Complexity

 

Symbolism / Ferdynand Ruszczyc/ Młyn w zimie

Good morning Saturday.  Weather here in riot-town is cooler, so other than the lack of sun due to cloud cover (which I am compensating for this morning with the happy lamp), It is a pleasant day.

Gonna be more of Michael today.   I was going to write a little bit more, But I am getting hung up on science-ey thinking and mental models and the way that we sort our thoughts and make assumptions/predictions using abstractions.

These thoughts are all kinda getting in the way of each other and I am coming to the conclusion that pulling them apart from each other will just make things worse.  

Michael

ABSTRACTION: As an example of pattern abstracted from the universe, consider the purest form of abstraction that is mathematics. Mathematics is assumed to apply to everything, so no matter what piece of the universe is abstracted for analysis, mathematics should apply to what is being analyzed if a pattern of some sort is found – like units of something, or whatever.

Mathematics says 2+3=5. Even so, it should not be presupposed that 2+3=5 just because it does in abstraction – as an isolated fact. Most people will say that a report should not have to worry about this simple piece of mathematics being applicable, and they are wrong.

For example, 2 drops of water plus three drops night make one drop of water or a million atomized drops depending on how they are combined. It is correct that mathematics cannot be wrong, but it is false that mathematics cannot be misapplied.

CONSENSUS: Any consensus that exists about science, exists in isolation – within an experimental realm or a mental realm abstracted from the world. Yes, 2+3=5 in abstraction. Yes, humans are the most rational animal there is, in abstraction – maybe according to a scientific test conducted in a laboratory.

I am claiming that when the human animal is placed into the actual world, there is no animal that acts more irrationally, if rationality is referenced to behavior that promotes the indefinite survival of a species. Many people laugh and point at the Dodo bird. For my argument, I point to Tom Cotton. With Tom’s desire for religion, profit, and nuclear missiles, I rest my case. The true folly on earth is not the Dodo.

Consensus about applying science involves the universe to some degree, not just the abstraction of the science itself. Consensus involves all the instincts and desires of mankind - everything that has happened up to then in the life of every individual who is asked to consent - if you want to get technical about it.

The point of science is to produce what negates the need for consensus. So, when Ugo says that science is a consensus building machine, he must mean there is no need for consensus; but he confuses the picture by bringing the irrelevant concept of consensus into the realm of science. Thus, Ugo is misapplying the concept of science from my perspective.

If the subject is consensus, the consensus is not about science unless the consensus is about whether an experiment was actually conducted as presented, or otherwise the conditions were actually as presented; in other words, whether the data is accurate.

If the question is whether science applies, for example that 2+3=5, then answering the question does not provide a scientific answer, unless the science being referenced produced the answer. This is why science is not a consensus building machine.

In fact, science has nothing to do with consensus except that science is defined by it having nothing to do with consensus. So, at the end of the day, Ugo is misleading people to promote his idea. The reason why it will work, and why everybody will comment and praise Ugo’s insight and wisdom, is human rationality. Ugo presents a rational case. And I am not saying he is wrong; he might be spot on. I am saying only that his case is no good.