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
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
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.
+1
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com 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
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
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
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com 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
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
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,
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:
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
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
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
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 arlo.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately I think I am coming into this a bit too late to read through
the whole thread and respond, but
Compare Urban Dictionary:
woothttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot
.
-Arlo James Barnes
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
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*
1. http://woo-woo.urbanup.com/20579woo 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
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,
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 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.
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
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 ...
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ron.new...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
I'm guessing I would have liked your dad, Steve.
--Doug
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com 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
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 g...@ropella.name wrote:
Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013
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 d...@parrot-farm.netwrote:
I personally find it disappointing that so many people are willing to
adopt a belief set with no evidence, based solely on what
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 d...@parrot-farm.netwrote:
Just one
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 gil.densm...@gmail.comwrote:
Doug if I may observe that you and
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
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
The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending (skeptics
kill talks about wider views)
-- Forwarded message --
From: The Weiler Psi comment-re...@wordpress.com
Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Subject: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
58 matches
Mail list logo
