Good climate change skeptics
Locked
12
12
Re: Good climate change skeptics
 
|
Right, but meanwhile, a larger consensus is forming that makes racist belief system increasingly untenable and isolated. Similarly, it was more important the gay community stick together and create a political/economic force than it was to persuade social conservatives that a gay lifestyle was their right or their need. People react to the forces in their environment first -- wrong or right -- and second rationalize them. Create a path of least resistance for the undecided, and give them arguments to rationalize their decision. For those that are taking the path of most resistance, having arguments serve to create social cohesion so they are force to be reckoned with.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 2:32 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics I completely disagree. It seems to me that fear causes people to dig themselves further into their convictions ... or even to create convictions that were, up to that point, just tendencies. It's relatively easy to imagine that's the case with modern racists. Up to the point of being challenged, they may not think anything explicitly racist, just have a general tendency to associate with those that look/talk like themselves. But when faced with some pressure like fear, their implicit racism may snap into an explicit one. The way _out_ of such fear-induced convictions is to weasel your way into their world and poke a bunch of little holes in it, then step back and watch them slowly evolve out of their commitment. It's very difficult for people to learn how to change their mind (aka flip-flopping), even when faced with contradictory evidence. And I'll take that opinion to my grave. //* On 09/23/2015 12:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > In practice, the tactic of creating doubt tends to be more about creating fear, and decreasing the resolve of the opponent, than it is about increasing the prevalence of skeptical thinking. I think flip-flopping is not that hard of a skill to master, it's whether one wants to devote the needed attention to segue between today's lie and tomorrow's in a sufficiently smooth way. At some level, any competence can be self-reinforcing and even enjoyable. -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ 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: Good climate change skeptics
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Glen,
I want to make a distinction between the discussion at Clark university (which seems more and more to be directed toward moral chest beating by Global Warming Enthusiasts, and a discussion that I want to have with you, and others, about when we (i.e., you, me, and others like us) are led to deny a scientific consensus. My observation is that while "we" probably all agree about global warming, more or less, that one or more of us will peel off from the scientific consensus on one or of the following issues. Diet and Heart Disease Chronic Lyme Disease Fibromyalgia Diet and Cancer Vaccination and autism ???? and Alzheimer's Chronic fatigue syndrome Environmental sensitivity syndrome First of all, I would like to recruit this list to identify other issues where at least one of us Global Warming Believers departs from some other equally strong scientific consensus. AND then, I would like to have a discussion concerning why and when we feel qualified to depart from a scientific consensus. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:19 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics Y'all do a good job of highlighting the importance of the context for such a forum. Here's another time-wasting anecdote: I spend way too much time trying to make peace with the local atheists. When I go to their meetings and the topics of faith or the supernatural or mystical come up, I have to be very careful about the sheer pleasure I get out of stories about occult beliefs, conspiracy theories, and alternatives to accepted scientific theories. I have to be careful, I think, because most of these people (atheists who need the social support of other atheists) are ex-theists. It's like a support group for alcoholics or cancer caregivers. I kinda have to treat it like a "sacred space". That means _not_ defending concepts like faith, either in the Kierkegaard conception or Nick's (faith the floor is there when I get out of bed), the former of which I've tried and failed miserably. Defending a subtle concept of faith to this crowd is like arguing for moderation instead of abstinence at an AA meeting. //* So, if I were a climate scientist, regardless of what I believed about AGW, I would avoid this forum. By contrast, if I were a climate activist, I'd want to be there. On 09/23/2015 07:52 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote: > yeah I don't know that a person can stay sane and constantly question what they do. I think it's easier than we might think. I think the key doesn't lie in questioning (everything) one does. The key lies (as you point out) in how seriously you take things, especially your own actions. Actually, "seriousness" is the wrong concept. The right concept is "commitment", how committed you are to your actions, including your beliefs. If you're committed (convinced, convicted, with conviction), then you're doomed. Skepticism depends on the ability to retract previous (tentative) commitments when it's appropriate to do so. And that includes physical actions as well as thoughts. A good fighter can tweak her strike at any point along its path. Competent strikes, like assertions of belief, should never be "fire and forget". As you bring your foot to the floor in the morning, if the floor doesn't push back as expected, _don't_ get out of bed, just yet. 8^) > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > In a century (if there is anyone there to reflect on it) we will > laugh at some of our strongest beliefs I strongly hold that laughability and strongly held beliefs are correlated. -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ 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 |
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Good climate change skeptics
|
|
"But both the path of least resistance and the cohesiveness of a social group depend, in fundamental ways, on a lack of conviction."
