John:
Just for the fun of it, I've been trying to sort out the "influences" behind your work -- in the sense that McLuhan has been a "mentor" for me in mine.
While various "usual suspects" get mentioned, you keep returning to L L Whyte at the crucial point in the exposition, such as (from EBEM) --
"This notion [i.e. Aristotle's *entelechy*] was revisited in the twentieth century, L L Whyte proposing a Unitary Biology, but it had no basis in mechanism, so it was untestable . . . " and "L L Whyte described it as unitary biology, but the concept lacked a scientifically causal basis, so it remained philosophy . . . "
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki pedia.org_wiki_Lancelot-5FLaw- 5FWhyte&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzyc BCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_ 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= rBgZvrV4o2C-uB9lOzRKH5t8ZqcJm- 6GSLMfWcYh_08&s= aJ4l8zd3jypqiVdUaai7vh_yXB0z_ lo7Wdgb4YE1Tbk&e=
And, as you know, the Wiki entry for Whyte points to Roger Joseph Boscovich, SJ (1711-1787) -- whose Wiki entry points back to G.W. Leibniz (1646-1716, who I happen to know a bit about) . . . !!
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki pedia.org_wiki_Roger-5FJoseph- 5FBoscovich&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnp nzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_ 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= rBgZvrV4o2C-uB9lOzRKH5t8ZqcJm- 6GSLMfWcYh_08&s=QQ_ f8ryl2VSWcCCb9Toe6tF7-lLazkmC0 GTgjvkABr8&e=
If this "trail" is a semi-accurate one, it places your influences in very interesting "universalist" 17th/18th-century territory, indeed.
Am I on the right track . . . ??
Mark
P.S. As it turns out, Jeff Martineau is teaching a summer-school class at the Center called "Life & Death Seminar" (LADS), based on Aristotle's "On the Soul" (aka "De Anima") in which "entelechy" is an important cornerstone. As it turns out, this is a made-up word meant by Aristotle to convey a specific meaning that no other Greek word could satisfy. The English translation we are using is by Joe Sachs (St. Johns, Anapolis) and its rendition of "entelechy" is somewhat labored, reflecting the interweaving of "potential" and "action" involved: Being-at-work-staying-itself. Perhaps it would be interesting for this group to see what happens if we replaced Darwin with Aristotle in terms of a "unitary theory of biology"?
Quoting Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>:
John:
Thanks! I went through your conference slides and look forward to looking at these books as well -- all good cell-level analysis, reminding me of my own work on rod/cone membranes (taken from frog eyes, done long ago in Deric Bownds lab at UW-Mad.)
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__vision. wisc.edu_staff_bownds-2Dphd-2D m-2Dderic_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpn zycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_ 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= XofPhkew3QnprYF7XRa7zIntgMNaI9 ZFEk0it9N9rrk&s=9r22SU0E42XJiy 03pfqlehHZmhv997aSCCULZ4U01CY& e=
But, so far, I haven't seen any explanation of why these mechanisms *should* have "anything" to with "consciousness" (any more than Penrose's quantum approach &c.) What is it that compels you to even believe that there *is* a "Theory of Everything" in this sense?
Why is any of this relevant to human "conscious" psychology (which, btw, given its *very* recent appearance, seems to be a product of technology, not simple biology, per se) . . . ??
Mark
P.S. Are you familiar with the work of Jaynes or Donald (or, for that matter, interested) . . . ??
Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
Mark, I deliberately left the details out of my explanation regarding
consciousness a) because I gave my lecture at JMU for the ToKers
and didn't want to be in their face yet again with my TOE(Theory of
Everything), and b) because as Ricky said to Lucy "you got a lot a
splanin' to do". Basically, I have been able to take what we know about the
morphogenetic mechanisms of lung development as cell-cell
communication and work the whole process of gas exchange back to its
origins with the insertion of cholesterol into the cell membrane as
the catalyst for that property of vertebrates, from unicellular to
multicellular organisms. The advantage of this approach is that it starts
at
the beginning of ontogeny and phylogeny instead of reasoning from the end
results backwards, which we know a priori is illogical, and
b) is based on testable/refutable data, not philosophy. Suffice it to say
that before I started contributing to the literature on evolutionary
mechanisms in 2004 there was absolutely no cell biology in that literature,
literally, due to the evolutionists by-passing Cell Theory in favor
of genetics as their way of advancing evolution theory. I began with lung
biology as the archetype for the evolution of vertebrate viscera,
and then, because the molecular pathways are shared with other tissues and
organs, I was able to extrapolate to other phenotypes.
I have attached the PROOF copies of the first three books I have published
using this approach.....your comments are welcomed. Of late, I
have been focused on Consciousness as the consequence of vertically
integrated physiologic evolution because I have hypothesized that
it is actually the aggregate of our physilogy, allowing us to be aware of
the environment and ourselves because it is the sum total of the
endogenization of the external environment....hopefully the books will help
make that clear(er)(ish). John
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
John:
As you know, Mitochondria have no "reasoning" or any of the rest of this
list -- in the sense that these apply to humans. I've read many of your
remarks in the archives but I confess I'm still not sure what you think
about how all of these "powers" developed in human biology.
Perhaps we should get some clarity about your views on how that
"evolution" occurred in biology before we move on to robots (and please
don't answer "complexity/emergence" which is *not* a description of biology
but rather the way some people model the processes inside stars and other
nuclear furnaces, like hydrogen bombs, which is to say spectacularly "dead"
things) . . . ??
"Now I have become death, the destroyer of worlds" -- Robert Oppenheimer
Thanks,
Mark
P.S. When I was studying for my PhD in Molecular Biology (c.1971, never
finished largely due to the withdrawal of NSF &al funding post-Vietnam), I
was very interested in the discussion about how life did-or-did-not conform
to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As you know, "entropy" and "negentropy,"
along with distinctions between "open" and "closed" energy systems have
long been the terms employed in that dialogue, as well as in the early
discussions about "information theory." I became convinced that these
early 19th-century notions (such as Carnot's 2nd Law, c. 1824), generally
built on 17th notions, came from a *different* scientific paradigm and
most-likely these "machine" terms simply didn't apply to living beings.
Indeed, given what we know now (or, for that matter, what we once knew),
why should they?
P.P.S. One of my favorite songs (many years ago) was the Soul II Soul
tune, "Get a Life" (aka "What's the Meaning") perhaps you will like it also
. . . !!
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.you
tube.com_watch-3Fv-3DBOXIBXnMris&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb
7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-j
IYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ABELRMSxycPHOe6uKKJHmVryWmYf3ysD5q3vWB279ig&
s=dMBd46uRDGLb8MlWK_mwiIKqMzWWss1fQ1tYbPu7Bu8&e=
Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
Dear Waldemar and ToKers, I wanted to reply to Waldemar's list of human
attributes that a computer cannot emulate:
1. Processing & relationship discovery.
2. Reasoning & the discovery of patterns.
3. The application of principles, empathy, and beliefs.
4. The application of values and desire.
5. The application of commitment.
My biased view from many many years of reductionist
science/biology/evolution theory is that those attributes are
the net result of the literal endogenization of the external environment
by
the cell. The best known example
is the mitochondrion, which evolved from cohabitation with bacteria, but
there are many other such
examples in the evolution of physiology. The other aspect of this process
of evolution is that the organism must have a memory
that allows it to recall circumstances in its past in order to solve
emerging environmental problems it is challenged
by, because all such evolved 'novelties' are due to repurposing of old
genes for new structures and functions, which
Stephen J. Gould termed exaptations. The reason I mention all of this is
because a computer that would
be able to accomplish the 5 feats listed above would have to be able to
recapitulate this mechanism of
evolution in order to be able to mimic consciousness. In other words, it
couldn't achieve this by merely having a database
composed of all of the world's Information, but by having a database
founded hierarchically on human evolutionary 'experience',
beginning with the ambiguity of the first cell, its internal environment
constituted by negative entropy, or free
energy, sustained by chemiosmosis as its source of internal energy, and
monitored by homeostasis, the aggregate
of which I have termed The First Principles of Physiology. Awareness of
these relationships from the first instantation
of life to what we think of as 'mind' are the 'qualia' that Chalmers has
invoked for consciousness. And the externalization
of this process is what Andy Clark has referred to as 'disembodied
consciousness', which I think is the on-going effort to
return to the Singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang, by
reconciling the dualities and dichotomies that were generated
by the explosive disruption of the Singularity. Could this process be
mimicked by Artificial Intelligence?
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
ToKers:
############################
"Science" (as we know it) is a *revolutionary* process, that changes its
demeanor based on the PARADIGM in which we are living -- which is to say,
after Thomas Kuhn's 1962 "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," it
cannot adopt anything like a single "universal" attitude.
Aristotle's science was not the same as Newton's and that wasn't the same
as Einstein's and so on. As a result, one period's "science" will appear
to be "anti-science" in another. (Yes, as you might recall, my father
was
a historian of science and I'm trained as a molecular biologist, so I
have
spent some time thinking about this topic.)
