Recently I’ve been reacquainting myself with the stories of Clark Ashton Smith. Though he’s largely forgotten today, Smith was one of the leading lights of Weird Tales magazine during its 1930s golden age, ranking with H.P Lovecraft and Robert Howard as a craftsman of fantasy fiction. Like Lovecraft, Howard, and most of the other authors in the Weird Tales
stable, Smith was an outsider; he spent his life in a small town in rural California; he was roundly ignored by the literary scene of his day, and returned the favor with gusto. With the twilight of the pulps, Smith’s work was consigned to the dustbin of literary history.
It was revived briefly during the fantasy boom of the 1970, only to sink from sight again when the fantasy genre drowned in a swamp of faux-medieval clichés thereafter.
There’s no shortage of reasons to give Smith another look today, starting with his mastery of image and atmosphere and the wry humor that shaped the best of his mature work. Still, that’s a theme for another time, and possibly another forum. The theme that’s relevant to this blog is woven into one of Smith’s classic stories, The Dark Age. First published in 1938, it’s among the earliest science fiction stories I know of that revolves around an organized attempt to preserve modern science through a future age of barbarism.
The story’s worth reading in its own right, so I won’t hand out spoilers here. Still, I don’t think it will give away anything crucial to mention that one of the mainsprings of the story is the inability of the story’s scientists to find or make common ground with the neo-barbarian hill tribes around them. That aspect of the story has been much on my mind of late. Despite the rockets and rayguns that provide so much of its local color, science fiction is always about the present, which it displays in an unfamiliar light by showing a view from outside, from the distant perspective of an imaginary future.
That’s certainly true of Smith’s tale, which drew much of its force at the time of its composition from the widening chasm between the sciences and the rest of human culture that C.P. Snow discussed two decades later in his famous work “The Two Cultures.” That chasm has opened up a good deal further since Smith’s time, and its impact on the future deserves discussion here, not least because it’s starting to come into sight even through the myopic lenses of today’s popular culture.
I’m thinking here, for example, of a recent blog post by Scott Adams, the creator of the “Dilbert” comic strip. There’s a certain poetic justice in seeing popular culture’s acknowledged expert on organizational failure skewer one of contemporary science’s more embarrassing habits, but there’s more to the spectacle than a Dilbertesque joke. As Adams points out, there’s an extreme mismatch between the way that science works and the way that scientists expect their claims to be received by the general public. Within the community of researchers, the conclusions of the moment are, at least in theory, open to constant challenge—but only from within the scientific community.
The general public is not invited to take part in those challenges. Quite the contrary, it’s supposed to treat the latest authoritative pronouncement as truth pure and simple, even when that contradicts the authoritative pronouncements of six months before. Now of course there are reasons why scientists might not want to field a constant stream of suggestions and challenges from people who don’t have training in relevant disciplines, but the fact remains that expecting people to blindly accept whatever scientists say about nutrition, when scientific opinion on that subject has been whirling around like a weathercock for decades now, is not a strategy with a long shelf life. Sooner or later people start asking why they should take the latest authoritative pronouncement seriously, when so many others landed in the trash can of discarded opinions a few years further on.
There’s another, darker reason why such questions are increasingly common just now. I’m thinking here of the recent revelation that the British scientists tasked by the government with making dietary recommendations have been taking payola of various kinds from the sugar industry. That’s hardly a new thing these days. Especially but not only in those branches of science concerned with medicine, pharmacology, and nutrition, the prostitution of the scientific process by business interests has become an open scandal. When a scientist gets behind a podium and makes a statement about the safety or efficacy of a drug, a medical treatment, or what have you, the first question asked by an ever-increasing number of people outside the scientific community these days is “Who’s paying him?”
It would be bad enough if that question was being asked because of scurrilous rumors or hostile propaganda. Unfortunately, it’s being asked because there’s nothing particularly unusual about the behavior of the British scientists mentioned above. These days, in any field where science comes into contact with serious money, scientific studies are increasingly just another dimension of marketing. From influential researchers being paid to put their names on dubious studies to give them unearned credibility to the systematic concealment of “outlying” data that doesn’t support the claims made for this or that lucrative product, the corruption of science is an ongoing reality, and one that existing safeguards within the scientific community are not effectively countering.
Scientists have by and large treated the collapse in scientific ethics as an internal matter. That’s a lethal mistake, because the view that matters here is the view from outside. What looks to insiders like a manageable problem that will sort itself out in time, looks from outside the laboratory and the faculty lounge like institutionalized corruption on the part of a self-proclaimed elite whose members cover for each other and are accountable to no one. It doesn’t matter, by the way, how inaccurate that view is in specific cases, how many honest men and women are laboring at lab benches, or how overwhelming the pressure to monetize research that’s brought to bear on scientists by university administrations and corporate sponsors: none of that finds its way into the view from outside, and in the long run, the view from outside is the one that counts..
The corruption of science by self-interest is an old story, and unfortunately it’s most intense in those fields where science impacts the lives of nonscientists most directly:
yes, those would be medicine, pharmacology, and nutrition. I mentioned in an earlier blog post here a friend whose lifelong asthma, which landed her in the hospital repeatedly and nearly killed her twice, was cured at once by removing a common allergen from her diet. Mentioning this to her physician led to the discovery that he’d known about the allergy issue all along, but as he explained, “We prefer to medicate for that.” Understandably so, as a patient who’s cured of an ailment is a good deal less lucrative for the doctor than one who has to keep on receiving regular treatments and prescriptions—but as a result of that interaction among others, the friend in question has lost most of what respect she once had for mainstream medicine, and is now learning herbalism to meet her health care needs.
It’s an increasingly common story these days, and I could add plenty of other accounts here. The point I want to make, though, is that it’s painfully obvious that the physician who preferred to medicate never thought about the view from outside. I have no way of knowing what combination of external pressures and personal failings led him to conceal a less costly cure from my friend, and keep her on expensive and ineffective drugs with a gallery of noxious side effects instead, but from outside the walls of the office, it certainly looked like a callous betrayal of whatever ethics the medical profession might still have left—and again, the view from outside is the one that counts.
It counts because institutional science only has the authority and prestige it possesses today because enough of those outside the scientific community accept its claim to speak the truth about nature. Not that many years ago, all things considered, scientists didn’t have the authority or the prestige, and no law of nature or of society guarantees that they’ll keep either one indefinitely. Every doctor who would rather medicate than cure, every researcher who treats conflicts of interest as just another detail of business as usual, every scientist who insists in angry tones that nobody without a Ph.D. in this or that discipline is entitled to ask why this week’s pronouncement should be taken any more seriously than the one it just disproved—and let’s not even talk about the increasing, and increasingly public, problem of overt scientific fraud in the pharmaceutical field among others—is hastening the day when modern science is taken no more seriously by the general public than, say, academic philosophy is today.
That day may not be all that far away. That’s the message that should be read, and is far too rarely read, in the accelerating emergence of countercultures that reject the authority of science in one field. As a recent and thoughtful essay in Slate pointed out, that crisis of authority is what gives credibility to such movements as climate denialists and “anti-vaxxers” (the growing number of parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated). A good many any people these days, when the official voices of the scientific community say this or that, respond by asking “Why should we believe you?”—and too many of them don’t get a straightforward answer that addresses their concerns.
A bit of personal experience from a different field may be relevant here. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I lived in Seattle, I put a fair amount of time into collecting local folklore concerning ghosts and other paranormal phenomena. I wasn’t doing this out of any particular belief, or for that matter any particular unbelief; I was seeking a sense of the mythic terrain of the Puget Sound region, the landscapes of belief and imagination that emerged from the experiences of people on the land, with an eye toward the career writing fiction that I then hoped to launch. While I was doing this research, when something paranormal was reported anywhere in the region, I generally got to hear about it fairly quickly, and in the process I got to watch a remarkable sequence of events that repeated itself like a broken record in more cases than I can count.
Whether the phenomenon that was witnessed was an unusual light in the sky, a seven-foot-tall hairy biped in the woods, a visit from a relative who happened to be dead at the time, or what have you, two things followed promptly once the witness went public. The first was the arrival of a self-proclaimed skeptic, usually a member of CSICOP (the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), who treated the witness with scorn and condescension, made dogmatic claims about what must have happened, and responded to any disagreement with bullying and verbal abuse. The other thing that followed was the arrival of an investigator from one of the local paranormal-research organizations, who was invariably friendly and supportive, listened closely to the account of the witness, and took the incident seriously. I’ll let you guess which of the proposed explanations the witness usually ended up embracing, not to mention which organization he or she often joined.
The same process on a larger and far more dangerous scale is shaping attitudes toward science across a wide and growing sector of American society. Notice that unlike climate denialism, the anti-vaxxer movement isn’t powered by billions of dollars of grant money, but it’s getting increasing traction. The reason is as simple as it is painful: parents are asking physicians and scientists, “How do I know this substance you want to put into my child is safe?”—and the answers they’re getting are not providing them with the reassurance they need.
It’s probably necessary here to point out that I’m no fan of the anti-vaxxer movement. Since epidemic diseases are likely to play a massive role in the future ahead of us, I’ve looked into anti-vaxxer arguments with some care, and they don’t convince me at all. It’s clear from the evidence that vaccines do far more often than not provide protection against dangerous diseases; while some children are harmed by the side effects of vaccination, that’s true of every medical procedure, and the toll from side effects is orders of magnitude smaller than the annual burden of deaths from these same diseases in the pre-vaccination era.
Nor does the anti-vaxxer claim that vaccines cause autism hold water. (I have Aspergers syndrome, so the subject’s of some personal interest to me.) The epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders simply doesn’t support that claim; to my educated-layperson’s eyes, at least, it matches that of an autoimmune disease instead, complete with the rapid increase in prevalence in recent years. The hypothesis I’d be investigating now, if I’d gone into biomedical science rather than the history of ideas, is that autism spectrum disorders are sequelae of an autoimmune disease that strikes in infancy or early childhood, and causes damage to any of a variety of regions in the central nervous system—thus the baffling diversity of neurological deficits found in those of us on the autism spectrum.
Whether that’s true or not will have to be left to trained researchers. The point that I want to make here is that I don’t share the beliefs that drive the anti-vaxxer movement. Similarly, I’m sufficiently familiar with the laws of thermodynamics and the chemistry of the atmosphere to know that when the climate denialists insist that dumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can’t change its capacity to retain heat, they’re smoking their shorts. I’ve retained enough of a childhood interest in paleontology, and studied enough of biology and genetics since then, to be able to follow the debates between evolutionary biology and so-called “creation science,” and I’m solidly on Darwin’s side of the bleachers. I could go on; I have my doubts about a few corners of contemporary scientific theory, but then so do plenty of scientists.
That is to say, I don’t agree with the anti-vaxxers, the climate denialists, the creationists, or their equivalents, but I think I understand why they’ve rejected the authority of science, and it’s not because they’re ignorant cretins, much as though the proponents and propagandists of science would like to claim that. It’s because they’ve seen far too much of the view from outside. Parents who encounter a medical industry that would rather medicate than heal are more likely to listen to anti-vaxxers; Americans who watch climate change activists demand that the rest of the world cut its carbon footprint, while the activists themselves get to keep cozy middle-class lifestyles, are more likely to believe that global warming is a politically motivated hoax; Christians who see atheists using evolution as a stalking horse for their ideology are more likely to turn to creation science—and all three, and others, are not going to listen to scientists who insist that they’re wrong, until and unless the scientists stop and take a good hard look at how they and their proclamations look when viewed from outside.
I’m far from sure that anybody in the scientific community is willing to take that hard look. It’s possible; these days, even committed atheists are starting to notice that whenever Richard Dawkins opens his mouth, twenty people who were considering atheism decide to give God a second chance. The arrogant bullying that used to be standard practice among the self-proclaimed skeptics and “angry atheists” has taken on a sullen and defensive tone recently, as though it’s started to sink in that yelling abuse at people who disagree with you might not be the best way to win their hearts and minds. Still, for that same act of reflection to get any traction in the scientific community, a great many people in that community are going to have to rethink the way they handle dealing with the public, especially when science, technology, and medicine cause harm. That, in turn, is only going to happen if enough of today’s scientists remember the importance of the view from outside.
In the light of the other issues I’ve tried to discuss over the years in this blog, that view has another dimension, and it’s a considerably harsher one. Among the outsiders whose opinion of contemporary science matters most are some that haven’t been born yet: our descendants, who will inhabit a world shaped by science and the technologies that have resulted from scientific research. It’s still popular to insist that their world will be a Star Trek fantasy of limitlessness splashed across the galaxy, but I think most people are starting to realize just how unlikely that future actually is.
Instead, the most likely futures for our descendants are those in which the burdens left behind by today’s science and technology are much more significant than the benefits.
Those most likely futures will be battered by unstable climate and rising oceans due to anthropogenic climate change, stripped of most of the world's topsoil, natural resources, and ecosystems, strewn with the radioactive and chemical trash that our era produced in such abundance and couldn’t be bothered to store safely—and most of today’s advanced technologies will have long since rusted into uselessness, because the cheap abundant energy and other nonrenewable resources that were needed to keep them running all got used up in our time.
People living in such a future aren’t likely to remember that a modest number of scientists signed petitions and wrote position papers protesting some of these things. They’re even less likely to recall the utopian daydreams of perpetual progress and limitless abundance that encouraged so many other people in the scientific community to tell themselves that these things didn’t really matter—and if by chance they do remember those daydreams, their reaction to them won’t be pretty. That science today, like every other human institution in every age, combines high ideals and petty motives in the usual proportions will not matter to them in the least.
Unless something changes sharply very soon, their view from outside may well see modern science—all of it, from the first gray dawn of the scientific revolution straight through to the flamelit midnight when the last laboratory was sacked and burned by a furious mob—as a wicked dabbling in accursed powers that eventually brought down just retribution upon a corrupt and arrogant age. So long as the proponents and propagandists of science ignore the view from outside, and blind themselves to the ways that their own defense of science is feeding the forces that are rising against it, the bleak conclusion of the Clark Ashton Smith story cited at the beginning of this post may yet turn out to be far more prophetic than the comfortable fantasies of perpetual scientific advancement cherished by so many people today.
********
264 comments:
3/18/15, 5:31 PM
Glenn said...
Glenn
in the Bramblepatch
Marrowstone Island
Salish Sea
Cascadia
3/18/15, 6:03 PM
John Roth said...
3/18/15, 6:19 PM
Carnegie said...
Realistically, this is a double bind for environmentalists. Someone I know put it this way. Who are you going to trust about climate change? The woman who drives an SUV and preaches about sustainability or the woman who emerges from the woods, leaves in her hair, and stands atop a pulpit preaching about the coming flood? The correct answer is neither. You are going to trust neither of these people.
Of course it's a false choice, and it's possible to live a lower impact lifestyle without being an Alaskan homesteader, but I think it's also a useful point. On one hand, the SUV will make a skeptic out of the listener, but on the other hand, the prospect of drastically decreased wealth ("dark green environmentalism") will likely generate such a gut reaction as to wall off the listener's ear drums.
How can we win?
It is no wonder that off-the-grid ecovillage fantasies pop up among environmentalists so frequently. Just like the climate denial, it may not be a good idea, but you can at least understand why it happens.
3/18/15, 6:25 PM
JimK said...
While the outside view of science is important, the inside view of philosophy of science is also a crucial blind spot. The two blind spots are related, of course. But scientists largely adhere to a blind faith in "the" scientific method. It's like the wizard of Oz insisting, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Science itself would be greatly enhanced by a better balance between producing results and reflecting on methods. But science has really degenerated into careerism. Real scientists, passionately curious and courageously questioning, are probably rarer today than a century ago. The crass commercialism creates such a brutal environment that the real scientists can hardly survive. Not much different from the world of the arts.
3/18/15, 6:28 PM
Kutamun said...
The Gods of one Age become the demons of the next , so perhaps we will see a subversive tradition of counter culture people worshipping dark altars and images of these fallen minor deities of a previous age " Scientists " , xhiefmost CEO among them who may be summoned at sunset and commandeth 666 legions may be called "Vaccine" , but be warned do not let him fool or deceiveth you , he soeaks with forked tongue and assuredly will attempt to free himself from the triangle .....
3/18/15, 6:30 PM
Andy Brown said...
I departed for a more tactical level, working with people trying to do good.
So, while I can't really disagree with your analysis, I locate most of the problem in the compromises that scientists make toward a destructive, external system of power and greed, though maybe that sounds to you like a hollow and evasive excuse.
Scholarship, like the arts, has always needed a patron, but in too many cases it struck a deal with the devil. Some of them should have known better.
3/18/15, 6:31 PM
El Borak said...
Witness the disease scientists (most recently at Wisconsin Madison) who are trying to create more virulent strains of flu and what have you. Sure, we want to study in order to protect ourselves. But we're still human, and humans sometimes do stupid things just because we can. Mistakes get made, and if one happens to be made with a cross between Ebola and Spanish Lady, then the future religious fanatics won't fear science because they don't understand it, but because they understand it too well.
3/18/15, 6:35 PM
r_df34 said...
I think the risk of science being abandoned altogether is minimal. If anything, the first thing our descendants will jettison is the institutional web of science - the network of universities and foundations - which are, after all, the most susceptible to corruption. The scientific method itself, conceived purely as a tool for understanding certain aspects of reality, seems too useful to abandon. I wonder if the idea of a professional scientist, being paid to produce research, was itself a misstep for our society. How can monetary compensation not interfere with objectivity in the pursuit of the truth? I can more easily see a return to the form that science had in the 16th or 17th century, pursued as a hobby by the educated upper classes, or laypeople without a formal education/indoctrination.
3/18/15, 6:46 PM
Random Man said...
But my opinion is formed and will remain so for the rest of my life. Namely, that very little of what we talk about today is going to be relevant or last.
If a society is terminable and unsustainable, I must conclude that every part of it is terminable and unsustainable, including science.
I do not for a moment mean that human beings won't have science in 50 or 100 years. I think we all agree on that. What I mean is, we won't have the science we have today, so whatever comes is more or less going to be unrecognizable.
3/18/15, 6:48 PM
Dan the Farmer said...
3/18/15, 6:52 PM
Patricia Mathews said...
You see, I'm old enough to remember when the medical consensus of my parents' generation was that the poor were "pale, pudgy, and unhealthy from all the cheap starches they eat", and when the medical & diet industry was trying to shove those cheap starches down our throats as healthy. A lot of us swallowed that. If you saw the weight given on my 2004 driver's license (and quite certainly rounded down), though other factors were at work there ....
So, three cheers and a hearty BRAVO! for letting me know I'm neither alone nor among the crackpots for my heavy skepticism.
3/18/15, 6:56 PM
Bob Wise said...
3/18/15, 7:00 PM
Chester said...
I think the connection you made between vocal champions of science and angry atheists is an apt one. I was an angry young unbeliever myself at one time -- easily persuaded by the logic of the Dawkinses of the world. Not that that was difficult, given the tepid attitude toward religion in the white, middle class Northeastern American areas where I grew up.
But dogmatism is dogmatism, and it was ultimately that relentless bullying attitude which forced me to step back and reexamine my conclusions. I consider myself some kind of pantheist/agnostic now, though I'm sure strict adherents to that phony atheist-fundamentalist tug of war would call me an atheist.
Anyway, that experience has given me the perspective to be able to empathize with anybody that chooses to reject a popular paradigm -- whether it's climate change, vaccinations, feminism, or whatever. People often throw away good, healthy ideas as a result, but it's hard to blame them.
Perhaps this is a part of the end of the age of abundance? It once seemed like there were just a few versions of reality competing for prominence. With the fall of the Soviet Union, globalization seemed like it was poised to merge us all into one science-led vision of reality, but it seems to have gone the other way. Instead, everyone picks up little shards of unconventional belief here and there and suddenly nobody can agree on what's true anymore.
Maybe that's not a bad thing? I don't know, but it seems confusing.
3/18/15, 7:02 PM
Steve Carrow said...
As we get further into decline, governments have less and less income to apportion to "overhead" functions like pure research or regulatory oversight, profit seeking money steps in to fund research, the corporate/government revolving door spins all the faster, universities and research labs struggle to maintain their function and take the Faustian bargain.
Adding fuel to the fire, in a dysfunctional symbiosis, the media, grasping for eyeballs, scour the journals for studies they can sensationalize, at the same time researchers, desperate for the next grant, stretch their conclusions to imply more than they can really justify.
The field of science, in addition to losing credibility and drive toward improvement, is now shackled to short term profit in service to its master. As the catch phrase from the 70's says:"Follow the money". Or from another empire in the past: Cui Bono".
3/18/15, 7:08 PM
Pinku-Sensei said...
Science fiction speaking to our current anxieties has always been true. According to a film professor at Georgia Tech, it was true in the 1930s when literature and film converted the fears about war and depression into cataclysms such as floods, tsunamis, plagues, and cometary collisions. Looks familiar, as some things don't change, including fears of war and depression today translating into similar disasters in modern science fiction literature and media. That same film professor pointed out that climate change had become a current anxiety in its own right and a subject of cinema.
Another source of anxiety might be something not as obvious. A lot of 21st Century monsters may not be representations of threats to life and limb, but threats to autonomy. The spread of ideas that turn people into mindless mobs might just be the inspiration for the fear of the zombie apocalypse. Misuse of information technology and media, the instruments of last week's topic, "The Prosthetic Imagination," and part of what produces the view from outside, could lead to the horror of The Matrix movies. Add the subjects together, and the result might be monsters of the digital frontier.
As for the likelihood of that happening over the long term, I fear that JMG may be right; there may be no ability for the conditions that give rise to these fears to go on long enough, and next century's monsters may again be the ones that pose threat to life and limb, and not just the autonomy of industrial civilization's comfortable denizens.
Finally, PhD Comics portrays part of the problem with popular representation of science, the way university's promote the research of their own scientists, in The Science News Cycle. Based on that, the academy has no one to blame but themselves.
3/18/15, 7:10 PM
Curtis said...
I would suggest a couple of remedies that, while paradoxically seeming to undermine faith in science, might actually restore a modest amount of it. Instead of science as a bludgeon (the Dawkins approach), we might restore science to a "candle in the dark" - a modest but useful way to dispel some problematic beliefs. (Sagan had problems in his views, but his metaphor is still useful, I think.)
1. Teach science the way that the late Neil Postman suggested: As a historical endeavour. Postman suggested with dead seriousness that the Ptelomaic model of astronomy before Copernicus's. His idea was to see the successes and failures of theories, and why succession of one theory of another can be useful.
Thomas Kuhn makes a related point for different reasons: textbook science edits out the failures or "irrelevant" aspects to present science as progress. I do not recall any science book talking about Newton's alchemy, for instance.
I remember learning about the caloric theory of heat and Lamarckian evolution in high school - this was an extremely useful exercise because you could see *why* people believed them and why people thought they were now wrong.
Postman, interestingly, suggested a solution to teaching creationism that was sure to please no one - teach it, and then have students try to test each theory with experiments, facts, and the proposal of new hypotheses.
2. Read about issues by people outside of the discipline. For instance, if you read about health issues from a sociological perspective, you get a very different set of prescriptions of health than what others recommend. For example, one of the reasons why the United States is far off the map in terms of health in the first - and even developing - world is its inequality.
On the health issue, my favourite outsider's book was Ivan Illich's "Medical Nemesis". Iatrogenesis should be a far better known term.
3. Read critical books within the discipline. On the medical issue, I have numerous critical books on mainstream medicine... written by mainstream doctors. Examples:
Overdo$ed America by John Abramson
On the take by Jerome Kassirer
Overdiagnosed: making people sick in the pursuit of health by H. Gilbert Welch et al.
3/18/15, 7:11 PM
Chris Balm said...
3/18/15, 7:12 PM
John Michael Greer said...
John, I hope so.
Carnegie, by moving toward the middle, away from those two extremes. Half the reason I have what credibility I possess is that I don't have either the SUV or the leaves in my hair. If people who were concerned about climate change cut their carbon footprint in half, while maintaining a humane and decent lifestyle -- and it's entirely possible to do that -- my guess is that cliamte change activism wouldn't have fallen flat on its face.
JimK, granted. I'm just using the angle of attack that I think might do the most good.
Kutamun, wouldn't surprise me at all; a lot of medieval magic was based on classical Pagan philosophy, after all.
Andy, I certainly didn't mean to put the blame on individuals! As I noted, from outside, it doesn't matter what combination of pressures are driving scientists to behave the way they too often do; it's the effect that matters.
El Borak, no argument there. Compliments on your online handle, btw -- given that this post started with a Weird Tales reference, a comment from one of Robert E. Howard's less famous pulp heroes is certainly apropos. ;-)
R_d, I think you're wrong, for the reasons cited in my post.
Random, well, we disagree. I don't think it's possible to change the overall trajectory of industrial society this late in the game, but there are still things that can be accomplished.
Dan, no, I didn't. That's sad.
Patricia, you're far from alone. After all, you've got Dilbert on your side! ;-)
Bob, that's part of it, but not all of it. The next time your doctor gives you some health recommendation, try saying, "Well, but how do I know if that's right? After all, these other recommendations werent" -- and see whether she takes that calmly. (If she does, you have a very good doctor.)
3/18/15, 7:13 PM
Thomas Daulton said...
I would propose one refinement to "The View from Outside", though: at least as often as not, a doubter's negative experience with science comes not directly from the scientists nor even directly from the mass media reporting on the science; especially in the case of health, (and don't even get me started on the "science" of economics), it very often comes secondhand from a fellow lay-person who has read some news article about a generalized scientific principle. The other person, who has some kind of axe to grind and wants to feel superior, attempts to use the general principle as a blunt instrument in attacking some specific hated group either personally or politically. Even if he's not the subject of the attack, the doubter sees very clearly that the motivation for the pseudo-scientific attack is not scientific, and comes to believe that all science is corrupt and partisan.
"The View from Outside" of science is by no means a unified or monolithic standpoint. The Scientific Method allegedly has safeguards against fraud and orthodoxy... but it incorporates no safeguards whatsoever regarding the use of science as a political football by non-scientists, tossed between opposing cliques. You've mentioned this in passing in the context of competing factions trying to feed at the trough of a collapsing culture, but I think it's an important component of why individual people mistrust science.
3/18/15, 7:18 PM
druiddisciple said...
3/18/15, 7:21 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Steve, that's a very plausible analysis.
Pinku-sensei, it doesn't take much watching of Japanese monster movies to realize that Godzilla is a personified earthquake and Rodan a personified typhoon, so I tend to agree.
Curtis, those are three very good habits. It amuses me, though, to think of the spluttering that you'd get if you proposed them to Neil DeGrasse Tyson et al.!
Chris, no argument there.
Thomas, that's a very good point -- the way atheists use evolution as a stalking horse for No-God-ism, which I mentioned briefly in the post, is just one example, of course.
3/18/15, 7:23 PM
Cherokee Organics said...
Yes, I had remembered your recommendation of Clark Ashton Smith (and the meeting rules / organisational books) but have not yet made the journey to the dark, dingy and dusty bookshop where I'm pretty certain that there'll be a bumper load of his books.
Sorry people, it's not in my nature to be mysterious, but I cannot reveal the whereabouts of this true gem of a bookshop. I can't lie, I'm driven by self interest in this matter as I'm genuinely concerned others may get there first. hehe!
As an interesting side note, I picked up most of the more obscure Jack Vance pulp books there too. Original covers and in good - but very dusty - condition. Jack Vance cites Smith as an early and heavy influence. I'm currently reading Vance’s work Emphyrio which I can't stress highly enough as to its level of excellence – but I am a rusted on fan.
Yes, don't mention herbalism to a medical practitioner. I've never been treated like a whacko before and it is an unpleasant feeling, but it had the positive benefit of letting me know that there must something in it - otherwise they would not bristle so, would they? Who would have thought that you could unknowingly step into the middle of a long and brutal turf war...
As to what makes up a profession - well I know something about this, and will below provide a grading for the scientific profession along with some notes:
- Systematic body of theory and knowledge. A+. Well done, they have worked well at this task, but complacency is possible and they must continue to work hard to avoid that particular trap.
- Extensive education process. Again A+. A rigid and formal hierarchy / caste system has been long established with scope for individuals of high merit to rise within the priesthood - oops, sorry, I meant to write hierarchy.
