tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post8750789835935047446..comments2024-03-12T18:37:16.548-04:00Comments on The Easiest Person to Fool: Business as Usual, Crunchiness and Woo, Part 3: Focusing on the Woo in CrunchinessIrv Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-69248844432875640842016-06-14T11:20:29.016-04:002016-06-14T11:20:29.016-04:00Good to hear from you, Jim Philips. I am a Crunchy...Good to hear from you, Jim Philips. I am a Crunchy myself, and I pretty much agree with everything you have to say. Science itself attempts to eliminate bias, but those who fund it can introduce some bias in what they choose to fund. Especially when a lot of the important science that needs to be done today is expensive and can't be done by gifted amateurs, as was the case in the 1800s.<br />So, yes, since BAU is doing the funding, it gets some say in what questions are asked. Not, I think, to quite the extend that you would have it, since science does to a large extent determine where it shines its light. Talk to some practicing scientists and you find this is a big thing with them.<br />Further, the nature of science is that you don't get to pay for the answers you want, regardless of the questions you ask. That is the great virtue of science. But people will choose to ignore the answers when they don't suit their ideologies.<br />What I was trying to do in this post was point out that Crunchies persist in believing things that science has already proven wrong, and refuse to believe in what science has proven right. And when Crunchies try to use science to prove their opinions, they do a very poor job, introducing their own biases in a very unscientific way.<br />I came very close to including a few paragraphs saying pretty much what you said about studying cows. I'd like to point out that mentally distress may have a negative effect on a cow's output, but BAU isn't interested in hearing it, even when science looks at that and has already proven the point. In many ways BAU is just as bad at ignoring science as Crunchies are.<br />I didn't add that to the post because I didn't want to distract from my main purpose, which was to nail Crunchies to the wall for their refusal to accept the facts.<br />In my next post, you may well be surprised by the conclusions I reach and the direction I point us in. Writing this reply has focused my thinking in a very helpful way. Thanks.<br />Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-79798948778149411642016-06-13T23:55:13.452-04:002016-06-13T23:55:13.452-04:00Playing the Devil's Advocate, a few words in d...<br />Playing the Devil's Advocate, a few words in defence of the Crunchies.<br /><br />Irv, you say: "When you reject or misuse the scientific method you have no reliable way of checking to see if your ideas are correct."<br />Science -- whether it is a nuclear physicist's equation, an AI research paper or a biologist's study of a new vaccine -- is not done in a vacuum. The problem to me is not so much the veracity of the method of the specific scientific undertaking, as it is the bias of the scientific study. Not what is under the microscope, but where the scientist is aiming the microscope. As Israeli historian Yuval Harari says, there are really no scientific answers to many of the problems we are trying to solve today -- ie GMO foods, nuclear safety, climate change -- only political, economic and religious answers. <br />Harari gives an example:<br />"Consider the following quandary: Two biologists from the same department, possessing the same professional skills, have both applied for a million-dollar grant to finance their current research projects. Professor Slughorn wants to study a disease that infects the udders of cows, causing a ten percent decrease in their milk production. Professor Sprout wants to study whether cows suffer mentally when they are separated from their calves. Assuming that the amount of money is limited, and that it is impossible to finance both research projects, which one should be funded?<br /><br />There is no scientific answer to this question. There are only political, economic, and religious answers. In today’s world, it is obvious that Slughorn has a better chance of getting the money. Not because udder diseases are scientifically more interesting than bovine mentality, but because the dairy industry, which stands to benefit from the research, has more political and economic clout than the animal rights lobby."<br /><br />Science is unable to set its own priorities, and unclear what is should do with its discoveries. Perhaps the Crunchies, rather than being the drunk leaning on the lamp post of reason, are in fact a needed counterweight to the scientific hegemony imposed on society by the BAU crowd. Dressed in skepticism, naievte and even whimsy at times, their ideas can serve as a kind of alternative torch in the black hole of ignorance that science tries to illuminate. Also, as has been pointed out by many philosophers, the scientific method works by elimination; you can arrive at the 'right' conclusion only if it is one of the hypotheses that you have considered. You can't find your car keys if they happen to be in a place that you do not consider. Perhaps the Crunchies are toiling in parallel universes of which you are unaware of Irv. Woo for thought. LOL.<br /><br />Jim Phillips<br /><br /> <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849636761752781808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-19096390494954923582016-06-13T15:51:36.009-04:002016-06-13T15:51:36.009-04:00Hi Anonymous (I am guessing) Mike. Yes, the Kincar...Hi Anonymous (I am guessing) Mike. Yes, the Kincardine Town Council are a little behind times when it comes to natural gas. If the demand for NG in North America where to go up significantly, the price would go through the roof, and it may well, just about the time we get hooked up. And as you say, being a little greener than coal is not anything to rave about.<br />Large infrastructure investments to support burning of fossil fuels are definitely to be avoided.Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-23116808931494613302016-06-13T14:37:08.919-04:002016-06-13T14:37:08.919-04:00I think the worst Business as Usual thinking today...I think the worst Business as Usual thinking today is our Town Council pushing for Natural Gas Service to Kincardine.<br />Natural Gas emits half as much carbon as coal when it burns so it is not green energy.<br />Wood and Wood Pellets are used for heating and electricity in northern Ontario and in Europe. The technology is in the can and the combustion is carbon neutral. Today they have pneumatic fuel delivery systems that deliver the pellets smoothly to the furnace so its just as convenient as Natural Gas. It costs about 30% more than NG per BTU but it does not require a $100 M pipeline to bring it to our door. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com