tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post8545830023808873654..comments2024-03-12T18:37:16.548-04:00Comments on The Easiest Person to Fool: The Collapse of Complex Societies, Part 1Irv Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-51546514938556428352017-01-27T18:11:40.678-05:002017-01-27T18:11:40.678-05:00Neoagrarian, from where I am standing, science is ...Neoagrarian, from where I am standing, science is not the final arbiter of anything. And it certainly has nothing to do with truth. I hear that complaint, though, from many misinformed people. Others complain that science doesn't provide any absolute truths, so they'll stick with religion. One way of the other, you jut can't satisfy them.<br />I wish I could find a good book which laid this out out so that people could understand it. Sean Carroll's <i>The Big Picture</i>, which I reviewed recently has a couple of chapters that do a fair job of describing what science really is and how it works, though that is not the part of the book that I reviewed. It's probably worth getting a copy of that book, though it doesn't focus on the sort of criticism of science that seems to interest you.<br />The truth that most people seem to be looking would consist of absolute and final answers to their questions. Science deals in facts and reasonable interpretations of them. The kind of knowledge it produces is provisional at best, always subject to revision when we get more accurate facts, or somebody comes up with a better idea of what they mean. Nothing absolute about it, though people do have trouble wrapping their heads around that point. I guess I can agree with you that science is "subjective", but it is the best tool be have for finding out about objective reality.<br /><br />Or to come at it from a different direction, truth is "what other people want you to believe". Usually so they can "put one over one you", as my dear old dad used to say. And all too often these days, pseudoscience (bullshit dressed up as science) is used to pretty up these so-called truths, because science still has some sort of a reputation for accuracy. And that sort of thing has to be approached with a healthy does of skepticism. But so does everything, really.<br />Most of the criticism I hear of science is aimed at a straw man that has only a passing resemblance to science.<br /><br />I am big on basing my opinions on facts. Obviously, inhuman affairs, you have to go beyond facts, but if your position isn't based on them, it is going to be pretty shaky.<br />Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-33364202274891626092017-01-27T10:18:09.188-05:002017-01-27T10:18:09.188-05:00Thanks for your thoughtful response, Irv. I was a ...Thanks for your thoughtful response, Irv. I was a little worried about the comment glitch and feared that half my comment disappeared into the ether! I have read other parts of your blog, and will take the time to reflectively peruse the posts you suggest. <br />I should state outright that I am not "against" science: I am merely dubious as to its current claims (and perceived status) of being the final arbiter of all that is "true". Like any artifact of human culture (religion, economic theory) it is subject to being warped and twisted to conform to subjective human agendas - power structures, ideologies and the like. <br />When I was a young gaffer I earned an undergraduate degree in science - biotech/biochem. I was naive and impressionable at the time. As I've grown older and witnessed some of the less desirable effects that science has bequeathed upon us, I've developed a more critical and exploratory approach to evaluating science as a cultural artifact. You may disagree with this - and that's fine - but let's not kid ourselves: science is not "objective", any more than journalism is "objective". To the extent that it is undertaken by human beings, it is, in the final analysis, subjective. We are subjective - and dare I say quite fallibe in our limited reasoning. Wisdom and humility dictate that we should proceed with caution, assuming unintended consequences. <br /><br />I leave you with a gift: three books which have aided my own efforts in the pursuit of some clarity regarding the role of science in our particular culture: <br />The Blind Spot: Science & The Crisis of Uncertainty - W. Byers<br /><br />The Natural Alien: Humankind And Environment – Neil Evernden<br /><br />Life Is A Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition – Wendell Berry<br /><br />The Blind Spot: Science & The Crisis of Uncertainty - W. Byers<br /><br />Thanks for writing, and I look forward to your further insights<br /><br />Cheers!<br /><br /><br /> <br /> Neoagrarianhttp://www.seedsforfood.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-8354890634184028712017-01-26T21:07:07.238-05:002017-01-26T21:07:07.238-05:00Hi Neoagrarian, thanks for the kind things you had...Hi Neoagrarian, thanks for the kind things you had to say at the start of your comment. I though I should let you know that I received both halves of your comment via email, but only the second half is to be found here on the blog. My experience is that the comments function in Blogger is a little shaky, so this sort of thing isn't too much of a surprise.<br />Have you read the second half of my review of The Collapse of Complex Societies? It will give you a better idea of what I think of the book.<br />I should also ask if you have had a look at my blog beyond just this one post? The start of the tag line is "A reality based approach", which may give you some hint as to what I am about here. But I make it quite clear that I am very much in favour of the rational, mechanistic and deterministic, but also pretty keen on ethics, morality, empathy, affection or loyalty.<br />My take is that the "Business As Usual" people, the "establishment" if you will, are selling a brand of pseudoscience that is just as destructive as the sort of pseudoscience being pedalled by those who are against the establishment. They (the BAU folks) just do a better job of dressing it up and have convinced even those who oppose them that what they are selling is "real science". I don't buy into either of these loads of crap. I'm not quite sure where you stand...<br />But if you'd like to get a clearer idea of what I am talking abut, ave a look at my series of blog posts entitled "Business as Usual, Crunchiness and Woo. There are five posts, the first one is to be found at: http://theeasiestpersontofool.blogspot.ca/2016/05/business-as-usual-crunchiness-and-woo.htmlIrv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-5636050499943894942017-01-26T11:34:16.783-05:002017-01-26T11:34:16.783-05:00Due to character limits, my windy comment has to b...Due to character limits, my windy comment has to be divided into 2 parts! Apologies!<br /><br />Let’s take climate change – a suitably worthy existential dilemma: <br />Most of the “authoritative” public discourse we hear these days seems to assume, in however unspoken a manner, that climate change is merely some kind of engineering problem. The discourse is substantiated by facts, data, models, evidentiary prognostications about what may or is likely to happen if we do or do not do X, Y or Z. Most arguments are framed in terms of cold, hard facts. And that’s fine – we do need facts from time to time. <br /><br />But the problem is, the entire narrative has come to be dominated as some kind of oversimplified, fact-driven mathematical formula. Climate Change is merely a “bug” in the system that we will “de-bug” through the usual triumphant means of more cleverness, ingenuity, innovation, and control. Nowhere within this airtight, mechanistic and falsely internally consistent dialogue are admitted other considerations, such as the empirical “reality” that Climate Change (or Overshoot generally) is fundamentally rooted in the realm of subjective values, collective beliefs (inter-subjective fictions that take on the appearance of reality – like currency) and core cultural assumptions that are proving to be ever more incongruent with the rules of life on Earth.<br />Few would be so naïve, in this present atmosphere of hard facts and supposedly cold “reality”, as to invoke considerations of ethics, morality, empathy, affection or loyalty as the basis of an argument for restraint. It just wouldn’t fly, and would likely be laughed out of the room.<br />And so we continue, setting the “best minds on earth” to tackle the problem. We deploy yet more and more technology to gather up increasingly vast quantities of data and evidence. We trust that our low earth orbit satellites, our ocean buoys & probes, our atmospheric monitors will measure within a hair’s breadth of precision and accuracy the ongoing signs and signals of our own annihilation. <br />In short, we trust completely that our science and technology and our masterful prowess will “optimize the outcome” and see to it that all ends well. <br /><br />This is the delusional rot at the very centre of the Post-Enlightenment experiment in how to live well – and it is invariably excluded from the authorized conversation. Those satellites I mentioned above are both the inevitable artifacts & crowning achievements of a civilization too much given over to the rational, mechanistic, deterministic and exclusive modality of human thinking. It is a modality of thinking that always finds itself and its material outcomes in the midst of a sort of desperate arms race with circumstances. <br />And so within the convenient and circumscribed frame of “civilization”, Tainter is right: Civilization is a colossal, problem-solving heat engine whose only trajectory can be onward and forward, deploying what seems to have worked historically, despite Einstein’s admonitions about the nature of insanity! <br />In short, despite his respectable intelligence and insights, Tainter is hopelessly ensconced within the paradigm of thinking that is his cultural inheritance (and yours and mine, no doubt!). We can’t help it, can we? We are products of a historical anomaly in the human condition. And this anomaly has become a kind of emergent superorganism unto itself. It defies the terms and conditions of what we construe as our “agency”. It’s the genie that got out of the bottle, and refuses to return.<br />Neoagrarianhttp://www.seedsforfood.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-25563823256730271382017-01-24T20:30:31.211-05:002017-01-24T20:30:31.211-05:00Thanks, Mark.
Whether societies make choices is a ...Thanks, Mark.<br />Whether societies make choices is a good question. I'd like to think so, but it is looking more and more like our society is going, as you say, to make decisions, but probably not the right ones.<br />And yes, Tainter is a historian and we shouldn't make to much of his comments about the future. In my next post, I was a little hard on him, I'll admit.<br />I don't think you can seriously address the issues of conservation and sustainability without being aware of the diminishing returns issue. We need to strive for simplicity, but inertia is carrying us towards more complexity.Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-37646355397703747502017-01-23T11:40:04.984-05:002017-01-23T11:40:04.984-05:00Nice writing. The other thing that I've wrestl...Nice writing. The other thing that I've wrestled with, and Tainter does too, is whether societies make "choices"? Clearly there are political and economic decisions that are made, but I wonder if civilization is always a one-way path. The "decisions" and "choices" are always highly constrained by the fact that you cannot undo what you've created. He does offer some historic evidence of societies that simplified, but he's very pessimistic about that being used as a "sustainable" option in our own future. He admonishes his audiences that collapse should be avoided at all costs. Thus, I would assume he means we should kick the can down the road for as long as we can... <br /><br />Including myself, I feel we hold Tainter and people like him to a higher standard. We want answers about our own future, but he is just a historian. <br /><br />Tainter frustrates many conservationist and sustainability crowds. It's not the message we want to hear. Here's a piece that was written about simplifying. I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't agree with it:<br />http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ResilienceThroughSimplificationSimplicityInstitute.pdf<br />Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01835765566492057430noreply@blogger.com