- Ideal of service to the community. Qualified C grade. It is worthwhile exploring this particular concept a bit further to uncover the reasons behind the poor grade. A monopoly of professional knowledge gives professions power and opportunity (should they wish to) to exploit their privileged position to the detriment of the public at large. The monopoly continues so long as the power is used in the public interest. This trust is a social contract. I would suggest that scientists are straining the limits of the social contract, still I guess we may need to do more research into the matter (people - as hint that last sentence is a bit of humour which you may need to think about).
- A high degree of autonomy and independence. C-. Unfortunately if the community at large has the perception that the scientific community is not independent from that of their employers then that ship has sailed as they are perceived to lack integrity and no longer working in the public interest.
- A code of ethics for members. F-. JMG put that argument forward better than I could. It doesn't look good for them.
- A distinctive ethos or culture. A+. Outsiders opinions must not count in the process, they are unable to approach the altar.
cont...
3/18/15, 7:24 PM
Cherokee Organics said...
- Existence of a governing body. F. Fail. Nuff said. They are a profession in chaos.
Hope you all enjoyed my report card on the state of the scientific profession!
Exactly, they're setting themselves up as the scapegoat de jour and they're too narrowly focused to even understand that minor but important detail. Because when they fail to deliver - they'll be crucified - especially as more people chant the mantra "they'll think of something". Expectation management wouldn’t be a bad idea at this stage of the game.
Incidentally, I'll end this notable rant (yeah, I'm being silly) by linking to Dr Karl Kruszelnicki the Australian science communicator - a very well-spoken bloke - talking about The recent government intergenerational report. As a challenge see how many faith based statements you can spot.
Cheers
Chris
PS: The latest blog post is up:
Burning Scones about: having to rebuild the wood heater here; frost in the valley below; more excavations; autumn flowering plants; Poopy the Pomeranian; more stuff on how the house was built; and how to get rid of a very large plastic water tank (not my idea). Lots of cool photos too.
3/18/15, 7:24 PM
SweaterMan said...
To me, the most vexing problem with "SCIENCE" and the "SCIENTISTS" is in the way science is supposed to work versus how scientists get boxed into their views, just like the rest of us.
Science is supposed to be self-correcting; as new data arrives that is incompatible with current theories, then either (1) the data has to be explained within the current framework or shown to be anomalous, or (2) current theories need updating.
So if there was any group of people you would expect to notice this change in view "from the outside", react to it, and update their way of thinking to this "view from the outside" you would think it would be scientists! It's the way their profession works!
Instead, they corral the wagons and defend from within, again and again.
This saddens me, because some scientific ideas may be utterly lost as we move forward. And while many ideas have little impact on day-to-day live of people [Quantum Electrodynamics], other do impact in severe ways [Germ Theory of Disease].
I don't think there is any way to get the money out of science however. As an example, someone can't prove a theory about extra-solar gas giant planets without having access to a boatload of equipment that costs big dollars to operate. If you don't have access to telescopes outside of the atmosphere your theory is nothing more than speculation over a couple of beers.
I'm stopping now, because I'm rambling. This was truly a disturbing post to me tonight however. The end of Asimov's story "Nightfall" springs to mind...
3/18/15, 7:25 PM
oilman2 said...
With calculus and even advanced algebra removed from mandatory curricula; with special "sciences for (insert non-science filed here) as credit hours; with social studies and geography no longer even taught much less anything resembling real history - how can the typical graduate even begin to absorb anything remotely technical?
There is also a dearth of generalists due to the demand for specialists of every sort - and it pays well. But having run several companies, generalists are better bang for the buck, as they tend to focus on what is realistically possible within the bounds of current science. These same specialists often are completely lost in the forest searching for a species of tree...yet they are forced to teach!
I have read what passes as a 'textbook', and when the spelling and grammar are corrected by an algo, it isn't completely coherent. It also is more often than not priced as a printed textbook, but actually an e-pub. And the content atrocious if not mainly grandstanding blather covering basic concepts that can be found in any library (do they still have those?)
The graduates of today are not and have not been given the same degree of education as I was in the 1970's. My latest son took Beekeeping, and it consisted of watching YUtube videos and taking tests - bees were verboten due to possible lawsuits from any allergic reactions. Textbook was 65 pages Epub for $150, mandatory. Truth - education is now truly a corrupt racket.
Education in America has become so ludicrous that even my kids told me we were getting ripped off - but it is the only path available if one must get a job. I am amazed that I had to explain the difference between the average and median AFTER they covered statistics...making it no wonder that the populace cannot understand basic science much less epigenetics.
I believe that the general dumbing down from political correctness and fairness doctrines espoused by academia have irrevocably hurt education and discourse. I think that the extreme monetization of college educations combined with the above items, as much as your theory regarding sciences rapidly corrupting image, serves to build a very high wall between science and the common man.
Science was never supposed to be a religion, but we are approaching that stage now, when discourse is discouraged. The scientists circle the wagons and many pontificate theories (not laws, but theories) while the populace is intentionally being educated less - forcing them to accept or reject based on what 'sounds good' or "makes sense". Glass is not a solid - does that make "sense"?
Maybe we have come to the age of "Soundbite Science", because that is all people get delivered to them and all we can understand in many cases.
3/18/15, 7:31 PM
Curtis said...
I cannot prove or disprove god(s) directing evolution, for example.
I have no idea what happens when we die. (Although I am intrigued by answers offered by Stoics, Epicureans, and Buddhists, where I draw many of my beliefs from.)
When I was 10, I saw a bright blue light in the ditch across from my house, and have no idea if I saw an alien or other novel life form, was having one heck of a lucid dream, or what.
The angry atheists lack are empathy and humility. (In fact, any scientist who lacks these things is dangerous.) It's easy to condemn beliefs; it's harder to understand why people might hold them.
I am also content to experience moments of awe without forcing the scientific mindset. I grew up on a reserve in Southern Ontario -- I'm part Ojibway - surrounded by enormous bluffs, thick forests, wild strawberry filled fields, clean water.... And while I understand the "science" of all of these things, to be present in the experience requires no explanation.
This is a long winded way to say, if a scientist also doesn't have that sense of wonder about the world and reverence for it, they too are also likely to be dangerous.
3/18/15, 7:46 PM
El Borak said...
Given the Wierd Tales intro, I'll confess to having been a little self-conscious about posting on this thread...
That said, I ought to add that much of science's modern problem is a lot of not-science and almost-science trying to appropriate the respectability that actual science has accumulated over time. When almost-science inevitably fails, it makes actual science look bad.
It's not chemistry's fault that someone else's prediction doesn't pan out the way the models and the spokesman-celebrities publicly predicted. But when both are 'science' it becomes chemistry's problem.
3/18/15, 7:48 PM
Angus Wallace said...
I think Carnegie makes a good point, and that more thinking on it is worthwhile. This is something I've been thinking about recently.
Realistically, any effort to reduce one's impact on natural systems means consuming less. That includes things like cars, clothing, toys, houses, travel. All those things are status symbols. Therefore, an effort to impact the biosphere less amounts to a loss of status. This has the consequence that others will pay that person less respect than they would if that person had all those status symbols.
I agree that there needs to be a middle ground between business-as-usual and livin-wild-in-the-woods, but it is not clear to me how to counter the loss of status. Perhaps we need to push new status symbols? (this might be already happening, but golly it's slow!)
ps. on vaguely related themes, I wrote a couple of posts recently. The first about kitchens, and how people think about them. The second about how much wealth is liberated when cars are removed.
Thanks again for your interesting essay,
-Angus
3/18/15, 8:00 PM
Mickey Foley said...
If you're so inclined, check out my blog, Riding the Rubicon.
3/18/15, 8:15 PM
Ben said...
Jarred Diamond will be speaking at the University of Tulsa next Thursday. The event is free and open to the public, if you'd like to attend ;)
Diamond's books 'Collapse' and 'Guns Germs and Steel' had a profound effect on my thinking about the wider world as a young man. I have bee disappointed in recent years by Diamond's insistence that the green-washed efforts of Wal-Mart (among others) might manage to stave off ecological collapse. I will be very curious what he actually has to say next week, and will report here if y'all are interested.
On a related note, my father recently gave me a subscription to National Geographic. I have a lot of respect for them for, among other things, actually talking about the end of the age of cheap oil waaaay before it was cool. That said, this recent article http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
ascribes skepticism to, for lack of a batter term, tribalism. Your (plural) thoughts?
3/18/15, 8:16 PM
FiftyNiner said...
Most clairvoyant Archdruid, you covered many of the questions that I had been mulling over for the last few days! I went to high school in the late 1960's here in the small town near where I live now. I had a remarkable science teacher who taught the entire science curriculum, which I took all of, and made A's, I might add! Looking back, how did we get through biology without all of the drama that seems to adhere to it these days? Mind you, this is the conservative, rural South and most of may classmates were Baptists, but I and they had enough respect for the way the basic science was presented to conclude that science and religion can coexist without cancelling each other out.
When I went to college I went straight for the humanities and took only some basic science courses.
My mother had type 2 diabetes for almost 40 years. I did everything I could to help her manage her disease and up until the last five years or so I trusted her doctors without question. Even when she was given Avandia, which resulted in life altering congestive heart failure, I blamed the drug company more than the doctors. No longer! MD's and most DO's in this country are de facto employees of the pharmaceutical industry. The medical schools don't even try to hide the source of their major funding! Does anyone think that when Novartis gives $20 million to a medical school in Pennsylvania that they don't expect some bang for their buck?
Too late I learned how we had been lied to about food. My mother's health and that of myself and my family suffered as a result. Too late I learned that the thing that is most likely to kill a diabetic is not too much "sugar" in the blood but too much "insulin!" Add to that the recent disclosures about "anticholenergic drugs being implicated in dementia, and you have here one good ol' boy who is through with doctors! I will use herbs and supplements and consult with a ND when I need to.
Johnny Carson had a joke years ago which in effect concluded that it was over for doctors--the lawyers and the insurance companies had won! A might disconcerting then--undeniable now!
NB. (The science teacher referenced above was born the same year as my mother and she too is in the nursing home in the final stages of dementia.)
3/18/15, 8:18 PM
peakfuture said...
As science falls away, what happens to the engineering/science interface? If you don't need alloys more exotic than iron-carbon steels, not much research is needed in exotic material sciences.
Also, when the infrastructure of the modern world falls away, perhaps engineering becomes more like it was in the Roman or pre-industrial age; rules of thumb, with some knowledge guarded and some openly published in well bound books. Or will engineering be rejected as well?
I tend to think that r_df34's point about funding of science interfering with the Truth is on the mark. Did Science go off the rails when it started being backed by lots of money (and when did that start to happen?)
If memories of Science are strongly linked with the world of problems we will have in the future, however, it is definitely plausible that people will reject it in the future. Sort of like people reflectively rejecting any flag that has an angular black, red and white color scheme; your cause might be noble, but the memories of that Other Flag could seriously put the damper on the transmission of your ideas.
Godwin's Law Of Flags - Any flag of a cause that has an angular black/red/white color scheme will immediately be associated with the group mentioned in Godwin's Law.
3/18/15, 8:21 PM
Zachary Braverman said...
My wife is a doctor here, and she agreed with me that there had to have been wide knowledge among other doctors at the hospital of this doctor's fatal incompetence. They can't help but know. But of course, no one wants to raise a fuss or be the bad guy, so patients keep dying.
IMHO, it's those doctors who are truly at fault. There will always be bad apples (in any country in any discipline), but when everybody knows about the bad apple but is unwilling to do something about it, that's when structural corruption occurs.
3/18/15, 8:24 PM
Dylan said...
I have several friends on the spectrum and have been a mentor/chaperone to children in similar situations, so I've been quite curious about this subject as well.
The best information I've found has been through a local woman who at age eleven decided to devote herself to studying her own symptoms, combing the medical journals and experimenting in her own life to see what worked. For her, science has been a tool for personal empowerment. She's come up with five root causes of autism, each of which may be more or less relevant for each individual:
1. Brain and Nervous System Injury
2. Unresolved Trauma
3. Immune Overwhelm
4. Impaired Detoxification
5. Gut Dysbiosis (intestinal ecosystem unbalanced)
Numbers 1 and 2 often occur at birth or in early childhood, number 3 chimes with your hunch, JMG, while 4 and 5 are aggravated by trends you cover in this blog.
These are my rough notes from her online resources; always best to go the source: http://thrivewithautism.ca/about-2/about/
I mention all this because although medical science usually tells autistics they have an incurable neurological disorder, it's more likely compounded biomedical sensitivities that seem to go along with certain cognitive gifts- gifts our culture has little to no appreciation for. Medical science's "diagnose, medicate, repeat" addiction furthers people's frustration and narrows the perceived scope of scientifically verifiable treatments.
Your description in last week's post of re-imagining things visually reminded me strongly of a young autistic boy I used to accompany. Just watching the way he watched the world was enough to change my perceptions of things profoundly.
3/18/15, 8:42 PM
pyrrhus said...
As to medical research in general, since most doctors and researchers are terrible at math, the vast majority of it is just garbage, which is what some verification studies are finding--80% of NIH papers are not reproducible. This problem is rampant in the social sciences, and also in "climate" science.
Nassim Taleb observes that all of the increase in life span in the last 50 years in the US is attributable to the decrease in tobacco use....leaving none for medical "advances." It is also true that when hospitals shut down, the death rate drops.
3/18/15, 9:00 PM
RepubAnon said...
3/18/15, 9:03 PM
Ien in the Kootenays said...
3/18/15, 9:07 PM
Robert Martini said...
While institutionalized science may fall flat on its face. I don't believe there is much danger to practical science on an individual scale. It very well may evolve into trade organizations, but even the most religious and dogmatic societies relied on practical science simply because it was better than alternatives. Building irrigation structures and levees, great cathedrals and temples, and even astronomy was developed multiple times and places independently. I don't mean to underscore the value of retaining the science on an individual level as well. The issue of autoimmune disorders benefit greatly from the concepts of microbial ecology in the gut, mouth and on the skin. Altering the composition of gut flora via macronutrient ratios in my diet whether ketogenic or fasting allowed me to cure things my doctors said were incurable. Going forward much like the economy real results will define the ideological landscape cutting through the muddled abstractions. I plan to choose a few of conceptual suites to carry through to the decades. Speaking of which.
http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0130-hance-physics-biotic-pump.html
One conceptual suite concerning me as of late is this. I was hoping you could tell me what the spirits of nature may think of the task of reclaiming deserts for life?
Also decline and fall and twightlights last gleaming were brilliant!
Best Wishes!
3/18/15, 9:19 PM
Purple Tortoise said...
3/18/15, 9:20 PM
Tasha T. said...
Until I decided to be skeptical about some of the Skeptical Dogma.
First I searched, "scientific evidence against GMOs"
Then I searched "scientific evidence for psychic powers."
And I realized that "debunking" and repeating the mantra "Occam's Razor" was not science.
And great as science is, it isn't everything.
And now I'm growing a little garden in my apartment and throwing "garbage" into my worm bin to make black gold.
I'm reading primary sources, building up a library, and making janky printing presses.
I'm pouring over gnostic text and the works of Hermes Trismegistus. I'm reading Tarot spreads and feeding my lodestones.
And I have real hope for the first time in years and I'm putting that hope to work.
3/18/15, 9:21 PM
Val said...
3/18/15, 9:28 PM
Nicholas Carter said...
On the topic of science supporters' attitude: One of my experiences is that if someone comes to me asking for advice and I give the advice honestly, that is to say with appropriate caveats, hedges, and caution, they will say "Oh, well then I will ask someone who actually knows." aka someone who speaks with the Wagging Finger of Authority. The lesson I'm tempted to take away from this, the lesson I see reflected in many co-sciencists lived experiences, is to warm up that Wagger and say "This is the way it is, or I'll blight Hagsgate!" whenever the issue is even a bit important.
On the topic of medicating: An essay I read from a practicing physician once explained that there is a word, when a medicine exists for an ailment, for recommending an allergenic, dietetic, or lifestyle intervention. It's a straightforward legal term for recommending fish oil, or st. john's, or any number of other well-known curatives.
Malpractice. A licensed doctor professionally recommending a cure that isn't on the FDA approval list is committing malpractice, and his license will be whistling in the wind before long. That's what the doctor likely meant by "we prefer". This is why the FDA is currently monitoring drug trials to derive expensive treatments from fish oil, so that no one's license should be threatened if they recommend it.
And while it isn't reasonable, perhaps, I can't help but think when I read about Florida and South Carolina making the phrase climate change verboten, that maybe lay people are already too involved in scientific debate. The Archdruid himself has little patience for anti-science cornucopians of the Cold Fusion, Infinite Economic Growth, and Pollution Goes Away crowd.
I think it's ironic that in the future there's a good chance that the process that gave us organic agriculture, ecology, and the limits to growth will be vilified as the Faustian summoner of the Hyperborian age. But I guess that's what you get when you live in a Hyperborian age.
Lastly, I had no idea Aston Clark Smith was forgotten. He is well remembered in my neck of the woods, and discussed in online chats as a touchstone. Perhaps, like Walden and the Bible he is often quoted, rarely read?
3/18/15, 9:51 PM
Mark said...
While I can see his point, I wonder if most scientists don't wonder the same thing. After all, they are not the ones with questionable judgement, it's the people outside. Besides, if they were smart, wouldn't they be on the inside? Hasn't every experience in their lives reinforced the belief that the smartest people win?
BTW, the book is "The Starship and the Canoe" and it's categorised as non-fiction.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't genetic engineering where the smartest people are going these days? because that's where all the money is? Or is it still weapons development?
What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
(Biosphere II)
3/18/15, 9:54 PM
YCS said...
Talking about polemic science, here's the latest example of a respected scientific figure being shouted down by the proponents of the 'current fad'.
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/17/jane-goodall-decries-gm-proponents-as-anti-science/
It's amusing that most pro-GMO articles I've read always mention some 'vast evidence' that I never seem to find, or the 'obviousness' of the safety of a huge systems change that hasn't been tested yet.
Also (for all): I wrote a post on my blog two days ago. It's slapdash, but I hope to convey some imagery. Thoughts much appreciated!
http://youngcollapsescholar.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-insane-dying-man.html
YCS
3/18/15, 10:41 PM
John Michael Greer said...
SweaterMan, excellent. There are several bits in "Nightfall" that make me think Asimov had read, and was thinking about, Smith's "The Dark Age."
Oilman, I won't disagree -- but I'd point out that scientists come out of that same educational system, and they have plenty of educational deficits as a result. I routinely encounter people with Ph.D.s in a scientific field who believe the crassest stupidities about history, for example. My conclusion is that scientists may have more in common with the rabble than they think!
Curtis, thank you! To my mind, the willingness to say "I don't know" is the rock bottom foundation of all human wisdom.
El Borak, oh, granted. One of the challenges here is that exactly what counts as "scientific" is a political football in contemporary culture.
Angus, of course it's a challenge. One of the things I've noticed in my own work in this field, though, is that status symbols are increasingly ambivalent these days -- what conveys high status also calls up a range of negative reactions, and people actually get wistful in the presence of some status-lowering things (along the "I wish I could do that" line of thinking).
Mickey, a fascinating question.
Ben, well, of course! Admitting that there's anything else to it would require talking about the view from outside, and that means that the outside perspective has to be admitted to the discussion. You're not going to see that anywhere in the bland glossy mental monoculture of today's pop media.
FiftyNiner, condolences -- that's got to be harsh to go through.
Peakfuture, as long as there have been people, there have been people who make things -- call them engineers if you wish. Outside of a very few historical periods, yes, it's been a matter of rule-of-thumb and craft secrets passed from master to apprentice, and I'm quite sure that the people-who-make-things of the future will do things much the same way.
Zachary, that's always the problem with treating such things as a manageable internal problem: from outside, it looks very different, and the consequences can be very ugly indeed.
Dylan, interesting. I'll check it out.
Pyrrhus, hope indeed! Thank you.
RepubAnon, it is indeed. I need to go back to Lieber one of these days -- a major fave in my teen years, though I've read little of him for decades.
3/18/15, 11:23 PM
Derv said...
Sorry, just wanted to do that. I'm glad that the tone and quality of conversation here can rise above that, even when various people disagree. I think you've shown here the value of a moderated forum online.
I think the only way to save the scientific institution at this point is to have a schism, one complete with new principles that are binding. There are some pretty fundamental flaws with the scientific method as it's currently practiced. Old ideas are often not abandoned, but rather revised to fit new data, even when this totally undermines their original justification for acceptance. Most importantly, there are countless studies and data sets that remain unpublished, often because they don't get the results that are wanted. If every study undertaken had to be published, and a method for discarding old theories was incorporated, and data sets became public after, say, 5 years, then there may be a chance. But it'd be the heretics who would save the institution, not the current lot. It is too insular, entrenched, and easily manipulated to survive without massive change, and this comes from a strong believer in the scientific method.
Obviously our Star Trek future is never happening, but I do wonder if the people of the future will look back at our autoimmune issues with the same mockery and revulsion that many look at the four humours, leeching, and taking heroin as medicine. That seems to me to be the underlying thread tying together our biggest health problems: autism, diabetes/obesity, gluten issues (insofar as it isn't just a fad), perhaps even depression. I myself have terrible back and joint issues from ankylosing spondylitis, an autoimmune disorder.
And if I may be so permitted to touch softly upon the issue, with no intention of sparking debate, I think creationism is often held for epistemological reasons. The scientific consensus has never been and could never be superior to the Bible in the view of many believers, so the quality of its output is somewhat irrelevant. They really just trust the Bible. But I grant that disillusionment with the inadequacy of the current establishment can both lead people to seek other explanations like (young-earth) creationism and to see little need to compromise their views even slightly by accommodating scientific findings.
For my part, I'm what I'd call a philosophical creationist. This is the approach I use to try to defuse the tension and anger I've seen from some of my fellow Christians. Once you grant the existence of a supernatural Creator, debating His methodology seems a bit of a moot point, doesn't it? :) Creating a universe five minutes ago (or 7000 years ago) that looks like it's been buzzing along for billions of years isn't exactly challenging to an omnipotent Being, and Adam wasn't created as a baby, so why must the universe be? (Again, not trying to spark debate or even argue either way on the age of the universe; I'm just trying to point out that a claim to supernatural origins has no need to appeal to natural methods for that origin, and so the two need not be in conflict).
I hope that didn't go too far. I mean no offense to anyone and promise I'm not looking for a fight! I just wanted to give my two cents and perhaps provide an insider's view on one of these issues, as I sometimes do. I have more I want to say about my experience with anti-vaxxers, too, but the potential there for conflict is I think too much, so I won't touch it. Suffice it to say that many whom I know are good people with their hearts in the right place. And you're absolutely right, JMG - distrust of the scientific community plays a huge role in it.
3/18/15, 11:27 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Robert, as long as there have been people, some of them have tried to figure out how the world works. When I talk about science, I don't mean that universal habit -- I mean the specific traditions, practices, and techniques that have evolved over the last few centuries in the West. My take is that there's plenty worth saving in that, but I'm not sure how likely any of it is to get through the bottleneck ahead. As for spirits, er, that's a question for the other blog!
Tortoise, are you basing that on personal conversations you've had, or on exposure to the media?
Tasha, glad to hear it. I'd be happier if more skeptics applied their skepticism to skepticism, as you did!
Val, yes. The view from outside is not pretty when it points in that particular direction.
Nicholas, that's why I specified the absence of ethics from the medical industry, rather than from the individual. As usual, it's a matter of whole systems, not of individual components. The fact remains that from outside, it looks like deliberate harm in the service of greed.
Mark, I've read it!
YCS, exactly. The GMO industry's gone out of its way to prevent safety testing from being done, and then insists that GMOs must be safe because there have been no negative results in testing. Personally, I have no idea whether GMOs are safe or not, but I know that there's no way to get objective information on that subject, and that in itself suggests a reasonable course of action.
3/18/15, 11:34 PM
John Michael Greer said...
3/18/15, 11:40 PM
deedl said...
On the other hand i am in fields of economics or medicine an interested laymen. Although i do not have formal education there, my scientific background enables me to evaluate if the methodology of other disciplines is scientifically sound. So in discussions with physicians and economists i was always the sceptical laymen questioning the expert (and also blog about some of the the nonsense many economists "believe", http://deedls.blog.de).
Based on those experiences i would split the topic. You (and also scott adams) always treat science as a single entity. I would suggest to differentiate between science and experts.
Science is a set of methods to derive knowledge. Everybody can use ist and everybody should use ist (please everyone read Kants enlightment essay wikisource has the german original and an english translation http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Beantwortung_der_Frage:_Was_ist_Aufkl%C3%A4rung%3F). Science is a powerful tool for everyone. It gives you the power to emancipate from the experts.
The problem is not with science, it is with experts (or with the loudest of them). Any laymen who asks questions or finds wholes in an argument advances science. But he may unmask the failure of an expert. So the expert then argues ad personam by claiming that he is the expert and the laymen is just that.
So let us get science back from the "experts". Science should be open source. Everybody should be able to participate in it. Read Kant. Use scholar.google.com to access scientific data when searching for information. Learn about the difference between correlation and causality. Science is, just as your personal well being, to important to let it be done by experts.
3/18/15, 11:45 PM
Lucretia Heart said...
Anyway, it was discussing why "medievalism" is returning to challenge Science-- and its chock full of arrogant judgments and... well, see for yourself. I think you'll be darkly amused JMG:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/03/isis_and_other_neomedievalists_reject_technology_modernity.2.html
Its good he notices. However, the author acts as an apologist and insists fracking will help America strategically, etc. Crazy. Yet he IS picking up that there is a rejection of modern life going on, though he blames primitive barbarians, not Science-with-a-capital-S!
What's amusing are some of the comments to the articles. A couple were people who go to Renn faires and other Medieval history re-enactors teasing the author!
3/19/15, 12:13 AM
Purple Tortoise said...
Yes, my impression that climate denialists are otherwise pro-science are based on personal conversations. For example, awhile back I had some interactions with people associated with the Heartland Institute. Although very skeptical about climate change, they argue that scientists need to more forcefully defend GMOs. What's the common thread? Their stated goal is to "promote individual liberty, limited government, and free markets". Climate change isn't a problem solvable by limited government or free markets, so their knee-jerk ideological reaction is to deny that it is a reality. They deny that GMOs can be a problem for the same reasons. I haven't done a comprehensive survey of every climate denialist I talk too, but they certainly do seem to all fall into the ideological spectrum outlined above.
3/19/15, 12:16 AM
Thomas Daulton said...
Perhaps we underestimated the stubbornness of the Boomers and overestimated the rebelliousness of Generation X. This article from the UK shows statistics that suicide rates of late Gen-X males (age 40-59) have suddenly jumped up disproportionately, and younger Gen-X males are right behind (age 30-44). The author discusses conversations with this age group which indicate these males feel trapped in an unpleasant transition, and futureless -- unable to continue the societal roles of their fathers, but unwilling to adopt the flexibility and the tolerance for ambiguity which are hallmarks of the younger Gen-Y.
A brief glance at the CDC and related sites for equivalent statistics in the USA shows me that the US data is not well presented to spot these age/gender correlations. But it seems to my layman's eye that 2009 statistics saw males age 75+ being the disproportionate US leaders in suicide rates, whereas the 2012 data shifted suddenly to younger generations, again males 45-59.
As an American male in that age group (age 48), what immediately struck me about the UK Telegraph article, was the discussion revolved exclusively about identity issues and societal perceptions. It mentioned almost nothing at all about real-world, tangible, physical factors such as unemployment. The author talked with men who had lost jobs, but everyone loses jobs, and the article did not comment whether this age group had lost jobs disproportionately to the rest, or if unemployment was a widespread pattern. Basically, the article sort-of insinuated that the suicide problem for UK Gen-X males was "all in their heads". The idea that maybe Gen-X males had identity problems because the fossil-fuel exploitative economy that they(/we) had sold our souls to was ceasing to function in the real, physical world -- and Gen-Y was adapting better because these latchkey kids had never been promised nor received the corrosive wealth of imperialism and abstraction -- seemed to be ignored by the Telegraph article.
3/19/15, 12:38 AM
Karim said...
Science as an institution most probably won't make it down Hubbert's curve.
Like JMG said over the years, it will be down to individuals across the world or institutions like monasteries that may transmit to the future what remnants of science they can.
It is entirely possible that it will be religious institutions that will mainly carry on this task.
What an irony to think that the works of Richard Dawkins may be made available to future generations only by the efforts of religious organisations!
To some extent is it already happening even in my little country of Mauritius. There is a Hindu organisation here, the Brahma Kumaris which originate from India, who are combining respect for nature, learning, spirituality and sustainability in their discourse.
For instance I was pleasantly surprised to read in the press that they had organised last year a family day with workshops on spirituality together with workshops on compost making and organic agriculture!
I don't think that they are consciously doing it for the sake of safe-guarding higher learning in the face of the collapse of modern civilisation but in the end it might well be a spin off of their religious works.
3/19/15, 12:58 AM
Tim & Nicky Jarman said...
3/19/15, 1:05 AM
streamfortyseven said...
Medicine is not a science, despite all protestations to the contrary, it is a healing *art*. Real doctors treat it as such, but there are few of them around any more, it seems. But if you want to get "fired as a patient", you'll tell the nice doctor that you use homeopathic remedies (or herbal remedies) and they do in fact work - and without noxious side effects. Do that, and you'll be out the door in no time at all.
And from my experiences in doing peer reviews of papers for the journal for which Prof was chief editor, I'd say that about 90% of what gets published is useless bafflegab, headed straight to the rubbish heap or the dusty halls of university libraries. Moreover, there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles in leading journals which got published for the sole reason that the Principal Investigator was a God of his branch of science who could publish no wrong and no abject falsehood. One of these articles cost a friend of mine two years of his graduate career, before the author, a Fellow of the French Academy of Science, fessed up that he'd faked the results and the article was hogwash. It was subsequently retracted in a note in the rear of the journal after having been in print for 16 years - but it's still out there to serve as a snag for others unless they're particularly careful in their survey of the literature. By the way, it took this character six months to get backed up against the wall sufficiently to admit his error, and another six months to get the retraction squib in print. It's a good thing RetractionWatch exists, but charlatans with their lies and threats of legal action still abound.
3/19/15, 1:21 AM
ed boyle said...
Kant's categorical imperative-anything you do should be based upon the idea that this should be a universal moral precept not moral relativism.
Fachidiot-a german term-fach-means specialization in any technical area-the opposite is generalist. A Fachidiot only knows his area of specialization and outside of that is an idot.
Do no harm is the ancient doctor's oath. Apparently modern doctors have not taken this oath, ignore it, having discovered that kant's imperative is bettered replaced by moral relativism or are Fachidiots, just living in the short sighted bubble of what their industry tells them is correct. Not having experience outside of it they fail to see the difference between their small world and unive rsal experience. The term Gods in white coats could apply to any scientist, not just doctors, as the scientific concept is actually quite religious. Search for and discovery of truth is high up the list. One ignores own and others mistakes among the priesthood, as 'we' are better than others. This could apply to any other area where people cover for each other's mistakes, cops for example, but medicine and science have consciously taken on the cloak of priesthood in modern society, search for final truth, healing, etc.. and must be held accountable. Doctors pay high insurance rates. Perhaps scientific malpractice should be introduced. Will the eskimos win a suit against oil companies due to disappearance of their way of life? Kant should be applied to technology companies as well. Malpractice = liability for externaities.
3/19/15, 1:28 AM
gnomelandgardens said...
3/19/15, 1:33 AM
Avery said...
Of course, the result of this is precisely as you say. People will come to Wikipedia wanting to learn something about the health benefits of reiki, and will see it dismissed as "pseudoscience" in the first sentence and immediately decide they should find a less biased place to get their information from.
It's bewildering to me how people who I presume have expertise in medical subjects will eagerly let their own argument be defeated. Science is getting more, not less, cult-like as time goes on. Just look at the personality cult around Neil DeGrasse Tyson; that controversy was, of course, scrubbed from his Wikipedia page as well.
3/19/15, 1:35 AM
Bruno Bolzon said...
3/19/15, 2:00 AM
Angus Wallace said...
I think we need to make a distinction between people disliking the standard status symbols and society disregarding them.
I think that, while many people might be disgusted at the fat mining magnate in their expensive suit and big car, they nonetheless respect them. That even though the local philosopher is an affable person and down-to-earth, they lack the respectability of the hot-shot lawyer in town.
I've quickly put my thoughts together here. This is by no means complete or well-thought-out, but hopefully provides a useful sketch.
Cheers, Angus
3/19/15, 2:28 AM
Carlisle Wheeling said...
That said, what our host is describing is the perversion and corruption of science. For fame, for power, for money. 'Tis the same for all institutionalized endeavor, eventually. Government, education, mass media, you name it, all institutions go down this same road. What is begun with the intention of safeguarding, recording, scrutinizing and sharing, and the maintaining of standards for the general integrity of the endeavor winds up a perversion of itself and a corruption of it's founding purpose.
Why this must always be so would seem to suggest something weak, sinister and sadly pervasive in human nature when in positions of power which I am not competent to address. But whatever it is, it is age old and constant. It exists and has existed in all places at all times. Power corrupts. And entrenched power never relinquishes. It is torn down or rarely collapses under the weight of it's own corruption, but it does not reform or go quietly.
In the end, all we can do is to be skeptical, engage our critical thinking and do our homework. The internet and the instant, widely spread availability and sharing of information has created cracks in formerly unassailable institutions as a result of their inability to control it. This blog is a good example; since reading it I can't tell you the number of ideas, techniques, authors, films, resources of all types that I have found here and my knowledge and understanding grow exponentially because of it. So I would like to share and suggest a documentary (currently available for viewing through Netflix, I don't know where else) titled "Culture High." Whether you have any interest or opinion regarding the central theme, what it reveals about institutions, how they function and their purposes is eye-opening. It addresses the issues of 'inside and outside' that this post presents.
3/19/15, 2:33 AM
ozquoll said...
I'm getting off-topic. I actually came here to recommend the blog of a person who exemplifies scientific curiosity and honesty, perhaps because he is NOT part of the 'approved' list of scientists in his area of interest, the treatment of classic autism (of which his son is a sufferer). His blog is epiphanyasd.blogspot.com . I have treated some difficult symptoms of my own Aspergers based on ideas on his blog.
3/19/15, 2:55 AM
Stein L said...
He draws parallels that should be mind-opening to those too fond of maintaining barriers.
The first two lectures are hard going, but are where he creates his categories that demonstrate the artificial nature of the boundaries between Nature, Science and Religion.
The last two lectures provide thought provoking ideas.
I'll offer a little excerpt here, from the sixth lecture. They are available from the University of Edinburgh, or YouTube, but I suggest searching for a pdf of the lectures, as his French/glish can provide an obstacle.
Bruno Latour, Six Gifford Lectures, February 2013:
So far, everything happens as if it was impossible to enjoy the simultaneous presence of a people, a soil or an Earth, and a science. We find people without science nor soil; science without soil nor people; people with soil but no science!
How to get the three together: such is the puzzle that we have to solve.
First the soil. As we have seen earlier, everything that was part of the background has now melted into the foreground. There is no environment any more, and thus no longer a need for environmentalism. We are post-natural for good. With the end of the political epistemology of the past that insured the presence of an indisputable outside arbiter — namely, Nature known by Science — we are left without a land and without a body politic. I remember that many years ago, when I began my research, sociologists and historians were scandalized because Actor-Network-Theory claimed to follow associations between humans and ‘non-humans’ in a continuous way!
What at the time seemed a deviation close to bestiality is now taken for granted: who would be foolish enough not to include non-humans into the definition of what is a human? Remember the accusation that such a social theory was a case of deranged ‘anthropomorphism’? And now, as we have seen earlier, it is geologists who see everywhere the indisputable shape of humans quickly morphed into the very cycles of non-humans.
How timid our anthropomorphism looks at the time of the Anthropocene! Remember when there was a modernizing frontier that was supposed to move forward by separating science from politics, the hard domain of facts from the disputable domain of values? How difficult it is today to recognize an arrow of time that would distinguish for good what is from what ought to be when it is what is that obstinately requests its due. If you can still dispute whether ‘we have never been modern’ or not, who now disputes that ‘we’ will never be able to modernize the Earth for lack of the five planets (according to calculations by ‘global hectares’) that would be needed to push our endless Frontier to the same level of development as North America?
Things have changed so fast that it is hard to keep track.
Remember when Hans Jonas had to appeal to the welfare of future generations to bring their virtual ancestors into virtual motion? Now, it is our own generation or that of our children whose fate is staring us in the face. Remember how people laughed derisively when Michel Serres offered to enter into a Natural contract on an equal footing with Nature as if humans could entangle Her in the ropes of law? Now we would be happy to still have such a tame partner in front of us when it has become the ‘angry beast that we are poking with a stick’— the Bengali tiger in the lifeboat of the Story of Pi.
(cont)
3/19/15, 3:13 AM
Stein L said...
Remember when people believed that at least there existed Indians, deep in the Amazonian forests, or Aborigines in the central Australian desert, or Highlanders in the mountains of New Guinea who knew how to live peacefully ‘in touch’ or even ‘in harmony’ with Nature? Now every ethnographer has learned that Nature is a narrow historical and contingent concept that no traditional people has ever shared, except when they have to seduce NGOs and pop stars into defending their cause against a new dam or a new mine.
Remember how many intellectuals used to shake in excitement at the term ‘de-territorialisation,’ as if nomadic existence was the new ideal of too comfortably rooted city dwellers? Now, the same people look desperately for a land, for a terra firma where they may re-territorialize again without being accused of being reactionary.
Remember how centuries of Christian cults, images, metaphors, and prayers sent believers away to Heaven, eyes turned upward, wishing to upload themselves, away finally from this base mortal Earth below? Now, they realize, so terribly late, that they had misread the Gospel and that instead of: ‘What good would it be to possess the world, if you forfeit your soul?’ they should have heeded this other sterner injunction: ‘What use is it to save your soul, if you forfeit the Earth?’
http://www.scribd.com/doc/209626901/Bruno-Latour-Facing-Gaia-Six-Lectures-on-Political-Theology-of-Nature#scribd
3/19/15, 3:13 AM
Jo said...
Christianity was an obscure little Eastern religion before it was adopted by a Roman Emperor and transformed into the mighty Roman Church, thenceforth co-opted by the rich and powerful in many and varied ways in order that the wealthy of the world could remain wealthy.
This of course doesn't invalidate the very real and true faith of its individual believers or the dedicated work of individuals within the Church, merely it underlines the truth that the rich and powerful don't care what the ideas and philosophies of the dominant paradigm are, just so long as they provide a suitable vehicle for becoming more rich and powerful.
Which leads to our current dominant paradigm of Science as a Religion: the rich and powerful interests of our society don't care whether the science is good, bad, or even useful, so long as it serves their vested interests, and their vested interests include everyone following the scientist-gods (under the management of the real power - money) like sheep, and whether the scientists are 'proving' that tobacco is harmless or will kill you or fat is bad or fat is good, or the climate is just fine.. none of content of the science really matters, as long as the rich are still making money.
Sadly, it seems that a large segment of the scientific community still believes in the Scientist as God story, and because it serves them so well, they will probably be the last to realise that they are merely the puppets of The Money.
And of course this does not invalidate the incredible hard work and brilliance of individuals within the science world, but it must often make the lives of scientists with integrity quite challenging.
As the mother of a clever, curious, idealistic 18yo who will be heading off to university next year to study biotechnology, I worry most about what the politics of science will do for her idealism. All I can advise her is to stay away from the money. Probably the key to finding the purest science will be looking at what is seriously underfunded...
3/19/15, 3:52 AM
Odin's Raven said...
Moreover, when all the institutions of society have been corrupted by greed and mendacity, science cannot escape and separate itself from their fate.
Having seized the robes of Authority from Religion, Science must accept that along with them comes a scourging and a Crown of Thorns. Centurion, nail them up!
3/19/15, 3:57 AM
Andrew Vines said...
I still remember how heart broken my professor was when I told him I wasn't going to continue a career in research. He mourned the idea that there would be no-one left to discover new things in the future. The least capable and most desperate scientists stayed behind however, further lowering standards.
3/19/15, 3:59 AM
Andrew Vines said...
3/19/15, 4:00 AM
Cherokee Organics said...
I will try to get those Zothique books and also well done for your new book, I'll get that one too when it becomes available down under. Top work and glad to hear that you are annoying everyone, I'd be displeased if you weren't! Anyway, it will probably annoy me too at one point - although I'll push on, but I guess that is the point isn't it? Incidentally Jack Vance fessed up to a few major influences, but then you influence my thinking too, so it is all good from my perspective!
Music is sort of like that in that one person’s work builds upon another. I discovered recently that Seattle grunge scene that splashed so noisily into the world stage in the early 1990's had its roots down under. Go figure.
The point about the score sheet was that science has been established along similar organisational lines as religions, yet they wish to be treated as a profession. There is no such thing as science as a single body or group: it is a mere puff for people to project their fantasies onto. It simply doesn't exist other than as a word which contains a meaning which may be a bit beyond my understanding.
You know over the years I have had a few creepy people try and mirror my life choices. Now I used the word creepy, because it is creepy to me. The funny thing though is they always copy the easy to do aspects and largely ignore the very hard aspects. This generally leads to failure for them and then they get bitter. Not good and it has cost me a friend or two over the past couple of decades. I run my own race and people just don't seem to get that.
Anyway, my point is that scientists wish to be treated as a profession when in actuality they are closer to being a religion - based on my opinion about how they go about organising themselves.
For example: Do they have a governing body that holds members accountable to certain known standards of ethics - NO. Do they subscribe to a minimum standard of ethics? NO. Are their actions accountable to the public? NO.
That was my point. They seek a social license in which to operate and seek status from the public and yet they don't wish to do the hard and honestly quite boring yards that will protect them and their members from the very bad mess that they currently find themselves in.
Dunno really, but just sort of thinking out loud.
Cheers
Chris
3/19/15, 4:15 AM
Carlisle Wheeling said...
I would also recommend a German film titled: "Days To Come." (same source) But not for the same reason. This film is fiction, placed in Berlin, tracking a 8 year period from 2012 to 2020. It's main characters are a well-to-do family, the story revolves around their relationships, but the backdrop is Collapse. Over the 'years' come fuel and food shortages, civil unrest and gradual breakdown of order, increasing numbers of the homeless, terrorism, resource wars on multiple fronts, vast numbers of refugees from Africa and Asia, extreme weather. But this is not a Hollywood movie, the collapse is not the 'star' in a standard disaster/action film. This is subtle social comment. You the viewer see it, the elephant in the room. Like frogs in a slowly heating pot, few of the characters do. And of those who do, only one sees it for what it is.
Anyway, lest you think I spend all of my time on Netflix, I wanted to share what I hope are relevant sources as I have gathered so many from all of you as a result of reading this blog.
3/19/15, 4:49 AM
M said...
This would include not only scientists but our motley collection of pundits, urban planners, and, of course, economists. You can find these examples everywhere, but The New York Times is particularly useful in this regard. For instance, a recent Op Ed piece by a French economist, who concluded that the solution to the end of the growth model is...happiness and satisfaction! Not once is energy or the scientific laws of thermodynamics mentioned.
Then you have David Brooks, who along with the rest of the big thinkers at The NYT, every few months or so publishes a piece about the new skills needed to succeed in the new economy. The latest is skills fall under the general heading of "social courage:"
For example, in today’s loosely networked world, people with social courage have amazing value. "Everyone goes to conferences and meets people, but some people invite six people to lunch afterward and follow up with four carefully tended friendships forevermore. Then they spend their lives connecting people across networks."
Everyone goes to conferences? And can afford to invite six new friends to lunch? I guess space travel really is happening, since Brooks is definitely talking about a different planet than the one I am on. In any case, it's all abstractions about skillsets. If he paid any attention, he would see the best skillset will be how to grow a turnip.
To stop picking on the Times for a moment, there is Tesla co-founder and CEO Elon Musk, who recently said cars driven by humans would soon be outlawed in favor of robot-operated vehicles: "You can't have a person driving a two-ton death machine."
Of course from his ivory tower viewpoint he misses the scientific fact that, never mind his technofantasy, Stewart Brand style "decoupling," the earth won't be providing two tons of resources for every future human being to drive to Walmart in.
Science, as a system in the broader sense, has, like our education, transportation, and medical systems, gone past the point of usefulness in many regards, and now suffers from not only diminishing returns, but existing for the purpose of maintaining its own existence--ergo the payola, the pointless studies, the bizarre focus on esoteric diseases, etc.
3/19/15, 4:59 AM
trippticket said...
Every now and then, it's good to remember that even our beloved archdruid is just a human too! Though I totally agree with your take on attitudes toward science, and freely admit that my attitude toward vaccinations springs from a deep-seated distrust of scientific authority (and I'm a scientist).
And so I think I'll just invoke the future's absolute need for dissensus!
Cheers,
Tripp
Rivenwood
Talking Rock
Appalachia
3/19/15, 5:28 AM
Sven Eriksen said...
I have a feeling you will be neck deep in troll dung this week, John. I hope you've brought a big shovel.
3/19/15, 5:45 AM
Scythe of Relief said...
Yes, skepticism among scientists is considered healthy, but skepticism amongst the public is problematic for the authorities.
When you look at a particular science, the consensus among scientists may be overwhelmingly for it. But something like Gmo's seems to have no consensus at all. But that does not stop proponents of Gmo's saying to skeptical people that they must be anti-science. And trying to equate the science for Gmo's to be as legitimate as other feilds of science, that have a consensus of scientists.
And it is also not helpful when skeptics of a legitimate science lump that science into the GMO camp.
To my mind most scientists would always weigh up the risks. So if you have a overwhelming consensus, you hopefully have a lot lower risk for that particular science being bad for humanity. Then on the other hand you have the money factor, and the skeptics go bingo! call off the search.
3/19/15, 6:03 AM
David said...
What keeps rolling around in my mind, I fear, is the thought that we keep looking for the formula (social structure, economic system, philosophical/religious viewpoint) which solves our problems once and for all -- "the" solution -- and the growing suspicion that such a creature does not exist. Perhaps we are no different from the yeast cells I pitch into my wort -- they look at the feast of resources and consume until they crash. Conflict occurs because resources are finite and groups will compete for them. Force provides a good short-term solution, even if the long-term consequences are dire. Are we in a Hobbesian universe after all?
Returning to your point, however, modern institutional science is no different than any social structure. All such structures grow, ossify and then decay. The growing insularity is just another sign of that process.
3/19/15, 6:33 AM
Twilight said...
My family's experiences with Lyme disease and vaccination damage (my study has led to different conclusions on that topic) knocked me permanently out of that orbit starting some 15 years ago. While it might have happened eventually anyway, once one loses that connection it begins a journey that can go far beyond just losing faith in science, and break too many of the illusions one must accept to be comfortable in this present world.
While I think health will be the starting point for many there are other ways to begin that journey – it could be from an experience in any of the failed institutions of our society, be it education, law, finance, food, health, etc., but the end result is the same if one is willing to keep one's eyes open after they have seen. Some will choose to close their eyes again because seeing is too difficult, but still they know back there somewhere. Others will stop believing in much more than just science, and unable to determine what is false and what is not will just withdraw from all of it.
I think your vision of how we will be viewed is very likely, and that science will be viewed in a very negative light. It will need to go underground if the valuable parts of the scientific method are to survive, or to find a powerful benefactor institution.
3/19/15, 6:52 AM
Unknown said...
As a scientist and an angry atheist,I feel relatively defensive when you start 'having a go' at science,whilst nodding at your argument and appreciating your logic simultaneously.A difficult intellectual position to find one's self in! My entrenched position is a stubborn one,and even elegant and persuasive argumentation will take a while to get my mindset out of those trenches!As someone who takes the scientific method seriously(much like the reviled Dawkins,a particular hero of mine)it's going to be a long and attritional retreat! I'll try to maintain my dignity on that long road....
On your point of Gojira in reply to someone else,I disagree(partly).Godzilla is the monsterification of the intense(warcrime of) fire-bombing all the major Japanese cities during WWII and the incredible civilian toll that resulted from such(the anniversary of the horrendous,unjustifiable raid to 'punish'the civilian population of Tokyo was just last week.I hope Curtis Le May suffers like the tokyoites wherever his essencemay be(Bomber Harris Too!)).There was also a flavour of the atomic bombing of Hiro.and Naga. too in the use of radiation in both the genesis of the creature and it's effects on people,but I'll grant I think that earthquake damage plays a part too,albeit a minor one(this was regularly in the Japanese/English press and commented on as such.I lived in Japan for 12 years).
3/19/15, 7:13 AM
oilman2 said...
Per your comment about scientists - if you have the feeling that many of them have excessive ignorance outside their immediate area of expertise, is it any wonder that theories bandied about as discoveries are questioned vigorously? When you toss in the corporate sponsorship, one HAS to question the results of research when sponsors are grinding axes.
While not every researcher is closely guided by their sponsors, research grants delivering unwanted outcomes are cancelled - period. From a 'normal' POV, the system reinforces finding desired outcomes and disregarding or marginalizing undesired or contrary results. Your comment to YCS is reflective of this.
Science is designed to be questioned - the basis for research is questioning - so why are scientists defensive?
IMO, much of the behavior of scientists simply mirrors the behavior of politicians. They obfuscate, deflect and attack out of guilt. Like a kid caught cheating on a test. Particularly apparent was Bill Nye's conversion.
If science is as rife with money influence as politics, and we have every reason to believe it is, then it MUST be questioned. Even if it is the "rabble" (proud member here) doing the questioning.
All of us are not stupid - give us the data. Oh wait...we have to purchase it to be informed because the researchers do not own it...hmmm...
The more we dig into politics, science, law-making and enforcement, business accounting practices - the more we seem to arrive at money being the principal problem. The search for more money skews everything in predetermined directions identical to the source of the funding.
So the problem with things, and maybe understanding them more effectively, is that EVERYTHING is a business model - monetized. EVERYTHING - from your AR site to research grants to which laws get written to medicine.
So is the problem much more in the vein of a lack of personal integrity? More due to fear of standing outside the herd? Or simply fear of starving for not playing the grand game?
3/19/15, 7:26 AM
Robert Carran said...
Science has failed our mother earth.
Spirit runs through all things..."
System of a Down
I got my biochemistry degree in 1991. The same year, I had my Fukuoka moment and decided that organic farming/homesteading was a better path. One aspect of my decision can be illustrated with the simple example of antibacterial soap. Kills 99.99% of bacteria! Yeah, and then the super bacteria that survives gets the run of the roost? No thanks. You talked about the externalization of costs associated with technology. I think that the unintended and unobservable consequences are equally important. Consider the bogus republican theory of cost benefit analysis. One natural conclusion of which is putting an actual figure on the value of a human life. When you do cost benefit analysis, you tend to only count the costs that you see or can easily quantify. Human science has the same flaw: in trying to pin the universe down, we ignore, at our peril, the mysterious interactions that we can't pin down. Spirit runs through all things. I wonder if this isn't behind many peoples distrust of science as well.
It's the same with economics: by commodifying so many things, we kill the spirit of life cycles.
There is an equation I call the "no free lunch except from the sun equation": delta G = delta H - t delta S
It basically says that in any system over time, entropy either stays the same (with perfect reactions, which don't really exist) or increases UNLESS you have energy input from another system.
If earth is one system, then the only reason we have life (negentropy) is that the sun, another system, gives us free energy (delta G). So, to whatever extent we use energy beyond what the sun gives us, it is generally going to cause some chaos. Science and technology are the vehicles by which we have been able to use energy so much faster than the sun gives it to us. The sun is a christ like figure, in that it sacrifices its body constantly to feed us.
3/19/15, 7:34 AM
buzzy said...
Oh, and there are already three FDA approved fish oil products on the market; the only one I have price info for is $317.05 for a months supply, or roughly $2.64/capsule.
3/19/15, 7:42 AM
pg said...
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/your-wallet-isn-t-getting-fatter-as-economics-101-comes-unhinged .
3/19/15, 7:45 AM
Martin Vachon said...
I too often encounter people who have lost the capability of nuances. For them, saying I don’t know, admitting that science has limits or thinking about appropriateness doesn’t appear to be an option. It’s all black or white, for or against. There is no place for argument. Frustrating.
3/19/15, 7:59 AM
k-dog said...
In any society these different kinds of people live side by side. At times coexistence is difficult. Sometimes very difficult. Men differ by temperament and this does not change. What changes is what society considers acceptable.
In a decline truth seems to betray and the future is uncertain. In these conditions living for today with the enjoyment of 'bread and games' without thought of tomorrow becomes popular.
It becomes a question of focus. Scientific intellectual dishonesty in nothing new but as our leaders now fail us in all areas of life it becomes more apparent and more popular to notice. Perhaps it is in fact no more common now than in former more prosperous times, but it appears to be so.
My article impressions as I wish all a happy equinox for we will soon enjoy the beauty of new life returning to the land.
3/19/15, 8:01 AM
Ray Wharton said...
The questions that these three topics, and many like them, address are very fascinating, and interesting clues and quandaries are apt to come from all corner of the debate. Sometimes the most pathetic argument against a position is just the key to exploring the mystery more deeply!
But intelligent conversation is wasted when the instincts that brought us sports fans and rock star groupies take over the drivers seat. It is most vividly tragic when an issue gets reduced to two poles.
The far ends of a debate, taken like one is arguing on a teeter totter and trying to keep the other sides board off the ground, are filled with dumb.
A pattern I see far to often is this: some talking head makes a weak argument to claim intellectual territory for the Mauve team. Someone on the Chartreuse troop writes a response shooting the fish in that intellectual sand box, and the Chartreuse troop cheers, for their troop has defended the territory and now knows the Mauve team is dumb. But the Mauve team is oblivious of the weak points of their argument because who listens to Frog News, the Mauve team is busy reading the arguments against the Chartreuse position in Pedantic Quarterly. So both conclude that the position exposed by the other side is stupid, and that the other side is wrong, but ironically the only position that unites the troop or the team is the wrongness of their adversary, about which they are often right.They both assert the other side is talking out of the wrong end, and they both can maintain this position because it is right. Tragity strikes when this energy isn't absorbed in sports or some other folly and these instincts are let loose on topic that some people actually want to contemplate carefully.
The life of the mind is in a sad way. Lucky for me Philosophy is already collapsed well ahead of the rush and can quietly recompose itself outside of the glare of public attention.
@Angus -
I have been rocking homeless swagger on and off for three years, I get mad props the more thoroughly I lower myself down the ladder. If one can let go of status attachment and still maintain, dare say foster, self respect people see it. Of course some don't, but haters gonna' hate. One could say "not homeless, urban camper." I feel like a poser and it is reflected in how I am treated when ever fate throws too much comforts my way.
If you can feel like a boss for letting go of the crud of our culture, all those people who wish they had the courage to do will feel it to. If you feel like you are failing to hold your mainstream life together, people will feel that too. Based on your blog it looks like you've got some great eco-status credit to build with! Chickens in the garden, how daring!
3/19/15, 8:15 AM
Denys said...
This is my favorite study -
Study Find Common Knee Surgery No Better Than Placebo
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020712075415.htm
And where would we be without placebos in marketing?
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2005/05/the_placebo_aff.html
3/19/15, 8:25 AM
Travis said...
3/19/15, 8:27 AM
librarian@play said...
3/19/15, 8:37 AM
Leo Knight said...
http://tomnichols.net/blog/2013/12/11/the-death-of-expertise/
His final points:
"1.The expert isn’t always right.
2. But an expert is far more likely to be right than you are.
3. Your political opinions have value in terms of what you want to see happen, how you view justice and right. Your political analysis as a layman has far less value, and probably isn’t — indeed, almost certainly isn’t — as good as you think it is.
4. On a question of factual interpretation or evaluation, the expert’s view is likely to be better-informed than yours. At that point, you’re best served by listening, not carping and arguing."
I mostly agree, but I have seen points 3 and 4 turn into, "What you want doesn't matter, either. Your experience has no value. You have no right to talk at all. Shut up."
I think of the economist I met whose study had shown that population growth always led to improved standards of living. When I raised the questions of resource depletion and pollution, he grew adamant: "ALWAYS! You can't understand! I did the study! I'm an ECONOMIST!"
I also remember a moment from a documentary about the ordeal of citizens of Love Canal. Unable to convince anyone of the reality of their plight, the families started documenting the many health problems of residents living near the toxic waste site. When they presented their evidence, the authorities literally threw their report on the floor. Housewives didn't have the "expertise" to understand complex health matters.
Some experts don't seem able or willing to get, as you put it so well, "the view from the outside."
3/19/15, 8:41 AM
The other Tom said...
Which team are you on?
There is no proportional weight either: you could have almost 100% scientific opinion going the same way, but a few skeptics without evidence to present can make an issue seem unresolved.
As an analogy you could have 1,000 auto mechanics say that you should regularly change the oil in your car, but if a few others say it is an unnecessary waste of money it means that changing your oil is controversial.
3/19/15, 9:22 AM
Clay Dennis said...
But the important thing, for our discussion today is the negative pushback he got from fellow scientists, and even students for being a populariser of science. We have forgotten this today, as Sagan has become a demigod in the mostly feeble quest to promote science to the masses. But at the time, Cosmos was just coming out, he was viewed with suspicion and jelousy by many in the scientific community and his own fellow faculty members. They thought that distilling science down to simple principles that could be taught and understood by the average person was a bad thing. So in many ways the predicament that science finds itself in was self inflicted.
3/19/15, 9:32 AM
Moshe Braner said...
"Here we review the rationale for and alternatives to the current high-carbon [climate] research culture. We find no clear obstacles to justify an exemption for the research community from the emission reduction targets applied elsewhere. ... Such a change in practice would strengthen the trust of the public in research."
3/19/15, 9:34 AM
Ares Olympus said...
And at the start all scientists themselves want to avoid "appeals to authority" and look at the evidence, but then get hit in the face when their 30 year career is defeated by a politician who never took a science class but whom can parrot the rhetoric of skepticism without having any awareness it is possible to separate opinion from fact in the first place.
Then a good scientist would prefer to give up and say "Shut up and trust me" so he can get back to his safe world of controlled experiments.
I love Feynman's lecture on cargo cult science, transcript and reading of it.
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg
I don't have as much cynicism as Scott Adams over the science of diet and exercise, and it goes back to cargo cult science, plus people want to hear certainty, even if you don't want to give it, so if a scientist speaks in his mouse voice with 4 recursive levels of qualifiers on his results and the need for further study, no one will listen. And meanwhile if a woo-doctor Oz says something dramatic and scary, repeating what he heard from cherry picked data, with his own spin that makes it relevant to his listeners boring lives, that'll be repeated over and over and over. So "free commercial media" seems more a cause than bad science.
But a bigger issue I see is the nature of risk. If you ask a cautious scientist about risk, and he's uncertain, he'll say "let's study it more" and he'll still be saying that long past sensible clarity for needed action.
So global warming is an example, its not science if we only have one earth, and we have to run an experiment 100 years before we decide we're "sure" there's a problem. And it is WRONG to expect scientists to "take sides" on this. We want them to be neutral.
Yet, if a scientist is asked to testify before the Senate that the earth is older than 6000 years, that's a different thing than asking her to testify that the positive feedback loops of increased CO2 will dominate the negative feedback loops of increased clouds leading to a likely 4 degree celsius increase in global temperatures by 2100.
The first is a historical fact, while the second is a speculative projection based on limited information. So an honest climate scientist will say there's a 2 standard devition certainty that the global temperature will be between 4 degrees celsius colder and 5 degrees celsius warmer by 2100, and suggest cutting the burning of fossil fuels is sensible long term goal to reduce risks of this yet unknown danger.
Lastly my sympathy towards "antiscience" goes in line with E.F. Schumacher, against what he calls scientism, i.e. objective science can answer the questions we need to answer, and whether reducing the nature of the world to objective data is sensible or helpful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guide_for_the_Perplexed#Critique_of_materialistic_scientism
Schumacher doesn't help solve the dilemmas but at least he gives me reminder "map" of what we shouldn't expect or try to be too confident about.
And on science fiction, perhaps Asimov's Foundation serial gives some hope for the scientists and scholars, if only we can find a benevolent psychohistorian to prod us in the right directions.
Maybe Archdruid John Michael Greer is aspiring to this role with his Green Wizards, carriers of the sacred knowledge?
...oh, darn, but I'm sure we're going to need more than one model in this evolutionary experiment.
http://transitionculture.org/2010/08/31/why-green-wizards-get-us-nowhere-new/
3/19/15, 9:47 AM
Violet Cabra said...
Something I've been wondering recently, as I've been studying herbalism is how much the utility of science will carry forth cryptically in crafts. I imagine, for instance, that even with the sort of future we're looking at, distilling alcohol will endure. If there is alcohol there will also be vinegar. With alcohol, vinegar and herbs one can extract a very wide-spectrum of chemicals from carbohydrates, to sterols to terpenes to alkaloids. Some of this information has the ability to save a lot of lives; for example alkaloid rich herbs are best prepared with vinegar to create a solution that can draw out said alkaloids. If the plant has tannins and alkaloids then adding some honey or glycerine can stabilize the tannins which would otherwise interfere with the alkaloids. If a bacterial "superbug" came to town and there was one healer who knew these details a lot more people could survive than otherwise. While it is easy for me to imagine the knowledge of the chemicals structures of various plant constituents to be forgotten, I imagine that the knowledge of their utility will endure as well as the best ways to extract them. the knowledge is so adaptive and so decentralized at this point, that I think it will likely make it through the bottleneck, one way or the other. And if there is this basis of information than just one organic chemistry textbook surfacing could totally rewrite the understanding of medicine in 900 years.
This couching of practical information in myth seems a way that much information has been preserved, and transmitted historically. You mentioned in one essay how children and teenagers are taught stories and songs that are allegorical and revealed at the beginning of adulthood to be of deeper significance. There is a parallel with larger social patterns and development. The mythologies of yore become the foundations for applied rationalism. As a Civilization approaches senility then, perhaps the same process happens in reverse; the rationalism becomes mythology and is carried forth as such.
3/19/15, 9:51 AM
Kenaz Filan said...
What I hope to see saved is the Scientific Method. It's not in much use today, especially among those who use it like a mantra. (A true skeptic is open to any conclusion: today's "skeptics" come to the argument knowing the answer ahead of time, which is the polar opposite of skepticism). But it is, as you've said before, the hallmark achievement of our age like Aristotelian logic for Classical Greece. Perhaps the most important thing we can do is to educate on that method, and explain how it has little to do with what is called "science" today. How to do that is a subject deserving of some study or maybe even a blog post (hint, hint). It seems to me that is our best and possibly only chance of lighting the upcoming Dark Age.
3/19/15, 9:56 AM
onething said...
By all means, give us your impressions of the Jared Diamond speech.
My thoughts on the article - the title says it all. In my opinion this represents a new low in science becoming, as someone above noted, a religion. When "doubt" becomes a heresy, that means we are entering faith-based territory. It means that we are to obediently receive the faith from the proper authorities. When doubting some aspect of scientific data output gets you the ad-hominem of being a "science" doubter rather than a doubter of specifics, how is that different than thinking that if someone doesn't believe in your god, that they have no god at all? I have had several people say to me, when I tell them I am not exactly Christian "So you don't believe in God?"
3/19/15, 10:06 AM
daelach said...
Btw., as a side remark on the medical topic: in Germany alone (!), estamations are running that up to 30,000 (!) people die in hospitals each year due to infections. The reason is that the neolibs cut down the time and manpower for the cleaning crews. On the other hand, many parents vaccinate their children against what used to count as normal childhood deseases 30 years ago. That seems strange becaus we didn't have 30,000 dead children each year due to chicken pox and measles. So why does the money go there instead of tackling the much bigger hospital problem?
Do the math - paying more for getting more cleaning crews would benefit lower class members since they are the ones who'd do that job. Mass vaccinations, on the other hand, are more profitable for the pharma industry.
3/19/15, 10:28 AM
Yucca Glauca said...
3/19/15, 10:36 AM
Eric S. said...
One really interesting thing about public distrust of science, at least as it exists right now, is the way that there’s a jagged line being drawn across society regarding which science gets embraced and rejected. The people who reject evolution and climate change are, by and large not the same people who reject vaccination and various other science relating to the health and food industries, and all along the spectrum from racists to creationists, everyone tries their absolute hardest to use the prestige of “science” even when there’s nothing being done that can be remotely defined as such to advance their agenda. Even people who claim scientific literacy today, don’t always know how to read and critique a scientific paper and usually only get their information from pop magazines, television documentaries and newspapers. The prospects for the scientific method don’t look good right now, and I expect that there’ll be a lot of things being called “science” someday that don’t fit our current definition (though it may be preserved in some small intellectual circles or rediscovered from writings in some future time).
The question of what you’ve termed “science as product” on the other hand seems almost like a different question when it comes to this topics. What is the likely fate of the knowledge that science has uncovered? Much of that has sunk so deeply into our consciousness that we don’t even question it, passing it on to our children as thoughtlessly as shapes, colors, and vowel sounds. I just can’t imagine a cultural bottleneck small enough to kill the idea that the stars in the sky are distant suns just like ours with planets orbiting them much like Earth does here. But what of things like Evolution and the deep history of the planet, and other topics that for whatever reason aren’t as universally or unconsciously accepted? Perhaps it could be said that this late in the game they won’t be, but I also don’t see a universal rejection happening. Could there be something happening along cultural lines with things like that? Some people accepting Evolutionary Biology as its currently understood, possibly even being able to explain the evidence and reasoning behind it in their own crude way, some rejecting it outright, others perverting it to fit various agendas (some possibly not so pleasant to think about)? If something like that happened, the discoveries of modern science, while battered and broken and perhaps ripped from their context, might at least be able to enter into humanity’s collective conversation for some other civilization to sift through once some of the method behind it has been rediscovered. In a lot of ways that seems like the most likely outcome… different people grasping onto different pieces of today’s scientific consensus and even different methods that they come to call “science” each according to their own values. Do you see something like that as a possibility?
3/19/15, 10:37 AM
Martin B said...
At the time I was very angry, given the known over-use of antibiotics, but now I think he was right. The most effective curative regime is the one you embrace. It is pointless recommending lifestyle changes when it is unlikely the patient will change his or her ways. Rather prescribe something the patient believes in you know the patient will take, and rely on the placebo effect to work its magic.
3/19/15, 11:00 AM
Jake said...
Personally, did not think the Slate article was that great: the author kept insulting the you-know-who's with snarkey insults. But at least he admitted the truth: that arrogance and insults (ironically, since he used insults) will not work, and will not convince anyone to join the "enlightened ones."
I've noticed that most of the extreme partisans of institutional science treat science as a religion: an authority to be worshiped and obeyed, and if you bring up any experiences or data that you or your friends have experienced vis a vis one of the hot-button issues, they dismiss this real-life data as irrelevant and not worthy of consideration.
I'm sure you have read William James: a great soul, who as a scientists NEVER diminished or dismissed the experiential observations of others.
Finally, JMG - there actually has been scientific research showing that GMO corn causes cancer in rats. Look up the French scientist Séralini. His paper was published, but a year or so later, under immense pressure from Monsanto and their paid shills, the paper retracted the research.
The scientist had used Monstanto's own protocols (where they "proved" their GMO corn to be safe)!!
I have read and corresponded with a scientists/physicist who discovered that cell-phone type EMF destroys DNA, at the levels used by cell phones.
He was threatened with the loss of his research money if he didn't shut up.
I think people greatly underestimate the extent to which institutional science has been compromised. Some of the ugly stuff going on are, in fact, real conspiracies... But that, of course, makes me a reviled "conspiracy theorist."
3/19/15, 11:00 AM
Martin B said...
Of course, I'm a sample size of n=1, but as further confirmation I used to read many life stories of AS sufferers online, and the overwhelming tone of their letters was depressive. I'm pretty sure there's a link.
3/19/15, 11:07 AM
Adrian Ayres Fisher said...
As you yourself deminstrate, Mr. Greer, one of the benefits of an old-fashioned liberal education is that it is broad enough that it leaves one free to read around in whichever field one pleases; the real product of such an education, if sufficiently rigorous, is the scaffolding it provides for continued independent learning. (Not to mention learning to think logically.)
For some reason, I keep trying to connect this post with your comment last week that contrary to stereotype, most people actually tend to think in abstractions, while thinkers do the work of linking generalities back to the raw sensory data.
Then I think about the scientific method, in which, though not a scientist, I was trained (thanks, liberal education!), which literally works back from the abstract to the raw sensory data, as you put it last week, and forward again to a verifiable (until disproven) general law. I begin to wonder if--besides the corruption, arrogance, and distortions caused by the extreme pressure to produce-- some of the inside-outside effects might reflect differences in habits of thought?
It would be terrible to throw the scientific method out with the authority of scientists (or should I say the authority of corporate misuse of science for corporations' own ends?). It's also important to remember that NO science or scientist is ever really objective. All theories and experiments carry the burden, explicit or not, of the scientists' worldview.The pretense of objectivity can lead directly to sanctioning very "scientifically" done procedures that by any ethical standards are monstrous. It is this misuse of science to ideological or corporate ends, not to mention straight up lying that is so harmful; and these kinds of tactics are used by anti-science folks too. I'm speaking in generalities here, but there are plenty of examples.
The working ecologists, soil scientists, and biologists I know are pretty humble folks working out of the limelight, carrying on with their research, trying to do some good for the earth. They carry a deep understanding of the real and present dangers to earth, humans and other species from our "progress-driven" civilization. I've never met a group more skeptical of the claims of corporate-sponsored science (especially medicine, pharmacology, nutrition and chemistry) than a group of young biology, environmental science and microbiology faculty I know, who are trying to raise their children in a healthy, low-carbon manner. (They also definitely vaccinate their children: they understand the mechanics of infectious diseases). Are they inside or outside?
3/19/15, 11:10 AM
Greg Belvedere said...
Pharmaceutical research seems like a particularly corrupt area of study. Many anti-depressants have been shown to be less effective than placebo in studies held back by their manufacturers. A quick google search will pull up many reputable sources on this.
I have thought about writing to Neil deGrasse Tyson asking him to give Rupert Sheldrake the same treatment he has given to scientific heretics of earlier times in the next season of his Cosmos reboot. I think this could shed some light on some of the problems in science, but I don't think he would be too into that.
3/19/15, 11:13 AM
Dammerung said...
3/19/15, 11:27 AM
Greg Belvedere said...
3/19/15, 11:27 AM
escapefromwisconsin said...
http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/images.php?token2=fm_st001.php&token1=fm_img0002.php&theme_file=fm_mt001.php&theme_name=Doctors%20Smoking&subtheme_name=More%20Doctors%20Smoke%20Camels
3/19/15, 11:47 AM
Lynford1933 said...
This is a note from the other side of eighty. No one will really believe it because it is on the Internet but you might find it interesting. Believing and interesting are too different things.
Just about the time I was able to get my head around the Big Bang concept that happened exactly 13.8 billion years ago, some other fellow came up with a different idea that it didn't happen that way at all. Rats! The Hubble found those beautiful formations that happened only a few million (billion) years ago. Most of them cannot even be seen, let along dealt with. No matter the money, those were neat pictures.
Just this morning a couple nice fellows came by to tell me about their particular brand of faith. That was interesting. I accepted their literature and bid them a good day. An add on the side of a blog I attend occasionally told me to buy this and be assured of good health. At 82, I will be lucky (or unlucky?) to make it 18 more years no matter what I ingest? But in all of the above I have been able to maintain my skepticism.
A couple years ago I read "One Straw Revolution" and it seems to be working out in my garden. I find it no real problem going along with the nature of plants because they want to grow. Where I find the problem is after growing and maturing they want to spoil; like me I guess. So to keep them from spoiling for a year or so is the major problem.
Perhaps All of the above are the same. After growing and maturing, they want to spoil and it is damned hard to keep anything from spoiling; it's some sort of theory of physics.
I remember pulp fiction well. I read a lot of it during the war because there was a paper shortage; romance, SF, comics, et al. It hung in the little house out back and was much more friendly than the slick paper of the catalogs. If you didn't read it then it was soon gone forever.
Cheers from the other side
3/19/15, 12:14 PM
onething said...
"I'm a working climate scientist, and in my experience, climate denialism seems more driven by ideological affiliation than any general doubt about science. That is to say, climate denialists usually accept conventional views in other scientific fields like GMOs and vaccines but not regarding climate change because it conflicts too much with their political views. They generally like scientific and technological developments and refuse to believe that they can have bad outcomes like climate change."
Isn't it possible that some people actually disagree on the interpretation of data? Is it fair to question whether they are suspicious of science in its entirety? I agree with you, though, that a lot of people have opinions that are driven more by ideology, group identity and suchlike preferences, than analysis.
3/19/15, 12:22 PM
onething said...
"One conceptual suite concerning me as of late is this. I was hoping you could tell me what the spirits of nature may think of the task of reclaiming deserts for life?"
When I first heard the idea of terraforming Venus (it was Venus before it was Mars), I thought about it and decided we ought to terraform the middle east.
Much of its current dryness and extreme heat likely comes from human acitivity anyway.
3/19/15, 12:25 PM
George Coles said...
My memory is generally poor, but I believe you referenced Alasdair MacIntyre’s book “After Virtue” in an older post. I could be wrong. Regardless, I immediately
thought how complementary your posts having been over the months to Mr. MacIntyre’s thoughts, as well as others who take a constructive-critical
view of Enlightment-era philosophy. The idea that we are able to rationalize
our individual positions – sometimes at the expense of the “common good” – is
a clear double-sword.
My favourite example is Jeremy Bentham’s concept of the Panopticon: a prison or hospital for the insane, where, because
it would be essentially made of glass, only one guard would be required to keep an eye on the inmates. The Russian author Yevgeny Zamyatin wrote “We” back in the 1920’s using that idea and applied it to the police state of the future.
It’s a great novel – and belongs to the “Brave New World” / “1984” triology.
In today’s age where we already suspect that our “authority figures” (whomever
they might be) are watching us more each day through communication
technology’s version of the Panopticon, I have to wonder if people will do less and less upsetting of the proverbial apple cart instead of offering practical
proposals, no matter how critical of the establishment?
I think you were dead on with your comments about how some (many) in the
establishment have simply dismissed the average citizen who is, supposedly, devoid of the proper credentials to offer an out of the box solution and a various topics.
All the best. GC
3/19/15, 12:33 PM
Janet D said...
My son does not have autism, nor is he on the spectrum, but we are just in recovery from a two-year descent into hell, where he was exhibiting severe signs of OCD, anxiety, insomnia, paranoia, etc. (He is now 12, was 11 when we were going through this).
We did it all - sleep study with a psychiatrist, doctor visits, regular therapist sessions, as well as a whole host of alternative therapies. Nothing was working and finally, in desperation, I took him to another psychiatrist who, surprise!, wanted to put him on a long-term regime of Prozac. I was so desperate I almost did it, but then someone turned me on to a Functional Medicine doctor (FM is a branch of medicine devoted to helping patients with long-term chronic conditions through lifestyle, nutrition, supplements, diet modification, etc). It turned out that my son's body was not manufacturing any of his neurotransmitters, almost literally (neurotransmitters are made in the gut).
Anyway, how this is relevant to your post is that the FM doc has my son largely following the same protocol as her autism patients - detox protocols, diet modification, numerous supplements (none of which have the side effects of Rx meds), for reasons # 3,4, and 5 on your list, exactly.
It has worked miracles. He is 90% better, albeit we still have to be very careful with his environment, diet & regular supplements.
The kicker to all this? When I told my GP that I was not going to put my son on Prozac, because the Functional Med doc (who is an MD) was helping him with supplements, she (the GP) said, "I can't approve the use of supplements." But a lifetime of Prozac, with it's risks of dependency, dry mouth, restlessness & insomnia (which my son had in spades already) apparently, was just fine.
Sigh.
3/19/15, 12:54 PM
Janet D said...
I'm always curious that the "GMOs-are-great" crowd never acknowledges one of the main complaints the so-called anti-GMO crowd has, which is the corporate control of ever-greater parts of the food chain.
You no pay, you no get seed. You may not attempt to save seed. If some of your crop is accidentally pollinated with GMO-crop, you get sued (and lose). And so on.
Although I am not convinced that eating pesticide-laced food is "safe", some of my main concerns about GMOs are about much more than being assured they are "safe". Yet these concerns are just swept aside as being "anti-science".
Sigh.
3/19/15, 12:58 PM
team10tim said...
An interesting little detail from the medical profession about bedside manner. Apparently there is a high correlation between malpractice lawsuits and poor bedside manner. Google will find all the details and essays on the matter.
The two obvious points here are: One, malpractice lawsuits should only be correlated with malpractice and two, bedside manner or lack thereof is what shapes the view from outside for most patients. This is a nice little metaphor for the problems with science. Basically, a lot of the science that society sees comes from an establishment with horrible manners. This pretty much guarantees that there will be social a backlash.
Human beings are social creatures and for better or worse these are the rules we have to play by. Manners and etiquette are the social constructs that we have made to keep ourselves from killing each other over every little thing. For example, this blog is heavily moderated by our gracious host and there is a high level of constructive discussion on rather touchy topics. If JMG let the trolls in to play then civility would go out the window and we would have screaming matches and flame wars.
Thanks,
Tim
3/19/15, 1:19 PM
Myriad said...
Science says 'Find out the nuclear structure of Uranium 235 in terms of the proton-neutron-electron atomic model.'
(World does experiments and declares: '92 protons and 143 neutrons.')
Well done! Science says 'Study the decay of Uranium 235 and quantify the energy release resulting from chain reaction conditions.'
(World does experiments and presents equation.)
Excellent! Now you can build bombs and power plants exploiting that form of energy release.
(World builds bombs and power plants.)
Buzz! Sorry! I didn't say 'Science Says!'
Man, I never get tired of that game. It gets 'em every time.
3/19/15, 1:48 PM
Varun Bhaskar said...
I'm slowly entering conversations about the amount of corruption in the scientific community. The best counter-point I've come with to the idea of "science as savior," is pointing out the relationship between environmental destruction vs. technological advance. Right now I'm dealing with some very pro-GM people, who all keep saying there's a way to do it “right.” My question to them is, “given the amount of environmental destruction that we've managed with our current kit of technological tools, why do they think that adding more powerful tools is some how going to make things better?” It's a stumper of a question since not one of these people believe in the social progress myth.
Also here's a new poem. http://bonesofourempire.blogspot.com/
Everyone else,
So, View on the Ground is opening up the Saturday and Sunday edition for short-stories, poems, and discussion on other interesting issues. The material should be related to peak oil, or other topics discussed on either of the Archdruid's blogs. Submissions should be sent to viewontheground at gmail.com. Thank you!
Regards,
Varun
3/19/15, 1:50 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Deedl, exactly -- extracting science from the deathgrip of a corrupt and failing institutional system is one of the major tasks of our time. I'll be talking about how that might be done in a future post.
Lucretia, thanks for this! I wonder if the author realizes that he's just going to make more people think warm thoughts about the Middle Ages...
Tortoise, fascinating. I don't have many opportunities to talk to people from the Heartland Institute; the people I hear discussing climate denialist talking points are ordinary working Joes in the small Appalachian town where I live. They haven't gotten to the point of questioning all science as such, but at this point it's not just global warming -- saying "scientists have proved X" doesn't have much credence with them these days.
Thomas, good. I definitely get a whiff of drapetomania from the Torygraph's claims...
Karim, exactly. More on this as we proceed.
Tim (or is it Nicky), ouch. That's pretty blatant, isn't it?
Stream, I'll keep that in mind in case I ever need a doctor repellent, since I use herbs and homeopathic cell salts as mainstays of my home health care.
Ed, it's important not to treat this as a matter of the ethics of individual doctors or scientists -- the whole system is broken, and people with ethics who end up caught in the system either leave or compromise.
Gnomeland, thank you. I like civil, thoughtful conversations, and detest drama -- and of course there's also a certain simple pleasure in glancing at some troll's screeching five-screen denunciation, hitting the delete button, and letting the Stark Fist of Removal fling it into the Void of Slack forever...
Avery, well, that's Wikipropaganda for you. It amazes me that some people still consider that site a source of facts.
Bruno, that's quite possible. My guess is that science will do as logic did, and get picked up by several successor civilizations, each of which will reformulate it in its own way.
3/19/15, 2:05 PM
Raymond Duckling said...
On the other hand, the way I see it, there is little this audience (or anyone else) can do this late in the game to affect the fall of grace of Science(TM). You cannot, metaphorically speaking, talk the already drunk driver into giving up the keys of the already recklessly driven car. The question is what each of us can and should do about it.
One name popped out in my mind from my old readings in middle school: Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier. He's considered one of the fathers of modern chemistry, and is therefore one of the Saints of the Church of Progress. And a martyr saint at that. He was guillotined during the French Revolution because of his ties to the Ancient Regime; the judge dismissing his appeal for pardon on the merit of scientific achievement.
If that is the kind of future one might expect - and current Scientist elites seem to be doing their level best to earn it - someone has to take the fruits of science, disguise those as something else... something innocuous, and pass it to the next generation.
My humble contribution to that project so far is a game named "Animal Riddles". This is a modified version of the 20 Questions game where the initial question is always "What animal am I thinking about?", and you get 3 free hints: non-overly-specific open ended questions ("where does it live?" is fair game, but "what's its genus?" is cheating).
I play it with my kids, and they play it amongst them and occasionally with other children as well. They not only have learned a lot of Biological Classification facts (which the eldest teaches the youngest, even if he thinks he's arguing who won), but also got the insights of "divide and conquer" and "tree pruning" algorithms from Computer Science.
But, you know, that's good for the existing scientific lore. If only someone would do the same for the Scientific Method and related techniques.
3/19/15, 2:09 PM
Admin said...
* I know, I know, hydroponics is not sustainable farming, even if it is popular to believe otherwise. The media would have you believe that you could be sustainable if you just purchased the right consumer goods, and most people like the idea of being green (or the status / bragging rights) more than the reality of being green, so they fall for any solution that involves technology and buying things.
@JMG - I read a lot, and I have to say that this is one of the best sites on the internet. Thank you for giving us this site.
3/19/15, 2:10 PM
Admin said...
Just thinking out loud here, but I think that maybe science should become part of the whole "local" movement.
It would be very open-source, much like a previous commenter suggested. But what I am talking about is the idea that if someone in France publishes a peer-reviewed paper, then I should be able to reproduce the results of that paper in a lab in my local community with a minimal amount of resources (i.e. money and equipment). Otherwise the scientific paper is just more useless garbage to be tossed in the rubbish bin with the unwanted junk mail. In other words, if it can't be independently verified locally, then it has the same legitimacy as marketing materials ("scientifically proven to whiten your teeth").
Now I know that last paragraph will upset many people, but there are a few things worth mentioning. Here is one:
Dr. Marcia Angell, the editor of New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote the following:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009)
or as a previous commenter stated "some verification studies are finding--80% of NIH papers are not reproducible."
The second one is a quote from a previous comment:
"someone can't prove a theory about extra-solar gas giant planets without having access to a boatload of equipment that costs big dollars to operate. If you don't have access to telescopes outside of the atmosphere your theory is nothing more than speculation over a couple of beers."
Here again I would argue that if you can prove a theory about the universe, but I am unable to verify your theory in the labs in my local community, then even if your theory is correct, what is the practical application of the knowledge?
Maybe this is a naive view to have, further thought and discussion could prove this "local science" rule foolish. Perhaps time will tell.
I have an interesting anecdote to share regarding this topic:
During my college days at UCSD I took an undergraduate physics class. The professor would sometimes try to do a demonstration in order to elaborate on an important concept (like static electricity for example). The hilarious part was that about 7 out of 10 times his demonstrations would fail. It was as though the laws of physics did not apply to his classroom.
Now of course I understand that static electricity exists and it has certain behaviors and properties. But the important thing is that the same "local" rule applies. If I am supposed to be able to harness the power of static electricity to produce some effect, and after repeated failed attempts I am unable to produce the desired effect, then all of the "official" science of static electricity is irrelevant to me. What good is it?
I can see some obvious drawbacks to this line of thinking. If we rigidly adhered to the local-science rule then we might still believe the world is flat. But at the same time, if we can't prove the world is round using local resources, how can we trust that you are not just trying to sell us on your dogmatic version of reality?
On a separate but related note I see Science (the institutions) going away, but the scientific method, along with engineering, staying the course. Small groups of local "hobby" scientist and engineers will be the ones carrying the torch for future generations. As one commenter put it:
"let us get science back from the "experts". Science should be open source. Everybody should be able to participate in it."
3/19/15, 2:10 PM
Marcello said...
