Friam

Pragmaticism and puritanism

Classic

List

Threaded

23 messages Options

thompnickson2

Pragmaticism and puritanism

Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I want to thank you all for giving me a place to think “out loud” about these matters. You see, as a behaviorist, out loud is the only way I know how to think.

I was struck by the relation between two words of critique employed in Glen’s and Dave’s most recent posts: Elitist! And Puritan! What is remarkable to me is that they really do go together. Elitist points to my privileging science as a method for determining the truth. Puritan points to my reluctance to risk future satisfaction for present pleasure. What they share is an [Apollonian?} focus on the long run. Really the two boil down to the same thing … that the apparent non-randomness of past events is evidence that in some sense, and to some degree, the future can be counted on, that a careful plan will, on average and with many exceptions, lead to a better result than a impulsive reaction. “Science” is just a name for practices of knowledge-gathering that have a likelihood to produce expectations of experience that will endure. So, my privileging of science, in general, and expertise in particular is recursive: I believe in science because in my enduring experience science produces expectations that endure the test of time. I.e, scientific behavior is somewhat more likely to work out in the long run than non scientific behavior, despite MANY exceptions. Puritan (sez I) is just a name for somebody whose confidence that there IS a future is sufficient to justify relinquishing short term pleasure for the enjoyment of the long run.

No, I am not sure that Dave and Glen would disagree with any of this. That ambiguity is what makes this argument so tantalizing for me. Dave MIGHT be saying that the evidence suggests that to be consistent, I and all other elitist puritans SHOULD be taking psychedelics because the evidence shows that the knowledge gained thereby will pass the test of time and that the long term satisfaction I will gain from having taken them will cancel out any short term ill-ease that I experience. In short, are you sharing my elitist puritanism but challenging my understanding of its implications, or are you disagreeing with my elitist puritanism, and offering a different, non-pragmaticist, approach to life. Or both? Or neither?

I am sure you both will say that you have explained this to me a dozen time, and why on earth would you repeat yourselves now.

Perhaps you have brought me to a teachable moment?

By the way, Dave. What probably would happen if you showed up at Friam under the influence is that I would ask you to quarantine yourself for two weeks. Last night AP revealed that the Trump administration had vetoed a CDC recommendation that all elderly persons be discouraged from getting on airplanes for the foreseeable future. Elderly, to my surprise, seems to mean “over 60”.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

Prof David West

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

Nick,

Dave agrees with your first paragraph, with a minor nuance — when I said "we" are being elitist, the pronoun refers not to Nick but to those that Nick is channeling, i.e. the 'scientific community."

Now as to the second paragraph: I would never say that anyone should take psychedelics any more than I would say they should spend a year sailing on the Beagle.

I am a puritan — probably everyone is, but with regard different things. I won't use recreational drugs (except alcohol to which I seem to be immune), I have never used heroin or opiates (both dangers and benefits are short term and disproportionate on the risk side). I conform to a set of behavioral rules but never assert that any of them are universal and should be observed by others.

I do think you are making a fundamental error when you apply your puritan/Apollonian perspective to the psychedelic drug case. It is not a question of trading "short term pleasure" for "enjoyment in the long run." I am asserting that the "knowledge to be gained" is worth the "short term effort" required. Although there is certainly some kind of "pleasure/satisfaction" from spending long hours in the lab hunched over the microscope, or cleaning out the monkey cages that may translate the pleasure of standing on a stage in Stockholm sometime in the future. But, normally we see a spectrum of effort now - knowledge reward later. It is the latter I am asserting vis-a-vis hallucinogen use.

I sure as hell hope that I am not an elitist. But I must confess that I am hyper-sensitive to elitism perceived in others. That sensitivity is deeply personal and pervades almost every aspect of life. It has been expressed on this list before - with regard politics, "Truth," and the current conversation about drugs.

When I assert that "science is only useful for solving the easy problems," that is not elitism, but arrogance talking.

I would say — an I am pretty sure you would disagree with me — that there are no grounds that justify the privilege accorded to "science and scientific method." And, the corollary, there is no justification for science to dismiss a body of investigation simply because the subject matter or the approach to understanding runs contrary to orthodoxy. I believe you would disagree with me, because your personal experiences has demonstrated, to you, apparent justifications for your privileging of science.

I began this conversation with a question: I have three or four "piles of experience/knowledge; A, B, C, and D. Can Peirce and his method help me find a way to integrate, make-sense-of-as-a-whole, all the piles? And the answer seems to be, no. No, because piles B,C, and D are irrelevant because they are not "science." This position raises my elitism hackles.

I am becoming convinced that hermetic (and hermeneutic), mystical Taoist-Buddhist-Sufic, and psychedelic, approaches will provide means for such an integration and that "science" will be a special case much like Newtonian physics is a special case.

davew

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, at 7:03 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I want to thank you all for giving me a place to think “out loud” about these matters. You see, as a behaviorist, out loud is the only way I know how to think.

I was struck by the relation between two words of critique employed in Glen’s and Dave’s most recent posts: Elitist! And Puritan! What is remarkable to me is that they really do go together. Elitist points to my privileging science as a method for determining the truth. Puritan points to my reluctance to risk future satisfaction for present pleasure. What they share is an [Apollonian?} focus on the long run. Really the two boil down to the same thing … that the apparent non-randomness of past events is evidence that in some sense, and to some degree, the future can be counted on, that a careful plan will, on average and with many exceptions, lead to a better result than a impulsive reaction. “Science” is just a name for practices of knowledge-gathering that have a likelihood to produce expectations of experience that will endure. So, my privileging of science, in general, and expertise in particular is recursive: I believe in science because in my enduring experience science produces expectations that endure the test of time. I.e, scientific behavior is somewhat more likely to work out in the long run than non scientific behavior, despite MANY exceptions. Puritan (sez I) is just a name for somebody whose confidence that there IS a future is sufficient to justify relinquishing short term pleasure for the enjoyment of the long run.

No, I am not sure that Dave and Glen would disagree with any of this. That ambiguity is what makes this argument so tantalizing for me. Dave MIGHT be saying that the evidence suggests that to be consistent, I and all other elitist puritans SHOULD be taking psychedelics because the evidence shows that the knowledge gained thereby will pass the test of time and that the long term satisfaction I will gain from having taken them will cancel out any short term ill-ease that I experience. In short, are you sharing my elitist puritanism but challenging my understanding of its implications, or are you disagreeing with my elitist puritanism, and offering a different, non-pragmaticist, approach to life. Or both? Or neither?

I am sure you both will say that you have explained this to me a dozen time, and why on earth would you repeat yourselves now.

Perhaps you have brought me to a teachable moment?

By the way, Dave. What probably would happen if you showed up at Friam under the influence is that I would ask you to quarantine yourself for two weeks. Last night AP revealed that the Trump administration had vetoed a CDC recommendation that all elderly persons be discouraged from getting on airplanes for the foreseeable future. Elderly, to my surprise, seems to mean “over 60”.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Well, I definitely privilege scientific ways of knowing more than any other way of knowing [†]. So I don't disagree with what you *say*. But it seems to me that *you* don't privilege scientific knowledge in these discussions. You talk a LOT about philosophy and metaphysics, but not much about scientific results. The recent 'round and 'round about "sledgehammers", Peirce's metaphysics, or whatnot, largely ignoring any attempts to discuss psychedelic research and medicine, seems to imply that you do not privilege science.

So, maybe if I pull out the old saw again? If results published in peer-reviewed literature and clinical trial data will NOT convince you that psychedelics can be used as medicine, then what WOULD convince you? If nothing will ever convince you, then you certainly do NOT privilege science.

[†] It ain't perfect; and it ain't the only kind of knowledge. But it's the best we have.

On 3/10/20 11:03 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> No, I am not sure that Dave and Glen would disagree with any of this.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Prof David West

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

May I add — what would convince you that psychedelic experiences are worth of the same kind of investigation as "ordinary" experiences.

davew

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 3:18 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> Well, I definitely privilege scientific ways of knowing more than any
> other way of knowing [†]. So I don't disagree with what you *say*. But
> it seems to me that *you* don't privilege scientific knowledge in these
> discussions. You talk a LOT about philosophy and metaphysics, but not
> much about scientific results. The recent 'round and 'round about
> "sledgehammers", Peirce's metaphysics, or whatnot, largely ignoring any
> attempts to discuss psychedelic research and medicine, seems to imply
> that you do not privilege science.
>
> So, maybe if I pull out the old saw again? If results published in
> peer-reviewed literature and clinical trial data will NOT convince you
> that psychedelics can be used as medicine, then what WOULD convince
> you? If nothing will ever convince you, then you certainly do NOT
> privilege science.
>
>
> [†] It ain't perfect; and it ain't the only kind of knowledge. But it's
> the best we have.
>
> On 3/10/20 11:03 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> > No, I am not sure that Dave and Glen would disagree with any of this.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> 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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

thompnickson2

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen,

There is a LOT in your messages that I like, agree with, and/or want to think more about before I respond. First, tho, let me clarify my position.

I stipulate that IF the experiences produced by psychedelics are sciencible, then they are science. What we call "SCIENCE" is just a formalization and distillation of broader patterns of analysis and exploration that have proven to be more successful, "i.e., science". It is that broader pattern for which I claim privilege. If there are patterns in experience, then this is the way to find them. If this is NOT the way to find patterns in experience, then it is not science. To the extent that the prejudices and practices of any group of scientists, myself included, are inconsistent with science, as understood above, they are probably NOT science, no matter who should claim otherwise.

I hope that you stipulate that the kind of verbal analysis and metaphorical "play" that we have been engaging in during this discussion is a PART of what people do when they do good science. For my part, I stipulate that to pursue these activities to the exclusion of gathering data, either directly or indirectly, is to fetishize philosophy and make a mockery of science. Bit -- to allow myself a bit of agism-- it's what old people can do, or, perhaps, less grandiosely, it's what I can do right now. And as long as I am tied to a community of inquiry -- that would be the rest of you, right -- I feel that I am pursuing science while doing it. To the extent that I have fended off empirical data, I am a bad old bugger and should be horsewhipped. In my defense, however, before you horsewhip me, let me say that I have tried to get clear, before I process the data on what happens when I take drugs, on the question of how that information is going to be worked into our scientific discussion, given that I perceive that there is some risk involved.

On another matter, Glen, how are you doing with, what ate you doing about, the covid19?. A couple of weeks ago, I tried to get my wife to pack up and make a run for the pristine isolation of the Mosquito Infested Swamp, pleading great age and prior conditions. Nothin' doin'. So, now, I think, we are stuck. I can think of worse places to be stuck than santa fe, but I hate feeling stuck, even in paradise.

Nick

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 8:18 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pragmaticism and puritanism

Well, I definitely privilege scientific ways of knowing more than any other way of knowing [†]. So I don't disagree with what you *say*. But it seems to me that *you* don't privilege scientific knowledge in these discussions. You talk a LOT about philosophy and metaphysics, but not much about scientific results. The recent 'round and 'round about "sledgehammers", Peirce's metaphysics, or whatnot, largely ignoring any attempts to discuss psychedelic research and medicine, seems to imply that you do not privilege science.

So, maybe if I pull out the old saw again? If results published in peer-reviewed literature and clinical trial data will NOT convince you that psychedelics can be used as medicine, then what WOULD convince you? If nothing will ever convince you, then you certainly do NOT privilege science.

[†] It ain't perfect; and it ain't the only kind of knowledge. But it's the best we have.

On 3/10/20 11:03 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> No, I am not sure that Dave and Glen would disagree with any of this.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

thompnickson2

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Hi Dave,

Well, at the very least, the kind of information that would convince me to take a somewhat dodgy drug to fend off covid19.

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:05 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pragmaticism and puritanism

May I add — what would convince you that psychedelic experiences are worth of the same kind of investigation as "ordinary" experiences.

davew

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 3:18 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> Well, I definitely privilege scientific ways of knowing more than any
> other way of knowing [†]. So I don't disagree with what you *say*. But
> it seems to me that *you* don't privilege scientific knowledge in
> these discussions. You talk a LOT about philosophy and metaphysics,
> but not much about scientific results. The recent 'round and 'round
> about "sledgehammers", Peirce's metaphysics, or whatnot, largely
> ignoring any attempts to discuss psychedelic research and medicine,
> seems to imply that you do not privilege science.
>
> So, maybe if I pull out the old saw again? If results published in
> peer-reviewed literature and clinical trial data will NOT convince you
> that psychedelics can be used as medicine, then what WOULD convince
> you? If nothing will ever convince you, then you certainly do NOT
> privilege science.
>
>
> [†] It ain't perfect; and it ain't the only kind of knowledge. But
> it's the best we have.
>
> On 3/10/20 11:03 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> > No, I am not sure that Dave and Glen would disagree with any of this.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> 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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

There was a psychoanalytic institute in Pittsburgh. There are very few cities that have one: Boston, NY, Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, Denver, Atlanta. San Francisco, and maybe a few others. There was a philosophy professor at Pitt (my PhD Alma Mater) named Adolph Grunbaum who wrote books and papers with titles like "Why Psychoanalysis is not Scientific". I asked senior Psychoanalyst what the thought of Grunbaum's work. He said that it makes as much sense to ask whether science should be more psychoanalytic as it does to ask whether psychoanalysis should be more scientific. This surprised me because all during my education the people was around seemed to think that science was the royal road to the truth (elitists).

My conclusion was that for some people science has that meaning; for others it's religion, for others it's psychoanalysis, for others...

Why is one view more valid than the others? Because science (actually with engineering) has made it possible to send probes to Neptune? Depends on your goals.

Adolph Grunbaum's brother was a Psychoanalyst, for what it's worth.

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 10:29 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Dave,

Well, at the very least, the kind of information that would convince me to take a somewhat dodgy drug to fend off covid19.

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:05 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pragmaticism and puritanism

May I add — what would convince you that psychedelic experiences are worth of the same kind of investigation as "ordinary" experiences.

davew

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 3:18 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Well, I definitely privilege scientific ways of knowing more than any
> other way of knowing [†]. So I don't disagree with what you *say*. But
> it seems to me that *you* don't privilege scientific knowledge in
> these discussions. You talk a LOT about philosophy and metaphysics,
> but not much about scientific results. The recent 'round and 'round
> about "sledgehammers", Peirce's metaphysics, or whatnot, largely
> ignoring any attempts to discuss psychedelic research and medicine,
> seems to imply that you do not privilege science.
>
> So, maybe if I pull out the old saw again? If results published in
> peer-reviewed literature and clinical trial data will NOT convince you
> that psychedelics can be used as medicine, then what WOULD convince
> you? If nothing will ever convince you, then you certainly do NOT
> privilege science.
>
>
> [†] It ain't perfect; and it ain't the only kind of knowledge. But
> it's the best we have.
>
> On 3/10/20 11:03 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> > No, I am not sure that Dave and Glen would disagree with any of this.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> 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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Temporary refrigeration for some FRIAM members? Just until it all blows over?

On 3/11/20, 9:30 AM, "Friam on behalf of [hidden email]" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Dave,

Well, at the very least, the kind of information that would convince me to take a somewhat dodgy drug to fend off covid19.

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:05 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pragmaticism and puritanism

May I add — what would convince you that psychedelic experiences are worth of the same kind of investigation as "ordinary" experiences.

davew

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 3:18 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Well, I definitely privilege scientific ways of knowing more than any
> other way of knowing [†]. So I don't disagree with what you *say*. But
> it seems to me that *you* don't privilege scientific knowledge in
> these discussions. You talk a LOT about philosophy and metaphysics,
> but not much about scientific results. The recent 'round and 'round
> about "sledgehammers", Peirce's metaphysics, or whatnot, largely
> ignoring any attempts to discuss psychedelic research and medicine,
> seems to imply that you do not privilege science.
>
> So, maybe if I pull out the old saw again? If results published in
> peer-reviewed literature and clinical trial data will NOT convince you
> that psychedelics can be used as medicine, then what WOULD convince
> you? If nothing will ever convince you, then you certainly do NOT
> privilege science.
>
>
> [†] It ain't perfect; and it ain't the only kind of knowledge. But
> it's the best we have.
>
> On 3/10/20 11:03 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> > No, I am not sure that Dave and Glen would disagree with any of this.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> 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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

Nick just sent me a similar question offline. A compromise might be a) if you're sneezing and coughing don't come. b) no touching such as handshakes. c) no handing cellphones to others to share e.g. photos. d) stay home if attendance makes you anxious e) similar common sense policies.

Comments?

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 11:01 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Temporary refrigeration for some FRIAM members? Just until it all blows over?

On 3/11/20, 9:30 AM, "Friam on behalf of [hidden email]" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Dave,

Well, at the very least, the kind of information that would convince me to take a somewhat dodgy drug to fend off covid19.

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:05 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pragmaticism and puritanism

May I add — what would convince you that psychedelic experiences are worth of the same kind of investigation as "ordinary" experiences.

davew

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 3:18 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Well, I definitely privilege scientific ways of knowing more than any
> other way of knowing [†]. So I don't disagree with what you *say*. But
> it seems to me that *you* don't privilege scientific knowledge in
> these discussions. You talk a LOT about philosophy and metaphysics,
> but not much about scientific results. The recent 'round and 'round
> about "sledgehammers", Peirce's metaphysics, or whatnot, largely
> ignoring any attempts to discuss psychedelic research and medicine,
> seems to imply that you do not privilege science.
>
> So, maybe if I pull out the old saw again? If results published in
> peer-reviewed literature and clinical trial data will NOT convince you
> that psychedelics can be used as medicine, then what WOULD convince
> you? If nothing will ever convince you, then you certainly do NOT
> privilege science.
>
>
> [†] It ain't perfect; and it ain't the only kind of knowledge. But
> it's the best we have.
>
> On 3/10/20 11:03 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> > No, I am not sure that Dave and Glen would disagree with any of this.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> 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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

First, I don't disagree fundamentally with your definition of science.

Second, I *disagree* that the kind of "verbal analysis and metaphorical 'play'" you and Dave have been doing is part of what people do when they do good science. What you've been doing is a part of being human, yes. And humans do science. So, fine. But correlation is not causation. These types of conversations have NOT been demonstrated as necessary for good science. My guess is that *most* scientists never engage in this sort of conversation ... heck, I'd guess most people never engage in this sort of conversation. I've had lots of conversations like these while *drinking* after the day is done (either working with scientists or at conferences). But it's not at all obvious that there's a causal connection between having these conversations and doing good work. Many of my scientist friends do excellent work, but bail on the pub-philosophy because they want to go home to their spouses and kids ... good science sans conversations about unicorns. Now, you could make an argument that this type of conversation helps facilitate the science ... or makes the science better, more complete, more efficient, or whatever. But, I'd suggest, to be credible, you'd have to eat your own dog food and *demonstrate* that these types of conversations do that.

Third, we're all OK up here re: the virus. Renee', being a nurse, has access to information that seems a little more sedate and professional than I've seen from other sources. I'm at risk because my immune system is compromised. I'll catch it, I'm sure, because I'm not going to change my behavior at all. I eat out a lot ... and I eat mostly salad, carrying whatever nastiness was growing on the hands of all the people who brought it from the dirt to my table. But if my cancer taught me anything, it's that death is nothing to be afraid of. I'm more worried about my neighbors. They're so afraid ... and they don't even seem to know what they're afraid of. So I'm doing my best to talk about hand washing and virus evolution every chance I get.

On 3/11/20 9:28 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> I stipulate that IF the experiences produced by psychedelics are sciencible, then they are science. What we call "SCIENCE" is just a formalization and distillation of broader patterns of analysis and exploration that have proven to be more successful, "i.e., science". It is that broader pattern for which I claim privilege. If there are patterns in experience, then this is the way to find them. If this is NOT the way to find patterns in experience, then it is not science. To the extent that the prejudices and practices of any group of scientists, myself included, are inconsistent with science, as understood above, they are probably NOT science, no matter who should claim otherwise.
>
> I hope that you stipulate that the kind of verbal analysis and metaphorical "play" that we have been engaging in during this discussion is a PART of what people do when they do good science. For my part, I stipulate that to pursue these activities to the exclusion of gathering data, either directly or indirectly, is to fetishize philosophy and make a mockery of science. Bit -- to allow myself a bit of agism-- it's what old people can do, or, perhaps, less grandiosely, it's what I can do right now. And as long as I am tied to a community of inquiry -- that would be the rest of you, right -- I feel that I am pursuing science while doing it. To the extent that I have fended off empirical data, I am a bad old bugger and should be horsewhipped. In my defense, however, before you horsewhip me, let me say that I have tried to get clear, before I process the data on what happens when I take drugs, on the question of how that information is going to be worked into our scientific discussion, given that I perceive that there is some risk involved.
>
> On another matter, Glen, how are you doing with, what ate you doing about, the covid19?. A couple of weeks ago, I tried to get my wife to pack up and make a run for the pristine isolation of the Mosquito Infested Swamp, pleading great age and prior conditions. Nothin' doin'. So, now, I think, we are stuck. I can think of worse places to be stuck than santa fe, but I hate feeling stuck, even in paradise.

--
☣ uǝlƃ
============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Marcus,

Actually, what my REASON tells me, is that the best thing for me individually, as an octogenarian, would be to find somebody with the virus and hug them. The hope would be that I would get the best possible medical care BEFORE the crisis hits generally and then whatever is going to happen to me would have already have happened by the time the virus becomes epidemic in Santa Fe. To make such a strategy ethical, I would need to go immediately from the hug to a hospital room fool of people in hazmat suits. I am not sure that such exists, yet, here in Santa Fe

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 11:01 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pragmaticism and puritanism

Temporary refrigeration for some FRIAM members? Just until it all blows over?

On 3/11/20, 9:30 AM, "Friam on behalf of [hidden email]" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Dave,

Well, at the very least, the kind of information that would convince me to take a somewhat dodgy drug to fend off covid19.

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:05 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pragmaticism and puritanism

May I add — what would convince you that psychedelic experiences are worth of the same kind of investigation as "ordinary" experiences.

davew

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 3:18 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Well, I definitely privilege scientific ways of knowing more than any
> other way of knowing [†]. So I don't disagree with what you *say*. But
> it seems to me that *you* don't privilege scientific knowledge in
> these discussions. You talk a LOT about philosophy and metaphysics,
> but not much about scientific results. The recent 'round and 'round
> about "sledgehammers", Peirce's metaphysics, or whatnot, largely
> ignoring any attempts to discuss psychedelic research and medicine,
> seems to imply that you do not privilege science.
>
> So, maybe if I pull out the old saw again? If results published in
> peer-reviewed literature and clinical trial data will NOT convince you
> that psychedelics can be used as medicine, then what WOULD convince
> you? If nothing will ever convince you, then you certainly do NOT
> privilege science.
>
>
> [†] It ain't perfect; and it ain't the only kind of knowledge. But
> it's the best we have.
>
> On 3/10/20 11:03 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> > No, I am not sure that Dave and Glen would disagree with any of this.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> 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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Scientific knowledge is more valid [†] because it travels across space and time better than other forms of knowledge.

I'd rank "artisanal knowledge" a close second. The apprentice, journey, master infrastructure worked pretty well, I think. But "financial knowledge" is a close competitor. I sometimes make the argument that the merchant class is primarily responsible for peace on earth because projection from the high-dimensional space of human relations down to a one-dimensional currency helps everyone get along ... just enough to do business with one another.

[†] Validity, in contrast with soundness. All types of knowledge are sound within their scope, where the scope is exogenous. But validity sets its own scope, like closure under an operator. Some may say validity is boolean, where a small system is valid or invalid and a large system is valid or invalid. But I'd argue that a smaller system is less valid than a larger system. A *universal* system will be the *most* valid. Or if that bugs you, it's easy to say, instead, that a valid but so small as to be useless system is *technically* valid, but nobody cares. What we want is a very large system that's valid.

On 3/11/20 10:00 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Why is one view more valid than the others? Because science (actually with engineering) has made it possible to send probes to Neptune? Depends on your goals.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

Reminds me of a conversation I had with the Chair of the Philosophy Department at Carnegie Mellon. I told him that Bertrand Russell fell off his bicycle when he realized that Anselm's proof of the existence of God is valid. Wilfried Sieg (a German) looked concerned but after a few moments he said with relief, "Ah, valid but not sound!" Is that consistent with what you said?

---
Frank C. Wimberly
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 11:44 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Scientific knowledge is more valid [†] because it travels across space and time better than other forms of knowledge.

I'd rank "artisanal knowledge" a close second. The apprentice, journey, master infrastructure worked pretty well, I think. But "financial knowledge" is a close competitor. I sometimes make the argument that the merchant class is primarily responsible for peace on earth because projection from the high-dimensional space of human relations down to a one-dimensional currency helps everyone get along ... just enough to do business with one another.

[†] Validity, in contrast with soundness. All types of knowledge are sound within their scope, where the scope is exogenous. But validity sets its own scope, like closure under an operator. Some may say validity is boolean, where a small system is valid or invalid and a large system is valid or invalid. But I'd argue that a smaller system is less valid than a larger system. A *universal* system will be the *most* valid. Or if that bugs you, it's easy to say, instead, that a valid but so small as to be useless system is *technically* valid, but nobody cares. What we want is a very large system that's valid.

On 3/11/20 10:00 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Why is one view more valid than the others? Because science (actually with engineering) has made it possible to send probes to Neptune? Depends on your goals.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

Ha! Yes, consistent *enough*, anyway! >8^D I'd prefer a story that was more consistent, but I'll settle for a little bit consistent.

On 3/11/20 10:51 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Reminds me of a conversation I had with the Chair of the Philosophy Department at Carnegie Mellon. I told him that Bertrand Russell fell off his bicycle when he realized that Anselm's proof of the existence of God is valid. Wilfried Sieg (a German) looked concerned but after a few moments he said with relief, "Ah, valid but not sound!" Is that consistent with what you said?

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen,

See Larding re science.

Re Renee: If she were the Friam Health Officer, would she suspend our weekly meeting of septuagenarians in a college dining hall? For her information, there are exactly zero diagnosed cases of the virus in NM at the moment.

I agree with you. It’s certainly not death I fear. Its that moment when Penny and I are crawling to the front door to gnaw at boxes of sugar frosted flakes that the fire department has left at our door. That moment I fear.

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 11:23 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pragmaticism and puritanism

First, I don't disagree fundamentally with your definition of science.

Second, I *disagree* that the kind of "verbal analysis and metaphorical 'play'" you and Dave have been doing is part of what people do when they do good science. What you've been doing is a part of being human, yes. And humans do science. So, fine. But correlation is not causation. These types of conversations have NOT been demonstrated as necessary for good science. My guess is that *most* scientists never engage in this sort of conversation ... heck, I'd guess most people never engage in this sort of conversation. I've had lots of conversations like these while *drinking* after the day is done (either working with scientists or at conferences). But it's not at all obvious that there's a causal connection between having these conversations and doing good work. Many of my scientist friends do excellent work, but bail on the pub-philosophy because they want to go home to their spouses and kids ... good science sans conversations about unicorns. Now, you could make an argument that this type of conversation helps facilitate the science ... or makes the science better, more complete, more efficient, or whatever. But, I'd suggest, to be credible, you'd have to eat your own dog food and *demonstrate* that these types of conversations do that.

[NST===>] No, no, Glen. Be fair. That’s OUR dogfood I would be eating. So the question would be, Does a science move more slowly or more rapidly toward convergence on enduring understandings with or without logical understandings? Can philosophers point to cases where they have clearly contributed to development and/or dissemination of empirical knowledge? I know that many philosophers of science have been dubious about it. . I would quickly cite Peirce as an example given that his focus on the practicial consequences of concepts (their consequences in practice) helped to move behavioral sciences on during subsequent 50 years. Somebody must of made that case. I will shake some bushes.

Third, we're all OK up here re: the virus. Renee', being a nurse, has access to information that seems a little more sedate and professional than I've seen from other sources. I'm at risk because my immune system is compromised. I'll catch it, I'm sure, because I'm not going to change my behavior at all. I eat out a lot ... and I eat mostly salad, carrying whatever nastiness was growing on the hands of all the people who brought it from the dirt to my table. But if my cancer taught me anything, it's that death is nothing to be afraid of. I'm more worried about my neighbors. They're so afraid ... and they don't even seem to know what they're afraid of. So I'm doing my best to talk about hand washing and virus evolution every chance I get.

On 3/11/20 9:28 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> I stipulate that IF the experiences produced by psychedelics are sciencible, then they are science. What we call "SCIENCE" is just a formalization and distillation of broader patterns of analysis and exploration that have proven to be more successful, "i.e., science". It is that broader pattern for which I claim privilege. If there are patterns in experience, then this is the way to find them. If this is NOT the way to find patterns in experience, then it is not science. To the extent that the prejudices and practices of any group of scientists, myself included, are inconsistent with science, as understood above, they are probably NOT science, no matter who should claim otherwise.

> I hope that you stipulate that the kind of verbal analysis and metaphorical "play" that we have been engaging in during this discussion is a PART of what people do when they do good science. For my part, I stipulate that to pursue these activities to the exclusion of gathering data, either directly or indirectly, is to fetishize philosophy and make a mockery of science. Bit -- to allow myself a bit of agism-- it's what old people can do, or, perhaps, less grandiosely, it's what I can do right now. And as long as I am tied to a community of inquiry -- that would be the rest of you, right -- I feel that I am pursuing science while doing it. To the extent that I have fended off empirical data, I am a bad old bugger and should be horsewhipped. In my defense, however, before you horsewhip me, let me say that I have tried to get clear, before I process the data on what happens when I take drugs, on the question of how that information is going to be worked into our scientific discussion, given that I perceive that there is some risk involved.

> On another matter, Glen, how are you doing with, what ate you doing about, the covid19?. A couple of weeks ago, I tried to get my wife to pack up and make a run for the pristine isolation of the Mosquito Infested Swamp, pleading great age and prior conditions. Nothin' doin'. So, now, I think, we are stuck. I can think of worse places to be stuck than santa fe, but I hate feeling stuck, even in paradise.

☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================

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

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

I would not count on just one dangerous serotype of SARS-CoV-2. The L type that is currently more dangerous is not the ancestral form, which suggests it is adapting to humans. It is a big virus (~28k kilobases) meaning it has more degrees of freedom to adapt. The recent study from China (Tang, et. al) only looked at a 103 sequences. It could evolve in many different directions (and it may have already done so) if hundreds of thousands of hosts and social interventions are forcing it to; more serotypes could emerge and your immunity could be short lived.

On 3/11/20, 10:36 AM, "Friam on behalf of [hidden email]" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus,

Actually, what my REASON tells me, is that the best thing for me individually, as an octogenarian, would be to find somebody with the virus and hug them. The hope would be that I would get the best possible medical care BEFORE the crisis hits generally and then whatever is going to happen to me would have already have happened by the time the virus becomes epidemic in Santa Fe. To make such a strategy ethical, I would need to go immediately from the hug to a hospital room fool of people in hazmat suits. I am not sure that such exists, yet, here in Santa Fe

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 11:01 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pragmaticism and puritanism

Temporary refrigeration for some FRIAM members? Just until it all blows over?

On 3/11/20, 9:30 AM, "Friam on behalf of [hidden email]" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Dave,

Well, at the very least, the kind of information that would convince me to take a somewhat dodgy drug to fend off covid19.

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:05 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pragmaticism and puritanism

May I add — what would convince you that psychedelic experiences are worth of the same kind of investigation as "ordinary" experiences.

davew

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 3:18 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Well, I definitely privilege scientific ways of knowing more than any
> other way of knowing [†]. So I don't disagree with what you *say*. But
> it seems to me that *you* don't privilege scientific knowledge in
> these discussions. You talk a LOT about philosophy and metaphysics,
> but not much about scientific results. The recent 'round and 'round
> about "sledgehammers", Peirce's metaphysics, or whatnot, largely
> ignoring any attempts to discuss psychedelic research and medicine,
> seems to imply that you do not privilege science.
>
> So, maybe if I pull out the old saw again? If results published in
> peer-reviewed literature and clinical trial data will NOT convince you
> that psychedelics can be used as medicine, then what WOULD convince
> you? If nothing will ever convince you, then you certainly do NOT
> privilege science.
>
>
> [†] It ain't perfect; and it ain't the only kind of knowledge. But
> it's the best we have.
>
> On 3/10/20 11:03 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> > No, I am not sure that Dave and Glen would disagree with any of this.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> 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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

No. Go to the meeting. Follow Frank's advice. And stop at the store on the way home to buy some beans and rice.

I don't care at all about what philosophers might say about philosophers' contributions to science. That's the point. I need to see some *scientific* studies of whether conversations like this contribute to science. That's what I mean by eating your own dog food. If you claim to privilege science, then actually cite or do some science.

On 3/11/20 11:00 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Re Renee: If she were the Friam Health Officer, would she suspend our weekly meeting of septuagenarians in a college dining hall? For her information, there are exactly zero diagnosed cases of the virus in NM at the moment.
>
> I agree with you. It’s certainly not death I fear. Its that moment when Penny and I are crawling to the front door to gnaw at boxes of sugar frosted flakes that the fire department has left at our door. That moment I fear.
>
> [...]
>
> */[NST===>] No, no, Glen. Be fair. That’s OUR dogfood I would be eating. So the question would be, Does a science move more slowly or more rapidly toward convergence on enduring understandings with or without logical understandings? Can philosophers point to cases where they have clearly contributed to development and/or dissemination of empirical knowledge? I know that many philosophers of science have been dubious about it. . I would quickly cite Peirce as an example given that his focus on the practicial consequences of concepts (their consequences in practice) helped to move behavioral sciences on during subsequent 50 years. Somebody must of made that case. I will shake some bushes. /*

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

I tried to make this point at an earthquake preparedness meeting last night and failed miserably. Thanks for the Tang cite.

On 3/11/20 11:06 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I would not count on just one dangerous serotype of SARS-CoV-2. The L type that is currently more dangerous is not the ancestral form, which suggests it is adapting to humans. It is a big virus (~28k kilobases) meaning it has more degrees of freedom to adapt. The recent study from China (Tang, et. al) only looked at a 103 sequences. It could evolve in many different directions (and it may have already done so) if hundreds of thousands of hosts and social interventions are forcing it to; more serotypes could emerge and your immunity could be short lived.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

Maybe a DIYbio project is needed to deploy sequencing machines all over the place. It seems crazy the US is so backward on this, with so much technology available to do surveillance.

On 3/11/20, 11:20 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

I tried to make this point at an earthquake preparedness meeting last night and failed miserably. Thanks for the Tang cite.

On 3/11/20 11:06 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I would not count on just one dangerous serotype of SARS-CoV-2. The L type that is currently more dangerous is not the ancestral form, which suggests it is adapting to humans. It is a big virus (~28k kilobases) meaning it has more degrees of freedom to adapt. The recent study from China (Tang, et. al) only looked at a 103 sequences. It could evolve in many different directions (and it may have already done so) if hundreds of thousands of hosts and social interventions are forcing it to; more serotypes could emerge and your immunity could be short lived.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Pragmaticism and puritanism

https://www.google.com/search?q=personal+genome+machine&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJxu6tjJPoAhUWvJ4KHbYoA8oQ_AUoA3oECA0QBQ&biw=1608&bih=861

On 3/11/20 11:43 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Maybe a DIYbio project is needed to deploy sequencing machines all over the place. It seems crazy the US is so backward on this, with so much technology available to do surveillance.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen