This is a great proof for what happens in the case where ideas threaten the establishment or status quo (unfortunately). Directly on topic. Anyone working outside the castle walls runs into this type of behavior. Beware mob rule and group think. What happens when the scientists themselves succumb to group think? Critical thinking takes time, compared to a knee-jerk emotional response. Scientists can be biased in specific ways. Cathal perhaps was not the leader of the school's football team and may have specific emotional biases. Unfortunately some themes are so volatile that they result in very dangerous terms being bandied about accidentally or mistakenly (including potentially libelous phrases). Those terms should not be used lightly. It's unfortunate if Cathal's critical thinking skills only go so far.
Not sure where you guys lost the fox and rabbit analogy. I suppose in the UK they'd call it foxes and hairs? Basic biology right, and used in some synbio models- 1st order predator prey model-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equations
Whether or not more funding of outsider-science can propel "good innovation" and keep down the "bad innovation" is anyone's guess but obviously that is the hope of anyone in a diybio group (and maybe also the hope of the DOD and FBI among their other interests in it).
But that doesn't answer the question for what to do if the scientists themselves reject valid science due to establishment thinking.
Not sure where you guys lost the fox and rabbit analogy. I suppose in the UK they'd call it foxes and hairs? Basic biology right, and used in some synbio models- 1st order predator prey model-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equations
The analogy is that the population of scammers prey on the honest victims but that the nature of the cycle is to oscillate, therefore, the previous call to "hang the lot of 'em" will be temporary at best (and dangerous if it is thought to engineer them out of existence entirely), especially as, human nature is biased to continually produce scammers. This is unfortunate news for the normally happy bunnies. Scammers might be too harsh a word in some contexts. They could also be called CEO's in many cases, or used car salesmen in others, or government contractors/employees who "accidentally overlook" the residential water supplies having safe levels of lead. In alternative medicine, the population of scammers grows until the regulatory authorities are forced to take notice and throw them (some of them at least) in jail, that squelches the population for a while, until the next rise. The rise comes from product innovation. Not all innovation is beneficial but it does change the status quo (breaks out of the establishment's minima.) Q.E.D. Everyday example, look at the rise of vaping products, for good or ill, currently non regulated still (I believe).
Whether or not more funding of outsider-science can propel "good innovation" and keep down the "bad innovation" is anyone's guess but obviously that is the hope of anyone in a diybio group (and maybe also the hope of the DOD and FBI among their other interests in it).
But that doesn't answer the question for what to do if the scientists themselves reject valid science due to establishment thinking.
## Jonathan Cline ## jcline@ieee.org ## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223 ########################On 4/5/16 2:28 PM, Cathal (Phone) wrote:
So, watch some telly, decide women are thoughtless automata that mate with the nearest red bottomed ape, call it self-evident, and in turn call that wild supposition "Science". Got it.
Seriously, I'm out. This would be hilarious if the people being insulted were fictional. Enjoy the remains of what started out as a serious conversation, I guess.
On 5 April 2016 22:16:55 IST, Jonathan Cline <jcline@ieee.org> wrote:Ha, this is great, laugh of the day, the first web search hit on this item:
"Whole Foods' $6 Asparagus Water Is Just Water With Three Stalks of Asparagus in It"
The operator denied the product existed. Eventually she transferred the call to a gentleman in the produce department who did not want to give his name. He explained that the product was new, "We've had them on the shelf for the last few days." When asked how the item is made, he said, "It's water, and we sort of cut asparagus stalks down so they're shorter, and put them into the container." When Eater asked what it was for, there was a long pause before he said, "Well, it's... to drink." He elaborated, "The nutrients from the asparagus do transfer into the water." As a point of comparison, Whole Foods has whole bundles of asparagus on sale for about $5.
I do like cucumber water though. It seems to "do something," especially on a hot day. Self sliced, not bought for many dollars off the shelf. Hah!
On 4/5/16 2:09 PM, Cathal (Phone) wrote:
More like "Guy makes bullshit [censored] statement, and when called out shouts 'Science, but I won't cite it!'". At that point I stop listening, yes.
Cathal, I won't cite, for many reasons mostly time and depth, but the conclusions are rather straightforwardly seen for those not living in a bubble. If you call it by that term, then I suggest a basic review of evolution or a casual view of the Discovery Channel.
## Jonathan Cline ## jcline@ieee.org ## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223 ########################On 4/5/16 2:03 PM, Nico Bouchard wrote:
Lol. So whole foods can sell $8 asparagus water and simply because it's experiential and non-observed information (no reference article or it's such a ubiquitously experienced thing there's no need to provide that info unless you're being incredibly anally retentive) it didn't exist at all. Let's actually not pay attention to the well designed bull shit on our shelves and only use our brain power to disprove 10,000 year old experiential knowledge because it doesn't conform to the way we choose to empirically label the world so we can more easily manipulate it or understand it from a position of non-interconnectivity.
How anti science and anti enlightening that perspective is, to discredit a differing perspective on knowledge simply because it doesn't follow you're perfered model of reasoning.So Cathal, you wanna accelerate bioscience but you're not willing to accept a differing perspective on the complexities of life unless it conforms to your chosen vernacular? That's what it's sounding like. Following that trajectory doesn't sound like we're gonna have much of an internal revolution. False mission statements sure look good on a home page though.
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016, Cathal (Phone) <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
> (no I won't give refs).
Nuff said, move on everyone.
0 comments:
Post a Comment