Dear Joe et al: I would like to respond to Joe's last email not so much to
wrest control of the mic as to clarify my position, by interjecting between
lines where it seems appropriate and productive...
First, congratulations to you and especially Daniel for his success as a
writer and in anticipation of his forthcoming release. If he'd like another
reader of the text and might be interested in additional comments from
"others" for the jacket, please extend my invitation to review the work
accordingly. To be fair, there's always a great deal of "interpersonal and
social tension" between the generations, so I'm confident that I'll agree
with the premise - but would need to see the arguments and evidence to
comment helpfully on this particular work. I mention this because the
research demonstrates consistently that each generation has a degree of
narcissism and close-mindedness about the value of their own contributions,
the challenges that they've been able to overcome, and the "kids today..."
thesis. There's a tendency toward conservatism in the most general sense
due to the shared narratives and experiences that define each generation,
as well as the connectedness that requires FAR less energy expenditure. For
example, if I say to you, "Geez, I'm feeling old these days. 'Do I dare to
each a peach?' ", many on this listserve would be fine with such a
reference. Or, if I talk about hiding under my desk during the air raid
drills of the 1960s, many of us would nod knowingly. In contrast, a couple
of our 20-something kids were home last weekend and were amazed to learn of
that fact. And then, as the conversation continued, I had to explain about
my grandmother, a real-life Rosie the Riveter who was one of only two women
in Fort Worth to fasten rivets right up until the end of the Second World
War.
[In this regard, I would hope that if and when we understand the fundament
of life that such intergenerational differences would smooth themselves out
for the very reason I had expressed about my reaction to my son's book. I
don't think that such discord has to be the case. In fact in an earlier
email I had stated that we humans are unique in being conscious of being
conscious, and that because all organisms are 'survivors', we cop a
narcissistic attitude that is our strength, but also can be our weakness.
"First there were bacteria, now there is New York! Simon Conway Morris]
In contrast, they couldn't imagine a world without the internet, or one
who's lifelong best friend was someone online whom he'd never met in
person. And while I grew up listening to the Beatles, they are quick to
remind me of the value of contemporary forms of music (yes, including rap
and hip-hop) -- and one classically trained musician in the family (who
wrote a symphony at age 17 that moved his music teacher as well as my
mother to tears) who mainly writes electronic music and stuff that sounds
almost nothing like what I imagined music to be in my youth. But, of
course, it goes much deeper, to the heart of technology (e.g., "digital
natives"), how we organize the rhythms of our lives, and what are
aspirations and imaginations are for our lives -- and how different that is
generationally. And every generation had tensions linked to the cultural &
technological changes that defined their eras.
[I often wonder how reading or going to the movies affects our minds,
vicariously taking us wherever we want to go. This is the . product of
being warm-blooded, carrying our own 'environment' within ourselves,
exhorting the 'wanderlust' that fosters epigenetic inheritance!]
As to your broader point, i.e., that our own list here may be " 'victims'
of our misunderstanding of the basic elements of life in our ambiguous
origins and use of deception to cope with them," that's a rather grand, er,
"indictment." If you're suggesting that it's a good idea to consider
*new* ideas
and evidence in an effort to better understand the nature of life,
variations in biologically-based behaviors, and the implications for the
psychological and cultural aspects of being "human beings," then I fully
concur. This is a conversation that can and should be had regularly. If we
operate in good faith, then there's no reason why we shouldn't consider
different viewpoints, paradigms (yes, I still read about superstring theory
even though I'm not a convert!), and research to try to build knowledge and
enhance understanding.
[In my own defense, it was Erwin Schrodinger the nuclear physicist who came
up with the idea of the ambiguity of life in his book "What is Life". I
just backed into it by tracing the physiology of vertebrates backwards from
their present state to their origins in the unicell. I then applied Robert
Trivers' thoughts about deception as a way to understand how we cope with
the inherent ambiguity, of which we are universally aware at some level,
for example thinking that there's something bigger than ourselves. Be that
as it may, if we in the 'original sin' of ambiguity by circumventing the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which is the consensus among physicists) we
should, IMHO, devise better ways of coping than deception, i.e. cheating.]
Yet, as with any knowledge-building endeavor, one has to be prepared to
have disagreements and work through the different justifications for why we
believe what we believe. Including science. If it were "obvious," then we'd
have figured things out long ago. I liken it to the Supreme Court debate.
How can it be the brilliant legal minds, some of the best and brightest,
nevertheless disagree at such a fundamental level and in such predictable
ways such that you have consistent, routine splits in terms of who sides
with whom? There's more happening than just the "facts" of the case. Simply
the contrast between "strict constructionism" and "judicial activism"
highlights a critical difference in the frameworks for reasoning. Who's
"right"? I certainly don't know, but I *can* explain why they argue what
they do based on their particular perspectives, justification logics, and
social locations.
[Well if the hypothesis that all of existence emanated from the
Singularity/Big Bang is correct, and both the inanimate and animate must
ultimately comply with the Laws of Physics, which I think is defensible
knowing what we know, on the one hand, but our culture and mores are not
predicated on that equivalency, I submit it's why the Supremes have such
lengthy debates.....it's like the difference in problem solving between
Spock and Kirk on Star Trek😀.]
Finally, even if we understand "the nature of things," or can explain the
mechanisms at play and why things (whatever "things" we might be
referencing) work the way that they do, none of that solves the Humean
"is-ought" divide. In fact, I have yet to see a convincing argument that
effectively bridges the is-ought divide. If i understand cell-cell
communication as John Torday does, or if I consider that Torday fellow
"nuts" (I don't, btw!) and buy into conventional thinking, what does any of
that tell me about solving personal problems, or "social unrest and
strife"? Unless someone can explain things differently than anything I've
ever heard or read previously (and I'm open to that!), then I don't know
how to translate scientific knowledge or knowledge about how things "work"
into "therefore, here's how we *should* organize our society". I mean, I
understand that I'm missing about 3cm of cartilage in my right knee and
that I could get a knee replacement, but *should* I do that? There's no
"obvious" answer, unless I link the question to some predetermined
use-value or other standard by which I hope to evaluate the quality of my
decision in response to scientific explanation of what has happened to my
knee. And we have a ton of knowledge about the atom nowadays, with a great
deal of nuclear energy powering things in Ontario. But *should* we be
relying upon nuclear energy? Again, an entirely different question that
requires that we invoke different evaluative standards. At least, that's
my current understanding.
[I am reluctant to respond to this 'challenge', not because I can't, but
because it will sound hubristic and imperious, and...., which is not my
intention....just the opposite.....however, I will predicate my comments on
the fact that I have been funded by public money for my entire career of 50
years of basic research, which I feel obligates me to share what I have
learned (talk about 'justification'). So in the vein/vain of "explaining
things differently than anything I've ever heard or read previously", other
than my own writings there's no one who will explain how and why we evolved
in the way that I have. As an example of my take on principles of
evolution, the psychologist Piaget's explanation for our protracted
childhood is to allow our big brains to develop, whereas the research in my
laboratory on epigenetics of childhood asthma would indicate that it's for
the child to experience its environment in ways that it can assimilate
information for the next generation, i.e. adapt. So the former explanation
is descriptive whereas the latter is mechanistic. And the principles
involved project all the way back to the origins of life in The First
Principles of Physiology, and all the way forward to transgenerational
inheritance and ecological effects on the organism. And as for 'what does
any of that tell me about solving personal problems, or "social unrest and
strife" ' I would say that if you understood the principles of physiology
that interdigitate with the Laws of Physics we could at least reduce the
personal problems, and thus the social strife. In that context, we don't
understand our own mortality, but if we did understand that in a sense we
are immortal by transferring our microbiomes to others, perhaps we wouldn't
be so anxious. And as to what to do about your knee, biology is the basic
science of medicine, so if we don't understand the former, how can we
expect to really understand the latter, other than as a revenue producing
enterprise. With regard to your comment about the use of atomic energy, I
would like to include a 'morals' component into the patenting process once
we get ahead of the curve with respect to understanding our own being as I
have expressed it.....wouldn' t it be great to make decisions about
technologies on an 'is it good for mankind' basis before the fact, rather
than having to have the morlaity catch up to the technology, if ever?
Peace to all, and particularly to you Joe. I look forward to your
responses..... John
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear John et al.:
>
>
> First, congratulations to you and especially Daniel for his success as a
> writer and in anticipation of his forthcoming release. If he'd like another
> reader of the text and might be interested in additional comments from
> "others" for the jacket, please extend my invitation to review the work
> accordingly. To be fair, there's always a great deal of "interpersonal and
> social tension" between the generations, so I'm confident that I'll agree
> with the premise - but would need to see the arguments and evidence to
> comment helpfully on this particular work. I mention this because the
> research demonstrates consistently that each generation has a degree of
> narcissism and close-mindedness about the value of their own contributions,
> the challenges that they've been able to overcome, and the "kids today..."
> thesis. There's a tendency toward conservatism in the most general sense
> due to the shared narratives and experiences that define each generation,
> as well as the connectedness that requires FAR less energy expenditure. For
> example, if I say to you, "Geez, I'm feeling old these days. 'Do I dare to
> each a peach?' ", many on this listserve would be fine with such a
> reference. Or, if I talk about hiding under my desk during the air raid
> drills of the 1960s, many of us would nod knowingly. In contrast, a couple
> of our 20-something kids were home last weekend and were amazed to learn of
> that fact. And then, as the conversation continued, I had to explain about
> my grandmother, a real-life Rosie the Riveter who was one of only two women
> in Fort Worth to fasten rivets right up until the end of the Second World
> War.
>
>
> In contrast, they couldn't imagine a world without the internet, or one
> who's lifelong best friend was someone online whom he'd never met in
> person. And while I grew up listening to the Beatles, they are quick to
> remind me of the value of contemporary forms of music (yes, including rap
> and hip-hop) -- and one classically trained musician in the family (who
> wrote a symphony at age 17 that moved his music teacher as well as my
> mother to tears) who mainly writes electronic music and stuff that sounds
> almost nothing like what I imagined music to be in my youth. But, of
> course, it goes much deeper, to the heart of technology (e.g., "digital
> natives"), how we organize the rhythms of our lives, and what are
> aspirations and imaginations are for our lives -- and how different that is
> generationally. And every generation had tensions linked to the cultural &
> technological changes that defined their eras.
>
>
> As to your broader point, i.e., that our own list here may be " 'victims'
> of our misunderstanding of the basic elements of life in our ambiguous
> origins and use of deception to cope with them," that's a rather grand, er,
> "indictment." If you're suggesting that it's a good idea to consider *new*
> ideas and evidence in an effort to better understand the nature of life,
> variations in biologically-based behaviors, and the implications for the
> psychological and cultural aspects of being "human beings," then I fully
> concur. This is a conversation that can and should be had regularly. If we
> operate in good faith, then there's no reason why we shouldn't consider
> different viewpoints, paradigms (yes, I still read about superstring theory
> even though I'm not a convert!), and research to try to build knowledge and
> enhance understanding.
>
>
> Yet, as with any knowledge-building endeavor, one has to be prepared to
> have disagreements and work through the different justifications for why we
> believe what we believe. Including science. If it were "obvious," then we'd
> have figured things out long ago. I liken it to the Supreme Court debate.
