> > Kindly see some easy/fun/killerjoy/nerdy comments embed in trail... > > On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 03:43 Waldemar Schmidt, <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > ------------------------------ > Joe: > > You are being reflective, eh? > It seems to me that you have enunciated what Socrates opined so long ago: > > > - “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” ... > - “The unexamined life is not worth living.” ... > > DL: "Cursed are those who late in life examine and realise what were they > actually made for, blessed are those who realize this early on or never > ever.".... Excerpt from my book Transformers. > > > > - “I cannot teach anybody anything. ... > - “There is only one good, *knowledge*, and one evil, ignorance.” ... > > DL: Disagree. There is situational and contextual dependence. Ignorance of > good is evil, but ignorance of evil is good. Secondly, what effects life > the most is not true and permanent knowledge or absolute truth, but that > which is ephemeral or sometimes plain vanilla - false (not true really) > knowledge. The other day we (with a Muslim friend) were joking that > ignorance saves India from wrath of fundamentalism. Hindu scriptures were > written in Sanskrit which is a dead language, while Muslims scriptures are > written in Arabic which no Indian Muslim understands.... Another case of > ignorance is bliss :-) > > > - “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” ... > > DL: Wasn't said by Socrates. > > > *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 Nov 13, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Deepak Loomba <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > ------------------------------ > Jo don't be so hard on Dr. Michalski. Take it easy :-) > > In your detailed note. One thing that starkly stands out to me is your > question: "what if everything and every institution and all parties are > discredited?" > > Kindly know any such circumstance(s), where everyone and everything is > discredited is gainful to incumbant. > > Regds > DL > > > > > On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 23:27 Joseph Michalski, <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > ------------------------------ > Hi folks. The discussions over the last two days have prompted me to > share, from my view, not only why I'm not confident in my own work going > forward, but why I have some doubts too about the prospects of the TOK. If > interested, the following will take slow readers like myself at least 15-20 > minutes. Plus there's an embedded 3.5 minute video link, an article > attached, and a few photos attached as well. Might as well try to do > *something *with whatever time left I may or may not be promised! > > *The Death(s) of a Social Scientist by Joseph H. Michalski* > > When I first considered pursuing a PhD in the social sciences, I was > excoriated by certain family members for even having any aspirations to > join “the liberals” in academia. I wasn’t entirely sure why my extremely > right-wing family members (parents and siblings alike) held such negative > or even hostile views of academia in general and sociology in particular. > Yet from my perspective, I loved learning and every subject - and had been > especially strong at math since a young age. I considered pursuing a > graduate degree in math or physics (definitely would be a physicist if I > were afforded a second chance!), but then decided I was even more intrigued > by the human condition. I genuinely didn’t understand why people wouldn’t > be excited for me since I wanted to use science to study the human > condition. I thought there was tremendous value in science and hoped to be > able to apply a rigorous scientific perspective to try describe and explain > things like factors affecting child development or domestic violence or why > people end up being poor. As a result, by the mid-90s I had obtained a PhD > in sociology in 1993, had already moved to Canada, and after being a > “stay-at-home” dad, eventually secured a tenure-track position at King’s > University College in 2003. By 2008, I’d published several “groundbreaking” > articles in my field – or so I *thought* – and excitedly penned the > attached article that I published in 2008 about what “scientific sociology” > could be in the 21st century. But, after studying the field more closely, > I learned in time (and published on the issue) that I’m *very much* in > the minority within my own field and that I’m, well, a bit of a statistical > outlier in my orientation. Don’t tell my family members, but they were > right to a degree! I just always personally thought of myself as a > “scientist” and not an “ideologue.” Who knew? > > Over time, I’ve continued to pursue “scientific sociology” and realized > that we have as much and arguably even *more* of a problem than Gregg > identified in terms of “the problem of psychology.” In reconnecting with > Gregg in the early 2010s and after reading his original 2003 ToK article & > then his 2011 book, I realized that I had been both “right” and “wrong” > about sociology. I’m “right” in the sense that sociology can offer > something useful and helpful in an explanatory sense “as a science,” but > that we are often too constrained or limited in our thinking. I realized > there’s always something missing in our modeling, despite the important > contributions we might offer in terms of explaining large-scale social > trends or broad patterns such as the (obvious) linkages between education > and earnings. We’d conduct national studies – myself included – and > demonstrate that our models often “explained” only 10-20% of the variation > in the outcomes of interest. In some cases, we could do a better job, but > we usually did not. Things only got better once we started to think more > *relationally* and in a more sophisticated and integrated fashion. The > missing ingredient in much sociological analysis? The human *person*! And > how human *persons* were embedded in social networks of relationships, > constrained by pre-existing socio-ecological conditions. Sure, we all > *knew* that this stuff was important, but as a discipline we’ve been > “trained out” of psychology (most of us) and of thinking about how we might > connect the “social” and “cultural” with the “psychological.” We focused on > the general trends and structures, but often ignored the “mechanisms” > involved. Hence we were constrained by our own disciplinary straightjacket. > There are good reasons that most people in the media don’t think, “Hey, > what does sociology have to say about this or that?” We have largely > failed. Oh, and I’ve been part of the “problem” for most of my career by > thinking too narrowly. So, in the second half of my career, I decided to > kill off “Joe, the pure sociologist.” That term will not mean much to most > of you, but pure sociology essentially means sociology without reference to > psychology or any other scientific discipline. > > In time, I read most of Gregg’s work and much more stuff across the > various disciplines, hoping to understand the “bigger picture” and work > toward more integrative framings of the human condition. I’d also done a > second PhD (ABD) at the University of Toronto, which stimulated my thinking > about all kinds of paradigms outside of what I learned in my first PhD and > primed me to be ready for the ToK. I just didn’t know that at the time, but > I guess I somehow “knew” that we could only do so much purely confined to > sociology. I had taught in a graduate program in Mexico too in Spanish > (statistics and research methods) and came to learn that my students there > literally communicated in a different linguistic style, rooted in the > evolution of their own culture and language. Where I was used to more > “linear” thinking (thesis, evidence, conclusion), I was having trouble > following some of the class discussions, which seemed to ramble across all > kinds of different and seemingly unrelated issues. I learned later, > though, that that was their style of communication. We’d start with an > idea, but then travel off the beaten path to consider all kinds of > different issues, before eventually rejoining each other to try to fashion > conclusions. Linguists have studied these issues and have formulated > well-known explanations as to how and why we actually communicate > *differently *in English in the U.S. & Canada than they do in Spanish in > Mexico *beyond* simply language. The language, as many of you probably > know, embedded in the *culture* helps structure reality and how we > communicate. > > That challenged me further to consider the importance of language and how > I communicate, or how to “bridge the gaps” when using different languages > (literally) or across different communities where people might communicate > in different ways, from scientists to Indigenous peoples. And that includes > the use of numbers. I long ago realized that we never “let the facts speak > for themselves.” We certainly “construct” or at least “gather” the facts, > and then we have to “speak” ourselves. We have to share our “facts.” And we > have to “interpret” the facts too. As Gregg has outlined with his > tripartite modeling of Mind, that can be quite a challenge. Yet what choice > do we have as human persons? So, I take the challenge seriously and do the > best that I can, especially in my role as a “scientist” trying to > communicate to diverse peoples from different backgrounds and different > life experiences. But, as mentioned, I had to kill off “Joe, the pure > sociologist,” in the process. > > *Polarization and “Facts”* > > Well, Deepak raised yesterday some interesting concerns about what might > happen in the U.S. As mentioned, I figured most people on the ToK list > probably had thought about these issues and I didn’t want to be flippant or > dismissive or unhelpful. I tried to point out and share a bit of > information about how seriously folks have been considering these matters. > My main point was to confirm that the evidence does indeed suggest a fair > degree of polarization, with many reasons being discussed. I wrote, in > part, “A great many commentators and analysts from different fields are & > have been writing thoughtful pieces on the degree of polarization in the > U.S. The issues are too many to list (I then list 8 issues that I’ve seen > address by various commentators, without discussing or evaluating the > merits of any arguments, or favoring either candidate)… The undeniable > facts are that, at this point, more than 77 million voted for Biden and > more than 72 million voted for Trump. For those who are interested in the > demography of the election results, here's an interesting article from the > Financial Times that breaks down voting % by a number of interesting > characteristics. I'd imagine most informed people here could easily predict > who was more likely to vote Trump or Biden, based on their demographic > characteristics and based on the logic of JUST.” > > The point of my comments and the identification of the vote totals was > precisely to indicate that a high degree of polarization exists in the U.S. > The notable issue is *not* that Biden had more votes by everyone’s > tabulations (yes, literally, every tally I could find), but that well over > 70 million voted for BOTH candidates. One may be ahead by 5 million or more > votes – or one may not believe that to be the case – but the fact is that a > HUGE chunk of the U.S. electorate has supported both Biden *and* Trump. > The value of the UTOK/ToK lies in our ability to map and explain why things > are unfolding as they are, as well as the more controversial issue of how > the information and knowledge can be translated into “wisdom.” JUST allows > us to offer salient hypotheses and predictions (in combination with other > TOK aspects, such as Behavioral Investment Theory and the social “vorces” > that align with the Influence Matrix) as to what demographic or background > characteristics will be more likely to support which candidate. Hence my > contributions at this point almost exclusively focus on the scientific > underpinnings of our models, as I’m more concerned at this point (see > below) about the current dynamics that are affecting our epistemic > approaches to generating credible, reliable knowledge. > > *"Misunderstanding All You See" -- John Lennon* > > Bradley: “I appreciate your missive. My point is that the justification > systems (to keep this discourse within the frame of TOK, and away from > straw-man argumentation) at odds with one another existing in the political > sphere MUST be rectified within an overarching justification system. This > justification system is NOT AP, the mainstream media, Fox News, or Alex > Jones, for that matter. The Justification System that reigns supreme in > the United States is the Constitution, (apparently) as decided within the > Courts, Congress and the Executive. I think we would agree on this.” > > Unfortunately, this completely misunderstands the point of our (Gregg and > myself, as well as perhaps others on the list and beyond) theoretical > framing of justification systems theory. One key argument is that there are *several > different* justification systems, which is part of what we track and try > to explain in sociology and what Gregg’s system accommodates as well. We > are not advocating or supporting one “Justification System” (that) reigns > supreme in the United States.” Yes, the Supreme Court sits atop the *legal > hierarchy*, i.e., it’s the highest court in the land. If there are *legal* issues > to be resolved, then, yes, people can use the courts and, at times, cases > rise to the level of the Supreme Court, where issues are provisionally > resolved. In terms of the 2020 presidential election, there are several > court challenges as to potentially fraudulent voting practices across > various *states *that have been or currently are being adjudicated. And, > if the evidence proves compelling, there may be changes to some of the vote > count totals. Georgia already plans a recount in any event. > > If cases do end up in the SC, then eventually rulings are rendered, > precedents are set, and the SC may or may not tweak the law on such matters > in the future. No one disputes any of that. What the Supreme Court does > *not* do, however, is operate as a substitute for science. Indeed, > science is a separate Justification System with different evidentiary > standards. I pursue science, as that’s my expertise, and attempt to make > accurate factual claims based on the available data, as well as offer > *theories* in my efforts to try to explain observed patterns. In all of > these efforts, I can be “wrong” or misguided – and forever am looking at > new evidence and possible sources of error in my reasoning. It’s a > never-ending process, at least for me, since I’m not omniscient and claim > no privileged view of reality. > > And here’s where Bradley’s statement completely misunderstands my efforts: > “I felt obligated to reject your assertion, as it was *based upon faulty > authority, not by the numeric values presented.* It appeared to be a > partisan statement, and outside the bounds of the intellectual pursuit > here, in some manner.” This is the meta-problem of much current thinking in > the U.S., IMHO. In my effort to buttress my argument that the U.S. is > extremely polarized, I stated that “The undeniable facts are that, at this > point, more than 77 million voted for Biden and more than 72 million voted > for Trump.” I’m attempting to make a *scientific statement of fact*, > based on the best available evidence. I explained my methodology yesterday > for how I arrived at that claim, focusing especially on the importance of > triangulating sources to try to offer the most reasonable summary claim > possible. I’ve now actually examined 10 different sources to evaluate their > “numbers” – not in terms of their “politics” or political leanings, but in > terms of reporting what the current tabulations are off the presidential > vote tallies for Biden and Trump. These include the Associated Press, The > Economist, CBC, BBC, The Guardian, CNN, Bloomberg, NBC News, Fox, and The > Independent. The absolute *lowest* figures I could find anywhere were > 77,492,385 for Biden and 72,309,171 for Trump. Hence I offered my statement > as “factual” in describing the minimum votes totals for both candidates. If > simply reporting the best information available is now “partisan,” then > perhaps you can see why that might be a problem. > > Thus Bradley appears to reject any and all sources of the current vote > totals because these are, in his view, “based on faulty authority.” That’s > an increasingly widespread practice in the U.S., as I explain below. I > certainly understand that people may not “trust” the media, or view the > media as *slanted *politically one way or the other in favor of a > particular bias. In fact, those of us (myself included) who study these > issues can and have documented entrenched patterns of “confirmation bias” > and the tendency of people to watch news outlets that align with their > perspective or their own “echo chambers.” And that’s why I am always > careful with my statements of “fact” and the sources & methodologies > involved. I only “report” that at least 77 million voted for Biden and at > least 72 million voted for Trump NOT because I have my own political views > or biases, but because as a social scientist I looked at all the evidence > I’ve been gathering over several weeks and from every possible credible, > well-established source I could find. When even the most > “conservative”-leaning sites (e.g., Fox News) report figures in excess of > 77 million for Biden and 72 million for Trump, I think I am offering a > responsible, factual claim. > But, as I conceded, *nothing*is “undeniably” true, depending on the > underlying philosophical assumptions that one makes to defend one’s truth > claims. And *that’s the larger problem* we confront in terms of the > public discourse or if we try to make any truth claims in the public arena. > There’s now a pronounced tendency among ever-growing segments (the opinion > polling data confirm this) to doubt the veracity of even what would seem to > be the most straightforward evidence or “facts” that we used to > overwhelmingly agree on in the past. Several important trends can be > observed here. > > For example, even before becoming president, Trump was alleging election > fraud without producing evidence. During his 2016 campaign he claimed the > election was “rigged” in favor of Clinton, predicted widespread voter fraud > and announced he would accept the results of the election only if he won. > The Democrats instead lost the election and, in some cases, pursued > recounts and/or questioned the legitimacy and integrity. But their numbers, > percentage-wise, were *far* less than what we see now among Republicans > in the immediate aftermath of 2020 (see below). But why? Here I’ll quote at > length from an article “Americans Were Primed To Believe The Current > Onslaught Of Disinformation.” I’m not saying everything below is perfectly > correct or the “Truth,” but the arguments presented bear directly on the > current state of affair, i.e., why I can’t even make what I thought would > be an innocuous claim that at least 77 million people voted for Biden and > at least 72 million voted for Trump without being told I'm wrong: > > *Over the past year, Trump has reiterated many of the same baseless > assertions, seizing in particular on mail-in voting, which he maintained > (again without evidence) would lead to fraud. **Whether Trump realized it > or not, he was engaging in something academics call priming. * > > *“Priming is where an external source, a sender of information, is trying > to prime people to think a certain way,” said Mark Whitmore, a professor of > management and information systems at Kent State University who has studied > misinformation and cognitive bias. “One of the ways in which priming occurs > is through partisanship. When that happens, people have a greater tendency > to think along the lines of whatever party they feel they belong to.” * > > *When people are already primed to think about a topic in a certain way, > it can lead them to seek out information that confirms their existing > beliefs. A study published in 2016, for example, primed participants to > consider either their political views or personal views on health care > before evaluating factual statements about the Affordable Care Act, or > “Obamacare.” The researchers found that when participants were primed to > think about their partisan leanings, Democrats were more likely to evaluate > positive outcomes of the ACA as based on strong evidence, and Republicans > were more likely to evaluate those same outcomes as based on weak evidence. > But when primed to consider their personal views on health care, the gulf > between the two groups narrowed. * > > *There’s also the illusory truth effect: a phenomenon in which the more > times people are exposed to an idea, the more likely they are to perceive > it as true, regardless of political leanings. Gordon Pennycook, a > behavioral scientist at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, has found > the illusory truth effect can lead people to be more likely to believe > disinformation. That said, this is probably not the only thing influencing > so many people to seek out disinformation around the election, according to > Pennycook. * > > *“I don’t think you need to know about illusory truth to be able to > explain that the things Trump has said made people ready to accept that > fraud was going to happen in the election,” Pennycook said. “Illusory truth > is one aspect of that, but for some people, if they only heard Trump say it > once, that would probably be enough.” * > > So, what has happened? According to a Morning Consult poll of 1,987 > registered voters, 7 in 10 Republicans say the 2020 election was *not* free > and fair: 48% of Republicans say it “definitely” was not free and fair, and > another 22% say it “probably” was not. That’s twice the share of > Republicans who said the race would not be free and fair just before the > election. Yet even for states like Texas and Florida, where Trump is > projected to safely win, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say > the results are reliable. Overall trust in elections plummets among > Republicans: Prior to the election, 68% of GOP voters said they had at > least some trust in the U.S. election system. Post-election, that dropped > to 34%. Democratic trust, meanwhile, jumped from 66% to 78%. > > Among Republicans who believed that the election wasn’t free and fair, 78% > believed that mail-in voting led to widespread voter fraud and 72% believed > that ballots were tampered with — both claims that have made a constant > appearance on the president’s Twitter thread. Like President Donald Trump, > a majority of the people that thought the election was unfair, 84%, said it > benefited Biden. The lack of trust in the election system has led to > Republicans being more skeptical about the election results. Although only > 18% of Republicans had said the results would be unreliable prior to > Election Day, now 64% feel the same way following Biden’s victory. By > contrast, 86% of Democrats say they trust the results. > > Since Trump and the Republican leadership are making claims about voter > fraud and since a clear majority of Republican voters agree, then we should > not be surprised that so many lawsuits have been filed. What’s also > “factually true,” though, is that there appears to be an extremely narrow > range of states being targeted: the legal challenges are occurring only in > states where Trump appears to have lost the popular vote. The arguments > focus on why late-arriving ballots shouldn’t be counted, or that any state > offering mail-in voting and in-person voting was acting unconstitutionally. > At the same time, note that Trump and his allies have *not* filed any > post-election lawsuits in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, and Montana. > All these “battleground states” saw a surge in mail-in voting. The U.S. > Elections Project confirms Florida alone had 4.7 million mail-in ballots. > Yet Trump & allies have not challenged late-arriving ballots or the entire > election system itself in a single county or state where the president is > the projected winner, even though down-ballot Republicans in those states > lost races or are on track to lose as the dragged-out vote count rolls on. > > > Apparently the same alleged “voter fraud” practices were not extended to > the Senate and House races, but seemingly just focused on the presidency. > Consider North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Before the election, Republicans > sought to nullify decisions that allowed both states to extend the window > of time post-election to accept mail-in ballots. Republicans a week after > the election are challenging the validity of those late-arriving ballots > only in Pennsylvania. But with Trump and Republican Senator Thom Tillis > projected to win in North Carolina, the GOP appears to have dropped its > legal effort to block the counting of those same kinds of properly > postmarked ballots that arrive after election day. > > *A Second Death* > > What happens if there are no reliable “facts” any longer or if anyone and > everyone’s discredited because they cannot be trusted? And what if the > system cannot be trusted? In addition to the problem of getting everyone to > agree on whether or not a certain person won the presidency, under what > circumstances will people believe anything about an alleged pandemic (for > example)? Who’s going to trust an Anthony Fauci, for example? Some may, but > many do not. And he has even received death threats for simply *trying to > present the case for the pandemic, the “numbers,” and possible integrated > responses*. > > Whether you agree with Fauci or not, or whether he’s “right” or not, my > point is that the many in the U.S. now are divided even on the science > behind COVID-19 and “best practices.” While one can certainly dispute the > metrics being used for international comparisons, almost everyone agrees > that the U.S. in general continues to suffer far more disastrous effects > from COVID-19 than most other countries. I’m not saying what the U.S. > “should do” about COVID-19. I’m simply saying that I wouldn’t even dare try > to say what the “testing rate” or the “death rate” might be, or try to > explain why there are more nuanced issues involved, even if I were the > world’s most renowned expert in the field. I would not be confident that I > could have a reasonable discussion in the U.S., because no matter how I > framed the issue, I’d be attached for my “political biases” and my > “scientific knowledge” would be questioned, or assumed to lack credibility, > etc. > > And that’s my second death. I died first as a “pure sociologist,” and died > again thinking I could ever contribute something useful academically or > intellectually in an environment where so people no longer value science, > much less any of my “theories” or “explanations” of human behavior. As > mentioned, I think at this point I’d rather just “shut up and sing” > (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D3B-5F2c-5FELmgI-26feature-3Dyoutu.be&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nWWjkLmkn9YcIdgPBH8mju5gPVOP9MH8Ixr8xwLRq_w&s=gwlD1CtgKHKPQ4CicKWPPK9qIH6hlJMrHdtLaGss1Rc&e= > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D3B-5F2c-5FELmgI-26feature-3Dyoutu.be&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lZhLxVLbAMO8DSXwTXR784r_rS7brthJzDiOOtzBY8E&s=QJewAywqZeggwVsfTvjPcqMISoOEa7eaT9WpHH3lfzI&e=>) > or build people decks & stuff like I did this past summer (see 2 attached > examples). They seem to like this stuff a lot more than me trying to share > anything “scientific”. Everyone apparently already knows the truth anyway. > How ironic, eh? Because I certainly don’t know “the truth,” and I’ve spent > the last 30 years trying to learn the truth and share what I know as best I > can. C’est la vie. C'est la mort. > > > Dr. Joseph H. Michalski > Professor > King’s University College at Western University > 266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201 > London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3 > Tel: (519) 433-3491 > Email: [log in to unmask] > ______________________ > > *ei*π + 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-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the > following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <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