anthropological observations
Locked
123456
123456
Re: anthropological observations
 
|
Venturing an opinion — The State put a traffic signal at an intersection because (anthropomorphizing here) The State determined that a number of factors (sight lines, traffic volume, ...) made it advisable to regulate the flow of traffic. The State also made an assumption about the typical driver — they are incapable of making an evaluative decision with regard all those factors and therefore their behavior must be controlled by mandating stopping at a red light. The State also makes the assumption that the average highway patrol person either lacks the right (only judges may interpret the law) or the capability to decide if issuing a ticket at 3 am is reasonable. The Law is the Law. This is Fetishizing the Law. In the case of the traffic signal, the assumptions made about typical drivers and highway patrol persons are probably not unreasonable. In the case of off-label meds, it would seem much more reasonable to assume that the typical physician IS capable of making an evaluative decision and should therefore be supplied with as much information as possible in support of that decision. This is what I believe I observed in Europe. In contrast, what I believe I am seeing in the US response nothing more than "The Law Is The Law." davew On Mon, Apr 13, 2020, at 3:24 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
Excellent! Thanks for that qualifier. A remaining question is: When you state your CONCLUSION without a subjective qualifier, the audience is supposed to implicitly *hear* a qualifier. But when someone on MSNBC states their conclusions without the qualifer, you hear *authoritarian* assertions.
Why should your audience have to insert the qualifier themselves, but *you* don't have to insert the qualifier when listening to others? That may be unclear. Why do you hear scientists' assertions as authoritarian, but expect the scientists to hear your assertions as lil-ole-me opinions? I.e. why are their qualifier-less expressions any different from your qualifier-less expressions? I suppose you could make the argument that your platform is much smaller than theirs. So, nobody could mistake what you say for authoritarian. But I'd argue that your email address and name "Prof David West" make explicit leverage of the authority that comes along with professorship, much like Dr. Oz explicitly leverages the authority of the "Dr" prefix. To boot, implicitly, the jargonal language you use (e.g. "ethnographic research mode") lends a hint of "I'm an expert because I can use these words". With no qualifiers like "my attempts at ethnographic research", which could be emphasized with further qualifiers like "my layman's attempts at ..." or whatever, it would be easy for me to *fear* you and those who talk like you. I don't fear you, because you seem like a nice person. But I do fear those who might read your authoritative words and uncritically believe them. On 4/14/20 9:11 AM, Prof David West wrote: > It was not my intent to make any assertions, or claims. merely to offer completely subjective observations - "anecdotal data" as it were. Yes, there is a not-so-subliminal editorial slant behind the observations. But that slant is pretty obvious and quite familiar to those on the list: > > - I do not trust, and actually fear, government, especially the Federal Government > - I believe the danger of a 'dictatorship-of-the left' to be far greater than from the right, and that the clown in office is a trivial to non-existent threat. > - nothing posted, tweeted, published, aired — regardless of source — can be accepted at face value but must be deconstructed (including "scientific" material) > I have no expertise,, certainly no authority, but do fancy an aptitude for careful observation that may or may not be of value to anyone. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: anthropological observations
|
|
Glen,
You are correct, especially when I used all caps to shout my assertion. My only excuse is that I was writing to a specific audience who I do not expect to take me all that seriously. Also, a bit of habit. When I stood in front of the classroom for the first time and introduced myself to the class I would tell them, "Everything I say is absolute gospel truth asserted by god!" Then I would smile and tell them that most of them knew a lot more than me, but it was up to them to either challenge me and have some great discussions where I would learn something, or be a mute sheep. Being intentionally provocative worked very well, but I was teaching in a software program where requirements for admission included 3+ years of professional software development experience. Had some lively class discussions, and I learned far more than I taught. davew On Tue, Apr 14, 2020, at 11:48 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > Excellent! Thanks for that qualifier. A remaining question is: When you > state your CONCLUSION without a subjective qualifier, the audience is > supposed to implicitly *hear* a qualifier. But when someone on MSNBC > states their conclusions without the qualifer, you hear *authoritarian* > assertions. > > Why should your audience have to insert the qualifier themselves, but > *you* don't have to insert the qualifier when listening to others? That > may be unclear. Why do you hear scientists' assertions as > authoritarian, but expect the scientists to hear your assertions as > lil-ole-me opinions? > > I.e. why are their qualifier-less expressions any different from your > qualifier-less expressions? > > I suppose you could make the argument that your platform is much > smaller than theirs. So, nobody could mistake what you say for > authoritarian. But I'd argue that your email address and name "Prof > David West" make explicit leverage of the authority that comes along > with professorship, much like Dr. Oz explicitly leverages the authority > of the "Dr" prefix. To boot, implicitly, the jargonal language you use > (e.g. "ethnographic research mode") lends a hint of "I'm an expert > because I can use these words". With no qualifiers like "my attempts at > ethnographic research", which could be emphasized with further > qualifiers like "my layman's attempts at ..." or whatever, it would be > easy for me to *fear* you and those who talk like you. > > I don't fear you, because you seem like a nice person. But I do fear > those who might read your authoritative words and uncritically believe > them. > > On 4/14/20 9:11 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > It was not my intent to make any assertions, or claims. merely to offer completely subjective observations - "anecdotal data" as it were. Yes, there is a not-so-subliminal editorial slant behind the observations. But that slant is pretty obvious and quite familiar to those on the list: > > > > - I do not trust, and actually fear, government, especially the Federal Government > > - I believe the danger of a 'dictatorship-of-the left' to be far greater than from the right, and that the clown in office is a trivial to non-existent threat. > > - nothing posted, tweeted, published, aired — regardless of source — can be accepted at face value but must be deconstructed (including "scientific" material) > > I have no expertise,, certainly no authority, but do fancy an aptitude for careful observation that may or may not be of value to anyone. > > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- > ... .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
My experience is that the cops have a LOT of preferential enforcement power. And my black friends seem to agree (inverse experiences). And it's not clear to me that this selective enforcement stops at the sheriffs and beat cop layer. I think many places have the leeway to "decriminalize" things like low volume marijuana possession up to federal attorneys general choosing not to focus on some categories like RICO or whatever.
As our SCOTUS demonstrates on a regular basis, despite being a country of laws, the interpretation of such laws is convoluted at best. We may *think* we fetishize the law, but it's delusional because a law isn't a law until it's challenged in court. And even then, it's subject to revision later ... depending on how many beers Brett Kavanaugh had last night. On 4/14/20 9:41 AM, Prof David West wrote: > Venturing an opinion — > > The State put a traffic signal at an intersection because (anthropomorphizing here) The State determined that a number of factors (sight lines, traffic volume, ...) made it advisable to regulate the flow of traffic. > > The State also made an assumption about the typical driver — they are incapable of making an evaluative decision with regard all those factors and therefore their behavior must be controlled by mandating stopping at a red light. > > The State also makes the assumption that the average highway patrol person either lacks the right (only judges may interpret the law) or the capability to decide if issuing a ticket at 3 am is reasonable. The Law is the Law. This is Fetishizing the Law. > > In the case of the traffic signal, the assumptions made about typical drivers and highway patrol persons are probably not unreasonable. > > In the case of off-label meds, it would seem much more reasonable to assume that the typical physician IS capable of making an evaluative decision and should therefore be supplied with as much information as possible in support of that decision. This is what I believe I observed in Europe. > > In contrast, what I believe I am seeing in the US response nothing more than "The Law Is The Law." -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: anthropological observations
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Yes, it was not a real publisher, just a self-publishing company where you can publish anything. I cancelled the contract because you need to pay every year. It was a sort of trial balloon to see if anybody is interested in the topic which I believe is quite explosive. Actually nobody was interested. I figured that it is not that dangerous to publish it in English if nobody is interested anyway. The basic idea is that there are "hidden genes" which are expressed like normal genes. The only difference is that they are not encoded in organic molecules and they do not create biological organisms. We know them simply as laws, rules & commandments. They are indeed expressed by propaganda or whenever someone preaches something, for instance if General Patton preaches to his men that they should "do more than is required of you". It explains everything from the secret of religions to the nature of fascism (which is IMHO a form of cancer as old as civilization itself). I believe that the deepest secrets hide in plain sight: the most intangible mysteries are hidden in the best known daily objects most of us have outgrown even noticing. We have stopped wondering about things we experience every day or every week, like political rallies, campaign speeches, ads and church services. -J. -------- Original message -------- From: uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> Date: 4/13/20 21:54 (GMT+01:00) To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anthropological observations Die geheimen Gene: Das Geheimnis der Kirche und die soziale DNA https://books.google.com/books?id=lpqUDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Jochen+Fromm%22&hl=en&source=newbks_fb No copies seem to be available. I also assume propaganda plays a prominent role in your explanation. I keep wondering why Trump's sycophants like Navarro keep claiming the Spanish Flue happened in 1917 instead of 1918. E.g. in this clip: https://youtu.be/nSx704KK_Ik #5 and #6 from this list seem plausible to me: https://theweek.com/articles/832990/6-theories-trumps-pointless-lies When Trump hears Navarro say "1917", it's a signal of loyalty, even if everyone knows it's the wrong year, that he uses that year, helps confirm his loyalty. Knowing to use "1917" instead will help me code-switch if I find myself in a conversation with these people. If you use "1918", they'll know you're out-group. Hypothesis #6 is only plausible if you think Trump is an idiot. But I buy the argument put forth here: Tony Norman: Who are you going to believe — POTUS or an actual expert? https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/tony-norman/2020/04/07/1917-Donald-Trump-truth-George-Orwell-Anthony-Fauci-Peter-Navarro-hydroxychloroquine/stories/202004070017 Maybe it's a perverse mix of the expression of power, loyalty, and getting the audience used to fudging the details ... encouraging the cult members to impute the nomothetic even though it fails to fit the idiographic. On 4/13/20 11:04 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > Link! I should buy the German version and see if I can read some of it. The last time I tried that was with Faust after my German II semester in college ... terrible failure. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
Jochen - Can you describe more about how your idea of "hidden genes" contrasts and compares to Dawkin's "memes"? Glen (I think) has questioned the term (meme) in the past, but I
don't think we ever discussed the point here? I don't know if his
argument was more against Dawkins, against the use of
analogy/metaphor to relate genes to memes or something yet more
fundamental? I find the least-common-denominator common-usage of the term
"meme" to be somewhat lame but the original term as presented by
Dawkins was fairly compelling and widely applicable... but like
all metaphors, it has it's limits. I'd be interested in a discussion here on that topic, and perhaps how that relates to this thread. - Steve On 4/14/20 3:28 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen - I appreciate the very clear and positive (albeit blunt) way you
framed Dave's post, hopefully allowing the rest of us (including
Dave) to continue the conversations implied in a positive and
coherence-seeking manner. I think Dave's rant referenced a number
of important issues worth discussing. Dave - I appreciate your checking in and letting us know you had arrived
safe and sound and now "settled". There was plenty in your
trip-report that resonated with me, even if your conclusions left
me somewhat baffled or in direct opposition. I'd like to be able
to discuss those topics openly and not risk A) telling you that
you are patently wrong(-headed) in your observations and opinions;
nor B) risk appearing to accept some of the assertions which I
patently do not. All - Here is my best shot at outlining (succinctly?) the issues I think Dave raised that I'd like to see discussed further:
- Steve
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: anthropological observations
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
But Glen,
The Laws of Scientific Procedure ARE the laws I am talking about here. In good times, we can take the time to focus on the consequences to individuals. And so, we can design our health systems for the most vulnerable among us. That imposes delays on the "mean" patient, but no problem, we have other ways of treating the mean patient. In an emergency, the possibility that one in a million patients might have an allergy to some component of Chlorwhatitsface seems reasonably to be less relevant, even though it's built into the laws of scientific medical procedure. 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: Monday, April 13, 2020 4:03 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anthropological observations How much do you push? How many patients does it help? Would it be like the current shelves at Target a month ago ... where Renee' noticed that even though hydrogen peroxide sterilizes, the shelves were FULL of it, but there were no isopropyl alcohol bottles anywhere in the store. How much good does it do to have fridge shelves full of hydroxychloroquine when it only helps a tiny percentage of patients (if that)? ... and what percentage of patients would it help again? The point of the _science_ is unrelated to "the law", despite Dave's paranoia about the establishment. The point of the science is that we don't know what we're doing. It's not like stopping or not stopping at a red light. It's like adding chemical X to solution Y when we don't know what X or Y is in the first place. Once the science gives us high confidence about how much, when, who, etc, *then* it'll become more like running a red light. On 4/13/20 1:24 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > So to what extent, I am wondering, is not pushing out > chlor-whatitsface to every hospital in the country a case of stopping at the red light at the wilderness intersection in the middle of the night? -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
There are no "laws of scientific procedure". There's not even a singular scientific method. What we have are heuristics and best practices driven by repeatability and reproducibility. So, in order to build guidelines for *who* to give hydroxychloroquine to, how much to give them, and when to give it, we have to experiment. No experimentation means no guidelines.
No guidelines for how much to ship to any given hospital. No guidelines on dosage. No guidelines. We don't build bridges that way. We don't write software that way. We don't cook food that way. Etc. Why should we "treat" patients that way? Yes, it's true that any particular doctor, imbued with the power of their license and their relationship with particular patients, should have the power to dose their patient with it. But logistical decisions made at massive and costly hospital system scale really do need those guidelines. It blows my mind that you don't understand this point. On 4/14/20 8:12 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > The Laws of Scientific Procedure ARE the laws I am talking about here. In good times, we can take the time to focus on the consequences to individuals. And so, we can design our health systems for the most vulnerable among us. That imposes delays on the "mean" patient, but no problem, we have other ways of treating the mean patient. In an emergency, the possibility that one in a million patients might have an allergy to some component of Chlorwhatitsface seems reasonably to be less relevant, even though it's built into the laws of scientific medical procedure. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
And, by the way, Renee's son-in-law has lupus. So this fear-based shortage is directly threatening lives ... just in case you might wonder a little more about the consequences to individuals, apparently reserved for "good times".
On 4/15/20 6:43 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > There are no "laws of scientific procedure". There's not even a singular scientific method. What we have are heuristics and best practices driven by repeatability and reproducibility. So, in order to build guidelines for *who* to give hydroxychloroquine to, how much to give them, and when to give it, we have to experiment. No experimentation means no guidelines. > > No guidelines for how much to ship to any given hospital. No guidelines on dosage. No guidelines. We don't build bridges that way. We don't write software that way. We don't cook food that way. Etc. Why should we "treat" patients that way? > > Yes, it's true that any particular doctor, imbued with the power of their license and their relationship with particular patients, should have the power to dose their patient with it. But logistical decisions made at massive and costly hospital system scale really do need those guidelines. > > It blows my mind that you don't understand this point. > > On 4/14/20 8:12 PM, [hidden email] wrote: >> The Laws of Scientific Procedure ARE the laws I am talking about here. In good times, we can take the time to focus on the consequences to individuals. And so, we can design our health systems for the most vulnerable among us. That imposes delays on the "mean" patient, but no problem, we have other ways of treating the mean patient. In an emergency, the possibility that one in a million patients might have an allergy to some component of Chlorwhatitsface seems reasonably to be less relevant, even though it's built into the laws of scientific medical procedure. > > -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: anthropological observations
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I may have mentioned this before but physicists, chemists, engineers etc. rarely talk about philosophy of science. Social scientists, particularly.psychologists, do much more. Some mathematicians do because they believe they are dealing with God. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 7:43 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: There are no "laws of scientific procedure". There's not even a singular scientific method. What we have are heuristics and best practices driven by repeatability and reproducibility. So, in order to build guidelines for *who* to give hydroxychloroquine to, how much to give them, and when to give it, we have to experiment. No experimentation means no guidelines. .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: anthropological observations
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
glen wrote:
"We don't write software that way." A contrarian position: David Parnas, "The Rational Design Process: How and Why to Fake It." davew On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, at 8:43 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > There are no "laws of scientific procedure". There's not even a > singular scientific method. What we have are heuristics and best > practices driven by repeatability and reproducibility. So, in order to > build guidelines for *who* to give hydroxychloroquine to, how much to > give them, and when to give it, we have to experiment. No > experimentation means no guidelines. > > No guidelines for how much to ship to any given hospital. No guidelines > on dosage. No guidelines. We don't build bridges that way. We don't > write software that way. We don't cook food that way. Etc. Why should > we "treat" patients that way? > > Yes, it's true that any particular doctor, imbued with the power of > their license and their relationship with particular patients, should > have the power to dose their patient with it. But logistical decisions > made at massive and costly hospital system scale really do need those > guidelines. > > It blows my mind that you don't understand this point. > > On 4/14/20 8:12 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > > The Laws of Scientific Procedure ARE the laws I am talking about here. In good times, we can take the time to focus on the consequences to individuals. And so, we can design our health systems for the most vulnerable among us. That imposes delays on the "mean" patient, but no problem, we have other ways of treating the mean patient. In an emergency, the possibility that one in a million patients might have an allergy to some component of Chlorwhatitsface seems reasonably to be less relevant, even though it's built into the laws of scientific medical procedure. > > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- > ... .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
Frank - > I may have mentioned this before but physicists, chemists, engineers > etc. rarely talk about philosophy of science. Social scientists, > particularly.psychologists, do much more. Some mathematicians do > because they believe they are dealing with God. My undergrad career in Physics turned a corner when I took an opportunity in an upper division class to write an essay on the "role of Philosophy in Physics". The professor had asked for an essay on "the topic of your choice" because he said that it was important for hard scientists to be able to ask critical questions about the topics they were studying and to communicate them clearly, not just derive and solve equations. We were a small cadre of upper-class physics majors and a few grad students from other disciplines... perhaps a dozen or less? There was no graduate program in Physics at my university (though there was in Chemistry, Biology, Geology...) and I think the core professors were frustrated or hungry for more stimulating experiences with students than the usual undergrad context offered. I was mildly worried that my subject was going to be dismissed as off-topic, as the other students unrolled their deepish-dives into specific questions in Physics. My classmates did "roll their eyes" a little when I announced my topic and started in. The professor, however, who had been rather critical of/hard on me up to that point in this and other classes, interrupted me to ask penetrating questions, and soon the rest of the class was nodding their heads in appreciation or at least understanding. I can't remember the full arc of my essay but I remember in particular presenting things like Zeno's paradox to discuss ideas such as atomicity and the different interpretations of quantum theory and the larger implications of relativity. This experience melted the ice with that professor who had been critical of my work-style for many semesters. I rarely wrote down *every* step in my derivations (meaning I would balance more than one element of an equation in a single step) and I rarely did *all* the assigned homework problems (Once I felt I understood a concept, I would skip the remaining problems and go to the next conceptually different problem... and I was running my own business and had a young child by then and had no patience for what felt like "make-work"). My weak "performance" in the mundane tasks of homework balanced against my above-average performance on tests (where I forced myself to write down every step and do every problem) made me a pretty solid B student while most of the others in my cohort were over-achievers trying to nail a 4.0 grade average. At the end of that class, the professor (notoriously hard-nosed) offered me an independent study class the next semester which allowed me to rush through a medley of advanced topics that were not offered as formal classes. I dearly enjoyed his reading assignments and the two hours of discussion each week, we covered a LOT of ground that last semester. It wasn't my first A in a Physics class but it WAS my first in one of HIS classes! It was also a great preparation for working at LANL where I encountered esoteric topics on a very regular basis. It might be noted that my second-most favorite course of study and other favorite professor was in Philosophy... a professor and domain of study that taught me how to think about ideas, not just about "things" which seemed to be what *all* of the engineering classes I took and *most* of the science classes I took were about. This is where I was first made aware that a grand unified theory of everything was an oxymoron, why some physical phenomena could *appear* to move faster than light-speed (e.g. two quasar-beams crossing in intergalactic space), and an intuitive framing of Godel's work in incompleteness, etc before I encountered it in CS. - Steve .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: anthropological observations
|
|
Steve, Are you the exception or the rule? Of the 350 engineering and science students in my freshman year at Carnegie nobody got a 4.0 average; the highest was 3.57 and the average was about 1.8. But I'm older than you and grade inflation started in the meantime. Thanks for your account of your contacts with philosophy. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:20 AM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: anthropological observations
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Two points:
1) We do fetishize the law in the sense that if you run the red light and the cop gives you a ticket there is no possible defense - you ARE guilty. In the medical case, if you prescribe off-label and get sued, you will lose. (Unless, of course, the Judge Interprets the law , or the jury Nullifies the law.) 2) There are always ways to ameliorate the Absolute Law. Those ways differ by culture. Edward Hall compared how and where amelioration differs between US and Mexican cultures. In the US the cop has latitude as to when and with what to cite you, in Mexico it is the judge that has the discretion. A Mexico born and raised man was appointed traffic officer in a small US town and cited people for going 1-2 miles above the speed limit. Anger and violence ensued. Americans cited for traffic offenses in Mexico were enraged when they went to court and saw the judge dismiss cases against relatives and friends of the judge while being held guilty. Using law and traffic signals to advance an argument followed Nick's lead, but the underlying personal opinion might more accurately be stated as: in the US culture, Cecelia Citizen, is infantalized, assumed to be incapable of informed judgement and swaddled in layer upon layer of absolutely stated "law" to which her behavior must conform. This is true even for Penelope Physician. davew On Tue, Apr 14, 2020, at 12:10 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > My experience is that the cops have a LOT of preferential enforcement > power. And my black friends seem to agree (inverse experiences). And > it's not clear to me that this selective enforcement stops at the > sheriffs and beat cop layer. I think many places have the leeway to > "decriminalize" things like low volume marijuana possession up to > federal attorneys general choosing not to focus on some categories like > RICO or whatever. > > As our SCOTUS demonstrates on a regular basis, despite being a country > of laws, the interpretation of such laws is convoluted at best. We may > *think* we fetishize the law, but it's delusional because a law isn't a > law until it's challenged in court. And even then, it's subject to > revision later ... depending on how many beers Brett Kavanaugh had last > night. > > On 4/14/20 9:41 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > Venturing an opinion — > > > > The State put a traffic signal at an intersection because (anthropomorphizing here) The State determined that a number of factors (sight lines, traffic volume, ...) made it advisable to regulate the flow of traffic. > > > > The State also made an assumption about the typical driver — they are incapable of making an evaluative decision with regard all those factors and therefore their behavior must be controlled by mandating stopping at a red light. > > > > The State also makes the assumption that the average highway patrol person either lacks the right (only judges may interpret the law) or the capability to decide if issuing a ticket at 3 am is reasonable. The Law is the Law. This is Fetishizing the Law. > > > > In the case of the traffic signal, the assumptions made about typical drivers and highway patrol persons are probably not unreasonable. > > > > In the case of off-label meds, it would seem much more reasonable to assume that the typical physician IS capable of making an evaluative decision and should therefore be supplied with as much information as possible in support of that decision. This is what I believe I observed in Europe. > > > > In contrast, what I believe I am seeing in the US response nothing more than "The Law Is The Law." > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- > ... .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: anthropological observations
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
Frank, The last class I taught at the University of St. Thomas was "Philosophical Foundations of Computer Science." It was standing room only and 20 plus years later I still get emails from students lauding the class and thanking me for the experience. BTW, at the time St. Thomas had the largest graduate software engineering program in the world, 900 master's degree students. Many if not most of them were part time, because the program catered to working professionals and all courses were taught evenings from 6-9. davew On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, at 9:01 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: anthropological observations
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Yes, Richatd Dawkin's memes ("The Selfish Gene") are a nice idea, but they are not like genes at all. They are like viruses. If we consider the memes that are generated by "meme generators" and shared in social media, then they can at best be described in terms of viruses. For example a post that goes viral etc. The idea of "hidden genes" is different. They are not really new, they are rather hidden in plain sight because everybody knows them. Nobody has recognized them for what they are though, as far as I know. Except David Sloan Wilson ("Darwin's Cathedral") maybe. Think of a typical church service on a Sunday or synagogue service on a Saturday: a priest in front of a group is reading an encoded text. The text is decoded and translated in a speech so that it is understandable for the target audience. If the audience is willing to believe in the propagated message, the behavior of the group is changed. Members will behave a bit different if the preacher has been successful. They support and help each other. They form a group. If we consider that God is the group itself from a sociological perspective, as Randall Collins ("Sociological Insight") and the founders of Sociology told us, then it is hard to overlook that this repeated process of reading the holy scriptures and explaining them in fact nothing else but a gene expression. The text contains non-coding parts, just like normal DNA, and parts which encode "recipes" to control the behavior of the group. We know them for instance as the basic commandments. The 10 commandments we all know so well are in fact the 10 basic genes. They create a collective organism, a life-form which