> How can it be the brilliant legal minds, some of the best and brightest,
> nevertheless disagree at such a fundamental level and in such predictable
> ways such that you have consistent, routine splits in terms of who sides
> with whom? There's more happening than just the "facts" of the case. Simply
> the contrast between "strict constructionism" and "judicial activism"
> highlights a critical difference in the frameworks for reasoning. Who's
> "right"? I certainly don't know, but I *can* explain why they argue what
> they do based on their particular perspectives, justification logics, and
> social locations.
>
>
> Finally, even if we understand "the nature of things," or can explain the
> mechanisms at play and why things (whatever "things" we might be
> referencing) work the way that they do, none of that solves the Humean
> "is-ought" divide. In fact, I have yet to see a convincing argument that
> effectively bridges the is-ought divide. If i understand cell-cell
> communication as John Torday does, or if I consider that Torday fellow
> "nuts" (I don't, btw!) and buy into conventional thinking, what does any of
> that tell me about solving personal problems, or "social unrest and
> strife"? Unless someone can explain things differently than anything I've
> ever heard or read previously (and I'm open to that!), then I don't know
> how to translate scientific knowledge or knowledge about how things "work"
> into "therefore, here's how we * should* organize our society". I mean, I
> understand that I'm missing about 3cm of cartilage in my right knee and
> that I could get a knee replacement, but *should* I do that? There's no
> "obvious" answer, unless I link the question to some predetermined
> use-value or other standard by which I hope to evaluate the quality of my
> decision in response to scientific explanation of what has happened to my
> knee. And we have a ton of knowledge about the atom nowadays, with a great
> deal of nuclear energy powering things in Ontario. But *should* we be
> relying upon nuclear energy? Again, an entirely different question that
> requires that we invoke different evaluative standards. At least, that's
> my current understanding.
>
>
> Best to one and all, -Joe
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Associate Academic Dean
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qXHIJoBweXNj80PknU-WwGMoPl6GRk578f5DVufw1XY&s=es5etGyFu1KUChJLl76SPhmYtORXfHG40-lYNdiB5Pw&e=>
>
> London, Ontario, Canada
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qXHIJoBweXNj80PknU-WwGMoPl6GRk578f5DVufw1XY&s=es5etGyFu1KUChJLl76SPhmYtORXfHG40-lYNdiB5Pw&e=>
> N6A 2M3
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qXHIJoBweXNj80PknU-WwGMoPl6GRk578f5DVufw1XY&s=es5etGyFu1KUChJLl76SPhmYtORXfHG40-lYNdiB5Pw&e=>
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>
> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
>
> *ei*Ï€ + 1 = 0
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]
> edu> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 8, 2018 11:04 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: The Science of Anti-Scientific Thinking
>
> Dear Joe and ToKers, my son Daniel Torday is a well-recognized
> contemporary American author. His latest novel, "Boomer1" will be released
> in September. I have had the opportunity to read the Advanced Reader Copy,
> and find the central premise- that there is interpersonal and social
> tension between Baby Boomers and Millenials- of great concern, particularly
> as it relates to the discussions we are having within the ToK community. I
> see us all being 'victims' of our misunderstanding of the basic elements of
> life in our ambiguous origins and use of deception to cope with them (at
> the risk of repeating myself). Once it is understood that life is a
> 'gimmick', or trick we play for circumventing the Laws of Nature, not
> unlike human flight violating gravity, various otherwise dogmatic aspects
> of our existence become clear- the significance of the unicellular state,
> both phylogenetically and developmentally, i.e. why we return to the
> unicellular state over the course of the life cycle in service to the
> newly-emerging science of epigenetic inheritance; *why we are mortal*,
> but actually are not, if we consider that we are 70-90% bacteria, which
> live on after we 'die' as what is referred to as the necrobiome; the fact
> that life exists between determinism and probability; or how life accords
> with Quantum Mechanics. IMHO we need to understand these fundamental
> aspects of life before addressing how to fix things, or we'll just go on
> arguing about epiphenomena/minutia, never getting to the actually root
> causes of personal and social unrest and strife.
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues:
>
>
> Please see the attached article from my newly arrived July 2018 issue of *Scientific
> American*. The three main hurdles to clear scientific thinking they've
> identified are: 1) shortcuts to deal with cognitive overload; 2) the
> well-know issue of confirmation bias; and 3) social goals (or what we refer
> to as influence as part of Gregg's J-I-I argument). I share the article for
> a few reasons.
>
>
> First, it's great to see a broad swath of the academic community (at least
> the psychologists and the research cited) largely reaching similar
> conclusions about cognitive biases - and how the work aligns with much of
> Gregg's framing and what I've been reading of others on our list-serv.
> Gregg and I have attempted to joke, with some irony, that we hope we're not
> just creating our own "echo chambers" and exercising our own "confirmation
> biases" by agreeing too much. Every group needs the outliers to help keep
> us honest!
>
>
> Second, I've mentioned before (using my own siblings in part as exemplars)
> the problem of discussing issues and struggling to be fair-minded,
> 'objective,' and receptive to alternative viewpoints, new info, etc. And
> yet the academy itself has been increasingly under attack in recent years
> as "liberal re-education camps" and "close-minded" by not embracing
> alternative viewpoints or shutting down speakers, especially on the
> right-wing end of the political spectrum, who challenge "liberal orthodoxy"
> or may be skeptical of any claims-making from university professors --
> scientific or otherwise. Nancy commented in part on this issue a couple of
> weeks ago in a quite insightful way. I'm thinking that the issue is
> actually much broader in the sense that these issues affect all of us, both
> inside and outside of academia. It's not simply a matter of any of us being
> "experts" in our fields or far more knowledgeable about the "facts" and
> "scientific evidence" in regard to our specialties. All knowledge has a
> relational component too, i.e., depends upon the social location of the
> actors relative to each other in combination with the cultural sources of
> justification systems invoked. This explains in large measure, in my view,
> the rise of the "alternative facts" and "fake news" critiques that have
> gained such popularity.
>
>
> Finally, note too the fact that our researches across the many fields
> within the academy -- but especially in the social sciences and humanities
> -- gradually have chipped away or at least provided insights about the
> standard forms of knowledge and justification systems that have helped
> certain groups to maintain their power and privilege for many generations
> (and across cultures). If I show you the lead article from the
> well-respected journal *Criminology* last month (which confirms something
> I've hypothesized about for years) showing the adverse effects of early
> childhood exposure to lead for healthy brain development and some adverse
> behavioral outcomes, then how does one "receive" and "interpret" that
> information? What are the implications for even something as basic as
> "equality of opportunity" for youngsters who grow up with high lead
> exposure in their environments, to say nothing of the many other factors
> that affect their "life chances" simply because they grow up in a certain
> neighborhood or attended woefully under-resourced schools or a thousand
> other factors beyond their control? Back to the article and the various
> mechanisms that we use to simplify the whole darn thing. I'm thinking a la
> Colonel Jessup's famous quote in *A Few Good Men*: "You can't handle the
> truth!" Can any of us? 😎 Best regards, -Joe
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Associate Academic Dean
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qXHIJoBweXNj80PknU-WwGMoPl6GRk578f5DVufw1XY&s=es5etGyFu1KUChJLl76SPhmYtORXfHG40-lYNdiB5Pw&e=>
>
> London, Ontario, Canada
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qXHIJoBweXNj80PknU-WwGMoPl6GRk578f5DVufw1XY&s=es5etGyFu1KUChJLl76SPhmYtORXfHG40-lYNdiB5Pw&e=>
> N6A 2M3
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=qXHIJoBweXNj80PknU-WwGMoPl6GRk578f5DVufw1XY&s=es5etGyFu1KUChJLl76SPhmYtORXfHG40-lYNdiB5Pw&e=>
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>
> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
>
> *ei*Ï€ + 1 = 0
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
> 1
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
> 1
>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
