speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release today, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43, anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of anything to be done at this point?
-- rec -- On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen <[email protected]> wrote: > > At first, I struggled to find something to argue with. But I finally > found it! > > On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > >> Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it >> impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to >> understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision". >> I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest. 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. > > 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. > > This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree > with reasoning but agree with conclusions. > > Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as >> possible. Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an >> example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 >> when I was essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an >> exploitative and abusive industry. I currently follow the general >> guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define >> "what is best for me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat >> important to my diet, it is probably also important for it to come to me >> infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy >> *might* be a big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT >> of green and tuberous vegetables. 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? > > > 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. 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. > > > > > -- > ⇔ glen > > ============================================================ > 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 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