is bigger than any individual member. These life-forms are long-lived as plants, but agile as animals. In this sense they are different from biological organisms. But they can get cancer, just like biological organisms. We know it as the various *-isms: fascism, communism, nazism, totalitarianism, etc. I consider fascism as the most general form and nazism as the worst and most aggressive form. If we really want to understand how fascism works, we have to understand religion first, IMHO. -J. -------- Original message -------- From: Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> Date: 4/14/20 23:41 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anthropological observations Jochen - Can you describe more about how your idea of "hidden genes" contrasts and compares to Dawkin's "memes"? Glen (I think) has questioned the term (meme) in the past, but I
don't think we ever discussed the point here? I don't know if his
argument was more against Dawkins, against the use of
analogy/metaphor to relate genes to memes or something yet more
fundamental? I find the least-common-denominator common-usage of the term
"meme" to be somewhat lame but the original term as presented by
Dawkins was fairly compelling and widely applicable... but like
all metaphors, it has it's limits. I'd be interested in a discussion here on that topic, and perhaps how that relates to this thread. - Steve On 4/14/20 3:28 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
On 4/15/20 8:52 AM, Prof David West wrote: > 1) We do fetishize the law in the sense that if you run the red light and the cop gives you a ticket there is no possible defense - you ARE guilty. In the medical case, if you prescribe off-label and get sued, you will lose. (Unless, of course, the Judge Interprets the law , or the jury Nullifies the law.) This simply isn't true in *all* cases. I know this from personal experience. And if it's not true in all cases, then the burden is on you to make a *statistical* case. I've gotten out of tickets at the bench. (The best story was with my dad there, I told the judge "I just wanted to see how fast the car would go." My dad literally elbowed me in front of the judge. He dismissed the charge ... in spite of everyone knowing that I was speeding.) There are entire YouTube channels devoted to showing this isn't true. The prevalence of jury trials demonstrate this isn't true. I suppose you could make some idealistic argument that, in principle, anyone who gets a ticket IS guilty, regardless of the judicial outcome or somesuch. But your mental gymnastics will be obvious. > Using law and traffic signals to advance an argument followed Nick's lead, but the underlying personal opinion might more accurately be stated as: in the US culture, Cecelia Citizen, is infantalized, assumed to be incapable of informed judgement and swaddled in layer upon layer of absolutely stated "law" to which her behavior must conform. This is true even for Penelope Physician. I'm sorry that's your personal opinion. It's a fallacious over-generalization. But many of mine are too, probably. In any case, I've been treated like an adult by *every* cop and judge I've ever interacted with. If they're infantalizing me, they've hidden it pretty well. Maybe it's true that they treat you like an infant. But it's not true of *everyone*. And, as above, if you want to retain the assertion, the burden lies with you to build a statistical case. What percentage of citizens are infantalized? -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: anthropological observations
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
Jochen, Thank you for introducing a fascinating concept. What you describe is triggering all kinds of echos in the material I have been reading the past year at the Ritman Library in Amsterdam. This material includes works on Hermetic (Alchemical) philosophy, Jung, Gurdjieff, etc. etc. Those readings also resonate with much of what I studied in anthropology as well as writers like Eliade and Campbell. You are offering a metaphoric lens for interpreting and "explaining" this body of knowledge. I would really like to pursue it more, and in depth. Did you say your book was available in English somewhere? How might I get a copy? I have ordered Darwin's Cathedral and will read it upon arrival this weekend. Any other sources you might point me to would be greatly appreciated. dave west On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, at 11:07 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
That paper:
https://users.ece.utexas.edu/~perry/education/SE-Intro/fakeit.pdf argues *for* guidelines for software development. So, it validates my point in the most direct sense. It *also* argues against inferring from Nick's idea that there might be such a thing as Laws of Software Development Procedure, in that the ideal is never met. So, it validates my point about heuristics and best practices from that perspective, too. Did you intend to say that this paper is contrary to Nick's point? Or contrary to my point? On 4/15/20 8:02 AM, Prof David West wrote: > A contrarian position: David Parnas, "The Rational Design Process: How and Why to Fake It." > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, at 8:43 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: >> No guidelines for how much to ship to any given hospital. No guidelines >> on dosage. No guidelines. We don't build bridges that way. We don't >> write software that way. We don't cook food that way. Etc. Why should >> we "treat" patients that way? -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |