Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] How to decide?

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] How to decide?
  • Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 09:58:36 -0700

Wise words, Daniel. I didn't really think we were very far apart in how we
think about this stuff. I totally agree. Consensus is an indicator, but it
can be corrupted, for sure. It's not enough in itself, by a long shot. Thanks
for this.

Toby
http://patternliteracy.com


On May 7, 2012, at 1:43 AM, Daniel Jager wrote:

> I can't leave this alone, precisely because I also am a scientist, who
> dislikes the "consensus-building" that is being attempted here. It is not
> directed per se to the person in this previous message, but is more a
> generalized critique o how we view the world, and whom we should believe.
>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 11:34:01 -0700
>> From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
>> Subject: [permaculture] How to decide?
>>
>>
>> One way is to look for intellectual honesty and a
>> willingness to put the work up for review, and to address
>> data that don't support their viewpoint. That last is the
>> hallmark of an honest investigation.
>
> And what will protect us from the bias of modern day scientific 'thinking'.
> What will protect us from the entire (scientific) group's 'bias'?
>
> Similarly, I have spent around 18 years among scientists. My view is
> radically different than Tob's though, regarding their integrity, morality
> and objectivity, including their methods. Agreed, most mean well, mean very
> well, but logical thought and strict adherence to 'the method' do not
> compensate for a lack of wisdom and understanding.
> I thought that was why Mollison started permaculture in the first place.
> Quote: "The Forest is our greatest teacher… If you lose the universities,
> you lose nothing. If you lose the forest, you lose everything."
> Nature knows intuitively, but not us (anymore) with our logical and
> systematic probing. That is why I feel affinity with Fukuoka's ideas. It
> dismisses the logical, and dissecting, scientific mind; BUT NOT the careful
> and personal direct observation and awareness.
>
>> There's a big difference in the way scientists work, and the
>> way the deniers work. I spent 20 years in science, and still
>> hang out with lots of scientists, so I know how they work.
>> They almost always start with an observation: like, "hey,
>> temperatures seem higher." Then they ask questions: is
>> what they are seeing real, and if it is, why is it
>> happening? Sometimes they start with a question: are temps
>> rising, falling, or unchanging? Most of them really try to
>> make their experiments honestly ask these questions. If they
>> don't, usually other scientists will rip them a new one;
>> it's too public an endeavor to avoid that. Many new findings
>> get challenged by peers who find holes in the work, a very
>> important part of science, and the researcher then does
>> more, rigorous experiments and either drops the idea or
>> presents more robust findings. Generally, if an idea
>> survives this process, there is some merit in it. It may not
>> be the whole story, but it's been well tested by that
>> point.
>>
>> The deniers, however, start with a theory that they don't
>> like, such as evolution, climate change, or the germ theory,
>> often for political, economic or religious reasons, though
>> not always. But they never start with data. They don't start
>> with a question. They start with a theory they don't like.
>> Then they look only for data and anecdotes that support
>> their view, and they ignore, distort, or hide any data that
>> don't support their view. You can generally find
>> intellectual dishonesty right in the arguments themselves,
>> flawed reasoning, and smokescreens designed to make it look
>> like they have answered an issue when they have just
>> deflected the question. If you see someone hiding or
>> distorting unsupportive facts (as opposed to just worrying
>> about them, a human trait demonstrated in the so-called
>> "climate-gate" emails, where they ended up reporting the
>> unfavorable data, something the deniers never do.), they
>> probably have little merit.
>
> Some "deniers" may accept something on pure faith, sure. Like many people
> accept the scientific "consensus" on pure faith.
> Some non-science educated deniers accept something based on a deep
> "feeling" or intuition, like some scientists work on a gut feeling and
> intuition. Einstein, Newton, Bacon, Huygens, Pythagoras; anyone?
> Some "deniers" work purely from scientific fact, like many mainstream
> scientists touting the "consensus" work purely from scientific fact.
> I don't see the "camps" as that strictly divided.
>
>> And this is why I won't argue the facts with anyone. Because
>> facts can be made up, ignored, zombified, and selected. We
>> then just go round and round, and this is why Oystein left:
>> I wouldn't go round and round, but went to a higher level of
>> logical flaws and integrity, and he took his toys and went
>> home. You have to be willing to do your own investigations
>> and weigh the facts and the quality of arguments from both
>> sides, not just one. It's why I may show a bit of temper
>> when I write about this: because liars piss me off, and then
>> I get mad that people lazily believe them instead of
>> applying themselves to the hard work of investigating.
>
> This is very true. Facts and anecdotes can be made to go round and round.
> Anyone can convince anyone else of almost everything, if such person is
> properly trained in the art of oration (think lawyers and pr-firms,
> anyone?).
>
> My idea about these topics is: If you do not have the guts and stamina to
> try and study or experiment with these ideas on yourself, then in the end
> you know nothing, it is then just borrowed info without understanding. Many
> people don;t realize how dangerous borrowed info actually is.
>
> Personal experimentation or effort is required. Everyone must re-invent
> "the wheel" (so to say) by themselves again. Only then will they "know".
> This is as much true regarding health, climate change, or heck, even
> "permaculture design". Without personal experience and careful observation,
> it is all meaningless.
>
>>
>> Logic, motivation, and integrity are the true signs of
>> whether an argument is worthwhile, not how many facts you
>> can find in a Google search that only looks for things that
>> support you.
>>
>
> My idea is such: The rare True scientist, whether educated as such or not,
> never goes for answers, but stays with the question; the uncertainty; the
> wonder. And to find integrity in this day and age (but also in the past, as
> the Roman saying goes: Quid bono Who benefits?), I would like to add this
> observation I made.
>
> "It is far easier to trust another person's ideas, who has acquired them
> from intuition, hard work, and pure interest, than it is to trust the ideas
> from someone who has used them to create his or her livelihood with them."
>
> As Krishnamurti said: "And so there we are. There are no teachers, no
> authorities, no experts, no gurus at all. We are all alone in this mad
> brutal world."
>
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> subscribe/unsubscribe|user config|list info:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> message archives: https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture/
> Google message archive search:
> site: lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [searchstring]
> Avant Geared http://www.avantgeared.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page