Most technical accomplishments and advances until industrialization (and even afterwards for a while) happened by tinkering and lucky discoveries rather than by research and applications of general theories. A medieval smith did not have a clue about the existence of a thing called "carbon", he knew that by heating iron in charcoal he would obtain metal with certain desired properties. He could verify it in practice and he had been taught to do so by whoever he learned from, whom in turn had learned from somebody else all the way back to some accidental discovery much earlier. While having a more modern understanding of the processes might help to optimize results it is not really an absolute necessity until you get into somewhat complex stuff. One might note that when the french artillery was redesigned in the 18th century there was a lot of talk about incorporating scientific advances but in the end even something as important as barrels length was decided by a committee taking a look at existing models: even Napoleon later on was not keen on forking out the money for a ballistic pendulum capable of handling cannon shots. Which bring us to the problem: in most areas research simply takes more money/time/resources than what a few amateurs can spare and whoever is writing the checks, be it the state or private purse will want something back, one way or the other. That said I think it is as common as unfair to let the other side off the hook: the people writing books in which they denounce vaccines as tool of the élite to cut down global population (or what have you) might not have billions behind them but they are still expecting to make a buck pandering to paying customers, the very thing it is supposed to discredit all the establishment arguments against them.
Incidentally for those who would like for germ theory to survive and to yield its benefits the anti-vaxxers should be a clue that it will be likely on of the biggest targets for opprobrium further along the process. Perhaps it might survive as an exoteric piece of knowledge for select few.
So the bottom line is that science can be lost without compromising most of the stuff that can be had in a society without industry and fossil fuels. In fact a lot of things that could be theoretically be built in a pre-industrial society often would not be available due to scarce resources being allocated somewhere else: europeans were usually satisfied with building huge cathedrals while putting up with water and sanitation arrangements that the romans would have found somewhat lacking.
3/19/15, 2:25 PM
latheChuck said...
So that was all it took: the pressure to award the degree at the promised date, research integrity is optional.
When I read academic literature now, it's to find the useful footnotes to classic papers of antiquity (i.e., mid-to-late 20th century), or to amuse myself finding the simplifying assumptions that make the research irrelevant.
3/19/15, 2:32 PM
Myriad said...
After reflection, I realized that from his side, this made perfect sense. He doesn't get to choose between me exercising and me taking pills. From his side, the options are telling me to exercise or telling me to take pills. If weight loss is 90% effective at treating the condition, but only 10% of patients urged to lose weight actually do it (which is a wildly optimistic estimate), then that first option is only 9% effective, while prescribing pills that work 70% of the time which 90% of patients follow through with taking is a 63% effective treatment by comparison. Why even waste time with the long-shot option, especially if it also makes most patients angry and drives them away?
One of my sisters is an MD, and she agrees that among the other forces arrayed against doctors' ability to provide sound and ethical care (such as insurance guidelines, lawsuit fears, educational debt, and pharmaceutical company influence), the expectations of today's "empowered" patients figure prominently.
This clearly parallels the experience of my other sister, a college chemistry professor, whose performance ratings (and hence pay, and job security) are tied directly to students' ratings, which go down if the course content is challenging or the grading anything other than ultra-lenient.
Even leaving collapse out of the picture, another two or three generations of those trends and scientific hubris will be a moot point because scientists won't actually be capable of doing science any more.
3/19/15, 2:36 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Carlisle, reasoning from dictionary definitions is always a risky option. Science, also termed "modern science," is also a specific historical phenomenon with its own culture and praxis, and that -- not the abstraction you've brought into the discussion -- is what I'm talking about, of course.
Ozquoll, on the other hand, those of us on the spectrum are less susceptible to peer pressure and the magnetic attraction of collective thinking, and that can quite literally be life-saving at this point! Thanks for the link.
Stein, thanks for this! The website for the talks seems to have a broken link -- I've tried a couple of times to download the PDF and haven't been able to get it. All in good time.
Jo, it's a challenging situation. One of the things that makes corrupt institutions so deadly is that they feed on the idealism and honesty of their inmates.
Raven, if that's the religious metaphor you prefer, what happens after the crucifixion and entombment?
Andrew, thanks for the report from the trenches!
Cherokee, Smith never wrote novels -- all the Zothique stories fit into a single volume, and it's been out of print for a while in this country (I have no idea what the status of old SF and fantasy is down your way). Definitely give Smith a look, though!
M, nicely put. It's reminiscent of the faux pas by Nelson Rockefeller back in the 1960s: "Consider the ordinary working guy, making say a hundred thousand a year..."
Tripp, only a human? As compared to what? ;-)
Sven, so far the troll action has been only a little heavier than usual. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the post hits the skeptic blogs -- though that just means a few more taps on the "delete" button, of course.
Scythe, these days a very large part of the skeptic movement basically functions as unpaid marketing for a handful of corporate interests. They're "skeptical" about anything but press releases from the pharmaceutical and biotech industries...
3/19/15, 2:45 PM
Leo Knight said...
3/19/15, 2:53 PM
1ab9a86a-8991-11e3-899b-000bcdcb8a73 said...
science isn't actually organized as a profession at all. You can see that by the virtual non-existence of career paths. People entering actual professions such as law, medicine etc would never put up with that. To the extent that science achieves any of your criteria, this is an accidental byproduct of its history and, in a sense, its success (such as it is).
The goal of an individual research scientist is to discover something new. That's about it. The result is a body of knowledge, but I disagree with your A+ assessment because of your use of the word "systematic". In fact, I would give science an A+ for a "acquiring a large, disorganized body of theory and knowledge".
In biomedical disciplines, this needs to be qualified by mentioning that there is very little theory behind much of it, and as pyrrhus somewhat un-diplomatically said already "As to medical research in general, since most doctors and researchers are terrible at math, the vast majority of it is just garbage".
Unfortunately that is true (to varying degrees) for a wide range of biosciences, including ecology, in the sense that research papers get written that combine new, expensively acquired data with analysis that is total garbage, because the authors don't understand the analytical (e.g. statistical) methods they are forced to use as a substitute (prosthesis?) for scientific reasoning. In these disciplines, "scientific method" is taught explicitly but then reduced to trivialities such as P-values, confidence intervals and their 1000 nearest bug-eyed relatives you find in statistical recipe books. So in other words, scientific reasoning, which is the really hard part of science where all the gains are to be made, is abandoned in advance. The inevitable consequence is a series of random conclusions in papers dealing with health and nutrition, fluctuating over the decades, making little progress but leaving a wake of incoherent noise.
There are a very small minority of serious biostatisticians, who actually do know what they are doing, who develop advanced methods and apply them correctly; unfortunately this does not impede the mountain of garbage being published. In fact, their excellence puts them at a relative disadvantage since good careful work is a lot slower than the competition, i.e. "the bad drive out the good" and so you get, as pyrrhus mentioned, a huge fraction of non-reproducible results.
3/19/15, 3:09 PM
trippticket said...
The sense of awe and reverence that we field, every week, from people who discover us is astonishing. We are absolute rock stars in our county and in certain parts of Atlanta and Chattanooga where we work some markets. Sales in our herbal products increase every time a customer finds out how we live; some folks buy something just because of the story. In fact, the other day I was seriously taken aback by someone who found out about us and didn't think it was cool at all. But he was a 15 y.o. foster kid with a soft spot for fancy cars...
Cheers,
Trippticket
Steward of
Rivenwood
Talking Rock
Lower Appalachia
3/19/15, 3:12 PM
Ed-M said...
But then again there might be a backlash against engineering, too; and it, like science, might be completely forgotten. The status of engineers these days is much lower than in the heyday of highway construction and the space programs. From what I understand, this is due in no small part to a backlash against highway construction through city neighborhoods once the locals figured out what sort of influence a planned eight-lane interstate would have on their community (ex: Cambridge, Mass., and the Boston Inner Belt Expressway). Plus the glamour went out of the space program.
3/19/15, 3:12 PM
Odin's Raven said...
Freed of it's body of materialistic restrictions science might cease to be 'the knowledge of that which is not worth knowing' and become knowledge of deeper truth.
3/19/15, 3:34 PM
1ab9a86a-8991-11e3-899b-000bcdcb8a73 said...
I just saw your follow-up, so evidently I didn't need to tell you that science isn't organized as a profession.
However I'm puzzled by various points:
1. What makes you think scientists want to be treated as part of a profession?
2. Your claim that science is organized as a religion, talking of priests and altars etc ... none of that rings any bells with me at all. So I wonder where you get that imagery from.
3. Totally baffled by your "supporting cigarette companies" claim. Ever since I can remember, science has been trying to strangle them to death.
4. "Outsiders opinions must not count in the process". What exactly are scientists supposed to do with opinions, whether outsiders, insiders or frontsy-backsy-inside-outsy? How is an opinion going to alter my analysis? There's simply nowhere to put it, which is just as well considering the two main facts about opinions: (a) there are lots of them (b) they have a well-established track record of being wrong.
I suppose I'm inclined to think that science hasn't tried to establish itself as a formal "profession" for some very good reasons. Take a look at the IPCC and imagine a giant version of that. I'm shuddering just thinking about it. A total nightmare.
Lets just say that if you wanted to finish science off quick and clean, that would do it :)
3/19/15, 4:16 PM
fyreflye said...
For those interested in reading more Clark Ashton Smith and aren't boycotting Amazon or its Kindles: http://tinyurl.com/m86xrov
Often long OP and obscure works see the printed light of day again through the comparatively inexpensive Kindle publishing process. The listings above also show any pbk and hb versions as well.
3/19/15, 4:33 PM
Gwyneth Olwyn said...
I have given up having discussions altogether on "anti-vaxxers" but it was still nice to see my 'outlandish' stance reflected within your blog post this week.
Several months ago, someone took exception to a cartoon posted on I Expletive Love Science regarding lab rats. IFLS defended animal testing as being an unfortunate and necessary approach for providing safe treatment and drugs for humans and that anyone who has ever taken a drug is a hypocrite if they are also against animal testing.
Here was my response:
"Any scientifically literate person also knows to avoid saying something as indefensible as "every medical breakthrough has been made with animal testing." or "necessary for medical progress." We can and should do better in the scientific community. Science is a practice, not a religion or faith and therefore any status quo in procedure or approach should never be accepted as automatically the best. Animal studies correctly predict outcomes for humans with between a 5 to 25% success rate. Check out the systematic reviews and meta-analyses (peer-reviewed published) on the prediction efficacy of animal testing for even the most unambiguous of trial results and you'll note that animal test outcomes give us results we could achieve by chance when it comes to predicting safety and efficacy of treatment or drug interventions. So as one scientifically literate person, I refuse to stand on dogma and misrepresent animal testing as some necessary evil."
I tire of the unthinking elitism I see within the scientific community. They are quick to ridicule, belittle and deride individuals who, on many occasions, are quite rightly cynical and jaded when it comes to the entire scientific community's incestuous and murky relationship to the influential and for-profit drug and medical device industries.
Steps off soap box. Ahem."
And don't worry, the irony of quoting systematic review and meta-analyses is not lost on me.
It's still sad that true scientific inquiry as a way in which we investigate the world around us will not survive this turn of the wheel. Thankfully I won't be around to witness it.
3/19/15, 5:10 PM
GreenEngineer said...
As someone who is not a scientist but is good friends with an inordinate number of them, I would suggest that the main problem with the "view from the outside" is that it has very little to do with the scientists themselves. With some notable exceptions, most of the "pronouncements" you read are in fact the product of either the popular media, or a university's public relations team. In both cases, these announcements are being written by people who have (1) an incentive to sensationalize the findings and (2) little or no understanding of the specific topic and (3) little understanding of the nature of the scientific process. I think this, more than anything else, is why the public is treated to a neverending stream of sequentially-conflicting assertions.
The problem here is simply that most scientists are not, and do not want to be, communicators and public spokespeople. The traits that attract one to science are, in general, not the ones that make for a good marketing person. The scientific community needs to grapple with this problem and they know it. They just don't want to do it.
I also wanted to highlight a growing awareness among scientists themselves of the shortcomings of research quality and reproducibility. This is a relatively recent thing - a Stanford researcher named Ioannidis kicked it off about a decade ago, with this paper.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
Since then, awareness has grown that the scientific community - completely aside from outright fraud - has a serious problem with reproducibility and bias. For example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3008499/
https://osf.io/ezcuj/wiki/home/
https://icerm.brown.edu/materials/Slides/tw-12-5/A_brief_history_of_the_reproducibility_movement_]_Victoria_Stodden,_Columbia_University.pdf
Many of these problems (particularly the infrequency with which important results are replicated) can be traced directly to how science is funded and how scientists are rewarded. The current fad to make science more commercial, with a focus on immediately useful discoveries and ferocious competition, only serves to exacerbate this problem.
3/19/15, 5:51 PM
jonathan said...
3/19/15, 5:55 PM
Purple Tortoise said...
Yes, people can disagree on the interpretation of the data. From my perspective, though, the climate denialist interpretations are not well-founded. It's like your friend who smokes two packs a day but is unwilling to concede that smoking is bad for his health. So he goes from doctor to doctor until he finds one who agrees with him. And if you bring up evidence, he'll just argue that the science is not settled because his second cousin's father-in-law smoked four packs a day and lived to age 95.
3/19/15, 6:43 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Twilight, and of course that's true -- what propels a person through the crack between the worlds, to use a once-iconic phrase, varies quite a bit from person to person -- and science isn't the only thing that's in the process of being rejected.
Unknown Gojira Fan, fair enough. Thank you for having the courage to follow along on this journey; I can't promise you'll find the scenery pleasant, but I think it's worth taking.
Oilman, exactly -- it's not just, or even primarily, a matter of personal integrity or the lack thereof. That's why I stressed that the view from outside doesn't take into consideration all the honest people who are trying to do the right thing -- of course they exist. The problem is that that's not what the people who suffer from the consequences of misapplied science get to see; all they get to see is "we prefer to medicate for that." That's what's going to drive that final furious mob to smash down the doors of that last laboratory, and it won't matter at all that the people in that laboratory are honest and good.
Robert, excellent! Were you aware that a solar Christology, which identifies the sun as one embodiment or manifestation of Christ, is an important theme in a number of alternative forms of Christianity? "For all things have died that you might live."
Buzzy, thanks for the news from the trenches. I knew it was bad; I didn't happen to know that it was that bad.
PG, good heavens. The media's starting to admit that economists can't tell their backside from a hole in the ground? We may be in for it sooner than I thought.
Martin, frustrating indeed. That's what happens when people load science and reason with unscientific and unreasoning emotional commitments -- as of course they always do.
K-dog, yes, but there's more going on than that.
Ray, no argument there. I wish the Mauve and Chartreuse teams would take up chariot racing or something.
Denys, you may be amused to note that some self-proclaimed skeptics insist there's no such thing as the placebo effect. I gather they're offended by the notion that the human mind can do anything at all without a prescription.
Travis, you're welcome and thank you. I've also been interested to note how certain disciplines, as well as the ordinary aging process, have helped me get my Aspergers more and more under control, to the extent that I can look people in the eyes on social occasions without too much discomfort!
3/19/15, 6:53 PM
Purple Tortoise said...
Outside of work, my social circle is dominated by politically conservative and libertarian types. They generally have higher-than-average education and/or income, so they probably are a different demographic than your small-town acquaintances. I've heard that political affiliation one way or the other increases the higher you go up the socio-economic scale, which could account for their stronger ideological stances and being friends-of-friends with the Heartland Institute. Unlike small town ordinary Joes, they're more invested in and benefiting from the current system despite political conflicts with their ideological opponents.
3/19/15, 6:59 PM
Marc L Bernstein said...
You're so often completely overwhelmed by responses to your posts that I'm trying my darndest to be brief.
So you have Aspergers? Join the crowd. I easily qualify. I have always liked to make lists since I was a child (baseball statistics, sumo statistics, etc.), sometimes engage in repetitive activities and often prefer solitude over the company of people, even friends. I sometimes have trouble reading other people's emotions and more often than not respond cerebrally and analytically to them rather than sensitively.
However, persons with such a "disorder" perform a valuable social function if for no other reason than that they look at things a bit differently than the average individual.
Here's a question I'll leave with you:
Can those with Asperger's become self-actualized according to Abraham Maslow's definition?
3/19/15, 7:09 PM
Angus Wallace said...
Thanks for your comments, and respect to you both for your journeys. Both your stories sound fairly amazing to me!
For now, my choice is to remain in the suburbs, but try to find a lifestyle that is low(er) impact (though a log-cabin in the woods definitely has a lot of appeal!). I'm pretty low-status, and am comfortable with that, despite living in a fairly middle-class area.
It's not the respect (or lack of it) that I care about, but the ability to influence thinking and (more importantly) public policy. It would be better if former-elite-now-drop-outs could continue to influence the elite into mending their ways, instead of waiting for the downtrodden to rise up as JMG suggests is likely.
Cheers, Angus
3/19/15, 7:13 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Leo, that's the difference between the expert and the true scholar: the expert insists that everyone ought to listen to him because he's an expert; the true scholar can explain to his listeners why his viewpoint makes sense and ought to be listened to.
Other Tom, but if 1000 auto mechanics claim you ought to change your oil once a week, a service they provide, then maybe the outliers are worth considering. That said, your point in general stands.
Clay, interesting. I'll need to look into the criticisms of Sagan from within the scientific community as time permits; it seems bizarre that, after so many generations of popularizing writers and speakers, Sagan should have been controversial at all.
Moshe, that's very good to hear. Now let's see what kind of reaction that gets from the rest of the scientific community.
Ares, I think I'd probably be a Hairy rather than a Hari Seldon...
Violet, excellent! You get tonight's gold star for sheer perspicacity. You're quite correct, of course, that disguising science as superstition is one of the few ways to get it intact through the rise of the Second Religiosity. Let me murmur this quietly: this isn't the first time that's been done, by a long shot.
Kenaz, I've actually talked about preserving the scientific method in several previous posts here, but yes, it's going to come up for discussion again.
Daelach, the rise of nosocomial infections is more complex than just a matter of inadequate cleaning -- though that's certainly a factor; every time I've been in a hospital recently, I've seen things that would make old Ignaz Semmelweis turn pale. Still, of course you're right; who makes how much money from a given procedure generally has much more to do with how often it gets done than its mere effectiveness.
Yucca, that's fascinating. I wonder if others have observed a correlation between faith in the omnipotence of science and clinical depression.
Eric, welcome back! Oh, no doubt pieces of scientific theory will be picked up and incorporated into the myths and tales of future cultures, just as ancient Greek philosophy got looted for raw material for the worldview of medieval Christianity. It's an interesting question whether those pieces will be useful for the long run, or whether they'll turn into a burden that has to be overturned, as Aristotle did.
Martin, oh, granted. I wish they would just use sugar pills, though, so that microbes wouldn't have so many options to pick up resistance to antibiotics!
3/19/15, 7:13 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Martin, interesting. I don't tend toward depression at all, but there again, I'm a sample of n=1.
Adrian, again, the view from outside doesn't care about all those humble and hardworking people. Unless they make themselves visible -- which, I'm quite aware, would generally cost them their jobs -- they're just another cog in the machine, as far as the view from outside is concerned. That's exactly the problem.
Greg, I have a hard time thinking of a better way to get instantly deleted by Tyson's flacks. To the publicists of modern science, the only good heretic is a dead heretic -- more precisely, a heretic who revolted against something that doesn't pay the publicists' salaries.
Dammerung, exactly. Thank you for getting it.
Greg, I have yet to see an honest study of homeopathy done by the mainstream. I've seen some highly inventive forms of experimental fraud and data-massaging, though!
Escape, do you think that the tobacco industry stopped being generous enough with the payola, or what?
Lynford, funny. Some of the pulps were probably better off used for that purpose anyway...
George, I have indeed cited MacIntyre's After Virtue here. As for the Panopticon, since nobody's had the fortitude to do it according to Bentham's design, it depends on a very high rate of energy and raw material inputs, and will not last long. This strikes me as a very good thing.
Janet, well, of course! Yelling "Luddite!" is much easier than explaining why serfdom to a handful of big corporations is a good idea.
Tim, I didn't know about the correlation between lawsuits and bad manners, but it makes sense -- and the would-be defenders of science have a spectacular case of bad manners, so yes, a backlash would follow...
Myriad, funny indeed.
3/19/15, 7:29 PM
FiftyNiner said...
Best of wishes to you and that idealistic 18 year old about to go off to college to study biotechnology. As everything does in this blog, it seems every post by JMG and a preponderance of all the comments have a very real connection to my own life and that of my family. Of course the topic of the collapse that we discuss here is nothing if not about all of human existence, past, present and future.
I have some very loved nieces and nephews and the most accomplished, academically, of them is a niece who upon completing her undergraduate degree in medical technology applied to and was accepted into the PhD program at Florida State University College of Medicine. She settled on FSU after concluding that as a relatively new medical school(less than 15 years old)it would probably be somewhat immune from the ingrown kinds of atrophy that plague all institutions as they age. My niece's forte is the lab and she became a minor campus legend in her undergraduate days for the precision and scientific competence she brought to the laboratory. One of the reasons that she selected Florida State was that the medical college operated no less than 54 laboratories on the Tallahassee campus and throughout the Florida panhandle. If my brother, her dad, is to be believed a bidding war broke out among the faculty members who headed the different labs as to who would get her in their lab first!
Sadly, the experience was not all that she had hoped. She became disillusioned by a system that is totally controlled by the drug industry in deciding what it is that the PhD candidates are even going to be allowed to work on. She chose to leave with a master's degree and is now teaching at a long established junior college in Florida.
Being the high achiever and perfectionist that she is, I think that eventually she will carve out for herself another niche and go for it. A certain amount of toughness is going to be required of our youth if they are to succeed.
3/19/15, 7:39 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Raymond, nah, if I want to chase people away, the key is getting weird, not getting controversial. I have that in reserve in case the comments get too thick on the ground.
Admin, I have a friend who's an engineer without benefit of degree, so you're not completely unprecedented! As for localizing science, an excellent idea -- and I hope you won't take offense if I note that it's the kind of response I'd expect an engineer to think up. Every engineer I've ever met was good at solving problems in really odd ways, so solving the problem of the survival of science? Just another neat technical problem! ;-)
(That said, it's among the more workable notions I've seen.)
Marcello, granted. The Middle Ages would have been possible without logic and philosophy, for that matter -- but I still think there was a point to preserving those through the fall of Rome.
LatheChuck, ouch. That's unusually lame even for a university.
Myriad, and of course that's also a point that will have to be addressed in salvaging science.
Leo, thank you. You may be amused to know that that's still my best selling book -- though it mostly seems to attract attention from teenage monster fans.
Ed-M, I'm concerned that there could be a backlash against the whole kit and caboodle, science, engineering, medicine, the lot, as tools of the existing order -- and breaking the tools may seem like the most expedient strategy to attack the social order that uses them.
Raven, exactly.
Fyreflye, on the other hand, for those who don't want to deal with the Evil Empire, the same website that hosts "The Dark Age," and was cited on my blog, hosts every other story and poem Clark Ashton Smith ever wrote, and can be accessed free of charge.
Gwyneth, I've come to think that if science as a method of inquiry does survive, it'll be entirely because of people who don't earn a living at it, and so are free to practice it.
GreenEngineer, of course the view from outside has little or nothing to do with the individuals involved. That was an important part of my point. Focusing on the individuals can blind you to the way the whole system appears from outside -- and thus to the rising potential of a violent backlash against science as a whole. It doesn't matter if most scientists are good people; it doesn't matter whether they understand the problems in the system -- if they don't reach out to those outside the scientific community, and change the way science looks from outside, they're going to be caught up in the backlash just as surely as the corrupt experiment-faker two lab benches away.
3/19/15, 7:47 PM
Cliff said...
I watch it because I'll learn a few things about science, but also because it has a mix of oversimplification, futurism, and evangelism that's fascinating, now that I know how to look for it. (To be uncharitable, it strikes me as propaganda for atheists.)
It's interesting to watch Neil deGrasse Tyson talk about the need to switch to solar energy and how mankind will go to the stars one day, and then a blaring commercial for Chrysler cars or what have you will come on.
In the last episode, Tyson had a line about how the wonders found in nature far surpass anything the human imagination can come up with.
That undervaluation of imagination has always disturbed me. Imagination is one of the quintessential human traits, but there's a strain of humanists that can't seem to stand it.
And anymore, this attitude feels oppressive. I've come to think that there are people with vested interests in divorcing me from my imagination in any way possible.
3/19/15, 7:51 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Tortoise, that makes sense, then. I know a lot of conservatives, but they're the guys in T-shirts drinking beer at a grubby bar, not the guys in three piece suits drinking bourbon somewhere on the wealthy side of town.
Marc, I've never been greatly impressed by Maslow's definition, or by any general definition of the kind. It seems to me, rather, that each person has a wholly unique potential for self-actualization, since each person is a unique self, and what would be self-actualization for one person might be the opposite for someone else. Did I mention dissensus yet? ;-)
Cliff, two shots dead on target. Yes, Cosmos is propaganda for atheism, or more precisely for the anthropolatrous worship of Man the Conqueror of Nature that responds with jealous rage to the suggestion that there might be anything bigger and badder than their hero; and yes, the fear and hatred of imagination is deeply engrained in contemporary scientism and in our society as a whole. That's why the prosthetic imagination -- all those glass screens with little pictures dancing around on them -- is such a pervasive presence in modern life; good heavens, we can't have people coming up with their own mental imagery, now can we?
3/19/15, 7:59 PM
1ab9a86a-8991-11e3-899b-000bcdcb8a73 said...
you are so right. Those on the inside get to see the view from the outside (unless they are total media-shy hermits, which is rare). And what they see ... rarely seems to have anything to do with what they know is actually happening on the inside.
Scott Adams made a similar point about the financial media's portrayal of companies having zilch to do with what insiders were seeing.
However I think the disconnect is much more severe in the case of science. The media's portrayal is in a parallel universe all on its own, and mostly it doesn't help at all when scientists try to engage with the media. You only have to see a few disasters before concluding that staying as far away from the media as possible is a practical necessity.
Which is another way of saying that science communication is really really fracking hard and combining it with research seems to be virtually impossible.
3/19/15, 8:13 PM
Yucca Glauca said...
3/19/15, 8:28 PM
Robert Hall said...
To see whether you are speaking with a real scientist, ask what problem most interests him/her today. Then ask what they are working on. A gap between these is likely, because many need to work on something that is funded.
Great questions are asking what we do not know. What hypotheses have some evidence, but our investigations are incomplete because evidence is limited; contrary hypotheses have not been tested, etc.
Without rising to the level of deliberate misrepresentation of data, money introduces incentives for confirmation bias and denial of contrary evidence. At its most blatant, a finding that can be funded, or that can be marketed is a marvel of science; anything that casts doubt is "junk science." Once firmly attached to a belief, the human mind invents endless rationales for self-deception. Even in science.
I for one have difficulty trying to track a finding reported in news about science to its original published source. I can't dig deeply into very many areas, so I have to rely on the integrity of those that I think have. Over the years I have come to be suspicious of the science backing a lot of commercial claims.
My point is that many citizens have reason to distrust "experts," especially those who appear in TV ads -- and who may really be only actors playing the role. As that great scientist, Groucho Marx once quipped, "What are you going to believe, me or what you can see with your own eyes?"
In a world where much of the systems that we depend on, not just scientific findings, are abstract from common experience, it's little wonder that we have arrive at our current pass. Truth is whatever I am convinced that it is, by whatever route I drew a conclusion.
In this situation, a great many people distrust experts of almost any sort. They may not question their technical abilities. They distrust whether their proposals in the long run will actually benefit or harm them. In a free-market world, the precautionary principle is far too often given only lip service in an advertising claim that is backed by far too little hard or extensive evidence.
What do they not know, and what are they not telling if they do?
3/19/15, 8:39 PM
N Montesano said...
The discussion about angry atheists has been interesting to me, since I came from the other end of the argument; becoming an ... irritated ... atheist in college, after one too many childhood encounters with Christians trying to browbeat me into belief with variations on the theme of "Love God or He will torture you."
These days, am mostly agnostic. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Montesano...
The whole discussion of the outside view of the various professions is a useful one; certainly thought-provoking. Made me realize how many contradictory views I hold about them myself.
It was also interesting to read this post, because last week, in trying to work through the reasons for some of my discomfort with previous posts, I found myself asking whether I could consider myself either an environmentalist or a moral person, given my "cozy middle-class lifestyle," in a world where so many have less than they need. Ehhh... That was comfortable.
3/19/15, 8:57 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Robert, exactly. That's the thing about expertise: the ability to claim authority based on knowledge lasts only until other people start saying, "How do we know you're telling the truth about what you know?" Science is at root a way of confirming that we know something about nature -- and when the trust that comes from that confirmation is broken, there may not be much left once the rubble stops bouncing.
Montesano, I used to get bombarded by that sort of Christian all the time, too: "God will torment you for all eternity for the crime of disagreeing with me." I quite understand the attraction of atheism in the face of that sort of bullying.
3/19/15, 9:37 PM
Derv said...
Check out my earlier post. Also ankylosing spondylitis (and my brother has it too), also Asperger-y (though I've leaned more recently toward Schizoid Personality Disorder, which isn't a disorder at all, just a type of person), and depression/bipolar runs strong in my family. I don't have it, thankfully, but had life played out differently I probably would have, as I can tell I'm predisposed toward it.
It's a bit uncanny, really, to find two Aspergerish commentors on an Archdruid blog with ankylosing spondylitis. One of life's little quirks, I suppose! You wouldn't also happen to be a Latin-loving Catholic in North Dakota with three kids, would you? Cuz then we might have to call Guinness.
3/19/15, 10:54 PM
Derv said...
I can understand why such statements really turn you off to Christianity. I'd like to say, in assuming the best about people, that at least some of them really do think they're trying to help you. If you see it from their perspective for a moment, imagine a friend you loved was driving their car off of a cliff, and you were the only one who could stop it. You'd take even drastic action to help your friend, right? (I say this to help explain their motivation and help you sympathize, of course, and not as some an argument for or against Christianity.)
I can absolutely see how it could become downright grating to others if you don't believe it. I wouldn't take too kindly to a Buddhist harassing me daily about how terrible my next reincarnation will be if I don't embrace the Four Noble Truths. But I hope I could at least see that they were motivated by true concern. I speak here of the sincere and kind-hearted, mind you; there are of course jerks in every religion who just want an excuse to be jerks.
As for the idea of Hell, I know that it's very difficult for many to reconcile the idea of an all-loving God with it. I don't want to violate the house rules, so I'll just say that the Scholastic approach to the subject, found especially in St. Thomas Aquinas, can be very enlightening. A big part of it, briefly, is just an inherent incompatibility between an individual's chosen disposition/end and the nature of God. There's more to it than that, but I won't go into it. I just wanted to say that there are very well-thought-out explanations for it that, to me at least, make perfect sense. You just have to look in the right place; find the towering intellects of the religion, and not the petty church ladies, if you want to give it a go.
3/19/15, 11:05 PM
Stein L said...
If the link doesn't work, you'll find the document at www.scribd.com, under the title:
Bruno Latour Facing Gaia Six lectures on the political theology of nature.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/209626901/Bruno-Latour-Facing-Gaia-Six-Lectures-on-Political-Theology-of-Nature
3/19/15, 11:11 PM
KL Cooke said...
"When I was 10, I saw a bright blue light in the ditch across from my house, and have no idea if I saw an alien or other novel life form, was having one heck of a lucid dream, or what."
Possibly what you saw was a will-o-the-wisp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will-o%27-the-wisp
3/20/15, 12:44 AM
KL Cooke said...
"Realistically, any effort to reduce one's impact on natural systems means consuming less. That includes things like cars, clothing, toys, houses, travel. All those things are status symbols. Therefore, an effort to impact the biosphere less amounts to a loss of status. This has the consequence that others will pay that person less respect than they would if that person had all those status symbols.
I agree that there needs to be a middle ground between business-as-usual and livin-wild-in-the-woods, but it is not clear to me how to counter the loss of status. Perhaps we need to push new status symbols? (this might be already happening, but golly it's slow!)"
Just guessing, but reading between the lines I sense in "loss of status" the difficulty in attracting a mate ( we called it "getting chicks" back in unenlightened days ;o> ). Unfortunately, I believe that's part of the evolutionary cul de sac we've wandered into. Mating success as a function of the demonstrated ability to provide. You see it playing out in the "chicks dig bad boys" syndrome, with the unconscious logic that bad boys are aggressive, and acquisition requires aggression(theory, I admit, and controversial, but I'm not alone in this).
One can argue that this is an atavism, a trait that has outlived its time. However, I'm skeptical that our species has enough time left to evolve a better adaptation.
3/20/15, 1:08 AM
Denys said...
Is Cosuming Like Crazy the Best Way to End Capitalism? http://www.vice.com/read/is-consuming-like-crazy-the-best-way-to-end-capitalism-050
3/20/15, 3:14 AM
Gabriela Augusto said...
This phenomenon, of a parallel world of made of indicators and scenarios built of cherry picked measured data and computer models demonstrating the inexhaustibility of resources, the ever growing economy, the innocuousness of several technologies and substances largely decoupled with the experience of people lives and common sense, is increasingly apparent. It doesn’t help when once asked about the level of uncertainty, the answer points to 300 % or “this is not a stochastic model”. That leave us all wondering if they have any idea of what are they talking about.
Another reason for the discredit of science is to call economy a science!
I trust that microscopes, telescopes, generators, transformers, radios and the scientific method established by the Arabs in the IX century and formalised in the XVIII century in Europe, will still be respected and used in the centuries to come.
3/20/15, 3:53 AM
Brian said...
Everyone tries to come up with definitions of "human" that separate us firmly from the beasts, but then we learn that animals use tools, birds use syntax, etc., etc. So I've come up with one I think might stand: Humans seem to be, at this point in our understanding, the only species that invents gods to tell itself how wonderful it is.
3/20/15, 5:12 AM
Phil Harris said...
I am glad that this blog has a climate scientist on board. FWIW I endorse Purple T's personal experience.
Britain's class structure is even more peculiar than class in the USA I guess, and has strong (reinforced?) elements of a caste structure. Apparently British 'social mobility' has in recent decades shrunk to near non-existent, despite a massive increase in 'higher' education in my lifetime. Climate-Change denial appears much less pervasive here, although the subject seems generally avoided in conversation.
The two most 'skeptical' deniers that I know are both research scientists: one an old friend was senior in an oil company and the much younger man teaches at a University. One is 'realist' conservative, the other 'leftish'. Both complain of 'bad science'. I found their vehement positions initiallly surprising and alarming. They have taken the issue very personally, despite apparently having insufficient credible expertise. I am inclined to think it is this 'progress thing', and probably their own personal investment in career success.
best
Phil
3/20/15, 5:22 AM
Jon from Virginia said...
Remember, we're trying to build a 8 inch diameter F6 scope. So how many books and articles give you the simple equation using the diameter and focal ration, D/(16*Focal Ratio), and how many give the equation (r squared)/2R?
3/20/15, 6:03 AM
Adrian Ayres Fisher said...
Now I really get what you mean by "the outside" and I guess staying under the radar makes sense. The folks I'm involved with are kind of off in the corners, and because more involved with ecology, perhaps less likely to attract negative attention, anyway.
3/20/15, 6:04 AM
Adrian Ayres Fisher said...
Regarding the discussion of ecology--Yucca, I love your description of extreme reductionism leading to holism--a couple of my mentors think very much along those lines and have taught me to do as well. And that does seem a way for ecology to survive, especially once spiritual aspects get brought in.
And, as JMG points out, it's not a favored discipline. I greatly look forward to future posts about all of this.
In the ecological restoration community I'm part of there seems to be some frisson between the on-the-ground practitioners and the more theoretical ecologists, and suspicions have been voiced that some models aren't actually that useful when confronted with field conditions--and vice versa, of course. Yet there is also an extremely strong "citizen-science" component, and a large amount of collaboration on fieldwork, with monitoring, bioblitzes and so on. The people organizing this work are always looking for recruits.
To me that's a good sign for the future potential health of ecology as a discipline, even if it gets morphed into another structure and form.
I recently read a pretty good, fairly interdisciplinary book that discusses some of the cultural issues surrounding ecology, the perceived value of restoration, and even some "inside-outside" issues is "Making Nature Whole," by W. Jordan and G. Lubick.
3/20/15, 6:29 AM
oilman2 said...
Ecology is underfunded and unwanted in a world of "specialists" - it requires broad general knowledge and to back away and observe, tinker, and observe. Obviously this ill fits digital time streams and methods/products designed to address one specific thing (TWAWKI currently).
Efficient farming involves deciding where your best PEROEI (Personal EROEI) lies. After all, we are trying to convince an inherently chaotic, self-buffering system to do what we want. Fukuoka works on a personal level, but harvesting is problematic. There is a way, undefined as yet, and your chosen discipline will help you and others.
Outlier, inefficient, impractical, ancient, old - beware people using these words as negatives. Chances are, the words were written in the Industrial Revolution or the Age of Oil - both of which are likely to be revealed as very temporary blips in the timeline.
Gregor Mendel comes to mind - him being outlier, old, and by today's methods, inefficient. Darwin? What a clown spending his life observing things God explains easily (outlier). Wish I had ecology degree instead of mere biology and engineering...
3/20/15, 7:12 AM
Strovenovus said...
Thank you for this. I've been struggling with these sorts of issues for some time now.
I truly love science as a method for testing what we think we know about the world, and hopefully a way to understand the nature of the universe a little bit better.
Why do I love science? In large part because science claims a way toward the truth, but does not stake any claim on truth itself. Mysteries will always remain.
Science demands that we are answerable to others, since any evidence uncovered must be subject to independent verification. No one can claim a monopoly on the means to testing our beliefs.
I am well aware that this is an idealization. Still, it's good to remember these strengths.
I should add that some of the evidence that science has uncovered is also a wonder to behold.
As for scientists, well, they are at least as fallible as the rest of us, and also at least as likely to forget that condition. Too many seem to believe that they are the keepers of the truth, and place too much faith in the contingent and incomplete knowledge that they have cobbled together.
I believe that helping to preserve science is a worthy task. This includes safeguarding science against the failings of those who view themselves as its most ardent advocates, but are proving to be their own worst enemies.
I am teaching my daughter my love for science, while explaining its limitations. I speak out against treating science as a faith. What more can I do?
3/20/15, 7:21 AM
Ed-M said...
3/20/15, 9:42 AM
Clay Dennis said...
In an addition to the thread about non academic engineers. The engineering profession is unusual in that there is a path to become a P.E. ( a licensed professional engineer) for someone with no academic backgroud at all. It is long and arduous and involves several tests, and much time spent under the tutelage of a P.E. But once obtained , these workingman's engineering credentials are usually held in high regard.
3/20/15, 9:49 AM
Ed-M said...
I suppose the meanness ang ignorance of the comments in regard to the woes of your area's local mass transit has as much to do with "those people" who rely on public transportation to get to work, get groceries, keep appointments, and other daily necessities as it does with the agency in charge of the transit, and government in general. For there really is a meanness in the air, spread and exploited by certain pseudoconservatives, that is directed against those who are lower in socioeconomic status than the broad middle class, like there is against unionized employees and public officials (said pseudoconservatives and their political party excepted of course!).
3/20/15, 9:52 AM
Jim Irwin said...
3/20/15, 10:05 AM
Fred said...
People embrace beliefs that satisfy their emotions, and then only respond favorably to “information” that supports those beliefs. I catch myself doing this, too, try as hard as I might to be “objective”.
3/20/15, 10:30 AM
Josh said...
Recently the Tyndall Centre produced a thoughtful white paper discussing the dilemma of the outsized carbon footprints of scientists, in particular from flying around the world to attend meetings on climate change - and how this might influence public perceptions of climate change and other environmental issues. http://tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/twp161.pdf
I think a movement of sustainability scientists to actually attempt to live small(er) Ecological Footprint lifestyles would help things. The exercise would point out interesting challenges where living a small EF lifestyle might come into conflict with a more aggressive pursuit of career advancement that characterizes the priorities of most "normal" scientists and researchers.
3/20/15, 10:32 AM
Patricia Mathews said...
http://english.bouletcorp.com/2014/11/04/
Magicocornucopianism & Harry Potter
3/20/15, 10:55 AM
Sven Eriksen said...
3/20/15, 11:05 AM
peacegarden said...
"If they would eat nettles in March, and Mugwort in May, so many a fine maiden would not go to the clay"
~Funeral Song of a Scottish Mermaid~
I am about to go out and harvest some nettle leaves; they are just peeking out of the ground. Going to make a strong tea and savor the turning point this day brings. There is much to contemplate, and even more to appreciate.
We planted two gingko trees Wednesday, and transplanted a volunteer sumac yesterday…ah, to have your fingers in that cold, cold soil…thrilling!
I loved science as a child; it was like a window into the world; how things worked, why they worked and how they all worked together. And science offered a method of study…anyone could do it, even me!
I have been lamenting the sad state of scientific corruption over these last several decades. I wanted to see a revival of integrity, but I’ve come to believe we are going through something quite necessary and the likelihood of turning a corner is nil.
So for me, the area of science I most want to keep alive is botany. I will continue to learn about and from the plants, and share that knowledge with anyone who will listen, or sit in the presence of the force…
The force that through the green fuse drives the flower
Drives my green age; that blasts the roots of trees
Is my destroyer.
And I am dumb to tell the crooked rose
My youth is bent by the same wintry fever.
The force that drives the water through the rocks
Drives my red blood; that dries the mouthing streams
Turns mine to wax.
And I am dumb to mouth unto my veins
How at the mountain spring the same mouth sucks.
The hand that whirls the water in the pool
Stirs the quicksand; that ropes the blowing wind
Hauls my shroud sail.
And I am dumb to tell the hanging man
How of my clay is made the hangman’s lime.
The lips of time leech to the fountain head;
Love drips and gathers, but the fallen blood
Shall calm her sores.
And I am dumb to tell a weather’s wind
How time has ticked a heaven round the stars.
And I am dumb to tell the lover’s tomb
How at my sheet goes the same crooked worm.
~Dylan Thomas~
Peace,
Gail
3/20/15, 11:32 AM
Bruce The Druid said...
3/20/15, 11:35 AM
Shawn Aune said...
It is the, "capacity," part of the equation that is lost on most people. What is the difference between an 85 degree dry heat and an 85 degree humid heat? The concentration of a single greenhouse gas and lots of energy (measured in joules). How everybody became completely focused on temperature data is... not really that much of a mystery. Never mind.
Shifting Focus...
If people remain focused on how bad GMOs may or may not be for human consumption perhaps they'll never notice how bad GMOs are for the biosphere?
Angry Atheists...
I've always wanted to like Dawkins. He has a creative mind and could do so much more if he weren't so focused on the debate. What would he do with his time if every Christian suddenly began agreeing with him? What if he is right and there really is no God?
If he allowed himself to ponder that possibility for any meaningful amount of time he might realize that consciousness and intelligence are inherent to the cosmos, given the facts that they do exist and God does not. Then again, maybe he wouldn't.
Either way I'd be much more interested in reading his work.
Thanks!
3/20/15, 11:55 AM
GreenEngineer said...
No question at all - I completely agree. My point is that the problems is acknowledged and the community is trying to do something about it. They need to do a great deal more.
That said, upon further reflection, I think the news-consuming public is themselves at least partly responsible for the current situation.
Generally speaking, people lament the poor quality of modern journalism and right denigrate it as infotainment, and criticize the media for not doing a better job. But at the same time, it's pretty clear that the media is giving the public what they want: (over)simple stories with an emphasis on drama and conflict, presented morally and politically in black-and-white terms.
I would argue that the incredibly poor state of science journalism (much worse even than most of the rest of the field) is similarly a reflection of the media giving the public what they want. Good science reporting requires subtlety, nuance, and frequently quite a bit of background information. Given the modern American's nanosecond attention span and strong preference for simple, clear narratives, is it any surprise that these patterns are reflected in science reporting?
I mean, there is good science reporting out there (just not very much). Ars Technica does a very good job, for example, falling prey to very few of the standard shortcomings of science reporting. But they are not a widely-read source. Most people get their "science" from the nightly news and other soundbite sources. So of course they have a completely distorted view of what science is, how it works, and what it can and cannot do.
From this point of view, the average scientist (who is ethical, hardworking, and trying to figure out a tiny little corner of the universe) is a victim of the public's own unrealistic expectations, as translated through a for-profit media system.
My point is that while scientists as a whole have really fallen down on the communication front, it's not at all obvious that simply trying to engage the public and communicate clearly and honestly is going to help fix the problem. That sort of science communication is available, but there is very little market for it.
3/20/15, 12:06 PM
1ab9a86a-8991-11e3-899b-000bcdcb8a73 said...
I'm curious about one detail concerning these students at a "very Liberal institution" : what are they studying?
I ask because you describe them as "True Believers" in science and speak of their "faith" in science.
When I'm doing research, I don't need "faith" in any grand concept, I need confidence in my technical abilities and I need to monitor the boundaries of that competence. It seems to me that those in contact with the coalface of how science is actually done, that is to say those grappling with what might be called mundane realities, might be less inclined to embrace "faith" in the grand enterprise of it all.
However, there is no doubt it can be depressing looking back and realizing that we missed out on the heyday of the thing, and this would be worse for anyone contemplating starting now.
As an aside, is it possible that affluence is a factor? All those therapists and meds wouldn't be cheap.
3/20/15, 12:38 PM
Bruce The Druid said...
http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm#sec-kyrio
This is the best site I have seen that talks about how science actually works (when its not being corrupted by bags of money).
3/20/15, 12:43 PM
oilman2 said...
I also dearly love this address:
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/11/blinkered-thinking-in-academia/
Science should be Darwinic - it should evolve as facts come to light, enabling more complete understanding.
3/20/15, 1:19 PM
Varun Bhaskar said...
It's more of a profound silence than anger, the kind of silence that comes when smart people realize that they're between a rock and hard place.
3/20/15, 1:42 PM
Purple Tortoise said...
3/20/15, 2:44 PM
SLClaire said...
At first I bought into the attitude, if for no other reason than to keep up with my co-workers. Eventually I got to know enough folks outside of science to realize that intelligence was a much more wide-ranging and widespread quality than science culture gave it credit for being. I also had more social skills than most of my fellow scientists, which stood me in good stead in general if not among other scientists.
I'd like to be able to say I left in 1992 because I didn't think much of the state of Science(TM). It's partially true; I didn't like the already increasingly desperate competition for research grants that was yet another result of the Reagan administration's slashing of government spending. But it was also because I didn't think I was capable of doing research at the university level. Nor did I think I had sufficient ability to attract funding. Nor did I like what happened to people who stayed in corporations long enough. It was all those reasons and a few more besides that pushed me out. Now I practice science for no pay, at home and with citizen science organizations.
My impression of scientists' reaction to science popularizers of the 80s and 90s, Sagan in particular, is much like Clay Dennis'. We thought we needed them to keep the public on our side and the money rolling in if for no other reason, but as soon as they did write popular books, we took them less seriously as scientists. I think the arrogance and general lack of respect for non-scientists had a lot to do with this. The public really was supposed to ante up on our say-so, because we knew what we were talking about and they didn't. Just hand over the bucks and we'll give you some nice toys to keep you content.
Oh, my, that's cynical. It bothers me to know I'm capable of writing something like this. I think I still carry a bit of that attitude way down deep, even after years of ferreting it out. But it's why I think you are right, JMG.
3/20/15, 3:20 PM
Dennis D said...
3/20/15, 3:31 PM
onething said...
It does seem to me that the over-hyped self-correcting mechanism of science is partially true. Truth is the daughter of time.
The cholesterol thing and statin drugs seem to be finally on the way out, and the reason is that too much evidence is against them. To be sure, it was available 20 years ago, but it is slowly turning around, due to dogged persistence of those with better evidence.
My impression is that the majority of doctors are pretty nice people. Some are busy and distracted. Doctors do recommend lifestyle changes, but few people are able to do it. I think they give up and start medicating. What I see of patients in hospitals is they take almost no proactive interest in their own health. They don't even seem to have a grocery store magazine sense of healthy food. The hospitals serve very cheap fabricated food, margarine, powdered creamer, soft drinks 2 meals per day.
So far as I can tell, most doctors buy into the official line. But, the other week I was at a meditation group and there was a doctor there, who in telling something about her work, sort of quietly said, well, I can't really say or offer what I really think.
It is now a requirement to pressure every patient, every admission, to get vaccinated. There are mandated requirements to put people on statins.
JMG, do you really think that a driving motive behind sciency types' atheism is anthropo-hubris?
3/20/15, 3:56 PM
Yucca Glauca said...
1ab9a86a-8991-11e3-899b-000bcdcb8a73, I didn't refer to faith in science, but to capital-S Science. The crowd I had in mind were mostly undergraduates in social studies with some physics majors thrown in, all of whom have absolutely horrendous misunderstandings of how evolution works, which I suspect may be a factor. People in the areas that I hang around the most--biology, ecology, and environmental science--are generally much better adjusted. People who actively do research in a science are very rarely True Believers: We've all read enough papers that made big claims but then massaged the stats beyond any credibility.
As for affluence, I do suspect that it's a factor, but it's certainly not a requirement: Some of those therapists and pills are provided by the university's health care plan.
3/20/15, 6:14 PM
Caryn said...
"JMG, in the West at least, science may disappear for a while. However, I believe the East may pick up the baton: China and Japan, specially."
Bruno, can you please elaborate why? I can't speak to Japan, but this seems completely contradictory to Everything I know about Chinese culture, especially their current trajectory. I don't understand your line of reasoning. (?)
Thanks,
3/20/15, 6:28 PM
Caryn said...
Lightbulb moment, for me, this week: Well, it's a well-worn path to compare the rise and fall of the ancient Roman Empire to the rise and fall of the US (hegemony) empire, (or I suppose now it could be said - Western Empire). So many direct parallels in successes AND failures, sometimes it feels like we are purposefully following their blueprint. But: I've always been flummoxed as to how they could have 'lost' some such every-day technologies as say - indoor plumbing! Indoor plumbing is sooooo useful and nice to have and not that hard to figure out. How could it have been lost?
The whole notion of the hoi-polloi outside of the citadels not losing, but actively rejecting 'Science' engineering and technology of the day - Wholesale! never crossed my mind. Perhaps indoor plumbing in ancient Rome was great for those who had it and a pollution nightmare for those figuratively and literally 'outside' who did not? Perhaps it was just a trapping of wealth that enraged the have-not's of the day, like SUV's? This notion may be very pedestrian for some, (apologies), but for me this possibility, (probability?) fills a BIG piece of the puzzle. How exactly DID we get from here to there?
It also reminds me of 'Freedom Fries" and other much larger nonsensical rejections. During the tumult of China's Cultural Revolution the Red Guards, (kids) were instructed to, and did pull up and destroy every flower and blade of grass in city parks as they represented 'Beauty' - and therefore Imperial, Western and Capitalist decadence and oppression. Beauty itself was declared an enemy of the people.
Such were the emotions in times of calamity and chaos - we poor pathetic humans, we DO do these things. There are myriad other anecdotes out there.
I'll be cruising through the comments again to follow some of the links.
Thanks again All!
3/20/15, 7:04 PM
Strovenovus said...
I noticed what appears to be skepticism on your part toward mainstream medical studies on homeopathy.
My understanding of homeopathy is that it was a strong area of practice before the 20th century. The orthodox position is that homeopathy faded before successful treatments using modern medical practices.
Yep, the Power of Science, praise the almighty. Germ theory, cell science, molecular biology, organic chemistry, physical chemistry, physics, I'm still a believer.
Do you have a history of medicine that you would recommend?
The Pew Poll cited by Adams showed that a large percentage of Americans perceived science to have benefited them, but the number was down 6% since the last poll, which didn't seem so long ago. Somebody here noted the huge gap in GM. And your ever-popular encyclopedia of monsters; I believe our library can get me that!
Thanks
Stro
3/20/15, 7:42 PM
HalFiore said...
After I had moved to California, and was home for a visit one time, regaling her with the latest received knowledge on health or nutrition, she said something to me that I still carry in my heart: "If you live long enough, you will see every theory (on health or nutrition, but I apply it a lot more broadly as I age) overturned at least once."
3/20/15, 7:59 PM
GreenGoth said...
I know the best thing I can do for myself when overwhelmed, stressed, depressed, etc. is retreat to the nearby mountain & canyon trails and spend some time alone among the trees and wild critters, just being still, experiencing the natural world with all my senses and letting go of intrusive thoughts of worries, fears, must-do lists, etc. as they arise as a form of meditation.
Much better than any prescription or over-the-counter med has ever been. But I'm not on the autism spectrum so don't know if such nature immersion has a similar beneficial effect?
3/20/15, 8:01 PM
FiftyNiner said...
A somewhat awkward admission on my part: I had never heard of Charles Ashton Smith! Awkward because I have been a science fiction fan all my life.
I read all the science fiction in our local regional library, brought on the book mobile to our little town when I was in junior high. The awkward part, however, is that yours truly, after completing an undergraduate degree with majors in art history and Romance languages and minors in studio art and English, completed half of the course requirements for a Master of Library Service degree at the University of Alabama which was the last of my matriculation. This was in the late
1970's and part of the culture of librarians at the time was to disparage science fiction. Interestingly, though, a crowd of us from a night class along with our professor went to see Star Wars when it came out. I guess science fiction as film gets a pass, but as words on a page does not!?
Reading the story was a real joy. It made me realize how my writing skills have atrophied in the past couple of decades of non use. I have never really attempted fiction, but in reading Smith you are aware that no matter a writer's subject, he has to be completely aware of the "terrain" in every sense. He has to paint a believable picture in the mind of the reader, and to do that without "artifice" creeping in is no small task. Scientists and Engineers need to read more outside their specialties!
3/20/15, 9:41 PM
onething said...
A very thoughtful post. I can understand being a latin loving Catholic...it's a beautiful language, isn't it?
Re hell: "A big part of it, briefly, is just an inherent incompatibility between an individual's chosen disposition/end and the nature of God."
That is the kinder explanation, but this is why I think reincarnation is the most sensible. People are so confused and don't even understand their own drives and motivations. So I don't see atheists (for one example) as rejecting God or even having an unchanging disposition. Our lives are a tiny moment in time, and human beings are very complex processes. But I'd like to be more familiar with the arguments you mention that make sense to you. Could you point me to something I can read?
3/20/15, 10:37 PM
Crow Hill said...
Thank you for clarifying the distinction between science the good, the bad and the ugly, and also for the commentators who have given personal examples known to them. I have heard of people applying for grants for their research in fundamental or “pure” science who know they should add on some fashionable application, for example cancer treatment, to get the money.
I wonder whether the following (heard this week in a BBC programme) falls into that category--could also be a real life candidate for the Great Squirrel Case Challenge?:
http://www.caltech.edu/news/one-step-closer-artificial-photosynthesis-and-solar-fuels-45875
It’s about the system they’re developing to use synthetically optimized photosynthesis as an energy source.
The role of prestige/status Angus Wallace brought up as a guiding principle in our civilisation. Publicity appeals to this, with its cars, hair creams and the like. “Prestige, how many crimes we commit in your name.” This is a very interesting field of investigation: finding out how much prestige makes our societies go round.
Also JMG what’s your take on Steven Pinker’s theory that “All is well in the best of worlds”?
3/20/15, 11:27 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Denys, these days telling the satires from the straight news stories is getting to be really hard...
Gabriela, I hope you're right. Of course conditions may vary from one part of the world to others.
Brian, thanks for the tip -- I'll put it on the get-to list. By the way, what makes you so sure that animals don't have gods?
Phil, interesting. Thanks for the perspective from across the pond!
Jon, it's been a long time, but when I was a kid and was putting together my first telescope, I seem to recall the simpler form in at least one book I read. (No, I didn't grind my own mirror -- you could get very nice optics back then from Edmunds Scientific, so that's the route I chose.) I wonder if the obfuscation index has increased over the years.
Adrian, exactly -- among other things, the willingness of ecologists to recruit citizen scientists for phenology studies and the like is a good sign that that's a likely place to build the necessary bridges. More on this as we proceed!
Strovenovus, I love science as well, partly for the reasons you've noted, and partly -- and I know plenty of scientists would be offended by this! -- because it's one of the most distinctive products of western cultures, right up there with oil painting and symphonic music, and is worth preserving as a product of our species' creative genius for exactly the same reason that any other great cultural tradition is worth saving.
Ed-M, fortunately there are also other options. More on this later.
Clay, I wonder how much of the reaction to Sagan was sheer envy -- a lot of other scientists might have envied him his Porsche, etc.
Jim, maybe so, but I have a lot more respect for NOAA than I do for the Pentagon!
Fred, I know. The degree of crass ignorance of basic history common among scientists in general is stunning. Dawkins isn't even noticeably worse than usual. It fascinates me that people who make such a fetish about having the facts seem so completely unable to look up a basic fact when it comes to history!
3/20/15, 11:28 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Patricia, many thanks! That was seriously funny -- and yes, it'll be put to work in at least one (and probably more than one) upcoming post.
Sven, I do indeed know that! I grew up in Seattle, though, so have never gotten used to the idea that sunlight is something one can reliably get... ;-)
Peacegarden, we'll know that the world is starting to get sane again when botany textbooks include poems by Dylan Thomas. Thank you.
Bruce, fair enough. I'm quite capable of being wrong, of course.
Shawn, well, yes, I got thermodynamics drummed into my brain good and proper, so heat storage capacity is something I think of automatically!
GreenEngineer, trying to engage the public and communicate clearly and honestly won't do a bit of good as long as the view from outside remains unnoticed by those trying to do this. I do think there are ways to bridge the gap, but it's going to require a rethinking of the whole social framing of science. I'll be discussing that down the road a bit.
Bruce and Oilman, thanks for the links!
Varun, excellent. If they've gotten to the moment of dead silence, they may eventually be able to take the next step and rethink the whole question.
Tortoise, that's certainly part of it. Still, I saw enough scientific fraud being practiced when I was at college to have no very high opinion of the honesty of scientists in general, and I suspect a lot of the researchers who turn out canned studies to market the latest pharmaceuticals know perfectly well what game they're playing.
SLClaire, that's very nearly a universal habit of thought among intellectual elites, and it generally plays a large role in leading them to their ultimate destiny dangling from lampposts or the like.
Dennis, good. The distinction between science and institutional science has a lot in common with the distinction between religion and institutional religion. More on this later.
3/20/15, 11:42 PM
John Michael Greer said...
(BTW, please stop trying to drag in the vaccination issue. There are plenty of other forums where you can discuss that. Comments referencing that issue won't be put through, so all that's going to happen is that I'm going to get irritated at you. 'Nuf said!)
Caryn, good. It's among the basic credos of contemporary life that everyone actually wants science and technology, except for a few religious cranks -- but when science and technology become sources of harm to the majority of people, and sources of help only to the privileged, that credo becomes a dangerous delusion. The survival of science depends, among other things, upon scientists recognizing that science and technology can and do harm people, in ways ranging from the subtle to the savage, and people's attitudes toward science depend very much on the cost/benefit ratio they face in their own lives.
Strovenovus, I don't know of a history of medicine that isn't basically cheerleading for one side or the other, so no, I can't recommend one. My skepticism about mainstream studies of homeopathy is based partly on my own extensive experience with it, and partly with a close look at the experimental protocols used in those studies I've examined, which are very nicely designed to make sure of a null result.
For example, homeopathic prescribing is based not on disease entities as identified by modern medicine -- e.g., "influenza" -- but precise details of individual symptoms; any one of twenty or thirty different remedies might be prescribed to someone with the flu, depending on exactly what their symptoms are, and ignoring this pretty much guarantees a lack of results; mainstream studies systematically do just this, and use one homeopathic remedy to treat all cases of influenza, thus getting the results they want.
Hal, you had a wise aunt.
GreenGoth, I can't speak for everyone on the spectrum, but it's one of the things that helps me. Far more effective, though, is turning off all electronic media. Silence, stillness, and stimulus reduction are essentials for me.
FiftyNiner, you're not alone -- a lot of people have never read Smith. The website to which I linked has all his stories and poetry; I'd encourage you to read the lot!
3/20/15, 11:55 PM
John Michael Greer said...
3/20/15, 11:59 PM
Scotlyn said...
I'd like to say, JMG, that in your interactions in this and your other blog, you have always come across with warmth, close engagement and, yes, a fluid social grace. If it is the case that achieving this effect has cost you more effort and attention than it might have done for another, then I'd like to salute you and express my appreciation for it.
3/21/15, 12:59 AM
Cherokee Organics said...
Many thanks and I definitely will. Before the advent of the Internet, it was very hard to get out of print or old Sci-Fi novels here and I suspect it will be again in the future at some point. It is ridiculously easy to purchase Twilights last gleaming for instance!
Before the time of the internet, you had to make acquaintance with the specialist bookshops which sold those books. They were really hard to get. Melbourne had a bookshop called "Minotaur" in the CBD which always kept up with the latest releases and stocked some of the older books. And I'm mildly embarrassed to mention that many times I had to wait for the order for the hardback edition of David Edding's latest books in the Belgariad and Mallorean series to be released. And I really was eager to get my hands on them. Yeah, yeah, I know, but they were an enjoyable romp at the time. Yes, my street cred has just taken a serious nose dive! hehe!
The problem was that you'd also ask for older releases and they'd look them up on the printed ledgers and they'd tell me they're out of print at the publishers. They then always had to go on and explain to my disappointed self that it didn't mean that the books were no good, it just meant that the publisher didn't print them anymore. Difficult times. At one point Jack Vance's Demon Princes series was completely out of print and the last book was less than a decade old.
People don't know how good they have it nowadays.
Cheers
Chris
3/21/15, 3:28 AM
Matthew Casey Smallwood said...
"I too often encounter people who have lost the capability of nuances. For them, saying I don’t know, admitting that science has limits or thinking about appropriateness doesn’t appear to be an option. It’s all black or white, for or against. There is no place for argument. Frustrating."
John Raulston Saul should interest you:
http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/saul.html
He identifies with Socrates' culture of doubt (aporia?) vs. Plato, and although I think that's a rhetorical shot, it has more substance than most rhetoric these days (I am a Christian Platonist). Saul is useful in that he clinically diagnoses practically HOW the managerial or Rieff's "officer or subaltern" therapeutic/managerial class (this is who JMG is talking about as being "in charge") make the system work and how they think, and why they represent a betrayal of Socrates (not to mention, obviously, Plato as well). George Parkin Grant, another Canadian, is useful when analyzing the problems of technology (he's a Platonist or Vedic Christian). Hope this helps. A culture of doubt might be useful - we apply it only to religion these days.
3/21/15, 3:43 AM
Matthew Casey Smallwood said...
3/21/15, 3:46 AM
Cherokee Organics said...
What great questions.
Of course, I agree with you that they are not organised as a profession. But then that begs the question: What is actually meant when the word "science" is being used to describe the activities of a large number of individuals? And should the word “profession” even be used?
Ah, well perhaps the use of the word “disorganised” is more accurate. Incidentally, I was replying to the use of the word "professional" by listing some of the attributes of the word professional to highlight the differences.
Would we then be better stating that science is unprofessional? Hehe! What is it in actuality - and I believe you have answered that well, but how do you convince the general population that in effect pays for science that also likes to also describe it as a profession? Do scientists describe science as a profession? I don't actually know but it is fascinating.
I better keep a low profile on that particular question, because honestly, I'm terrible at maths too, so I'm truly in no position to criticise. I enjoyed statistics and received a high distinction, but many commenters here have told me in unflattering terms that this is not maths - so who am I to criticise?
That is a very interesting observation and perhaps it is true that there is not a one size fits all approach to the sciences. I have often seen a body of theory applied to explain an issue which has evolved to deal with a situation to give it a modicum of respectability which may have been better addressed by examining the social history behind the leap. Certainly my lot is guilty of that, there can be no doubt about it.
Well, science unfortunately is not outside the realms of economic considerations and it is my opinion that the drive towards economic returns for research is not necessarily a good thing. But then scientists have to put food on the table so to speak, so have to accept money from whomever throws it their way. That is a serious difficulty in that it produces a conflict of interest which leads to the difficulties that you mention with the small minority of serious biostatisticians. Personally, I try very hard to have a level of distance between myself and the formal economy which gives me the freedom to mostly say what I think without fear (almost anyway) and scientists whom are in the employ of one group or another lack the perception of independence.
If I was to say donate money to JMG, then that would be out of sheer esteem and I seek nothing in return. However, if a business is donating money to a cause, then they are surely not doing so out of esteem for that cause, they want a return.
Many years ago I worked for a bunch of people that possibly could be described as a bit dodgy. Now as an employee the things I was requested to undertake conflicted with my ethics and I chose to walk away. It was a good learning experience. However, a scientist may not be able to walk away from a grant and jobs are few and far between. Look at what is going on at CSIRO here for example. Ouch!
to be continued... Sorry, ran out of time...
3/21/15, 3:51 AM
Matthew Casey Smallwood said...
3/21/15, 3:52 AM
ed boyle said...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/finding-a-middle-ground-between-psychiatry-and-anti-psychiatry_b_6010890.html
This good article was basis. At any rate level of use of psychoactive drugs, incarceration worse in USA. Article does not mention that 3/4 pharnaceuticals, half of global prisoners in US. I think the kunstler ideas important here from my experience. Livability, walkability, mixed use. In Europe political, religious ideological battles less pronounced due to humane livablepublic spaces. Contact with others, walking, public transport, inner cities with beautiful shopping, working, living opportunities connected by public transit, lots of city parks, bike paths and tree lined streets everywhere. All this humanizes life. People are then physically, psychologically happier and extremism, science vs. religion does not take hold. Then people will not reject what is useful in science when corruption does take place, in favor of fundamentalism or system cynicism. Also if people can not so easily separate themselves from others, whom they ghettoize, exploit then financial exploitation, ignoring of consequences won't take place.
I escaped in time to Europe whose structure, system is more human, less profit oriented, where people tend to not fall through the cracks of poverty, insanity, jail as easily. After peak oil in America a more close knit americansociety will heal ideological rifts, allow profit motive, exploitation, even ethnic, racial hatreds to decline as people live and work in more non car, compact livable communities.
The look from outside as title of article goes is in this sense outside USA, more whole system.No ideology need be discarded if people use it responsibly. Extremist cynicism is a matter of oil rich america with frontier mentality. Since old world built structure, socil systems were preexistent auto culture did not destroy coherence of society as in America and with it create ideological divide, precivil war atmosphere.
I would not know if european medical/scientific academia or researchers are less cynical, corrupt, if people in general trust it less. Alt med does good business here. Situation is similar. Work stress has early retirement, illness due to mental factors as no. 1 factor. Economic stressors bigger all the time. However structural factors will allow greater social cohesion less crime, mental illness, ideological divide when crash comes.
Seeing abandonment of science due to inherent corruption is like Martin Luther becoming an atheist due to Roman church corruption. This is cultural, it can be managed.
3/21/15, 5:12 AM
Somewhatstunned said...
"I love science ... partly ... because it's one of the most distinctive products of western cultures ..."
I just have to add my own thought that I like science myself because it can be, at its best, and in one of the several ways in which the word is used, be a western form of the contemplation of nature.
Darn, while I'm here, also got to add that "scientific method" (singular) isn't quite right partly because practical methodologies differ widely between disciplines and partly because it's rather difficult to pin down philosophically (which doesn't mean there isn't such a thing, of course).
3/21/15, 5:45 AM
Roger said...
But I do know human behaviour and I do have long experience in organizations large and small. I think that the process of science can't be untangled from the very human motivations of the people involved.
It's not like scientists are these austere and coldly rational Vulcans. There's lots of fun stuff in the scientific community like personal rivalries and politics and ambition and ego and greed.
Which is to say that maybe scientists need to get off the high horse. Yes, some advances in scientific knowledge have been enormously beneficial. It's really, really nice to not see polio outbreaks anymore. So scientists earned a measure of respect. Having said all that, they put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else.
You talk about arrogant bullying. I think there's a lot of that not only from the scientific community towards us laymen but also within the scientific community itself. And among us laymen who adopt poses of superior knowledge and greater enlightenment on the basis of holding certain opinions, never mind we don't know beans about the subject matter itself (as for myself, yeah, guilty as charged).
You mention some especially contentious fields of study. To call into question the complete-ness or solidity of theory or supporting data on some of these matters is to invite calls to man the barricades. Not to mention accusations, for example, of being a closet this-or-that ("creationist" for instance). Given all the heat and shouting, there's hardly any point protesting one's innocence.
But it's understandable. I think these areas of science reflect deep and historic divides in broader society. I don't think it's just a matter of religion vs science but also of regional and ideological factionalism.
Scientists are only people and they want (for the most part) acceptance within a society whether it's among their peers in university faculties or elsewhere. To expect otherwise isn't reasonable.
But the fields in question look so very infested with tribalism that I wonder whether there can be progress. And I think this is true both inside and outside the scientific community.
I've done some reading on Darwin's ideas. And yeah, I know, that doesn't make me a subject matter expert. No matter, I've gone and started food fights by expressing reservations ie that this area of science has got some really big holes in it and a long way to go (not that I'm going to restate my arguments).
And the vitriol that spewed was impressive and, to me, comical. Like I said, this is tribal. You're either on this side of the palisade or on the other side.
I wonder how much rigidity there is in the thinking within the scientific community. I read an account of what happened to Lynn Margulis. Well, nothing wrong with robust debate. But there's going overboard. It's not just the field of evolution. Clovis first? For decades you couldn't suggest otherwise.
It's too bad. People get afraid to ask questions which, of course, is the basis for the scientific endeavor.
3/21/15, 8:41 AM
onething said...
"I am teaching my daughter my love for science, while explaining its limitations. I speak out against treating science as a faith. What more can I do?"
People badly want belief systems for psychological comfort, and they can insidiously morph into faith.
I recently joined a meditation group, mostly Buddhist. One guy is a Hindu and while the others do their meditation, he does his mantra. There's a couple Christians. Really, it's a bunch of aging hippies. The discussion topic last time was truth. How do you know what is true? Whose authority do you accept and why? How do you know the things you think are true, really are?
3/21/15, 8:46 AM
1ab9a86a-8991-11e3-899b-000bcdcb8a73 said...
I'm at a loss why that would offend anyone, what am I missing? Everyone knows where science came from. Furthermore, there have occasionally been commenters here from non-Western countries who have noted the difficulties of transplanting science (viably) outside the West. Although I hasten to add that in this context, I would have to include eg Russia in the notional "West"
3/21/15, 10:14 AM
Moshe Braner said...
3/21/15, 11:04 AM
Teach4Life 356 said...
3/21/15, 11:52 AM
1ab9a86a-8991-11e3-899b-000bcdcb8a73 said...
"there really is no scientific method"
Exactly right. Indeed I just realized there is potential confusion in my earlier comment concerning the biosciences where …
" 'scientific method' is taught explicitly but then reduced to trivialities"
… because I didn't mean to suggest that "it's good to teach the method but that it shouldn't be reduced to trivialities". What I meant instead is that any attempt to teach a "scientific method" as something to actually be used will inevitably be reduced to trivialities (e.g. statistical recipes), because science is not actually done by following a "method" at all.
I noted here some months ago that "the way science really works just involves an attitude, not a specific "recipe" for how to do it. If it really was a recipe, you could train chipmunks to do it ..."
The notion of "scientific method" is usually never mentioned at all in the physical sciences. It's basically a high-school notion of explaining science, not how it really works. Indeed the first time I ever saw discussion of it in physics was very recently: it resulted from absurd demands by string theorists to have (their) theories exempted from empirical testing. In reaction to this, it was finally necessary to start discussing what is meant by science, leading to some awkward (due to unfamiliarity) usage of the term "scientific method".
(It's pretty sad that string theory has gone so far off the rails that (other) physicists have had to dust off their high-school science textbooks, look up the high-school definition of science, and then tell the sting theorists "um, it says here that theories have to be tested". Sad, but funny too, I guess).
The term does have some value, for discussing science as a general phenomenon, but only in a very broad sense and even then it has major pitfalls. I think it is safe to teach it in high school in the expectation that it will be mostly forgotten by the time actual research has to be done :)
In many disciplines, where the "method" is taught and then trivialised as canned statistical recipes, progress tends to be made in spite of all the statistical jiggery-pokery, not so much because of it.
BTW, that's a really good website you linked to, this section:
http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm#sec-poster
may be of most relevance to readers here.
(A minor quibble: the description of mathematics as a science is problematic, notwithstanding the long historical connection with science, i.e. mathematical theorems stay proven regardless of subsequent discoveries)
3/21/15, 11:56 AM
Shane Wilson said...
To clarify, when you use the term "scientific method", I assume you mean creating a controled experiment with one group receiving the treatment and another group, the control group, not receiving the treatment/receiving placebo, then statistically comparing the treated group with the null/control group and seeing if there is a statistically significant effect. This is my understanding of the specific term "scientific method", and I wanted to clarify that this is what you were referring to when you're discussing the scientific method.
3/21/15, 1:32 PM
Unknown said...
@admin--Forty years ago, there were some branches of engineering a person could practice professionally without diploma. I don't know if that's still true.
I was once a transit vehicle maintenance electronics technician at Bay Area Rapid Transit. You could be hired for technician jobs there on the basis of work experience alone. BART hired a lot of Vietnam-era vets; they did very well because they were accustomed to bureaucratic structures and to working on lots of different equipment of varying vintages. You you could also get hired with a certificate a community college plus related work experience.
A few of BART's whizbang ETs, the ones who were electronics enthusiasts and tinkered in their spare time, got promoted to engineer. One of them was legendary. He drew a design for a portable testing rig on a cocktail napkin, built it in a suitcase, and our shop used it in place of an enormous heavy wheeled thing.
Of the engineers I had work interactions with, some of my favorites were former techs. ETs had to take the bright ideas of engineers and make them work. We were constantly being issued modification orders with armchair instructions that didn't work or could not be carried out as written because of the form factors of equipment crammed into tight spaces. The former techs got their hands dirty (literally) and field tested their ideas.
3/21/15, 2:05 PM
Cherokee Organics said...
Ooops. In my previous comment I actually meant to say - but didn't express myself very well at all - that new book stores are few and far between here down under since the Borders book store chains ate them all and then promptly died itself of over consumption.
Without mail order or access to internet sellers, many worthy new books such as your own are very, very hard to purchase here.
I distinctly recall that the old pulp books used to be available by mail order direct from the publishers at quite reasonable prices. The back of those books are full of lists of: And you may also like books with details about how to go about purchasing them...
A happy spring solstice to you and your lady and may your summer be gentle and productive.
Cheers
Chris
3/21/15, 2:59 PM
rsuusa said...
3/21/15, 3:11 PM
Moshe Braner said...
JMG: "Denys, you may be amused to note that some self-proclaimed skeptics insist there's no such thing as the placebo effect. I gather they're offended by the notion that the human mind can do anything at all without a prescription."
- Now you've got me confused. I thought the "skeptics" you've been criticizing are the ones who dismiss the cases where an "unscientific" remedy leads to an improvement in the patient's condition as being due to the placebo effect? And similarly, when some people claim to have a "psychic" or "religious" experience, said skeptics also explain it away as it being "all in their heads"?
Personally, I think that there are more supposed phenomena than one can possibly find the time to investigate, and thus I limit my interest mostly to things that can be replicated and have a predictive value. Of course that means that I end up paying somewhat more attention to my own irreproducible experiences (which are neither psychic nor religious) than to other peoples' experiences (as the latter have no predictive value for me), but is anybody free of that bias?
3/21/15, 6:32 PM
oilman2 said...
I know its completely non-AS for you to do this, but you really ought to give Scotlyn a virtual hug, ya think??
Oilman2 - AS offspring survivor....
3/21/15, 6:57 PM
oilman2 said...
My AS son is an attorney. He does the entire office thing, then goes home at 9 or 10pm. Why? Because once everyone leaves the office at 4 or 5pm - quiet ensues, and his work output multiplies.
He gets uncomfortable in strange surroundings - packs heavy on trips, sort of taking familiar things with him. He is calm at the farm, even when away from his "nest". I asked him about your query - his reply was "To an extent, yes; nature is calmer but it is more the absence of required interpersonal social interaction. You know me, Dad..."
And I do. In front of 300 people he is comfortable. With family, comfortable. Written word - comfortable. At the company Christmas party - unsure, anxious and worried to death his phraseology or topic offended someone...
3/21/15, 7:18 PM
FiftyNiner said...
A bit of counter-intuitive information about the South. I was talking to my sister the other night and she was telling me that she is finally going to retire at the end of May after 35 years, the last sixteen of which she has been director of a daycare center and preschool that is run by her church in south Mississippi. She majored in early childhood education in college and it is the only job she has ever wanted to do and she has been phenomenal at it. And beyond that, her community--indeed the whole town--are aware of and appreciate her dedication and commitment.
In our conversation the subject of immunizations came up and she told me that basically it is not a problem in Mississippi. The state requires proof of immunizations to enroll in school and all the private schools and church affiliated schools are on board with compliance. Mississippi has the highest compliance rate in the country at over 99%. Last year there were only 141 students in the whole state who showed up to enroll without their immunizations, which they then had to go and get.
Of course the cynics would say that the low education rate in Mississippi combined with the poverty rate leads to a populace without sufficient tools to push back against the onerous power of the state. Or, just maybe, these people conclude that immunization is a way to help their children get a better start in life. My sister does feel that public education on the matter at all levels is the reason for the outcomes for Mississippi.
3/21/15, 7:41 PM
Caryn said...
I wish your rambling post was not lost. It was a good HuffPo article and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it.
On the one hand, I agree with your comment, having seen this first hand. Living in NYC, where on almost every street of the city, one walks & bumps elbows with 'Others' every day; I took a summer job in LA - in the immediate aftermath of the riots. The convenient geographical isolation, the car-culture was obviously, starkly contributing to a convenient, easy alienation between demographics of 'Others' within the city. That level of easy-alienation leading such a massive blow-up simply couldn't have happened in NYC.
On the other hand: Bensonhurst & Crown Heights. Far less intense than LA riots, but still results of racial animosity, alienation and 'Other'ness within elbow-bumping proximity
But Mostly:
How does one explain Western Europe's giant elephant in the room - the alienation and anti-semitism in the 1930's that lead to the ghettos and horrors of the holocaust? Considering walkability, elbow-bumping-with-'Others', living-right-next-to... was certainly true of the time. Understood that the average German citizen was being very heavily and purposefully manipulated by propaganda as well as suffering economic calamity wrought by WW1, (equally understood that of course, not ALL citizens turned a blind eye to the atrocities, but certainly enough did); But what wrought the alienation and anti-semitism / the actions of say, the average French citizen?
I think this is tangential to the main discussion here.
3/21/15, 7:53 PM
Derv said...
Here is a decent explanation of it from Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, a name once well-known in the theological arena but now mostly forgotten:
http://www.catholictreasury.info/books/everlasting_life/ev10.php#bk2
There are many other detailed explanations of it - and these are not, in Catholic theology, a substitution for the idea of justice, but coexist with it - but this is easily accessible and concise. I'm a bit of a theology buff, so if you want more sources I'd be happy to provide.
Everyone else,
As for this whole idea of a "scientific method," I think that it can be summed up pretty simply. It's the analysis of repeatable, observable phenomena in an attempt to understand their causes. Obviously the technique for doing this varies as much as the phenomena do, and it has the underlying assumption of a non-occasionalist "clockwork universe," but that's really all there is to it.
I think other cultures don't struggle with the methodology at all, but rather with the underlying clockwork assumption. Mainstream Islamic thought, for instance, largely supports occasionalism, which renders analysis of natural causes totally pointless. Hindu thought largely or totally rejects the very existence of division and distinction in reality altogether as an illusion, so causality is largely illusory too. Any ancestor-worship/animist system focuses on a relationship between the physical world's properties and the spiritual elements which guide them; if the planes are not discreet, again, this severely weakens the idea of mere physical causality. And so on.
I'm simplifying, but I do think that's at the root of it. Other cultures which accept the same assumptions - Russians, Jews, etc. - have done quite well with science.
3/21/15, 10:48 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Cherokee, I know! It so happens that most of the fields of knowledge that interest me tend toward small-press publishers with modest print runs, and until the POD publishing revolution kicked off, getting texts in some of those fields was a very difficult and uncertain process.
Matthew, a Socrates vs. Plato dialectic is a curious thing, given that the Socrates we know was basically Plato's literary creation! Still, I'll check him out. As for diuretics, one of the things that gets forgotten a lot of the time is that herbal diuretics tend to be specific for individual health conditions -- for example, for congestive heart failure, it used to be common to prescribe hawthorn rather than wintergreen, because of differences in the therapeutic action. A less invasive, less brute-force medicine had to be aware of such differences.
Ed, thanks for the link. BTW, please do try to comment on the subject of the post -- long rambling comments are okay, long rambling comments unrelated to the week's discussion aren't.
Stunned, and that's also an excellent point. If science took the time to develop its contemplative dimension, a lot of problems could be forestalled -- meaning, of course, that this is one of the projects the future might take up.
Roger, oh, granted! It's exactly the human dimension that's become the Achilles' heel of science, since so many people in institutional science like to pretend (to non-scientists) that it doesn't exist and isn't a problem. Personality cults, doctrines used as uniforms in intellectual turf wars, all the same interactions you'd expect to watch in a baboon troop: it's all part of science in the real world, and the unwillingness of too many scientists to 'fess up to that and admit human fallibility to non-scientists is one of the main factors dragging the whole institutional structure toward ruin.
1ab, because suggesting that science is a cultural construct leads to the obvious conclusion that its ideas are not universal and eternal truths, but simply the way that people from one culture, using their own cultural and linguistic filters, happen to perceive the cosmos. A lot of scientists reject that latter conclusion with quite some heat.
Moshe, that's priceless. I'm waiting for food to come pre-chewed and mixed with synthetic saliva, so you can just squirt it down your throat.
Teach4Life, good. Yes, that's a core element of my strategy.
Shane, I'd be even more general than that. The scientific method is the art of taking suppositions about the universe, turning them into testable hypotheses, and then testing them against observable experience. There are sciences where you can't do much in the way of experiment -- astronomy and paleontology come to mind -- but as far as I know, every scientist who's actually practicing science is taking a notion about the universe and saying, "What would disprove this?" That's the key.
Chris, oh, understood. Bookstores function on a very narrow profit margin these days, and it may take a massive economic "readjustment" to change that. I hope that happens; the days when most small towns had their own locally owned bookstores, and big cities had dozens or scores of them, would be nice to see again.
Rsuusa, you're kinder than I am. I see that sort of academic political posturing as a way of battening off the sufferings of the disadvantaged: "Someone's in a horrible situation here, and I can get a grant to study that and thus support my own comfortable lifestyle."
3/21/15, 11:32 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Oilman, I have no idea what a virtual hug would consist of, so my note of thanks above will have to suffice.
FiftyNiner, doesn't surprise me at all. So much of the South has been so poor for so long, the notions of entitlement that drive so much behavior in the richer parts of the country haven't gotten much traction there.
3/21/15, 11:35 PM
Cherokee Organics said...
It was hard indeed, but not impossible. It also depended on whether the shop actually processed the order with the publisher and then just how long it took to get that order to the store. It also depended to a large extent on the relationship that you had with the person behind the counter. I never felt that there was anything malicious in it, you just had to spend the time getting to know who they were and then they had to trust whether you'd actually come back to the store to fulfill the order.
Really glad to see that you ignored the David Edding's bit, I feel much better after my confession of such amusing but shoddy fantasy! hehe! Only kidding, I'll bet you read them too! hehe!
I'm glad that you understood my meaning as my original wording was poor. The margins for bricks and mortar shops are terrible because rental costs here are considerably higher than the point at which small businesses can make a profit. It has been disturbing to watch this change over the years and it fills me with a sense of dread. Incidentally, higher rental incomes means higher recorded economic growth which is just pure fluff.
A correction will happen in due course, but it may take some time as people are hanging onto mystical money gains like grim death. I've always felt that the escalation of property prices here is simply a cover story for the lack of real wealth in the economy. Our dollars just buy less and less with each passing year - I find it strange that no one else seems to look at things that way. Oh well.
Cheers
Chris
3/22/15, 1:44 AM
ed boyle said...
3/22/15, 5:16 AM
steve said...
That Spengler quote:
"But so also the Russian [ie. the man of the next Culture] looks with fear and hatred at this
tyranny of wheels, cables, and rails, and if he adapts himself for to-day and to-morrow to the inevitable, yet there will come a time when he will blot out the whole thing from his memory and his environment, and create about himself a wholly new world, in which nothing of this Devil's technique
is left."
3/22/15, 7:14 AM
Doctor Westchester said...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-21/perfect-storm-oil-hits-two-months-us-crude-production-soar-just-storage-runs-out.
We may not know what's happening, except that it is chaos.
3/22/15, 8:11 AM
Moshe Braner said...
- Let's try and clarify that, as I think it's an important point. The fact that people tend to feel better after being given a fake curative is rather well known. But what does the word "exist" here mean? Are the people positively affected by a placebo actually better, or just think they are? Some skeptics may say the latter. Perhaps that is what you mean by "insisting loudly that the placebo effect doesn't exist"?
I consider myself a skeptic, but I accept that there is a large body of evidence that some healing actually is triggered, even if the proximate healing involves other bodily components, such as the immune system. And more broadly, that peoples' state of mind, e.g., stress, has an impact on their physical health. I don't see why that should be controversial, except to those who crave extreme reductionism.
I also think that the placebo effect is context dependent. I.e., the patient needs to be aware that they are given the treatment, and needs to believe in the possibility of it being effective. Thus, a treatment such as Reiki may actually help people who believe it, but would be useless for somebody like me, who considers it hokum. A old fashioned exorcism may have actually helped some people with certain mental health issues, but is less likely to help most people these days since they have switched their beliefs to accept the modalities of treatment currently in vogue.
3/22/15, 8:22 AM
Myriad said...
That previous idea of placebo panacea via cryptic mind-body connections has been promoted widely, in the popular scientific press as well as in alternative sources. Especially in the 90's, I remember reading many breathless articles about how positive thinking could cure warts, shrink tumors, knit broken bones faster, and control flare-ups of autoimmune disorders, with a large part of the offered evidence being the near-universal effectiveness of placebo in treating practically every medical condition tested (hence the need for double-blind studies).
The current, still-evolving, nuanced view of placebo is more like this: For subjective measures (how patients subjectively rate the severity or improvement of their symptoms), placebo is significantly and often strongly effective. (Thus, because most medical outcomes are evaluated at least in part by such subjective measures, double-blind studies are still justified.) For objective measures, placebo is significantly (but not always strongly) effective at improving measures known to be more or less directly acted upon by the central nervous system, such as blood pressure and sleep quality. It is rarely or weakly effective at other objective measures such as the aforementioned tumor growth/shrinkage, knitting bones, neutralizing viruses and so forth. Surprisingly, one area where placebo appears relatively ineffective, when assessed by objective measures, is controlling autoimmune processes like asthma attacks. (That supports the hypothesis that these disorders have material i.e. environmental causes, rather than "nervous" i.e. directly emotional or cognitive ones.)
Mostly what skeptics are (over)reacting to is the popular hypothesis that placebo effectiveness implies a direct effect of abstract ideation (e.g. contemplating healthy kidneys) upon the cellular processes involved (e.g. the rates of electrolyte diffusion across cell membranes) without any behavioral intermediate (e.g. frequent contemplation of healthy kidneys influencing ones choice of beverages). Causation between separate planes, as it were.
3/22/15, 9:20 AM
mirela said...
First, comments on the AS thing. I was never diagnosed with it, as Asperger’s didn’t exist in the 1970s when I was a child, but I have a nephew who is fully Autistic (as in: didn’t start speaking until he was 6 yrs old, repetitive behavior, etc) and in the process of seeking help for him, my brother and father were both firmly placed in the high functioning autism/asperger’s spectrum (living in another state, I didn’t participate in any of the activity). As a child, I was merely labelled “intelligent but lacking social skills” and my mother was told to concentrate on my “social development” (if that doctor had any idea how much torture would come down on me due to that simple phrase….!!!!). I conciously made an effort to learn how to get along with people and develop a rudimentary sense of humor my senior year in high school, and did it basically by watching people closely, copying their behavior, and adjusting mine based on the results. When I was about 30 yrs old, I got into an embarassing situation where I hurt the feelings of someone by failing to notice their existance & so came up with the rule “when you see a human being, interact with it” and this rule has served well. I mention all this because, as I have had a career that spans academia and research in both government and commercial research facilities, I have noticed AS people seem to be quite common in science – facts and machines being easier to deal with than pesky, unpredictable humans. In short, they’re not being noncommunicative because they’re snobs (tho yes, some have that attitude) they’re not good at communicating because they don’t understand the need. The facts should speak for themselves.
I used to work at a national laboratory. One physicist, generally regarded as brilliant by his colleagues and generally hated by the non-science clerical staff, was once complaining that a particular admin assistant would take forever to do things he requested. For me, she was always quick and efficient. I pointed out to the man that perhaps his habit of walking into her office, dumping papers on her desk, telling her to take care of it, and walking out, might be the problem. I myself (through careful observation) had noted that she worked best with people who chatted with her a bit before presenting their request (“how’s the family” etc) and so I had been using that technique with great results. His response was “I shouldn’t have to do that. She should just do her job.” This is not a person who is going to be able to communicate with the public.
Hmmm. It occurs to me that I may have answered my own question on the other blog, regarding offerings/gifts/bribery. Maybe “offerings” are just a way of being nice (“how’s the family”) and if you keep up the practice, you eventually find yourself in a relationship in which both parties feel genuinely friendly toward each other?
3/22/15, 11:41 AM
Scotlyn said...
3/22/15, 4:27 PM
laryrobe said...
John, I recall the earlier mention. What was the allergen?
Thanks for your attention.
3/22/15, 4:54 PM
Somewhatstunned said...
Moshe Braner said:
"... the patient ...needs to believe in the possibility of [the placebo] being effective. Thus, a treatment... may actually help people who believe it, but would be useless for somebody like me, who considers it hokum."
No, no, no - or at least not without qualification. "Belief" is not such a simple thing. You can think "I don't believe that" (you can believe that you don't believe something?), but there can very well be a sense in which you do - even though your belief is somewhat opaque to yourself. In other words, self-reports of "belief" are not reliable. Yes, a placebo might very well work on you even though you reckon you don't "believe" in it.
You sometimes hear people say "if everyone understood about palcebos, then they wouldn't work". Well I really don't think that is true at all, and to think that it is betrays a crude misunderstanding of the imagination and mind.
3/23/15, 12:47 AM
Scotlyn said...
Some curious people designed one ingenious experiment that showed a placebo effect entirely based upon the knowledge held by the practitioner, another factor which may sidestep the patient's scepticism.
That experiment and many others of relevance to this topic are well described in Daniel Moerman's "Meaning, Medicine and the Placebo Effect" which is well worth a read if this topic interests you.
3/23/15, 1:23 AM
LewisLucanBooks said...
Just the other day a friend of mine and I were having a coffee and ruminating on how when we grew up (1950s) if it wasn't a school day, we were gone from morning to evening. Off on our (very basic) bikes to peddle incredible distances, poking into this and that. Lew
3/23/15, 9:32 AM
redoak said...
3/23/15, 9:44 AM
Robert Mathiesen said...
Scientific studies have been published in reputable journals that seem to show the placebo effect does not depend on the patient's belief or faith in the physician. I don't have the citations at hand right now, but I have read them in our university library.
I find this result quite plausible because I was able to activate the placebo effect for myself against pain in a time of need without the help of any physician or other authoritative figure, and I was fully aware at the time of what I was doing for myself.
3/23/15, 11:14 AM
Scotlyn said...
I myself am a practitioner of what some are pleased to call a no-better-than-placebo medicine - TCM acupuncture.
Strangely, my most challenging patients are those you might consider to be the most credulous... For example, those who come with an expectation to be touched by the mystique of some ancient wisdom... I've thought about this, and conclude that this is probably due to the fact that what I practice is a system of TCM that (no more than the the archdruid's form of druidry) is a relatively modern revival based on a few early texts of uncertain provenance and much late infilling. I cannot, then, in good conscience, dispense ancient mystic wisdom and I presume this "shows".
On the other hand, I have quite good success in cases where people are mildly sceptical, but willing to give it a try. In such cases, I'm much more confident in my skills and tools, and I presume this "shows" too.
As it happens, my patient sample includes a large proportion of self-selected western medicine "failures" - as u might expect if u think about it for a minute.
And, what I think is that, ultimately, no medicine can succeed without connecting to, and involving, the person to be healed at some very deep level.
3/23/15, 3:15 PM
Denys said...
Can you imagine how angry the fake surgery people would be if they knew they had fake surgery? Or maybe denial that it was fake?
The placebo effect also has prevent many drugs from coming to market because in the final studies the placebos cure patients at the same rate as the drug developed for million of dollars.
Placebos are being used on us all the time in the media and marketing too. See the Seth Godin article for some hints on how. Although this group can probably figure it out ;-)
3/23/15, 5:29 PM
das monde said...
What I noticed recently is how much social bs is there in various verbal communications, non-verbal posturings. It is an old social game, especially regarding health and nutrition advices, social recognition, intimate relations, politics, financial matters, economy. No wonder that perhaps 90% of planet’s population appear to deeply duped in most of these aspects. The civilization decline (catabolic or other) will only bring more of that!
In this climate of decline, it is not really worthy for Science to pay much attention to the social bs. It is practically and ethically fine to enjoy the last gulp of ample resources to figure out a few more nature puzzles, and adopt to a new social-political realities, find a neo-feudal (rather than public) role. Yeah, the 90% public is being fouled about science as well.
3/23/15, 7:39 PM
daveykwavey said...
But it is a long, long way from knowledge to actual health benefits, and that process is rife with abuse. That is where I feel this blog post goes quite wrong, in lumping basic science in with the application of science to culture, the conflating of biology with medicine, drugs, and nutrition, and making a monolith of "science" and "scientists" who are incapable of taking in the view from outside. So there is a gene in the fruit fly that is the same gene that sometimes causes cancer in humans? Yes, there is. I can point to it (actually there are many) and give you some idea how it works. But can I cure your sick friend? Sorry, no. All of your critique of science in this post should instead be directed at the process by which actual science is applied by economic elites driving techno-utopian agendas, whom you have repeatedly identified here. And your caricature of scientists as scornful and exclusionary is inaccurate. In my long experience, actual individual scientists are delighted to talk with
just about anyone who comes by their labs, to share their passion, their struggles, their ideas, and yes, their knowledge. The much bigger problem is that hardly anyone cares to stop, learn, and take in the breathtaking views of the real world that science has actually provided. I hope the barbaric mobs will not be so eager to burn the meek lab rat, and to jettison little morsels of knowledge, such as that bodies are made of cells and things like hydrogen and oxygen exist.
3/23/15, 7:48 PM
John Michael Greer said...
Ed, glad to hear it.
Steve, pretty much, yes. From outside, science and technology may not look too pleasant, especially for those who get to deal with their negative consequences.
Doctor W., it's foggy, yes, but if you look hard it's not too difficult to see the vast brick wall looming up ahead of the onrushing car...
Moshe and Myriad, I understand that. What I'm saying is precisely what I said -- that I've read essays on the pseudoskeptic blogosphere saying that the placebo effect, as defined by modern medical science, is a myth and does not happen. If you want to know what they mean by that, I'd encourage you to look for those essays!
Mirela, that's a point that I somehow managed to miss. Of course you're quite right: a set of institutions that preferentially attracts people on the autism spectrum is going to be unusually clueless about how its actions appear from outside!
Scotlyn, nah, you're fine. I appreciate the compliment.
Laryrobe, it was wheat protein.
Redoak, that's true -- another example would be the decline and fall of the classics from their once central role in education.
Das Monde, and if the neofeudal barons find it politically more expedient to hand over the scientists to howling mobs than to shelter them, what then? It may well come to that, you know; it certainly did the last time around.
Davey, yes, but none of that matters -- as I tried to point out, the view from outside is the one that counts. Unless you can find some way to reach out to the people outside who want to know why their physician would rather medicate them than heal them, and questions of that kind, only a few people out here on the Druid fringes are going to care about the beauty and subtlety of nature -- and that way, eventually, lies the furious mobs. Sitting in your laboratory waiting for people to come by and express interest is not going to cut it!
3/23/15, 8:24 PM
onething said...
Who is it that is paying the climate denialist scientists that you know?
3/23/15, 10:28 PM
daveykwavey said...
Neurotransmitters are real molecules that neurobiologists discovered; anti-depressants targeting neurotransmitters cause some people to become suicidal, including the husband of a relative of mine who drove his car off a cliff shortly after starting his prescription. Where to place the blame?
It shouldn't be on the neurotransmitter.
Is it up to the scientists to organize
protests outside the drug-pushers at Big Pharma and the FDA to block the application of their research? Perhaps it is. Let's ask Robert Oppenheimer.
3/23/15, 11:02 PM
Somewhatstunned said...
"it is crucial to distinguish at least four different senses of the word 'science': [1] an intellectual endeavour aimed at a rational understanding of the world; [2] a collection of accepted theoretical and experimental ideas; [3] a social community with particular mores, institutions and links to the larger society; and, finally [4] applied science and technology (with which science is often confused). All too frequently, valid criticisms of 'science', understood in one of these senses, are taken to be arguments agianst science in a different sense.
"Thus it is undeniable that science, a social instiution, is linked to political, economic and military power, and that the social role played by scientists is often pernicious. It is also true that technology has mixed results – sometimes disastrous ones – and that it rarely yields the miracle solutions that its most fervent advocates regularly preonise. Finally, science considered as a body of knowledge, is always fallible, and scentists' errors are sometimes due to all sorts of social, political, philosophical or religious predjudices."
(Note that Sokal's name is often taken in vain as a sort of thoughtless stick to beat the social sciences in general - I think the above quote shows that he's much more aware than that - and the word 'pernicious' is pretty strong!).
3/24/15, 1:25 AM
Doctor Westchester said...
3/24/15, 4:29 AM
Denys said...
"This is Why You Shouldn't Believe That Exciting New Medical Study"
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8264355/research-study-hype
Has some snappy graphics to illustrate the points in this blog post.
3/24/15, 4:46 AM
latefall said...
I'd like to second 1ab, das monde, deedl, daveykwavey, green engineer!
I was working in a relatively hot (popular with cornucopian crowd) area with multinational corps and the MIC breathing down my neck. I did a little public outreach myself, helped with corp PR, and supported OSHA equivalents. I saw a pretty wide spectrum of institutions and the people that they consist of.
I agree very much with daveykwavey's description that the most and biggest problems happens once the lab door closes behind the results. This may not be true (to the same dgree) for a Monsanto, Bayer, DoD, etc. lab - but they do not represent "SCIENCE" that much in most peoples minds.
My impression was that pretty much anywhere you'd have a majority of honest, well meaning, (reasonably?) critical people. Granted there were places that were close to parity with "career scientists" and people knowingly embracing dishonest methods to some degree. They however were more on the tech side than on the science side, or had to worry a lot about their reputation (ironically).
When I've done mediated communication with the public, or been close to the process, it was extremely difficult to get the message across without some strong cornucopian spin and omission of important "weasel words". This is of course not a complete coincidence. There are a few outlets that do reasonable good representative scientific journalism. If you don't know where to look though they are easily blotted out by the "Pravdas" I assume. However you can also by pass them and go to e.g.:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/ or
https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/
or ResearchGate, for example on health and religion/alternative health care you can find this discussion:
"There is a possibility that the level of spirituality (assessed by some of the spirituality questionnaires) for some patients at least influence the level of sense of coherence (SOC) (assessed by some of the SOC questionnaires) which in turn is likely to impact positively on self-rated health. Self-rated health is one of the strongest predictors of survival, and is possibly mediated through effects on telomerase regulated genetic integrity.
There is a possibility of triangulating these domains of different quantitative measurements and assess their relationships and effects statistically on mortality and morbidity.
Hence, spirituality is not only art, but also potentially contributing to quantity and quality of life, which needs to be explored and eventually proven in order to be able to recommend spirituality in health care for patients wanting such interventions.
This is still an open question for medicine despite all emotions and controversies expressed by many opponents and proponents... "
http://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_might_bridge_the_spirituality_gap
A couple of clicks take you to other PEOPLE that DO the research. You can contact them through the site or through snail mail.
If you care to join the site (very simple, as far as I know extremely little "rights grabbing" going on) I could imagine you would not regret it. However, as long as you focus on (new) interpretation of relatively old publications it probably is not really worth it. If you want to get closer to the bleeding edge, this is cheaper and in some respects better than a subscription with a lot of journals. Also keep in mind that the service is very popular with researchers in poor countries, many of whom have a different take on what the rights, duties, privileges, and socio-cultural role of science is than your average westerner. In the right context I don't think that this: "[...] science [...] simply the way that people [...] happen to perceive the cosmos" will ruffle many feathers.
3/24/15, 5:18 AM
Denys said...
They seem to publicly to take a position that stands for a societal or cultural shift, but nothing too radical or truly life changing.
Operationally, when it comes to doing the thing they say they do, they suck. The difference they make is minuscule at best.
They get people volunteering time and donating money to support their cause and little is actually accomplished. After the several laps around, people are cynical about creating real change.
I could provide examples with my latest experiences with Girl Scouts. Really I should probably a develop a Mad Lib style of fill-in story which would be infinitely more amusing in a dark humor sort of way.
3/24/15, 7:19 AM
Greg Belvedere said...
We have well water and the local water supply in Poughkeepsie is not fluoridated. So my son's pediatrician prescribed fluoride supplements which we have not picked up from the pharmacy, because when I looked into the matter it did not seem necessary and even carried a small chance of risk. Many studies have shown that fluoride taken oraly has no benefits for teeth, though topical application seems beneficial. In any case, I don't think the small amount of time between now and when doctors recommend toothpaste with fluoride will hurt his teeth. He doesn't even have all of them yet, and they are baby teeth so he will get new ones. Going to save a few dollars on the prescription and possible avoid a small unnecessary risk.
This issue and the offices horrible phone system (they are part of large medical group) has me looking for another pediatrician.
3/24/15, 8:26 AM
Adrian Ayres Fisher said...
Since I can't send you an email (off topic but relevant):
Some time ago there was a discussion here at ADR about the possibilities of AGW-caused Atlantic overturning circulation (Gulf Stream) shutdown and potential consequences. News just came out that climate scientists have been studying this very thing: it is indeed slowing down, markedly.
In case you haven't heard, here is a link to the Washington Post article, which is fairly decent science reporting. It includes the following links: to the study published in Nature Climate Change (no paywall), a brilliant video illustrating the circulation and a blog post by one of the researchers.
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/23/global-warming-is-now-slowing-down-the-circulation-of-the-oceans-with-potentially-dire-consequences/
3/24/15, 9:06 AM
heatherj said...
Thierry Vrain, a Canadian scientist, has come out of retirement to warn others about the effects of glyphosate. You can see a talk he gave here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiU3Ndi6itk
Dr. Shiv Chopra who worked for Health Canada until they tried to muzzle him, has recently written a book entitled, "Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower". He is trying to alert Canadians and Americans to the dangers posed in our food industry. So, we can take comfort knowing some scientists cannot be bought or silenced when it comes to issues of public interest.
In Canada, our current government has pretty well silenced our scientists (if they want a job) and they've gotten rid of our climate change research community. They have also destroyed significant sections of our government libraries and cut programs in Statistics Canada that did research used to develop social and other Canadian programs. I know that sounds preposterous but you can look that up on the web too if you wish.
3/24/15, 11:10 AM
Sven Eriksen said...
Yes, I have noticed it too, and thought about it for some time. In my experience I’ve observed that correlation between devout and unquestioned belief in “scientism” and depression seems to be almost one to one in the people I meet. It’s a remarkably persistent phenomenon, and by no means limited to the group of people you cited as an example, though I would suggest that it seems pretty much universal that people from “social sciences” can be predictably relied on to be depressed, neurotic and miserable (and I’m saying that, having had plenty of exposure to them). I imagine the root of the misery that seems inherent in almost any dweller in Western industrial society these days (by the way, why don’t we shorten it to Indsoc?) to be belief in, and identification with, the progress mythology, and the subsequent need to figure out a way to turn ones existence into an microcosmic enactment of the myth (through accumulation) while at the same time partake in the same mythological pursuit on a collective level (i.e. the illusory self is seeking its own fulfillment in the future, after having first come into existence through identification with an external structure). A career in social science probably comes across as a good option here, but the cognitive dissonance produced by an internal logic going “I’m going to save the world by totally identifying with Indsoc worldview, and from that perspective study people who suffer, so I can get a career and a fat paycheck and make it…” tends to get very painful very quickly, no matter how defensive you get about it. And drowning your sorrows in eco friendly fairtrade products doesn’t seem to help, either…
JMG, would you happen to have an archdruidical take on any of this?
@daveykwaevy
I must admit that I find it most amusing that you could not address the issue with anything but yet another self-righteous tirade about laboring away in the lab for the ultimate good of “human health”, and what not, and predictably move on to the need to educate the barbarian mobs who can’t appreciate the complex and subtle etc etc… You guys truly aren’t capable of much more than rehashing your own clichés, are you? I’ve come to think my favorite science arrogance is the insistence that you don’t need to create something that’s actually useful to others, because the mental labels you produce are a goal in themselves, and the pesky barbarians should be forever grateful that they get to incorporate them into their internal dialogue. Yes, I’m referring to “cells” and “hydrogen” here. That’s what they are.
3/24/15, 12:42 PM
Cathy McGuire said...
The article in The Atlantic I just read seems to demonstrate a couple aspects of this science/outside issue - the author criticizes AA as being "irrational" and "faith based" and decries the health care system for not using "evidence based" treatments for alcohol abuse... as a retired counselor, I was perturbed by the article. She was right that there is no way to measure the success of an approach that is anonymous by design, but I was chilled by her denigration of a spiritual approach and her eager advocacy of a pill to control cravings, and her insistence that only "evidence-based" methods be paid for... I have seen far too much scientific politics -- and know that those who stand to benefit from a procedure will very often "find evidence"-- to have confidence in such an absolutist approach (and ironically, she castigates AA for being absolutist). But on the point about "how science is seen", this article feels so arrogant and “trust us, we’re researchers – what do you know?” that it fits this week’s discussion. She sneers at the current crop of abuse counselors, insinuating that their life experience is pitiful compared to a paper certificate proving exams have been passed. There are benefits to testing methods and events – but there are many very complex things in Life that are dang near impossible to measure or test, and human nature is still very, very complex compared to our measurement equipment. I am very ambivalent about the course health science has been taking in the past decade and an article like this that pushes one method and slams another (very popular) one seemed like exactly the issue you brought up, JMG. I’m afraid it’s gonna get worse before it gets better.
3/24/15, 6:06 PM
Shane Wilson said...
This is so late in the post that I doubt it will be read, and it might generate a lot of trolling by believers in AA. While I'm not enamored of the article's excitement about medicating for alcohol abuse, AA does cause a lot of damage. I spent 10 years in the program, and am still recovering from the damage. There is a lot of double binds built in to the program, and it does a good job of speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Spiritually, AA is a very dark and depressing place. Most of the meetings follow the "anything goes, and nothing matters" style, as kunstler might say, and really don't offer much recovery, but have the opportunity to do a lot of damage through sponsors with a lot of misguided beliefs. I participated in a very well known, established meeting that was connected to the largest AA meeting in the world, out of Westwood CA, that's even more well known. These meetings were highly structured, yet were even worse than the lax meetings, sociopathic is how I'd describe them. I'm not sure if JMG is going to give his take on AA, or it's flaws, but to me, the whole premise is flawed. JMG has talked about how the different spheres are discrete, that the religious, magical, and physical overlap, but are separate. AA makes the claim that alcoholism is a disease that is cured by spirituality, even that if the twelve steps are followed religiously, sobriety is guaranteed, yet where is it mentioned in any spiritual or religious path that God or the gods exist to keep you sober? To me, it's dishonestly mixing separate planes. There is also no screening of members: "you are a member when you say you are" I just came to realize most of what I'd been told in AA was false. I identified with the phenomenon of craving, with the obsession of the mind that forms the basis of AA when I started attending. I fled a few years ago when I just couldn't do it anymore, and promptly waited for my life to fall apart, as I'd repeatedly been promised it would if I left. I had sever connections with people in AA, because I knew that they would regard me as "dry" or "out", therefore insane or even a threat to their sobriety. The biggest thing was when I finally drank and nothing happened, no phenomenon of craving, no uncontrollable binge, no life falling apart. Then, my whole belief in AA was shattered. After that was repeated many times (temperate drinking without craving, a desire and ability to stop, long gaps between drinks), I was certain that whatever my issue at one time was, it no longer existed, and from reading up on it, that my experience wasn't unusual, and that AA's take on alcoholism had no basis in truth except for the faith of its members. If I'm going to seek religion or spirituality, I'm going to the horse's mouth of a bona fide religion rather than AA. Most people I know in the program don't stay sober, and the ones with long term sobriety have severe physical (often from heavy smoking) and mental health problems. Honestly, once this biophobic, salvationist era is over, once collapse gets good and going, I expect society will go back to shunning addicts and alcoholics and treating them as "walking dead" or worse, again. I'm not really sure if JMG wants to give his views on the spirituality of AA, its effectiveness as a cure for alcoholism, and any flaws in its logic or philosophy, or lack thereof. I'm not sure he wants to open that can of worms and unleash a trollstorm.
3/25/15, 6:08 AM
Hanshishiro Kami said...
http://www.upworthy.com/they-told-him-it-was-impossible-it-took-him-a-hammer-a-chisel-and-22-years-to-prove-them-wrong?c=ufb1
3/25/15, 7:23 AM
Kirk Waln said...
3/25/15, 9:50 AM
Thomas Prentice said...
Here is their lead headline for today:
BioMed Central is retracting 43 papers, following their investigation into 50 papers that raised suspicions of fake peer review, possibly involving third-party companies selling the service.
http://retractionwatch.com/
Caveat: I am alive due to targeted chemotherapies over the past 15 years so I respect science and scientific research and am grateful for it. But it seems as if it would have been easier to keep the carcinogenics out of the culture in the first place. Not profitable, but easier. More efficient. Again, not profitable.
I ama lso friends on FB with "I (fexpletive deleted) Love Science and yes, I do too, but, JMG, MY view as one of the "outsiders" looking in from the outside is that scientific research should be undertaken ONLY if it can IMPROVE THE HUMAN CONDITION -- not just the human condition of the One Per Cent or the middle class bourgeois affluenza, but the entire human condition for all 7 billion of us.
i.e., robots taking jobs does NOT improve the human condition -- NO AI research, period -- nor does putting all the c.r.a.p. in the food like allergens improve the human condition. Let alone belching and farting all this CO2 into the atmosphere as if it were an open sewer.
and so on
3/29/15, 10:29 AM
Thomas Prentice said...
http://retractionwatch.com/
3/29/15, 10:30 AM
Thomas Prentice said...
"...but I think I understand why they’ve rejected the authority of science, and it’s not because they’re ignorant cretins, much as though the proponents and propagandists of science would like to claim that..."
"...Americans who watch climate change activists demand that the rest of the world cut its carbon footprint, while the activists themselves get to keep cozy middle-class lifestyles, are more likely to believe that global warming is a politically motivated hoax."
"Every doctor who would rather medicate than cure, every researcher who treats conflicts of interest as just another detail of business as usual, every scientist who insists in angry tones that nobody without a Ph.D. in this or that discipline is entitled to ask why this week’s pronouncement should be taken any more seriously than the one it just disproved..."
"...whenever Richard Dawkins opens his mouth, twenty people who were considering atheism decide to give God a second chance..."
3/29/15, 11:02 AM
Thomas Prentice said...
RE: "Unless something changes sharply very soon, their view from outside may well see modern science—all of it, from the first gray dawn of the scientific revolution straight through to the flamelit midnight when the last laboratory was sacked and burned by a furious mob—as a wicked dabbling in accursed powers that eventually brought down just retribution upon a corrupt and arrogant age."
3/29/15, 11:09 AM
Emmanuel Goldstein said...
I have encountered mostly fear from non-vaxxers . They think I will call the 'vaccine police' on them or something, when really I want to enable them to make informed decisions no matter what those decisions may be. In my experience, there is already a wide gulf between healthcare practitioners and a lot of the community we try to serve.
4/1/15, 11:36 AM
rapier said...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/us/as-quakes-rattle-oklahoma-fingers-point-to-oil-and-gas-industry.html
This is pretty good too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/us/as-quakes-rattle-oklahoma-fingers-point-to-oil-and-gas-industry.html
4/4/15, 7:10 PM
William Meisheid said...
That is true about almost everything...there is such a thing as too much . Even contextually good things in excess are dangerously bad. E.g. Drinking too much water will kill you.
This is an important point to remember about anything, including things in our quest for sustainable homesteading.
4/20/15, 9:58 AM