Posted by
Steve Smith on
Nov 03, 2015; 2:34am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/FW-Meat-tp7586810p7586840.html
Glen -
> >At first, I struggled to find something to argue with. But I finally
> found it!
Well struggled, well found!
> >> As those here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far
> from trivial to really track down all the data and reproduce all of
> the >>experiments, etc. to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.
>
> >But one can't actually *do* science. Science is a collective thing,
> perhaps even an entraining thing. While there are plenty who admit
> that it's >mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and
> prediction preclude any individual from *doing* science. At best, we
> can only >*participate*. We can't _do_ it. We can only _be_ it.
Excellent point! And I suppose by analogy or extension, (which is the
extension of which), Nick's original concept of "being rational" suffers
the same issue.
>
> So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you --
> does not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because
> one hasn't done enough research. I can do so _without_ agreeing with
> the reasoning by which you reached your conclusion. It's because
> "scientific decisions" is a contradiction in terms. Decisions are
> intra-individual, cognitive things, whereas science is an
> inter-individual collective thing.
Also well pointed-out. I think it might be obvious that my point was
that in anything but the most dedicated circumstances can one even
credibly *pretend* to have done enough research to make a "scientific
decision". And if I understand your point, even then, it is at best,
"in the limit" good enough to make a tentative/interim conclusion. So
to contradict your analysis of my description, I would say that we are
not in disagreement, that in fact what you describe as "the reasoning by
which I reached my conclusion" was a mis-statement. Your own
description is more appropriate to what I meant, rather than what I said.
>
> This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to
> disagree with reasoning but agree with conclusions.
And even within oneself. I believe that we often use "surrogate
reasoning"... we tell stories that are either easier to articulate or
perhaps just easier to agree with. Perhaps in the vein of the Red
Queen, I find myself in this mode of analysis/description believing a
continuous stream of (logically?) impossible things... or more to the
point, articulating them in place of a deeper, more intuitive, possibly
unstate-able understanding?
>
>> I *do* respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that
>> are based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT
>> Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).
>
> This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows
> function arguments, too, right? Or do you allow for layers of removal
> between form and function?
Well, when put that way, I do admit multiple levels of indirection....
but still ascribe to the basic concept of Form=>Function... though
often through multiple layers: e.g. high-fiber diets keep the colon more
clear and therefore magically prevent or reduce colon cancer.
>> To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn
>> in our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the
>> consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.
>
> I find this belief the most interesting. Apophenically, it seems
> techies tend to think this way. They're also the most likely to think
> we can invent our way out of various calamaties.
I'd say "innovate" and I don't necessarily mean "technologically". I
think my "confidence" pivots around the diverstiy of our natures... our
ability to adapt physically (as warm blooded mammals) as well as
socially (as complex social creatures with an existing significant
diversity in modes of living in groups) and personally (put 50 bozos on
50 deserted islands and *some* of them will survive in spite of being
bozos).
> They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of any given
> technology (or technique). Etc. But I see a similar aspect with
> non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example,
> seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and
> fridge contents. People who can paint (or have other visual
> imagination) seem to see things others don't. Etc.
>
> So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve
> problems (generalized from one or more domains in which they are
> plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find
> solutions, even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.
You may misunderstand that *I* imagine that *I* (or my progeny) will
survive (well)... I imagine that we (humans, first-worlders,
caucasians, etc) will NOT be as successful at surviving our own mistakes
as, say, cockroaches, but we may well do better than say, whales or
gorillas. I'm not sure that first-world technologists will generally
do better than say natives currently living in semi-harsh, subsistence
circumstances.
This is an interesting tangent (as many that you trigger as a
"diffraction" from the original topic)...
- Steve
PS... thanks for introducing me to "Apophenically"
============================================================
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