Friam

Re: What to do with knowledge

Classic

List

Threaded

21 messages Options

Russ Abbott

Re: What to do with knowledge

The issue of what to do with knowledge is certainly not an easy one to resolve.

Let's assume that you discovered that human beings were built in such a way that a certain kind of virus would wipe most of us out. Let's also assume that you were the only one who knew that. What would you do?

Would you attempt to destroy that knowledge knowing how potentially deadly it is? If you did that, how would feel if a nihilistically inclined sociopath discovered the same thing a year later and set off the deadly viral chain reaction? Perhaps if you had informed someone and started to work on a defense, we would not have been so vulnerable to what turned out to be a surprise attack.

On the other hand, if you had informed people, perhaps the word would have gotten out and triggered a biological arms race.

I'm not claiming there are easy answers to these questions. But I do think it's important not to deny the nature of the universe. The premise of my thought experiment was that we were built with a certain kind of vulnerability. Not knowing about it is not necessarily the best way to proceed. But knowing about it may be dangerous as well. Sometimes there are no good options. But it is not an option simply to wish that the world were different. (Of course it is an option, but it doesn't make the world different.)

The same probably holds for nuclear weapons. Whether or not "science" discovered that matter could be converted into energy in what could be very destructive ways, the fact is that matter can be converted into energy in very destructive ways. It does no good to wish that this weren't the case or that no one would every find out about it. That's an act of denial about how the world is. And denial is not a good way to live.

-- Russ

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Ann Racuya-Robbins <[hidden email]> wrote:

--
Ann Racuya-Robbins
Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.com
"The theory of general relativity is a theory about the structure of nature. It is not noble. It is not evil. It is a theory." Russ Abbott
We cannot separate everything into clear categories and thus avoid the tragic consequences....Theories come about because people create them...their(people's) agency cannot be removed nor in the theories' consequnces.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What to do with knowledge

Russ Abbott wrote:
> Let's assume that you discovered that human beings were built in such
> a way that a certain kind of virus would wipe most of us out.
The killer 1918 Flu virus has been pieced together [1] and a synthetic
polio virus has been made too [2]. This will only get easier and I'm
sure the know-how will incrementally find its way into commercial
hardware/software systems. In the not so far off future I expect that
instantiating certain classes of synthetic proteins and assembling them
will involve not so much more as loading up a genome into a
sequence/protein editor, doing some simulations, and then doing a
build/run cycle. There are good reasons and strong market pressures to
have this technology be fast and reliable in order to develop therapies
for naturally-occurring bugs. Meanwhile, understanding what these
synthetic proteins actually could do will be difficult and expensive.
Unfortunately, sooner or later, this is a scenario that will tend to
invite organizations to the game that have `issues', but no issues at
all with the risk.
> On the other hand, if you had informed people, perhaps the word would
> have gotten out and triggered a biological arms race.
Yes.

[1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8103
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2122619.stm

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

James Steiner

Re: What to do with knowledge

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

I recall an amusing short-short story on that theme. It goes something
like this:

A scientist or government official or something tells his wife that a
terrible discovery that had been made--a discovery of some unique and
unlikely combination of readily available ingredients that could be
used to destroy the world. In response to her questions, he assures
her that the world is safe: Only a handful of people--those he
directly works with, his co-workers and friends at the lab, who come
over once a week with their spouses to play cards in their
basement--even know that such a thing is possible, never mind fully
knowing the actual ingredients, proportions and processes. Further,
all research records leading to the discovery have been destroyed, and
he and his colleagues are determined that the knowledge never be
exposed.No, he assures her, the world is safe.

At the next weekly card game hosted at their house, being convinced
that this knowledge is far too dangerous to exist, she poisons the lot
of them, thus protecting the world from harm.

~~James

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The issue of what to do with knowledge is certainly not an easy one to
> resolve.
>
> Let's assume that you discovered that human beings were built in such a way
> that a certain kind of virus would wipe most of us out. Let's also assume
> that you were the only one who knew that. What would you do?
>
> Would you attempt to destroy that knowledge knowing how potentially deadly
> it is? If you did that, how would feel if a nihilistically inclined
> sociopath discovered the same thing a year later and set off the deadly
> viral chain reaction? Perhaps if you had informed someone and started to
> work on a defense, we would not have been so vulnerable to what turned out
> to be a surprise attack.
>
> On the other hand, if you had informed people, perhaps the word would have
> gotten out and triggered a biological arms race.
>
> I'm not claiming there are easy answers to these questions. But I do think
> it's important not to deny the nature of the universe. The premise of my
> thought experiment was that we were built with a certain kind of
> vulnerability. Not knowing about it is not necessarily the best way to
> proceed. But knowing about it may be dangerous as well. Sometimes there are
> no good options. But it is not an option simply to wish that the world were
> different. (Of course it is an option, but it doesn't make the world
> different.)
>
> The same probably holds for nuclear weapons. Whether or not "science"
> discovered that matter could be converted into energy in what could be very
> destructive ways, the fact is that matter can be converted into energy in
> very destructive ways. It does no good to wish that this weren't the case
> or that no one would every find out about it. That's an act of denial about
> how the world is. And denial is not a good way to live.
>
> -- Russ
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Ann Racuya-Robbins <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> --
>> Ann Racuya-Robbins
>> Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.com
>>
>> "The theory of general relativity is a theory about the structure of
>> nature. It is not noble. It is not evil. It is a theory." Russ Abbott
>>
>> We cannot separate everything into clear categories and thus avoid the
>> tragic consequences....Theories come about because people create
>> them...their(people's) agency cannot be removed nor in the theories'
>> consequnces.

Owen Densmore

Re: What to do with knowledge

Administrator

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Bill Joy was ripped for his observation that new technologies are
almost certain to be misused, and suggested the knowledge be
guarded .. i.e. censored in some sense.
Why the future doesn't need us
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html

His later talk was better received:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bill_joy_muses_on_what_s_next.html

Most of the scientists who ripped him in his Stanford Talk that
resulted in the Wired article have moved much closer to his position.

-- Owen

On Jan 2, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

> Russ Abbott wrote:
>> Let's assume that you discovered that human beings were built in
>> such a way that a certain kind of virus would wipe most of us out.
> The killer 1918 Flu virus has been pieced together [1] and a
> synthetic polio virus has been made too [2]. This will only get
> easier and I'm sure the know-how will incrementally find its way
> into commercial hardware/software systems. In the not so far off
> future I expect that instantiating certain classes of synthetic
> proteins and assembling them will involve not so much more as
> loading up a genome into a sequence/protein editor, doing some
> simulations, and then doing a build/run cycle. There are good
> reasons and strong market pressures to have this technology be fast
> and reliable in order to develop therapies for naturally-occurring
> bugs. Meanwhile, understanding what these synthetic proteins
> actually could do will be difficult and expensive. Unfortunately,
> sooner or later, this is a scenario that will tend to invite
> organizations to the game that have `issues', but no issues at all
> with the risk.
>> On the other hand, if you had informed people, perhaps the word
>> would have gotten out and triggered a biological arms race.
> Yes.
>
> [1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8103
> [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2122619.stm
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Phil Henshaw-2

Re: What to do with knowledge

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

There’s a popular novel on much the same scenario, but in this case it’s about a poem that is fatal if distributed… “Lullaby” by Chuck Palahniuk My son devoured it of course…

Phil Henshaw

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 1:36 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Ann Racuya-Robbins <[hidden email]> wrote:

--
Ann Racuya-Robbins
Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.com

"The theory of general relativity is a theory about the structure of nature. It is not noble. It is not evil. It is a theory." Russ Abbott

We cannot separate everything into clear categories and thus avoid the tragic consequences....Theories come about because people create them...their(people's) agency cannot be removed nor in the theories' consequnces.

Phil Henshaw-2

Re: What to do with knowledge

In reply to this post by James Steiner

Or, what if multiplying cures was the fatal disease...??? Wouldn't that be
a killer!

