on Feynman, again
Locked
 
|
Since we recently went 'round about quoting and criticizing people who quote Feynman, I thought this would be interesting.
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488 > if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner product with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand above him, in the same way that set theory transcends and stands above arithmetic by constructing a model for it. Feynman’s achievements don’t thereby become your achievements. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
Glen, etc.
I took issue not with Feynman as a person, but with the off-quoted "aphorism", attributed to him, that scientists have no more use for philosophy of science than birds have for ornithology. The only reason birds don't have use for ornithology is that they can't read. I assume that that disability does not apply to the scientists mentioned in the aphorism. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ? Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:03 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again Since we recently went 'round about quoting and criticizing people who quote Feynman, I thought this would be interesting. https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488 > if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner product with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand above him, in the same way that set theory transcends and stands above arithmetic by constructing a model for it. Feynman’s achievements don’t thereby become your achievements. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
I know. I just thought it was an interesting post. That we'd recently discussed Feynman was only a segue. I could also have used Russell as the segue, since Marcus quoted him in our thread.
The 1st part of Aaronson's post re: Gowers is more interesting than the later stuff. On 10/12/2017 02:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I took issue not with Feynman as a person ... > https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488 > >> if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner product with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand above him, in the same way that set theory transcends and stands above arithmetic by constructing a model for it. Feynman’s achievements don’t thereby become your achievements. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
"Apex predator of the signaling world."
Cute, know it well. -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ? Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:37 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again I know. I just thought it was an interesting post. That we'd recently discussed Feynman was only a segue. I could also have used Russell as the segue, since Marcus quoted him in our thread. The 1st part of Aaronson's post re: Gowers is more interesting than the later stuff. On 10/12/2017 02:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I took issue not with Feynman as a person ... > https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488 > >> if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner product with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand above him, in the same way that set theory transcends and stands above arithmetic by constructing a model for it. Feynman’s achievements don’t thereby become your achievements. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Yep. One of my homunculi does that to his brethren. This came out today:
The Grandfather Of Alt-Science https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/ Anyone whose spent any time in Oregon knows this whack job. And my apex predator of the signaling world homunculus yells at me to hate him as the crackpot he clearly is, as well as his neolithic social postions. But *most* of my other homunculi have immense respect for someone who hacks their own path through the thicket, going to bat for every wannabe crackpot or inventor who spends their spare time breathing solder smoke in the basement or suffers regular chemical burns because they care more about their objective than safety. Yes, DIY biology is dangerous. But hey, we can't all work in the belly of some bureaucratic leviathan. On 10/12/2017 02:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > "Apex predator of the signaling world." > > Cute, know it well. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ? > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:37 PM > To: FriAM <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again > > I know. I just thought it was an interesting post. That we'd recently discussed Feynman was only a segue. I could also have used Russell as the segue, since Marcus quoted him in our thread. > > The 1st part of Aaronson's post re: Gowers is more interesting than the later stuff. > > On 10/12/2017 02:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> I took issue not with Feynman as a person ... > >> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488 >> >>> if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner product with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand above him, in the same way that set theory transcends and stands above arithmetic by constructing a model for it. Feynman’s achievements don’t thereby become your achievements. > > > -- > ☣ gⅼеɳ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-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 > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Like upsides to global warming, perhaps there are benefits to the irrationality of scientists, like Robinson's and others'.
It suggests that science is an activity or an algorithm, that can be conducted in parallel with arbitrary if closely-held beliefs. But I'm cynical. I'm inclined to think the scientific method is just a weapon in the hands of a sufficiently wacko person to pummel the world into a form they think they can manage or profit from. Better have more non-wacko people with the same skills to balance things out. Sure, there is herd behavior in all kinds of people, even the science-policy elites in Washington. Is there some harm being done by them other than to direct money in a worthy direction that happens not to be to him? The contrarian needs to be clever to navigate these things and do more than complain. Marcus "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity." - Albert Einstein -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ? Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:01 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again Yep. One of my homunculi does that to his brethren. This came out today: The Grandfather Of Alt-Science https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/ Anyone whose spent any time in Oregon knows this whack job. And my apex predator of the signaling world homunculus yells at me to hate him as the crackpot he clearly is, as well as his neolithic social postions. But *most* of my other homunculi have immense respect for someone who hacks their own path through the thicket, going to bat for every wannabe crackpot or inventor who spends their spare time breathing solder smoke in the basement or suffers regular chemical burns because they care more about their objective than safety. Yes, DIY biology is dangerous. But hey, we can't all work in the belly of some bureaucratic leviathan. On 10/12/2017 02:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > "Apex predator of the signaling world." > > Cute, know it well. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ? > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:37 PM > To: FriAM <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again > > I know. I just thought it was an interesting post. That we'd recently discussed Feynman was only a segue. I could also have used Russell as the segue, since Marcus quoted him in our thread. > > The 1st part of Aaronson's post re: Gowers is more interesting than the later stuff. > > On 10/12/2017 02:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> I took issue not with Feynman as a person ... > >> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488 >> >>> if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner product with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand above him, in the same way that set theory transcends and stands above arithmetic by constructing a model for it. Feynman’s achievements don’t thereby become your achievements. > > > -- > ☣ gⅼеɳ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-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 > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 10/12/2017 03:25 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> >> The Grandfather Of Alt-Science >> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/ > > Like upsides to global warming, perhaps there are benefits to the irrationality of scientists, like Robinson's and others'. > It suggests that science is an activity or an algorithm, that can be conducted in parallel with arbitrary if closely-held beliefs. > But I'm cynical. I'm inclined to think the scientific method is just a weapon in the hands of a sufficiently wacko person to pummel the world into a form they think they can manage or profit from. Better have more non-wacko people with the same skills to balance things out. Sure, there is herd behavior in all kinds of people, even the science-policy elites in Washington. Is there some harm being done by them other than to direct money in a worthy direction that happens not to be to him? The contrarian needs to be clever to navigate these things and do more than complain. I agree for the most part, especially given the false reification surrounding the scientific method. Woo peddlers and conspiracy theorists rely on the real hermeneutical depth of real science as cover for their rhetoric. The real benefit of thinking seriously about Robinson (or other pseudoscience like acupuncture, or even things like informal fallacies) is as a foil for learning what *to* do, from examples of what *not* to do. If the Robinsons of the world were earnest failures, they'd be wholesome contributors to science. But because they're deluded, blind to their failures, it is difficult to learn from them. This post makes the argument nicely: The Case for Contrarianism http://quillette.com/2017/10/10/the-case-for-contrarianism/ from the post: > So even if Gilley’s paper does as little to support its conclusion as its critics seem to think, it nonetheless might have provided a valuable service to the anti-colonial literature, by making a case at all. That would provide anti-colonial academics something to point to and say: “Here is the best case for colonialism available. It’s very bad, and so it’s reasonable to conclude that the case against colonialism is much stronger than the case for colonialism.” This helps actually to buttress the field’s theoretical foundations, especially as a pedagogical matter. Nor will it do for critics to say simply that the paper could find a place in a discipline with different foundations. If we hope to achieve with our intellectual inquiry even roughly objective knowledge of reality, we must go beyond having a field that assumes P and a field that assumes not-P – we must investigate whether or not P is actually true. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Glen/Marcus -
Once again, a nicely chewy (if mildly pithy) exchange here: To try to summarize my own responses... I think Glen is suggesting (via Aaronson quotes/references) that some folks believe that by invoking an aphorism of a well-respected/famous person and finding fault with it (sneering?) that they thereby gain some of the power that person has (socially?) not unlike a cannibal-warrior eating a vanquished opponent's organ of choice. Or racing for pink slips? As for "Apex Predator of the Signalling World", I assume that the allusion is to replacing the actual discussion at hand in an arguement or investigation with a meta-discussion, a superset of ad-hominism? FWIW I've just been watching Hugh Laurie's new (to me) role as Dr. Chance (Neuropsychologist cum Vigilante) in the Hulu series of that name (Chance), who is doing his own version of Walter White-style breaking bad, and there are a lot of parallels to what I *think* you are pointing out here. Regarding this Robinson fellow, he does *seem to be* a lot more credible (or grounded, or ???) than most of his brethren in arms. Given that both of you have a strong contrarian streak of your own, I want to be careful in observing that "contrarianism" is one of the stronger signals (in my experience) for conspiracy whackadoodlery. Just as with cinema, food, literary and really any form of criticism it is generally easier to let someone else do the heavy lifting of building something up and then just come along and chisel away at some of the weak spots and claim to have done something equally worthy (or meaningful or utilitarian?), not unlike the original point made by Aaronson above. Another signature element in my experience is strong examples of confirmation bias. "mainstream science" is also guilty of same, and perhaps that is what "alt science" legitimately has a claim against them (us?) for, is that there are *structural* biases built into funding and peer-review/publication. That said, there has to be some useful "corollary" to the idea of "just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!". Maybe "just because you recognize and call out the biases of that which is mainstream doesn't make YOUR contrarian biases any more legitimate"? I'm not personally that focused on cancer itself, but am generally interested in human metabolism and the effects of the "diseases of affluence" that our first-world lives lead us to. I find this to be an interesting microcosm of the global scale issues such as global climate change, travel-aggravated-epidemics, and diversity collapse. I found it acutely interesting that Robinson (and colleagues) would play the "hedge" of "if there is climate change, it seems to be good for humanity!". Why can't they take those two issues fully independently and corroborate the "mainstream"s observations about the anthropogenic effects they CAN observe and then maybe (or not) make their own case for evaluating (not cherry picking) models of ways that might "help" the biosphere (or even the anthroposphere)? I may be being sloppy, but it seems to me that there is a strong correlation between mere "contrarian" and a more insidious "strong conflation". This leaves me wondering if there are natural language processing tools suitable for identifying these kinds of structural failures in written discussion/arguement? Maybe Google is doing this already and using the results to mine what is superficially fringe/crackpot/pseudo-science for the real thing (revolutionary science marginalized by the mainstream?) Carry On, - Steve On 10/12/17 4:25 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Like upsides to global warming, perhaps there are benefits to the irrationality of scientists, like Robinson's and others'. > It suggests that science is an activity or an algorithm, that can be conducted in parallel with arbitrary if closely-held beliefs. > But I'm cynical. I'm inclined to think the scientific method is just a weapon in the hands of a sufficiently wacko person to pummel the world into a form they think they can manage or profit from. Better have more non-wacko people with the same skills to balance things out. Sure, there is herd behavior in all kinds of people, even the science-policy elites in Washington. Is there some harm being done by them other than to direct money in a worthy direction that happens not to be to him? The contrarian needs to be clever to navigate these things and do more than complain. > > Marcus > > "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity." - Albert Einstein > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ? > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:01 PM > To: FriAM <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again > > Yep. One of my homunculi does that to his brethren. This came out today: > > The Grandfather Of Alt-Science > https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/ > > Anyone whose spent any time in Oregon knows this whack job. And my apex predator of the signaling world homunculus yells at me to hate him as the crackpot he clearly is, as well as his neolithic social postions. But *most* of my other homunculi have immense respect for someone who hacks their own path through the thicket, going to bat for every wannabe crackpot or inventor who spends their spare time breathing solder smoke in the basement or suffers regular chemical burns because they care more about their objective than safety. Yes, DIY biology is dangerous. But hey, we can't all work in the belly of some bureaucratic leviathan. > > > On 10/12/2017 02:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> "Apex predator of the signaling world." >> >> Cute, know it well. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ? >> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:37 PM >> To: FriAM <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] on Feynman, again >> >> I know. I just thought it was an interesting post. That we'd recently discussed Feynman was only a segue. I could also have used Russell as the segue, since Marcus quoted him in our thread. >> >> The 1st part of Aaronson's post re: Gowers is more interesting than the later stuff. >> >> On 10/12/2017 02:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >>> I took issue not with Feynman as a person ... >>> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3488 >>> >>>> if you write, for example, that Richard Feynman was a self-aggrandizing chauvinist showboater, then even if your remarks have a nonzero inner product with the truth, you don’t thereby “transcend” Feynman and stand above him, in the same way that set theory transcends and stands above arithmetic by constructing a model for it. Feynman’s achievements don’t thereby become your achievements. >> >> -- >> ☣ gⅼеɳ >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe >> at St. John's College to unsubscribe >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-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 >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > -- > ☣ gⅼеɳ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-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 > 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Good Article. It portrays Robinson as a maverick but still a scientist who is ultimately interested in the truth. I respect that. My question is how does someone who respects truth get along with the Heartland institute, which I have always thought of as a well funded machine for corporate propaganda? I mean, don't his views on nuclear energy stand to ruin the fossil fuel industry that heavily funds it. He even acknowledges climate change but views it as a good thing for humanity. Aren't we all just speculating on the effects of anthropogenic climate change anyway. It's not like it's happened before. Cody Smith On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: Glen/Marcus - ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
I think it's natural for someone struggling toward an objective to accept resources from wherever. A useful example is the Templeton Foundation's funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation They fund some cool stuff, e.g. https://u.osu.edu/friedman.8/. But the TF's religious bent is pretty worriesome.
Regardless, Robinson holds the same political positions as the Heartland Institute, as far as I can tell. So, it's a good match in many ways. Re: speculation -- It's an equivocation to claim that we're speculating on the effects of AGW. I'm OK with that, of course, witness my argument with Nick about whether or not one can doubt (or need speculate on) the existence of the floor when you get out of bed. >8^D But there is at least a spectrum of types of speculation. I can speculate that a rock will fall to the ground when I let go and I can speculate the existence of white holes. They're different types of speculation because they depend on your belief in induction and judgments about the strength of whatever evidence is provided. My answer w.r.t. the effects of AGW is that our physical models are really all we have. So, yeah, don't trust them implicitly. But to ignore what those models predict would be to ignore all we have ... and that would be a bit silly. On 10/13/2017 08:59 AM, cody dooderson wrote: > Good Article. It portrays Robinson as a maverick but still a scientist who is ultimately interested in the truth. I respect that. My question is how does someone who respects truth get along with the Heartland institute, which I have always thought of as a well funded machine for corporate propaganda? I mean, don't his views on nuclear energy stand to ruin the fossil fuel industry that heavily funds it. He even acknowledges climate change but views it as a good thing for humanity. Aren't we all just speculating on the effects of anthropogenic climate change anyway. It's not like it's happened before. > The Grandfather Of Alt-Science > https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/ <https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/> -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen/Cody -
> I think it's natural for someone struggling toward an objective to accept resources from wherever. A useful example is the Templeton Foundation's funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation They fund some cool stuff, e.g. https://u.osu.edu/friedman.8/. But the TF's religious bent is pretty worriesome. I think there is a natural context-blindness to all of us when we seek/accept resources... we naturally downplay the differences or cherry pick our similarities. We are at least "circumspect" when we look a gift horse in the mouth, but does the allegory also apply that one should look a *Trojan* gift-horse in the belly? > Regardless, Robinson holds the same political positions as the Heartland Institute, as far as I can tell. So, it's a good match in many ways. But I think Cody's question begs a larger point... why is it that so often self-styled "Mavericks" are as pleased as can be to get in bed with big industry? I've been watching Homeland" from the beginning and in their intro trailer there is a clip of Hillary stating "you can't keep snakes in your back yard and expect them to only bite your neighbors!". Maybe they just have a lot in common with fundamentalist "serpent handlers"? > Re: speculation -- It's an equivocation to claim that we're speculating on the effects of AGW. But the type of speculation Cody is referencing (I think) IS equivocal. Not the shift in the general climatalogical envelope that is Anthropogenic, but the more specific *impact* on humans. I think it comes down to a simple dichotomy: A) Change is threatening; B) Change offers opportunity. To the extent that those with significant access to resources can "control" their environment (extract more fossil fuels, make more electricity, turn up the AC, move to a drier/wetter/less-windy/flood/fire/pestilence prone are, etc.), they can *afford* to embrace B). To those who have *less* access to resources, many will experience change primarily as a *threat*. This might be one of the key divides in our modern polarity... and one which I find myself ambi(multi?)valent about: The 1% (or maybe the whole first world) can adopt a much more cavalier attitude about AGW than the remainder, knowing that they have the resources (and track record?) to adapt to the changes in a timely manner so as not to suffer and possibly to thrive under the impending changes. The remainder are more likely to see the threat, the downside as their small island (think Tuvalu) gets inundated by rising sea levels, or as their shared Oasis/Wadi in the desert dries up, or the forests they used to harvest timber from burn off faster than they can regrow, or the dryland farm they could already barely eke out a living from will be covered in sand. In between, or shared by both sides are all sorts of unintended/unexpected consequences. There will surely be ONE dirt-poor farmer in South America or Asia or Africa who finds that the changing conditions make his life better... the rain comes further or sooner or more often for him, or in some cases, his fields dry earlier and he can plant earlier, and the distribution of sunlight through his growing season improves his crops or allows him to grow higher-profit crops... but I think there might be statistical truisms at play that suggest these folks will be on one tail of a distribution. By the same token, maybe one (or more) of the rich and powerful nations/industries/corporations/oligarchs will be laid flat by unexpected consequences of the AGW they are most implicated in causing... big Irony, but little solace for the "little guy" who got flattened along the way. If there had been enough perspective/communication shared by the neolithic humans as the last ice age waned, many might have noticed the changes and been terribly threatened (maybe whence came all the oral myths of droughts and floods and pestilence?). Certainly those living in the land-bridge between the British Isles and mainland Europe didn't find glacier melt and rising sea-levels a boon for them... THEY had to go find a new place to live and probably compete with those already there to find a new living. Those downstream from the various inundation events of the time would argue against the "benefits" of that Global Warming phase. Those living in the Saharan Savannah (cum desert), same-same. But those who followed the glaciers north and thrived amongst the expanding range for reindeer and other herds of animals might well have found their "global warming" a boon! If anyone had the technology (or magick or in with the gods) to prevent the end of the ice age, I can imagine that they WOULD HAVE opted for *no change*... even if their descendent ended up thriving under the changes? Since that was not Anthropogenic, people's reactions to and suffering/thriving under such change is relatively academic, but this round, it is NOT academic... and I think very arrogant to say "oops, I spilled the kettle... oh well, the dogs needed a good hot meal and the floor a good deep cleaning!" If we *wanted* to change the climate as it appears to be changing, and had *planned it* and *understood the consequences*, that would be a different matter, perhaps. Musk's ideas to terraform Mars for humans is at least direct and intentional (if not misguided by my estimate). My technophilic, Libertarian leanings (homunculii as Glen uses it?) get all excited at the prospects of "what a clever guy can do in times of change!", but my neoLuddite, Bleeding Heart side balks and says "yeh, but this much change this fast is going to cause a LOT of suffering!". Being ambivalent means I CAN hope for the best while preparing for the worst. Some AGW apologists have my sympathy in the "hope for the best" mode and most of the AGW alarmists have my ear because many of them ARE alarming with the goal of "prepare for the worst". I have enough resources that I probably won't drown, freeze, starve, or dehydrate unto death personally, but enough of a social conscience to note that that is a coincidence of my circumstance and I might "owe" it to the other ??% of the world's population to take an interest in the consequences to THEM, as well. - Steve > On 10/13/2017 08:59 AM, cody dooderson wrote: >> Good Article. It portrays Robinson as a maverick but still a scientist who is ultimately interested in the truth. I respect that. My question is how does someone who respects truth get along with the Heartland institute, which I have always thought of as a well funded machine for corporate propaganda? I mean, don't his views on nuclear energy stand to ruin the fossil fuel industry that heavily funds it. He even acknowledges climate change but views it as a good thing for humanity. Aren't we all just speculating on the effects of anthropogenic climate change anyway. It's not like it's happened before. >> The Grandfather Of Alt-Science >> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/ <https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/> ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |