WHAT OTHER forms of knowing?
Well to keep it short (there’s a lot on this) we humans have a range of ways of ‘knowing’ something, other than primary inputs (which can equally well be imagined as in a hallucination). (Unbounded Mind – Mitroff & Linstone.
One is that those we consider experts agree on an issue. So agreement is a means of knowing. It has limitations however in that there are no checks on agreement. As Bertrand Russell said ‘If 50,000 people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing’.
Another way of ‘knowing’ is as the result of a formula or logic chain (world as formula) that we believe to be rigorous. 3 x 3 = 9 is a particularly simple form of this. Science uses both agreement (peer review) and ‘world as formula’ as ways of ‘knowing’. Without those characteristics, most science would be rejected.
Result of conflict is another way – for example our Courts use conflict (between opposing barristers) to argue against a case (another way of knowing, the obverse of agreement) and then a jury uses ‘agreement’ to reach a conclusion (depending on the Court etc).
I write as well as I can. I cannot know in advance how others might interpret my words. I apologise if anything that I said appears derogatory, or challenging, except where I explicitly challenge.
Let me remake the case that I was advancing.
1)Some residents of Rosebery have exhibited adverse physical symptoms that have been diagnosed by a doctor as due to heavy metal poisoning.
2)The medical authorities do not appear to be acting to protect, or otherwise deal with, the health of those residents, instead they are equivocating about scientific proofs.
3)The residents, by dint of paying Australian taxes, are entitled to the same consideration that any other sick person should receive.
4)By dismissing or delaying the concerns of those affected, the government is displaying a lack of empathy with the victims.
It is the lack of empathy which denotes to many voters that the government doesn’t care about the people. If that doesn’t send out big signals to other voters, I would be very surprised. That is why I thought you may have been able to make useful comment, not about the situation of the victims but about the result of a government, which hopes to be elected via political processes, displaying a clear lack of care (emotion) for the voters at large.
To be honest, I cannot really differentiate the signals presented by the government in the Rosebery case, from those created by the NW oyster poisoning concerns. Or the signals given when the promised pulp mill assessment was subverted.
5)Some oyster farmers in St Helens have complained that their oysters are suffering/dying. Tests indicate that the fresh water supplying where the oysters are farmed could be toxic
6)Humans in the area appear to be exhibiting rising rates of mixed cancers. The local doctor is concerned about the pattern of illness
7)The medical authorities do not appear to be acting to protect, or otherwise deal with, the health of those residents, instead they are equivocating about scientific proofs.
8)The residents, by dint of paying Australian taxes, are entitled to the same consideration that any other sick person should receive.
9)By dismissing or delaying the concerns of those affected, the government is displaying a lack of empathy with the victims.
It looks awesomely similar.
You should know that I do not try to evade debate by using terms like ‘common sense’. There is such a concept and it can be quite useful however I would agree that it is misused frequently, and that many people do not seem to have any of it, despite its name.
I do not believe I am trying to dismiss you at all. I am trying to understand your position which isn’t easy when everything is filtered through a keyboard and Tasmanian Times 5,000 character limit. I was also advancing a different position for the reasons that I outlined.
Notice that you spend a lot of time defining and describing what I (and others) said and your reaction to it whereas I choose to spend relatively little time doing that. The reason is that it’s too easy to dive into nitpicking details and there result too many lengthy and obtuse sounding explanations that only expand the need for further explanation.
So I will repeat, my interest was in the thread itself and the nature of the ‘discussion’ that was going on. That discussion is eerily reminiscent of the nonsense in the parliament and in the newspapers, and in meetings and on blogs. It is not dialogue, it is 2 parties shouting at each other across a void that never appears to be either acknowledged or addressed. Look at the pattern in the numbered lists – that pattern seems to keep recurring over time (world as formula).
So I will repeat, my interest was in the thread itself and the nature of the ‘discussion’ that was going on. That discussion is eerily reminiscent of the nonsense in the parliament and in the newspapers, and in meetings and on blogs. It is not dialogue, it is 2 parties shouting at each other across a void that never appears to be either acknowledged or addressed. Look at the pattern in the numbered lists – that pattern seems to keep recurring over time (world as formula).
I was not evincing surprise at your reactions, they are uniquely yours. Neither am I criticising you for them.
I was saying that as a person of seemingly greater insight than many on the thread, you were in a position (in my view) to advance our understanding of the situation whereas (again in my view) you appear to have chosen stone throwing (figurative). Perhaps there are unassailable reasons but that doesn’t change my position at all.
When you say things like – If “moving on” consists of heading towards a world in which the nonsensical public beatups are rewarded with compromise in the name of “empathy” then it is overrated.” that does indicate a rather closed and inflexible attitude to the situation.
I wasn’t, and do not, advocate compromise in the name of empathy. Instead I believe that empathy enables us to better understand another’s situation, it helps us communicate and find common ground (No not OCG) and it guides us as to what actions may be needed to deal with a situation involving other people.
Of course you may be one of the 4 -6% of people that don’t experience empathy in which case you wouldn’t appreciate my point at all.
As a new Tasmanian (10 years) I get tired of seeing and reading the same old arguments trotted out over and over again to justify more of the same. I realise that is a problem for me and that going somewhere else is an option, but I don’t like to give up so easily.
Tasmania has a lot more potential that its people seem able to realise (in the full sense of the word) and I for one am not interested in joining with either the herd or the stone throwers.
I prefer to think independently. Thank you for your kind response.
Posted by Mike Bolan on 20/02/10 at 09:02 PM
There are lots of typical mistakes that non-scientists, particularly non medical researchers, make when confronted by scenarios that seem ‘obvious’ by so-called inductive thinking. Also, non medical researchers, and many clinicians with no research training, also can make mistakes when applying principles of quality evidence (or levels of evidence) to a particular scenario.
A good scientist when confronted, for example, by a disease cluster may well come up with hypotheses on a potential range of causes. The key then is to formulate the best way to test the hypotheses, establishing a methodologically sound framework of data collection and analysis. And if you are a good scientist, you should be prepared to be wrong if the data say so, and then move on to another hypothesis.
A clinical researcher may not necessarily do any experimentation, but may potentially make a judgement or suggest a set of actions on a possible scenario based on quality evidence from a range of other studies eg how likely would disease cluster X be due to A, B and C. ie this is a judgement on likelihood and action based on a scientific analysis of the extant quality literature.
If you have worked anywhere near cancer (eg NE Tasmania) or neurological disease (eg NW Tasmania), you would know that the great majority of all cancers and neurological conditions cannot be placed at the foot of one root cause, requiring a complex mix of genetics, ageing and a range of environmental factors.
What is more likely than a so-called cancer or neurological disease cluster being a real single-factor related phenomenon is that people will read into the flimsiest of evidence a confirmation of their bias.ie if they are already sold on an anti-government and/or anti-forestry position, then they will come to agree rather quickly, albeit likely subconsciously for some, that either of these sectors are to blame for some kind of ill. And they will not be swayed by pointing out that this kind of faulty thinking is more about their own psychological filters, rather than reflecting the quality of evidence.
Posted by Tomas on 20/02/10 at 09:17 PM