Phil Henshaw

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of James Steiner
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 11:53 AM
> To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
>
> I recall an amusing short-short story on that theme. It goes something
> like this:
>
> A scientist or government official or something tells his wife that a
> terrible discovery that had been made--a discovery of some unique and
> unlikely combination of readily available ingredients that could be
> used to destroy the world. In response to her questions, he assures
> her that the world is safe: Only a handful of people--those he
> directly works with, his co-workers and friends at the lab, who come
> over once a week with their spouses to play cards in their
> basement--even know that such a thing is possible, never mind fully
> knowing the actual ingredients, proportions and processes. Further,
> all research records leading to the discovery have been destroyed, and
> he and his colleagues are determined that the knowledge never be
> exposed.No, he assures her, the world is safe.
>
> At the next weekly card game hosted at their house, being convinced
> that this knowledge is far too dangerous to exist, she poisons the lot
> of them, thus protecting the world from harm.
>
> ~~James
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > The issue of what to do with knowledge is certainly not an easy one
> to
> > resolve.
> >
> > Let's assume that you discovered that human beings were built in such
> a way
> > that a certain kind of virus would wipe most of us out. Let's also
> assume
> > that you were the only one who knew that. What would you do?
> >
> > Would you attempt to destroy that knowledge knowing how potentially
> deadly
> > it is? If you did that, how would feel if a nihilistically inclined
> > sociopath discovered the same thing a year later and set off the
> deadly
> > viral chain reaction? Perhaps if you had informed someone and
> started to
> > work on a defense, we would not have been so vulnerable to what
> turned out
> > to be a surprise attack.
> >
> > On the other hand, if you had informed people, perhaps the word would
> have
> > gotten out and triggered a biological arms race.
> >
> > I'm not claiming there are easy answers to these questions. But I
> do think
> > it's important not to deny the nature of the universe. The premise
> of my
> > thought experiment was that we were built with a certain kind of
> > vulnerability. Not knowing about it is not necessarily the best way
> to
> > proceed. But knowing about it may be dangerous as well. Sometimes
> there are
> > no good options. But it is not an option simply to wish that the
> world were
> > different. (Of course it is an option, but it doesn't make the world
> > different.)
> >
> > The same probably holds for nuclear weapons. Whether or not "science"
> > discovered that matter could be converted into energy in what could
> be very
> > destructive ways, the fact is that matter can be converted into
> energy in
> > very destructive ways. It does no good to wish that this weren't the
> case
> > or that no one would every find out about it. That's an act of denial
> about
> > how the world is. And denial is not a good way to live.
> >
> > -- Russ
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Ann Racuya-Robbins <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ann Racuya-Robbins
> >> Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.com
> >>
> >> "The theory of general relativity is a theory about the structure of
> >> nature. It is not noble. It is not evil. It is a theory." Russ
> Abbott
> >>
> >> We cannot separate everything into clear categories and thus avoid
> the
> >> tragic consequences....Theories come about because people create
> >> them...their(people's) agency cannot be removed nor in the theories'
> >> consequnces.
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What to do with knowledge

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Owen Densmore wrote:
> Bill Joy was ripped for his observation that new technologies are
> almost certain to be misused, and suggested the knowledge be guarded ..
For all of his reservations about the fragility of technology and the
limitations of human design, the Internet did happen. That came from
the heroic efforts of a relatively small cadre of engineers, who could
see so plainly what was needed. The implications over the last twenty
years for human communication have been profound and by in large good.
For example, the cognitive surplus in the post-television world and the
enormous economic and intangible benefits of that. Certainly by the
time there were viruses on the internet there were also people that
could disassemble and disable them.

I think the same will be true for robotics and genetic engineering.
The malevolent users of the technology will be relatively ignorant and
inexperienced compared to the creators of it. The creators will have
already witnessed and contemplated the many ways in which things can go
wrong.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Russ Abbott

Re: What to do with knowledge

It seems to me that the real problem is with nature.

The argument seems to go that knowledge about (dangerous possibility) phenomenon X might be put to bad use. Therefore we should destroy or at least control that knowledge.

I don't think that's completely off the mark. To the extent that we can control knowledge we may be able to develop a bit of a safety buffer for ourselves. I have no problem with a policy that attempts to minimize the spread of information about building nuclear weapons.

But the real problem isn't with knowledge about dangerous phenomenon X, it's with X itself.

Presumably there is nothing we can do so that X is not part of the world. We can't change nature so that E ≠ MC².

In other words, don't blame the messenger (science) for the message (the world is dangerous) and its corollary (someone who may misuse knowledge about that danger may find out).

-- Russ

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Owen Densmore wrote:

Bill Joy was ripped for his observation that new technologies are almost certain to be misused, and suggested the knowledge be guarded ..

For all of his reservations about the fragility of technology and the limitations of human design, the Internet did happen. That came from the heroic efforts of a relatively small cadre of engineers, who could see so plainly what was needed. The implications over the last twenty years for human communication have been profound and by in large good. For example, the cognitive surplus in the post-television world and the enormous economic and intangible benefits of that. Certainly by the time there were viruses on the internet there were also people that could disassemble and disable them.
I think the same will be true for robotics and genetic engineering. The malevolent users of the technology will be relatively ignorant and inexperienced compared to the creators of it. The creators will have already witnessed and contemplated the many ways in which things can go wrong.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What to do with knowledge

Russ Abbott wrote:
> The argument seems to go that knowledge about (dangerous possibility)
> phenomenon X might be put to bad use. Therefore we should destroy or
> at least control that knowledge.
>
> I don't think that's completely off the mark. To the extent that we
> can control knowledge we may be able to develop a bit of a safety
> buffer for ourselves.
Another approach is to think about what bad things could happen in
theory, and actively develop tools to detect and counter those things.
Things are a superset of people, so espionage can only go so far for
anticipating danger. It's dangerous if sealevels rise 10 feet, or
millions die in an epidemic, just as if jihadists try to blow up
important buildings..

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: What to do with knowledge

I believe this is an important but subtle topic that deserves much more
discussion.

I believe that the sfComplex should host a series of live discussions,
probably starting with a Panel presentation by a handful of people
representing differing but well-considered points of view.

I have been considering this since we opened our doors in June, but find
that it is a very difficult topic. Perhaps the most difficult is the
polarization that seems to come with it. I have a lot of strong
opinions on this subject, some of which I've begun to try to share
here. This thread (and the one it emerged from) have tapped a few of
the ideas and opinions that need to be discussed.

We would need a format and possibly a good moderator to help avoid the
many opportunities for spinning out.

Ideas, issues, topics are welcome.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Tom Johnson

Re: What to do with knowledge

To this end, I would suggest including Susan Oberlander, State Librarian. She has been supportive of some of our projects in the past and would, I'm sure, be glad to participate. For those of you who have not taken advantage of the NM State Library, I highly recommend the collection, the building and most of all those who work there. First-rate in all regards.

And for those who want a bit of brush-up on you online literature search skills, see:

http://tiny.cc/6EE7m

Magazines Online Webinar

<a href="javascript:void%20window.open('http://www.nmstatelibrary.org/index2.php?option=com_events&task=view_detail&agid=52&year=&month=&day=&Itemid=134&pop=1',%20'win2',%20'status=no,toolbar=no,scrollbars=yes,titlebar=no,menubar=no,resizable=yes,width=600,height=400,directories=no,location=no');" title="Print"> Print

Tuesday, January 06 2009, 10:00am - 11:00am

The State Library is pleased to offer follow-up training on Magazines Online -- the premiere database resource provided to all libraries in New Mexico. The training will be offered as a Webinar, which will take place on Tuesday, January 6, 2009 from 10:00 am to 11 am. Kurt Stovall of Gale/Cengage, the company that provides the databases in Magazines Online, will provide the training. The training is free and open to all libraries in New Mexico as well as any interested state employee. For further details, please click here.

--tj

On 1/2/09, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I believe this is an important but subtle topic that deserves much more discussion.

I believe that the sfComplex should host a series of live discussions, probably starting with a Panel presentation by a handful of people representing differing but well-considered points of view.

I have been considering this since we opened our doors in June, but find that it is a very difficult topic. Perhaps the most difficult is the polarization that seems to come with it. I have a lot of strong opinions on this subject, some of which I've begun to try to share here. This thread (and the one it emerged from) have tapped a few of the ideas and opinions that need to be discussed.

We would need a format and possibly a good moderator to help avoid the many opportunities for spinning out.

Ideas, issues, topics are welcome.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.friam.org

--
==========================================
J. T. Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
www.analyticjournalism.com
505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
http://www.jtjohnson.com [hidden email]

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the
existing model obsolete."
-- Buckminster Fuller
==========================================
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Pamela McCorduck

Re: What to do with knowledge

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

While I don't think knowledge is necessarily neutral, I'm surprised that in this group of complexity folks, nothing has been said about nonlinearity. For example, the topic of atomic fission is certainly scary to us (as it should be, must be) but a lot of the world relies on it for energy. We in the U.S. have been in an enviable position of being able to buy other kinds of energy, but as a Japanese man once said to me, how lucky for you to have that luxury. This is not an invitation to talk about energy, but rather to say that predicting the uses of scientific discoveries--and therefore suppressing them--is far from obvious.

PMcC

On Jan 2, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

I believe this is an important but subtle topic that deserves much more discussion.

I believe that the sfComplex should host a series of live discussions, probably starting with a Panel presentation by a handful of people representing differing but well-considered points of view.

I have been considering this since we opened our doors in June, but find that it is a very difficult topic. Perhaps the most difficult is the polarization that seems to come with it. I have a lot of strong opinions on this subject, some of which I've begun to try to share here. This thread (and the one it emerged from) have tapped a few of the ideas and opinions that need to be discussed.

We would need a format and possibly a good moderator to help avoid the many opportunities for spinning out.

Ideas, issues, topics are welcome.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Pamela McCorduck

[hidden email]

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What to do with knowledge

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Russ Abbott wrote:
> We can't change nature so that E ≠ MC^2 .
>
?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Owen Densmore

Re: What to do with knowledge

Administrator

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

On Jan 2, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> Bill Joy was ripped for his observation that new technologies are
> almost certain to be misused, and suggested the knowledge be
> guarded .. i.e. censored in some sense.
> Why the future doesn't need us
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
>
> His later talk was better received:
> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bill_joy_muses_on_what_s_next.html
> ...

I went back and read/looked at the two links above. This lead me to
collect the article, along with several responses, into a single file,
attached.

I'm struck how thoughtful he is, and his story about writing a book on
the topic of the dangers of science and the proliferation of
knowledge. It was during the writing of the book, in New York city,
that 9/11 occurred.

Note: From our earlier discussions, I decided not to attach the
document in its .rtf version, nor in .doc -- not all of us can read
those. So, because the Browser is the Computer, its in html.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

JoyWhyFutureDoesntNeedUs.html.zip (68K) Download Attachment

Paul Paryski

Re: What to do with knowledge

Owen,

A very interesting The Bill Joy TED talk qas very interesting particularly pertinent as Rivernetwork, our national river protection and restoration NGO discusses its future. I have some qustions about his reliance on market forces to regulate future decissions.

Thanks Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Sent: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 6:01 pm
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge

On Jan 2, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> Bill Joy was ripped for his observation that new technologies are > almost certain to be misused, and suggested the knowledge be > guarded .. i.e. censored in some sense.
> Why the future doesn't need us
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
>
> His later talk was better received:
> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bill_joy_muses_on_what_s_next.html
> ...

I went back and read/looked at the two links above. This lead me to collect the article, along with several responses, into a single file, attached.

=0 AI'm struck how thoughtful he is, and his story about writing a book on the topic of the dangers of science and the proliferation of knowledge. It was during the writing of the book, in New York city, that 9/11 occurred.

Note: From our earlier discussions, I decided not to attach the document in its .rtf version, nor in .doc -- not all of us can read those. So, because the Browser is the Computer, its in html.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Get a free MP3 every day with the Spinner.com Toolbar. Get it Now.

Phil Henshaw-2

Re: What to do with knowledge

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Doesn't the most dangerous knowledge often come from having a blind spot to
the danger? That's often the problem when people dont recognize the
meaning of changes in scale or kind, like looking for 'bigger' solutions
(the bigger bomb or bigger shovel approach) when the nature of the problem
changes unexpectedly with scale.

Would you include that in your problem statement?

Phil Henshaw

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Steve Smith
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 4:13 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
>
> I believe this is an important but subtle topic that deserves much more
> discussion.
>
> I believe that the sfComplex should host a series of live discussions,
> probably starting with a Panel presentation by a handful of people
> representing differing but well-considered points of view.
>
> I have been considering this since we opened our doors in June, but
> find
> that it is a very difficult topic. Perhaps the most difficult is the
> polarization that seems to come with it. I have a lot of strong
> opinions on this subject, some of which I've begun to try to share
> here. This thread (and the one it emerged from) have tapped a few of
> the ideas and opinions that need to be discussed.
>
> We would need a format and possibly a good moderator to help avoid the
> many opportunities for spinning out.
>
> Ideas, issues, topics are welcome.
>
> - Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Phil Henshaw-2

great paper on revolutionary change in systems

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

www.synapse9.com/ref/GersickCJG1991RevolutionaryChangeTheories.pdf (500k)
Have any of you heard of the "Academy of Management Review" or Connie JG
Gersick?

She might have called it 'emergence' I think, but seems to have done a great
job of threading together six different theories of change between complex
system equilibriums, punctuated by disequilibrium, which she calls
"revolutionary change". The familiar ones are the models offered by TS
Kuhn, SJ Gould, and I Prigogine. She seems to come to the conclusion, yes,
there are discontinuities. My view has developed as being that, yes, there
are discontinuities, but often observably in the mode of explanation used
and not the physical process.

Does anyone else also see the need to have gaps between modes of explanation
for complex system features as a important reason for using the word
'complex' to describe them?

Phil Henshaw

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: great paper on revolutionary change in systems

Phil -

This is a very timely reference. I often find that "Survey" papers, especially from outside of the field I am working in, but on a subject overlapping said field can be very illuminating. They help to provide a common-sense perspective on the problem... help to remove me from the "trees" enough to see the "forest", as it were.

Your comment about the discontinuities are

often observably in the mode of explanation used
and not the physical process

might be a corollary of Kierkegard's

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.

It is my (anecdotal) experience that many people live through, or even participate in revolutions without realizing it until (long?) after they are over. Often the turmoil that is attendant to the "Revolution" is not a new experience for them, a series of tumultuous periods lead up to it, and it is only the actual "breaking through" that ultimately marks it as a "Revolution". To the extent that that "breaking through" is an emergent phenomena, it is often not visible at the scale of the individual observer, especially an observer who is steeped in the old way of experiencing things.

- Steve

www.synapse9.com/ref/GersickCJG1991RevolutionaryChangeTheories.pdf (500k) 
Have any of you heard of the "Academy of Management Review" or Connie JG
Gersick?  

She might have called it 'emergence' I think, but seems to have done a great
job of threading together six different theories of change between complex
system equilibriums, punctuated by disequilibrium, which she calls
"revolutionary change".  The familiar ones are the models offered by TS
Kuhn, SJ Gould, and I Prigogine.  She seems to come to the conclusion, yes,
there are discontinuities.   My view has developed as being that, yes, there
are discontinuities, but often observably in the mode of explanation used
and not the physical process.   

Does anyone else also see the need to have gaps between modes of explanation
for complex system features as a important reason for using the word
'complex' to describe them?

Phil Henshaw  



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Russ Abbott

Re: What to do with knowledge

In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2

When I first read this question, I thought that it was somewhat off topic. It is asking about policy rather than science. But the implication of that perspective is that there is no science of policy, i.e., that political science or sociology isn't a science. But of course it should be. In fact it should be one of the sciences of the complex.

-- Russ

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Phil Henshaw <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doesn't the most dangerous knowledge often come from having a blind spot to
the danger? That's often the problem when people don't recognize the
meaning of changes in scale or kind, like looking for 'bigger' solutions
(the bigger bomb or bigger shovel approach) when the nature of the problem
changes unexpectedly with scale.

Would you include that in your problem statement?

Phil Henshaw

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Steve Smith
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 4:13 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
>

> I believe this is an important but subtle topic that deserves much more
> discussion.
>
> I believe that the sfComplex should host a series of live discussions,
> probably starting with a Panel presentation by a handful of people
> representing differing but well-considered points of view.
>
> I have been considering this since we opened our doors in June, but
> find
> that it is a very difficult topic. Perhaps the most difficult is the
> polarization that seems to come with it. I have a lot of strong
> opinions on this subject, some of which I've begun to try to share
> here. This thread (and the one it emerged from) have tapped a few of
> the ideas and opinions that need to be discussed.
>
> We would need a format and possibly a good moderator to help avoid the
> many opportunities for spinning out.
>
> Ideas, issues, topics are welcome.
>
> - Steve

>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Phil Henshaw-2

Re: great paper on revolutionary change in systems

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve,

[ph] Yes, just my thought, that it seems to be a good survey by a management science person. The paper has actually been cited 750 times since it was published in 91. Clarifying the forest by getting a good look at separate kinds of trees is also one of the things I found interesting in writing my short encyclopedia entry covering all the approaches to complex systems science and practice. I may have left out just a few things… of course… but it did force me to look at the subject from several different time tested orientations.

Your comment about the discontinuities are

often observably in the mode of explanation used

and not the physical process might be a corollary of Kierkegard's

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.

[ph] Well, that certainly applies to the discontinuity between foresight and hindsight, when in the one you’re looking for choices and in the other you’re only looking for excuses… you might say.  :-)      I’ll have to read Gersick more carefully to understand what she defines as the discontinuity displayed by “revolutionary change” but what I was thinking was more that once you see the finished form you suddenly see the whole effect of the distributed events coming together, that would have been all undeveloped and incomprehensible before.   Most of them you also would never have seen before because they were distributed, and so not occurring where you were looking too, as well as because they were undeveloped as a whole and so would be naturally meaningless too.     So even if the distributed process was continuous and developmental, you would necessarily miss most of it happening, and then be distracted by the false simplicity of hindsight to boot.

[ph] What that suggested to me was that a parcel of hot air might be locally experiencing a gradual decrease in air pressure, and not much else, as it rose along with an air mass as part of a large accumulating column of air breaking through an inversion layer to become a great erupting cumulus cloud. Widely scattered things become unobservably connected is the first step as far as any part may be concerned. So for emerging “revolutionary change” might it sometimes be that neither the parts nor outside observers could know about it?

Phil

- Steve

www.synapse9.com/ref/GersickCJG1991RevolutionaryChangeTheories.pdf (500k)

Have any of you heard of the "Academy of Management Review" or Connie JG

Gersick?

She might have called it 'emergence' I think, but seems to have done a great

job of threading together six different theories of change between complex

system equilibriums, punctuated by disequilibrium, which she calls

"revolutionary change".  The familiar ones are the models offered by TS

Kuhn, SJ Gould, and I Prigogine.  She seems to come to the conclusion, yes,

there are discontinuities.   My view has developed as being that, yes, there

are discontinuities, but often observably in the mode of explanation used

and not the physical process.

Does anyone else also see the need to have gaps between modes of explanation

for complex system features as a important reason for using the word

'complex' to describe them?

Phil Henshaw

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org