Old Wisdom, Young Foolinsness.

Lately you hardly seem to respond to anyone but me Chuck?

I think my posts are self-evident in why I am responding. I 100% support your right to post whatever you want on the forum. When moving from skeptiko I argued for a forum that had no rules. (The various chans show where this leads and I understand that impulse was just a reaction against the ignorance of the "leaders" of skeptiko.)

I think my posts are self-evident in why I am responding.

I think they’re very far from ‘self evident’. 

You may well soon have the honour of being the first person that I put on ignore in this forum. You say Alex Berenson’s tweet was disingenuous, yet when I asked you to explain why, you just ignore me. Can’t your behaviour be seen as trolling with some justification? 

Wtf is a chan, and I don’t understand the rest of that sentence.

Allan Savory, if memory serves, is a stock farmer who advocates keeping cattle tightly herded and on the move. (I bet you're doubly glad you didn't like that post now, Laird!) The thinking being that grassland eco systems are evolved to work in tandem with huge migratory herds of wildlife. So, the theory goes, his method is a more ecologically friendly way of cattle ranching that actively regenerates depleted grasslands. I'm not qualified to comment on the validity of this, but have seen some impressive before and after photos. My local farming magazine was also very supportive of the man's efforts a number of years ago.

I think the potential 'truth' takeaway is the idea that local knowledge and experience often trumps peer reviewed science. This is not new, a number of pioneering and respected ecologists have taken this view on the superiority of local knowledge. Rupert Sheldrake has even said something similar in the past regarding plant knowledge.

Maybe it's more important to consider what insights this perspective may or may not reveal than to ponder too hard on its veridical truth? Maybe.

Yes. Of course, "if true" is the crucial element.

This is key. 

How interesting that I the past few days I received from you a type of helpful warning that I was perhaps a bit too wish washy in my opinions, the general message being that we should have strong convictions about things we ‘believe’ to be true. Part of my response was to show that I have made public many of my opinions, and I have lived my (practical) life acting on those opinions. So I’m not as wishy washy as I may appear to be. 

The point being that indeed we must get through life choosing which things we deem practically important as well as merely our deeper ‘thinking’. 

So in this case your objections seem to be ‘is what he’s saying true’. You seem to be asking...Can I prove to myself, to the standards that I hold, that the gist of what this man is saying passes the threshold I set? To me your emphasis is on facts, whereas my own is more about the individual himself. I vibe largely with the man, as well as the gist of what he says, less than I do with hard facts. I have opinions on the ‘facts’ he states, some I think are arguably less accurate than others. For example your earlier one about agreement being necessary during peer review. I think that is at least worthy of discussion. Don’t you? 

However, I think it is crucial not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Not to discard all of his testimony because of one or two statements he may make being ‘factual’ but we may doubt that they are.

I think we have to take nearly all of what we take in through the media and books largely on faith of some sort. How much of what we discuss here can truly be proven, in both the hidden forums or the more esoteric? None. It is all subjective. Facts, no matter their ‘truth’, can easily be discarded.

Maybe its our own biases that direct us down a different path, hoping to find truth?

Yes, there will be some truth in your final thought above, that most of us are simply guilty of blaming ‘kids these days’, but maybe deeper thinking about these kids and the modern education system is one requirement to get closer to truth in this topic.

I think he's also drawing a distinction between science as cultural edifice and science as method. This concept should hardly be a new one to denizens of this forum.

What do you think my deeper objections might be?

I’ve no real idea, the point I was making was that I would have thought it obvious that I thought that my post brought something valuable to us. In other words you must have known that not liking it, but liking Chuck’s post, would have rubbed me up the wrong way. 

I think you’re making choices that point to a bias against me. Just pointing this out, I’m not bothered in the way that I am by Chuck. He’s starting to really piss me off. 

If it were me, reading a similar situation, I think I would not have liked Chuck’s post, even if I thought it had some degree of merit. Typoz hasn’t commented, and might not want to join in such a seemingly trivial discussion. At least he had the nouse to like both posts! 

I think ‘Nouse’ is something like awareness/street smarts.

And admittedly, a lot of that has to do with my choosing to object to some of your contributions to especially the opt-in forums, often in a none too gentle way. It's regrettable, in any case.

I don’t think it’s regrettable. It is what it is. 

We may have changed our opinions of each other, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. 

I am not sure the issue the chap in the video is raising is anything new or radical is it? Isn’t one of the major complaints that, for example parapsychology, is unattractive for research because it’s seen as being beyond the pale by mainstream science and straying too far from the accepted norms may be career limiting? Isn’t that something similar?

I was at university forty years ago and found it difficult to keep up with mainstream thinking in my subject at the time, let alone challenge it lol

[Laird]

How interesting that I the past few days I received from you a type of helpful warning that I was perhaps a bit too wish washy in my opinions, the general message being that we should have strong convictions about things we ‘believe’ to be true. Part of my response was to show that I have made public many of my opinions, and I have lived my (practical) life acting on those opinions. So I’m not as wishy washy as I may appear to be.

Right! And that was almost exactly what I was getting at. It's interesting to see you acknowledge it in your own words. Explicitly, you urge us (and by implication, yourself too) to be "wishy-washy" (unconvinced/uncertain/open to being in error/etc), but your actual behaviour seems to demonstrate much more conviction - to the point that you expect to be able to persuade people of what in your explicit terms we all - including yourself - should be merely unconvinced, uncertain and open to being in error about. Hence my warning about the danger of your potential susceptibility to a variant of the sort of self-serving hypocrisy of a "someone" we both know. In your case, should that hypocrisy take firm root, it would go something like this:

"We should all be cautious not to form strong views on anything, and to always be mindful that we might be wrong - but what I really mean is that the rest of you should acknowledge your uncertainty only so as to be convinced by my strong views."

This potential dynamic probably has something to do with why I have challenged you so much in the opt-in forums.

To me your emphasis is on facts, whereas my own is more about the individual himself. I vibe largely with the man

OK, that's fine. I don't vibe with him so much (except that he seems pretty chill and his accent takes me back to my childhood); another reason to withhold a like.

For example your earlier one about agreement being necessary during peer review. I think that is at least worthy of discussion. Don’t you?

Ah, well, I suppose it could be discussed, although I think it's pretty obviously false. Perhaps more fruitful would be to discuss the degree to which it points to some other, non-literal truth.

I think we have to take nearly all of what we take in through the media and books largely on faith of some sort. How much of what we discuss here can truly be proven, in both the hidden forums or the more esoteric? None. It is all subjective. Facts, no matter their ‘truth’, can easily be discarded.

Oh boy. Now we're verging on an in-depth discussion of epistemology! I don't know that I have the stamina for that. Briefly, though, yes, I agree that in the strictest sense, most of what we claim to know, we personally cannot prove (or at least have not personally proven) and have to take on some degree of faith. There is one qualification though: that which we personally experience directly can be taken as proof.

That said, I don't think that this means that (unproven) facts can (always and necessarily) "easily be discarded" - but it depends on what you mean by that.

maybe deeper thinking about these kids and the modern education system is one requirement to get closer to truth in this topic.

Oh, I agree - there is plenty to think and discuss about the modern education system. I don't think I'm educated enough to have that discussion publicly though.

you must have known that not liking it, but liking Chuck’s post, would have rubbed me up the wrong way.

I think you’re making choices that point to a bias against me.

See top of this post for one reason as to why this might be. It's irritating to have somebody say, "We should all be unconvinced. Now, here's what I'm so convinced about that you should be too!" and appear to be oblivious to their own inconsistency.

We all have our "things" though, and you're still a good guy in my books, Steve.

And has Typoz got nous? You bet yer spouse 'n house.

Right! And that was almost exactly what I was getting at. It's interesting to see you acknowledge it in your own words. Explicitly, you urge us (and by implication, yourself too) to be "wishy-washy" (unconvinced/uncertain/open to being in error/etc), but your actual behaviour seems to demonstrate much more conviction - to the point that you expect to be able to persuade people of what in your explicit terms we all - including yourself - should be merely unconvinced, uncertain and open to being in error about.

So that others, who may not read what’s in the hidden forums, I’m going to copy/paste a couple of paragraphs from our previous conversations. This might provide context and prevent us repeating ourselves. There’s nothing in what I am copying that is controversial. 

Laird said

I'm not going to try to dig up the exact quotes, but you have on multiple occasions said something along the lines of (i.e., paraphrased according to my interpretation): "We all need to be a lot less convinced about what we think we know, and a lot more open to the possibility that things are not as we think they are". You surely remember making comments like that, which it seems reasonable to infer you intend to apply to yourself as much as to others. That's all I was referring to: if you (as I infer) are advocating that we all (including yourself) should avoid being convinced about anything, then it would be unreasonable for you to expect to persuade (i.e., convince) others of what according to your own philosophy even you shouldn't be persuaded (i.e., convinced) of yourself.

Stan Woolley said

I think you’re about right in you’re paraphrasing above, I do say that sort of thing quite often. I defer to Tom Campbell when he has always maintained “remain open but sceptical about everything”. I interpret him to mean that we shouldn’t fully convince ourselves of anything, in other words, we shouldn’t  ‘totally believe’ anything. And I get what he’s saying. Of course there’s people who might argue against this by saying that “2+2=4 and that’s always the case.” I see their argument, but I nevertheless think that Campbell’s point remains valid. 

Of course we can’t go through life being a mental jellyfish either, we must put our ‘money where our mouth is’ and try to choose wisely hundreds of times daily. As my earlier post (containing a copy of an even earlier one from last year #453) shows, I do have quite firm opinions (but not totally solid) which I work with. Now I’m quite aware that my opinions are likely to be of very little consequence, as I am not in a position of authority which would mean that any decisions I made would/might have serious consequences for others. I am grateful for this. I had a quite smooth career where I made loads or decisions daily, occasionally that entailed making decisions where, if I had made the wrong one, might have put in danger hundreds of my passengers. 

I was a confident pilot, but not overconfident. I think a parallel may be drawn with the ‘open minded sceptic’ ‘argument’ above.

I was chatting yesterday to Eithne (my wife) about our upcoming visit to Scotland. She said that she didn’t want any heavy discussions about Covid or the Vaccine with our friends. I reminded her that during any such discussions I was often quiet, listening to others. She didn’t disagree. I think this may reveal in part my motivations. Ideally I welcome lively open discussions about these things instead of censorship, as I think they are far more important than anything that we discuss in the open forums. That she(and I) anticipates any such ‘discussions’ being more an interrogation than a discussion is telling. We are at the point where we have made certain choices and will quietly accept any consequences. 

So my position is as I describe in the pasted post above. 
There are many topics where I stay quiet until I have some data to go on, look at the early pages of the Wuhan Virus thread for evidence of this. I barely commented at all when it all started, I think my first post in the thread was #157. Note how many deleted posts there were from Chris! 

I perhaps am opinionated about certain topics, and will attempt to convince others, if I feel that it’s important enough. Perhaps I do have a big ego, but it’s not that big. And I also know I don’t have strong opinions about things that I haven’t looked into in some depth. ‘In some depth’ doesn’t mean being able to regurgitate the mainstream media. Also I think being open minded to possibilities is key. Show me the data, I’ll argue my case on the strength of it. How much of the mainstream is censored? How many government spokesmen are silenced? 

You seem to me to be making a different point now. You seem now to be saying that I’m too certain, where earlier I was defending your apparent accusations of being too flexible! 

Oh boy. Now we're verging on an in-depth discussion of epistemology! I don't know that I have the stamina for that.

Neither do I.   

Oh, I agree - there is plenty to think and discuss about the modern education system. I don't think I'm educated enough to have that discussion publicly though.

I really hope you’re joking?
I think that your faith in ‘education’ is misplaced. I truly think nowadays it’s more like ‘indoctrination’

https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/...04738?s=21

See top of this post for one reason as to why this might be. It's irritating to have somebody say, "We should all be unconvinced. Now, here's what I'm so convinced about that you should be too!" and appear to be oblivious to their own inconsistency.

We all have our "things" though, and you're still a good guy in my books, Steve.

As I said in an earlier post in a different thread...

If some of what I’m saying appears hypocritical or paradoxical what can I say? It is what it is.

Communicating complicated issues with others is at best a tricky thing, it may well be a fools errand.

We all have our "things" though, and you're still a good guy in my books, Steve.

I feel much the same way about you Laird.