>>>>> above him, in the same way that set theory transcends and stands above
>>>>> arithmetic by constructing a model for it.  Feynman’s achievements don’t
>>>>> thereby become your achievements.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>> 
>>> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>> --
>> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>>
>> 
>> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>> 
>> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
>
> 
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

I think it's natural for someone struggling toward an objective to accept 
resources from wherever.  A useful example is the Templeton Foundation's 
funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation  They fund 
some cool stuff, e.g. https://u.osu.edu/friedman.8/.  But the TF's religious 
bent is pretty worriesome.

Regardless, Robinson holds the same political positions as the Heartland 
Institute, as far as I can tell.  So, it's a good match in many ways.

Re: speculation -- It's an equivocation to claim that we're speculating on the 
effects of AGW.  I'm OK with that, of course, witness my argument with Nick 
about whether or not one can doubt (or need speculate on) the existence of the 
floor when you get out of bed. >8^D  But there is at least a spectrum of types 
of speculation.  I can speculate that a rock will fall to the ground when I let 
go and I can speculate the existence of white holes.  They're different types 
of speculation because they depend on your belief in induction and judgments 
about the strength of whatever evidence is provided.  My answer w.r.t. the 
effects of AGW is that our physical models are really all we have.  So, yeah, 
don't trust them implicitly.  But to ignore what those models predict would be 
to ignore all we have ... and that would be a bit silly.


On 10/13/2017 08:59 AM, cody dooderson wrote:
> Good Article. It portrays Robinson as a maverick but still a scientist who is 
> ultimately interested in the truth. I respect that. My question is how does 
> someone who respects truth get along with the Heartland institute, which I 
> have always thought of as a well funded machine for corporate propaganda?  I 
> mean, don't his views on nuclear energy stand to ruin the fossil fuel 
> industry that heavily funds it. He even acknowledges climate change but views 
> it as a good thing for humanity. Aren't we all just speculating on the 
> effects of anthropogenic climate change anyway. It's not like it's happened 
> before. 

>    The Grandfather Of Alt-Science
>    
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/ 
> 

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove