permaculture

[jedd <jedd@progsoc.org>]

On Sun, 13 May 2007, Jody Troupe wrote:
> I certainly understand the reluctance of some to believe this - that is
> your prerogative.

 Hi Jody,

 There's a few problems I have with this (and other similar beliefs).

 I'm not expecting you to advocate that I believe what you believe, so
 don't think that I'm demanding you exhaust any energy (so to speak).

 Nonetheless, I can't bear witness to certain claims and illogic sans
 comment.

> I will say that Mr. Mcmoneagle brought up the goat incident and
> told us that it that it was a bunch of bunk. He personally knew the
> guy that had the reputation for having 'killed a goat by staring'
> and that was NEVER a fact.

 Ron Johnson did some good research into this.

 But I'm unsure if you're suggesting it's bunk that a goat died (from
 being stared at or merely incidental to a well timed glance) or if
 it's bunk that the US gov was paying the wages of goat starers.

 It's unsurprising, really, that in such areas of dubious speculation
 dressed up as pseudoscience, that there'll be lots of finger pointing
 to and fro between the would be practitioners.  It's one thing that
 the scientific method has going for it -- it tends to preclude, by
 its definition, such shoddy self-assessment methods.

> I met this man personally, heard his stories, and my gut feeling
> was that he was sincere in all he relayed to our class.

 I think there are two possible explanations for such a feeling - the
 first is that the person is genuine and sincere in their beliefs and
 that sincerity is apparent to anyone who meets them.  The second
 is that the person is sufficiently talented to convince other people
 that they are telling the truth.

 Do you accept that it is effectively impossible, by definition, to
 distinguish between those two alternatives?

 Of course, in the first scenario, how their beliefs match reality is
 an entirely separate matter again.

> Valid remote viewing (which does exist) is conducted under very 
> strict protocol; double-blind so as to ensure no tainting of the
> experiment. 

 Hmmm .. I've not heard of any validated results that back this
 claim up.  I know there's lots of non-validated, non-repeatable,
 open to interpretation results that don't back it up - but that's
 less compelling.

 Can you point me in the direction of such research please?

 (If it's any consolation, I react similarly when talking to self-
 described dowsers.)

> People used to not believe in chiropractic treatments, or acupuncture.
> Now both are being
> covered by insurance because studies have proven their effectiveness.
> The world used to be
> flat; the sun revolved around the earth. Gravity is only beginning to
> be understood.
>
> Science is a developing thing and certainly not complete.

 I find this kind of spurious argument slightly offensive.

 A lot of people with *beliefs* on a given subject will use this
 faulty syllogism as proof positive that their belief du jour is
 ineluctably going to be accepted by science Real Soon Now.

 Or worse, that because most thinking people discount their beliefs,
 those beliefs inherently have credibility.

 Out of curiosity, and apropos to little, do you (and anyone else
 that's read this far) think that Permaculture is a science or an art?

 Jedd.