Since the founding of the Royal Society of London in 1660 (but not
institutionalized before that), "science" has presented itself as the
rejection of "metaphysics" -- which, as the name implies, was a science
that professed to be "meta" (an important topic for this list) the
lower-level study of mere "physics." Yes, I have read the archives and
noted that Gregg and John have already said a few words about all this.
Of course, that rejection of "metaphysics" is just a posture, since it is
impossible to actually eliminate what lies underneath/behind whatever
science claims itself to be (in any particular paradigm). This fake
effort
to eliminate what can't be eliminated (termed the "disenchantment of the
world" by Max Weber in his 1917 "Science as a Vocation" lecture) has
resulted in the current collapse of what many take to be the foundation
of
"modern" (not to be confused with "postmodern") science -- physics.
Recently a fellow I know who writes a blog for Scientific American, John
Horgan (who works at the Stevens Institute of Technology, in Hoboken, NJ,
where he teaches "creative writing"), wrote a fascinating article titled
"How Physics Lost Its Way" that I recommend.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blogs.s
cientificamerican.com_cross-2Dcheck_how-2Dphysics-2Dlost-2Di
ts-2Dway_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_ Z-WnBP9FFDe-
vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=tJovVyVXkFjHvksbLzLaupM_sEzy
5Bl1ZnrDpw3Uado&e=
This, in turn, is based on Sabine Hossenfelder's brand-new "Lost in Math:
How Beauty Leads Physics Astray," that I also recommend . . . <g>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
zon.com_Lost-2DMath-2DBeauty-2DPhysics-2DAstray_dp_
0465094252&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_ Z-WnBP9FFDe-
vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=Sy_8SfKNt-96VAH9g-bqUH43HeNr
NdsL3qguXzur03I&e=
I will leave the topic of "why" we go through these series of *paradigms*
-- each one revolutionizing "science" anew -- until Gregg returns from
vacation but perhaps another important book will stimulate some thinking
on
the matter. This is the crucial topic of *causality*, which, as it turns
out, requires metaphysics.
Judea Pearl's "The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect" is
an
attempt by a leading Artificial Intelligence researcher (and the
"inventor"
of Bayesian networks) to put a band-aid on the longstanding problem of
*causality* in the West, going back to the Royal Society and its
"rejection" (which, btw, does not exist in the same way in the East).
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
zon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience-2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X
&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP
o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-
vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=JMLEyDn5rIPMcpQqTt3ee_KL7e0H
BRXLSfTBSffXGsw&e=
Have fun on your 4th of July (btw, I'll be kayaking off Long Beach Island
if anyone else is out that way) . . . !!
Mark
P.S. For those trying to get ahead-of-the-curve, you might have noticed
that my Center bases much of its work on the insights of Marshall
McLuhan.
His last book was published posthumously with the title "The Laws of
Media:
The New Science," although, for many years, that title and subtitle were
reversed, echoing the title of Giambattista Vico's 1725 "Scienza Nuova."
Vico was writing in opposition to the "new science" of his day (i.e.
Newton
&al), making him, yet-another "anti-scientist" as things ultimately
turned
out.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
pedia.org_wiki_The-5FNew-5FScience&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCg
mb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-
UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx
_mSj8C3g3HDGw&
s=MrJZ8RVJF7yWFrLIr5fsFwVMctnk8igjtQsAX5PEezk&e=
Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
Dear Waldemar and ToKers, thank you Waldemar for acknowledging the
problem
I have highlighted with respect to recognizing the difference between############################
information and knowledge, a distinction which seems to be overlooked.
What I had neglected to mention in this thread of ideas with regard to
the
distinction between information and knowledge is that the Informaticists
think that if you haven't come up with the 'answer' to the problem, you
only need more data! That may work in a finite set, like the parts of
the
Challenger, since Informatics was developed by NASA, but it is
inadequate
for biologically-related problems like psychology and medicine; we know
that in biology the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. As Jaron
Lanier, a Silicon Valley guru tells us, "You are not a gadget". In order
to
understand the ever-increasing data in such fields of biology we need to
'know' how physiology actually works in order to effectively interpret
and
utilize information. Learning to think critically to solve problems is
essential.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:47 AM, [log in to unmask] <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Friends:
I am very much "in tune" with John’s comment about conflating
information
and knowledge.
John, your comments remind me very much of how, for instance, data is
(or
may be) eventually “transformed” into information, knowledge, wisdom,
or
vision:
I am not aware of any computer program which is able to add the
elements
apparently required for each transformation (with the caveat that the
is
a
LOT about computers and their programs of which I am not aware).
It appears that the following are uniquely provided by humans:
1. Processing & relationship discovery.
2. Reasoning & the discovery of patterns.
3. The application of principles, empathy, and beliefs.
4. The application of values and desire.
5. The application of commitment.
The first two and part of #3 suggest the application of cognitive
functions.
Items 2, 3, and 4 suggest the involvement of affective functions.
Item 5 suggests the use of conative functions.
Requiring cognitive, affective, and conative functions suggests the
application of multiple connectomes, likely in a recursive manner.
While the first two part of the above list may be assisted by
computers,
the latter three seem to be beyond the domain of computers.
Probably, most “normal” persons have the innate ability to do these
tasks,
but John’s experience suggests that the ability to apply all of the
above
requires considerable education and/or experience.
Hence, the apparently general failure to apprehend the significant
differences between D, I, K, W & V?
Best regards,
Waldemar
*Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044
*Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.* (A Einstein)
On Jun 25, 2018, at 12:48 PM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
If you can tolerate a little more anecdotal experience from back in the
20th Century, I was raised in a multilingual home (my first language is
not
english) in a multiethnic community in New York City and suburbs
beginning
in the 1950s. I was encouraged to think and be curious in order to
assimilate. Although that was not encouraged educationally until
graduate
school, I was prepared for the education I received at McGill
University
in
Experimental Medicine, being taught by scientists who were actively
engaged
in research, prime among them Hans Selye, the physiologist who coined
the
term 'stress'. He and his colleagues on faculty, who had discovered a
number of hormones- cortisol, aldosterone, prolactin- taught us to
problem
solve in the way they had experienced it first hand in the laboratory,
above all else, that failure meant you hadn't formulated the hypothesis
correctly. Those were life lessons that I have carried throughout my
research career. My son, a well-recognized American novelist does much
the
same research, only without having to generate data. When we were
looking
for schools for my son to attend back in 2000 the school
representatives
were advocating for a liberal education, given that in the future
people
would have multiple jobs over the course of their careers, and that a
liberal education was good preparation for such a situation.......does
that
no longer apply due to the escalation of tuition?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Thanks John. I fully agree with your assessment. No question that the
narrative has shifted over time to reducing the value of higher
education
to the overarching metric of earnings/jobs. Certainly a few students
still
remain who are curiosity-driven, across the many sciences and
humanities.
But these are more the exceptions than the rule. And honestly, I
cannot
remember the last time I spoke with a parent who framed the issues in
any
other way apart from: "What can my kid actually *do *with this
degree?
This is costing us a *lot* of money!" Finally, our government
ministries
consistently stress more instrumental learning outcomes, as well as
the
employment-related metrics. Most faculty members resist, but it has
been
increasingly difficult to stem the tide in recent years.
Best, -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=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&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=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&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=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
Fax: (519) 433-0353
Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________
*ei*π + 1 = 0
------------------------------
*From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
[log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <
[log in to unmask]>
*Sent:* Monday, June 25, 2018 2:02 PM
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: The Science of Anti-Scientific Thinking
OK, I have read the Scientific American article in the interim. I find
the observations of interest, but as with my comment about the
conflation
of Information and Knowledge, the degradation of the educational
mission is
equally troublesome to me......for example, in the run-up to the 2016
Presidential election Bernie Sanders was advocating for free higher
education. The discussion of that issue revolved around equating
education
with earnings, without any mention of the quality of life for those
with
advanced educations. Like so many aspects of society, we are
undermining
the educational mission in the name of profit as yet another bottom
line
enterprise. Given that, why would society put value in the generation
of
scientific evidence, given that the process is misunderstood, if it is
understood at all? Teaching to the test for the sake of expediency
doesn't
give the student an appreciation of the process so he/she can fully
understand the significance of the content, or lack thereof. We are
not
teaching our students to think and problem solve, we are teaching them
to
pass exams. When social 'values' are only measured in $ and cents,
this
is
the result.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:42 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Dear Joe and ToKers, your email and the SA article are great talking
points for us to consider. However I think that there's an overriding
problem due to the tendency to equate Information and Knowledge. This
has
resulted from both the "Question Authority" movement and the 'Arab
Spring'
of technology leveling institutions of society, including
science.....discusss?
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=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&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=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&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=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
Fax: (519) 433-0353
Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________
*ei*π + 1 = 0
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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