The question is not "Should one use doubt to create fear?", the question is "Will someone use doubt to create fear?" (Someone almost always will.) The crafty campaign strategist will anticipate the audience experiencing the fear and assess whether that group is sufficiently important to penetrate. Or it may be a better use of resources to treat them as hopeless and find other votes/money/etc. Marcus ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Good climate change skeptics
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
On 09/23/2015 02:15 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Diet and Heart Disease > Chronic Lyme Disease > Fibromyalgia > Diet and Cancer > Vaccination and autism > ???? and Alzheimer's > Chronic fatigue syndrome > Environmental sensitivity syndrome > > First of all, I would like to recruit this list to identify other issues where at least one of us Global Warming Believers departs from some other equally strong scientific consensus. Unfortunately, I don't know the consensus in most of those categories. I can wander off what my oncologist claims about diet and cancer, though. But my oncologist was trained as a DO, which puts her credentials at risk in some people's eyes: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html So, the fact that she takes the very conservative position that we just don't know enough about the ties between diet and (my type of) cancer, is interesting to me. > AND then, I would like to have a discussion concerning why and when we feel qualified to depart from a scientific consensus. I feel qualified to depart from what she tells me because of my personal experience about what has worked for me during chemo and the course of my experimental drug. But these departures do _not_ extend (by induction) to any general population. I can only say that what she tried failed and what I tried worked. Granted, this is not about diet and cancer so much as diet and cancer intervention. I can, however, proceed by deduction and suggest that I'm probably not an entirely unique subject. There are probably some generalizations that could be made and I can explore the space of conclusions to speculate on what those might be. To be concrete, here's an example. About 2 cycles into my treatment, I began to experience a "welling up" in my throat, especially when bending over or going upside down on my inversion table. She tentatively diagnosed it as GERD. She put me on proton pump inhibitors and when they didn't work, motility promoters. Neither worked. But I discovered that i nsoluble fiber _did_ work. She doubts me to this day. And, to be honest, I often doubt myself. Another issue where I disagree with her is on the subject of fasting. There are these somewhat controversial papers that indicate medium-term fasting (more than 48 hours) assists the therapy in triggering apoptosis (good cell death that minimizes free toxins) and reducing necrosis (bad cell death where toxins roam a bit more freely). She maintains that people on chemo need to eat in order to sustain themselves in the face of the poison. I maintain that as long as we're poisoning ourselves anyway, why not do a proper job of it? -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ 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: Good climate change skeptics
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
"My claim is the truly powerful do _not_ manipulate in the way you're describing. They are more surgical in their methods. The power gained by your coarser manipulation is temporary and fickle. The power gained by steadily punching holes in convictions is more permanent."
Persuasion happens between minds. What you are describing is not scalable. The surgical intervention has to be done on the right people, not individuals of low conviction. They just fall in line to the right manipulator. Marcus ============================================================ 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: Good climate change skeptics
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
"There are these somewhat controversial papers that indicate medium-term fasting (more than 48 hours) assists the therapy in triggering apoptosis (good cell death that minimizes free toxins) and reducing necrosis (bad cell death where toxins roam a bit more freely). She maintains that people on chemo need to eat in order to sustain themselves in the face of the poison."
How about eat, but do intensive interval training? At least then there is a positive side effect, i.e. fitness. -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:51 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics On 09/23/2015 02:15 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Diet and Heart Disease > Chronic Lyme Disease > Fibromyalgia > Diet and Cancer > Vaccination and autism > ???? and Alzheimer's > Chronic fatigue syndrome > Environmental sensitivity syndrome > > First of all, I would like to recruit this list to identify other issues where at least one of us Global Warming Believers departs from some other equally strong scientific consensus. Unfortunately, I don't know the consensus in most of those categories. I can wander off what my oncologist claims about diet and cancer, though. But my oncologist was trained as a DO, which puts her credentials at risk in some people's eyes: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html So, the fact that she takes the very conservative position that we just don't know enough about the ties between diet and (my type of) cancer, is interesting to me. > AND then, I would like to have a discussion concerning why and when we feel qualified to depart from a scientific consensus. I feel qualified to depart from what she tells me because of my personal experience about what has worked for me during chemo and the course of my experimental drug. But these departures do _not_ extend (by induction) to any general population. I can only say that what she tried failed and what I tried worked. Granted, this is not about diet and cancer so much as diet and cancer intervention. I can, however, proceed by deduction and suggest that I'm probably not an entirely unique subject. There are probably some generalizations that could be made and I can explore the space of conclusions to speculate on what those might be. To be concrete, here's an example. About 2 cycles into my treatment, I began to experience a "welling up" in my throat, especially when bending over or going upside down on my inversion table. She tentatively diagnosed it as GERD. She put me on proton pump inhibitors and when they didn't work, motility promoters. Neither worked. But I discovered that i nsoluble fiber _did_ work. She doubts me to this day. And, to be honest, I often doubt myself. Another issue where I disagree with her is on the subject of fasting. There are these somewhat controversial papers that indicate medium-term fasting (more than 48 hours) assists the therapy in triggering apoptosis (good cell death that minimizes free toxins) and reducing necrosis (bad cell death where toxins roam a bit more freely). She maintains that people on chemo need to eat in order to sustain themselves in the face of the poison. I maintain that as long as we're poisoning ourselves anyway, why not do a proper job of it? -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ 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: Good climate change skeptics
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 09/23/2015 02:54 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Persuasion happens between minds. What you are describing is not scalable. The surgical intervention has to be done on the right people, not individuals of low conviction. They just fall in line to the right manipulator. Perhaps I was too opaque. It does scale. My chosen example is political correctness, that bogeyman of old or isolated people everywhere. Scaling this up requires a "big data" (for lack of a better term) approach. You create a prickly environment that can explode on anyone whose interface with the environment isn't tightly coupled. It can explode on people who are tightly coupled to the environment, too. (E.g. Ben Afleck's reaction to Sam Harris or Effie Brown's reaction to Matt Damon.) The chance that it will explode on you if you make the smallest faux pas is a surgical hole-poking method. Perhaps it doesn't scale quite as easily as fear-based ideology/imagery. But it does scale. -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ 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: Good climate change skeptics
|
|
In reply to this post by Gillian Densmore
It's NEVER NEVER either/or! Try both/and. On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA [hidden email] mobile: (303) 859-5609 skype: merlelefkoff ============================================================ 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: Good climate change skeptics
|
|
What's the risk if the sceptics win? Scepticism is surely the easy way out on this one. On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA [hidden email] mobile: (303) 859-5609 skype: merlelefkoff ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 9/23/15 1:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> In practice, the tactic of creating doubt tends to be more about creating fear, and decreasing the resolve of the opponent, than it is about increasing the prevalence of skeptical thinking. I think flip-flopping is not that hard of a skill to master, it's whether one wants to devote the needed attention to segue between today's lie and tomorrow's in a sufficiently smooth way. At some level, any competence can be self-reinforcing and even enjoyable. I would suggest that the act of lying for a compulsive liar *is* a flow state that keeps the endorphins kicking in... Similarly for "professional" Skeptics or Cynics or Critics... the act of poking holes in "the other" is it's own reward independent of the actual semantics of the argument being poked or the poking itself. I could say that Rhetoric in general can be it's own reward (possibly speaking from experience here!) - 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: Good climate change skeptics
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Glen,
I think you have nailed one of the origins of science-doubters: the relation between the nomothetic and the idiographic (which you can google, if you want to know more). Briefly, there is no strong reason to believe that a probabilistic generalization applies to my individual case. Well, let me put that round the other way: there is always some reason to believe that it doesn’t. So people will disbelieve science if the cost to them of doing so is low, and the possible gains are great. So, I think you have nailed one of the sources of anti-scientific irrationalism. Having said that, am I allowed to say, "Crap! I wish you didn't have cancer!' Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:51 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics On 09/23/2015 02:15 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Diet and Heart Disease > Chronic Lyme Disease > Fibromyalgia > Diet and Cancer > Vaccination and autism > ???? and Alzheimer's > Chronic fatigue syndrome > Environmental sensitivity syndrome > > First of all, I would like to recruit this list to identify other issues where at least one of us Global Warming Believers departs from some other equally strong scientific consensus. Unfortunately, I don't know the consensus in most of those categories. I can wander off what my oncologist claims about diet and cancer, though. But my oncologist was trained as a DO, which puts her credentials at risk in some people's eyes: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html So, the fact that she takes the very conservative position that we just don't know enough about the ties between diet and (my type of) cancer, is interesting to me. > AND then, I would like to have a discussion concerning why and when we feel qualified to depart from a scientific consensus. I feel qualified to depart from what she tells me because of my personal experience about what has worked for me during chemo and the course of my experimental drug. But these departures do _not_ extend (by induction) to any general population. I can only say that what she tried failed and what I tried worked. Granted, this is not about diet and cancer so much as diet and cancer intervention. I can, however, proceed by deduction and suggest that I'm probably not an entirely unique subject. There are probably some generalizations that could be made and I can explore the space of conclusions to speculate on what those might be. To be concrete, here's an example. About 2 cycles into my treatment, I began to experience a "welling up" in my throat, especially when bending over or going upside down on my inversion table. She tentatively diagnosed it as GERD. She put me on proton pump inhibitors and when they didn't work, motility promoters. Neither worked. But I discovered that i nsoluble fiber _did_ work. She doubts me to this day. And, to be honest, I often doubt myself. Another issue where I disagree with her is on the subject of fasting. There are these somewhat controversial papers that indicate medium-term fasting (more than 48 hours) assists the therapy in triggering apoptosis (good cell death that minimizes free toxins) and reducing necrosis (bad cell death where toxins roam a bit more freely). She maintains that people on chemo need to eat in order to sustain themselves in the face of the poison. I maintain that as long as we're poisoning ourselves anyway, why not do a proper job of it? -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ 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: Good climate change skeptics
|
|
On 09/23/2015 05:37 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I think you have nailed one of the origins of science-doubters: the relation between the nomothetic and the idiographic Thanks. It's nice to know the names. I think science-doubting is just one symptom, though. The deeper problem has something to do with "schizophrenic" components of a system, where the split is caused by incommensurate scopes. For example, humans behaviors are systemic (as Marcus points out where people react to their environment first, then rationalize it later) in their behavior. Their behaviors have 1 scope, extent of impact. E.g. lawn fertilizer run-off. Then their ideological scope is different, usually smaller. The things in their heads don't extend as far as the impact of their behavior. And vice versa sometimes. There are idealists whose actions have very small scope, thinking very big thoughts, but their actions blow away with a strong breeze. Scope incommensurability is the deeper problem. > Having said that, am I allowed to say, "Crap! I wish you didn't have cancer!' Of course. Thanks. But just to be argumentative, that's like saying you wish I didn't have blue eyes. Or, better yet, you wish I weren't bald. >8^) My cancer is a part of me. I probably wouldn't feel as strongly about it if it were a tumor-forming type of cancer. But since it's systemic, spread throughout my lymph system (part of how we tell self from non-self), it's definitely part of me. It is me. I am cancer. It's probably not true of all cancers, though. Here's a similar interesting tidbit: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43041/title/Cancer-Driving-Mutations-Common-in-Normal-Skin-Cells/ -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Look beyond your own horizons ============================================================ 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 |
nomothetic, idiographic and incommensurability - was: Climate Skepticism
|
|
Glen wrote:
that Nick wrote: >> I think you have nailed one of the origins of science-doubters: the relation between the nomothetic and the idiographic > Thanks. It's nice to know the names. When I first encountered these terms in the psychological literature I noted the parallels to "analytic" and "synthetic" approaches in the "harder" Sciences. Do you have any thoughts about that? > > > Scope incommensurability is the deeper problem. I do think that mis-scoping is a big problem and it plagues both sides of the aisle. But then there is always a bit of the Goldilocks dilemma at work: "Too much" vs "Too little" and rarely enough "Just Right". When the Santa Fe Standard bumper sticker when from "Visualize World Peace" (and the "whirled peas" variant) to "Think Global, Act Local", I was mildly heartened. It captured at least one aspect of the scoping bias, though if taken literally just throws everything off kilter in the other direction. - 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Greetings, all --
Nick, further to my observation that William Nordhaus may offer a thoughtful contrast, he has written a review of Pope Francis's recent encyclical:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/oct/08/pope-and-market/
I don't agree with everything Nordhaus (or, for that matter, Pope Francis) says, but it gives you an idea of his thinking.
Kindest regards,
- Claiborne -
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]> Sent: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics Glen, I think you have nailed one of the origins of science-doubters: the relation between the nomothetic and the idiographic (which you can google, if you want to know more). Briefly, there is no strong reason to believe that a probabilistic generalization applies to my individual case. Well, let me put that round the other way: there is always some reason to believe that it doesn’t. So people will disbelieve science if the cost to them of doing so is low, and the possible gains are great. So, I think you have nailed one of the sources of anti-scientific irrationalism. Having said that, am I allowed to say, "Crap! I wish you didn't have cancer!' Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:51 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics On 09/23/2015 02:15 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Diet and Heart Disease > Chronic Lyme Disease > Fibromyalgia > Diet and Cancer > Vaccination and autism > ???? and Alzheimer's > Chronic fatigue syndrome > Environmental sensitivity syndrome > > First of all, I would like to recruit this list to identify other issues where at least one of us Global Warming Believers departs from some other equally strong scientific consensus. Unfortunately, I don't know the consensus in most of those categories. I can wander off what my oncologist claims about diet and cancer, though. But my oncologist was trained as a DO, which puts her credentials at risk in some people's eyes: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html So, the fact that she takes the very conservative position that we just don't know enough about the ties between diet and (my type of) cancer, is interesting to me. > AND then, I would like to have a discussion concerning why and when we feel qualified to depart from a scientific consensus. I feel qualified to depart from what she tells me because of my personal experience about what has worked for me during chemo and the course of my experimental drug. But these departures do _not_ extend (by induction) to any general population. I can only say that what she tried failed and what I tried worked. Granted, this is not about diet and cancer so much as diet and cancer intervention. I can, however, proceed by deduction and suggest that I'm probably not an entirely unique subject. There are probably some generalizations that could be made and I can explore the space of conclusions to speculate on what those might be. To be concrete, here's an example. About 2 cycles into my treatment, I began to experience a "welling up" in my throat, especially when bending over or going upside down on my inversion table. She tentatively diagnosed it as GERD. She put me on proton pump inhibitors and when they didn't work, motility promoters. Neither worked. But I discovered that i nsoluble fiber _did_ work. She doubts me to this day. And, to be honest, I often doubt myself. Another issue where I disagree with her is on the subject of fasting. There are these somewhat controversial papers that indicate medium-term fasting (more than 48 hours) assists the therapy in triggering apoptosis (good cell death that minimizes free toxins) and reducing necrosis (bad cell death where toxins roam a bit more freely). She maintains that people on chemo need to eat in order to sustain themselves in the face of the poison. I maintain that as long as we're poisoning ourselves anyway, why not do a proper job of it? -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Hi Nick, Sorry for not responding sooner. Richard Lindzen is pretty well regarded among the climate change "skeptics." Here's a link to a recent talk of his: Shawn On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Nick Thompson <[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: Good climate change skeptics
|
|
Dear Nick, Hello from the front lines of global climate change in Barrow, Alaska, where I had an incredible meeting today with Inupiat leader Rosemary Pilchuck, the Erin Brockovitch of Alaska. I am so thankful that the activists we are gathering for our big ECOS conference in Santa Fe next fall are DOING SOMETHING about climate change, instead of just talking about it. And by the way. There is indeed a choir, but it's not singing together--the pop-up movements are not connected. And we're DOING SOMETHING about that! On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Shawn Barr <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA [hidden email] mobile: (303) 859-5609 skype: merlelefkoff ============================================================ 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |