Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
Locked
Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
 
|
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts
[hidden email] ============================================================ 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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
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 <[hidden email]> wrote: Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:21 PM: Doug Roberts
[hidden email] ============================================================ 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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Doug -
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
============================================================ 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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
I'm guessing I would have liked your dad, Steve.
--Doug
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts
[hidden email] ============================================================ 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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
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" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:45 PM: ============================================================ 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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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. ============================================================ 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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
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 templeOn Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
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 <grin>! - 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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
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:[hidden email]] 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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
But they do promise life everlasting.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert that Doug Roberts
[hidden email] ============================================================ 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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
+1
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts
[hidden email] ============================================================ 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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
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 <[hidden email]> wrote: Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/04/2013 10:03 PM: ============================================================ 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: 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 |
Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
Roger/Glen -
Good stuff... I find both topics very compelling:
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: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
|
|
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: --
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!!!"
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
[hidden email] ============================================================ 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 -
No argument there.... but *why* are they trying to poison us!!! Wait... I'm on the skeptics side... nevermind... And just what is your measure of evidence about what the multi-objective function of complete, embarassing, ignorant, and asshole? And what *does* the pareto frontier of that look like in these 4 dimensions? Anyone who doesn't understand the question or it's import are complete, embarassingly ignorant assholes (by one measure)! You are most welcome (as always)... anything else you would like me to ask <grin>? For some reason this last line of yours makes me imagine that you are channelling Doug(las) Adams (aka Roberts?): "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!"
by Douglas Adams (RIP) So long and thanks for all the fish So sad that it should come to this We tried to warn you all but oh dear? You may not share our intellect Which might explain your disrespect For all the natural wonders that grow around you So long, so long and thanks for all the fish The world's about to be destroyed There's no point getting all annoyed Lie back and let the planet dissolve(around you) Despite those nets of tuna fleets We thought that most of you were sweet Especially tiny tots and your pregnant women So long, so long, so long, so long, so long So long, so long, so long, so long, so long So long, so long and thanks for all the fish If I had just one last wish I would like a tasty fish If we could just change one thing We would all learn how to sing Come one and all Man and Mammal Side by Side in life's great gene pool (oooohhh oooohhh oooaahhhhh- ah ahh) So long, so long, so long, so long, so long So long, so long, so long, so long, so long So long, so long and, !Thanks! for all the fish! - 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 |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |