Reputable sources

[Taomeow]

Overheard my son make a brilliant argument in a politically sensitive dispute with a longtime friend of his.  In confirmation of his take my son sent this friend some links, and the friend pooh-poohed the information in the usual (for such debates) manner: "that's just some dingy such-and-such-wing website, it's not a reputable source!"  I thoroughly enjoyed my son's response:

 

"Dude.  Remember when, back in high school, we wanted weed and would go get it?  Remember how we had to cross over Passaic River into this dingy, unfriendly and unsafe territory where, however, weed could be procured?  Or how we had to deal with Archie the dealer, a shady enough character, or else ask Tom for an introduction to his dealer who was only a little less shady but a lot more expensive?  Now why were we so stupid as to not go to a reputable source, huh?  Why didn't we go to CVS next door, or to Rite Aid a few blocks away, to get our weed?  Mighty reputable drug dealers, aren't they?  Oh...  but CVS and Rite Aid didn't have any weed to sell.  None.  Ever.  And if we tried insisting at the CVS counter that we wanted weed, not bubble gum, they might have even called the cops on us?..  Well...  there's a lot of information out there these days that you can't buy from CVS, nor from any other 'reputable source.'  If you want to obtain specific information, you need to cross Passaic River to get it -- at your own risk -- and then use your own senses to ascertain its quality.  But when we wanted weed, it didn't stop us, remember?.."    

[Taomeow]

,

Edited February 3, 2023 by Taomeow

[liminal_luke]

 

This short clip (courtesy of a Mark's Daily Apple link) made me think of this thread.  (1) James Melville on Twitter: "A must watch. “We are going to kill ourselves because of stupidity.” ~ Allan Savory https://t.co/Lhol1uyV4v" / Twitter

[Taomeow]

4 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

This short clip (courtesy of a Mark's Daily Apple link) made me think of this thread.  (1) James Melville on Twitter: "A must watch. “We are going to kill ourselves because of stupidity.” ~ Allan Savory https://t.co/Lhol1uyV4v" / Twitter

 

Somehow this reminded me of a real-life experience of long ago...  When I was in my early teens, my father, an engineer/physicist, was approached by the director of the local beer brewery, a huge one, producing beer by the millions of buckets.  State owned of course, like everything else then and there.  They ran into a technical problem with their process, a serious one, which beer scientists and engineers were unable to solve.  Apparently the tech for solving it didn't exist and whenever they tried approaching specialists, top authorities in the field, they hit a wall -- "nothing can be done, it is what it is."  I don't remember the details, but somehow -- miraculously, accidentally, via out-of-the-box research, don't really know how -- it came to the director's attention that my father's PhD thesis, which had nothing whatsoever to do with beer production and everything to do with aluminum, described a production process that ran into a similar problem and successfully solved it. 

 

The brewery, upon discussion, commissioned an invention.  My father was asked to invent some equipment based on the same idea he used for the aluminum thing but applied to beer fermentation.  I remember those days -- while he was working on that invention, he had to visit the brewery often, and our home was awash in fresh top-of-the-line beer which he always brought back and which I was too young to appreciate.  After the job was completed, it worked so well that that improvement was eventually adopted at all major breweries in the country.  Alas, the country had the kind of laws that prevented my father from patenting the invention and becoming a billionaire, but the point is, specialists in that particular field couldn't think out of the box enough to solve the problem -- took someone from an altogether different area of knowledge to crack that nut.  Kudos to the brewery director for having an open enough mind not to cringe at the thought that someone whose only prior beer technology expertise was limited to knowing how to pop a lid off the bottle might figure it out.  Well, he did try the specialists first.  All of them...       

Edited March 18, 2023 by Taomeow

[liminal_luke]

That's a great anecdote.  I know you've written poetry and I've heard talk of a novel.  Those works are/will be wonderful, I'm sure.  Personally, I like to take the long bet and am waiting for a memoir. 

Edited March 18, 2023 by liminal_luke

[Taomeow]

A fable.

A man came to the usurer and said,
- Sir, lend me one dollar, I absolutely have no money,  can't buy any food.
- Why not? - the moneylender said. - But I charge a sizable percentage. In a month you will have to give me two dollars.  It's the law.
- I'll give it to you, I will! - the man said.
- OK,-- the usurer said. - But we can't do it without a collateral. It's the law. What do you have to pledge?
- Only my axe...
- An axe? Fine. Give it to me.  Here's your dollar. And remember - in a month you will bring me two dollars, and you will get the axe back.
- I'll bring it to you, I will! - the man said, took the dollar and was about to leave.
- Wait! - the usurer shouted after him. - Giving me two dollars, it will be hard for you, right?
- It's hard, sir, very hard...
- Here's how we can make it easier for you.  We'll do you a favor, as the law stipulates. You can give it back in parts. Will it be easier for you?
- Easier, sir, it would be easier, oh my benefactor!
- Then give me one dollar right now, and the second dollar at the end of the month.  Deal?
- Deal!
The man then goes home and thinks,
“So. I don’t have any money. I don’t have my axe. And I still owe a dollar...  But the important thing is, everything is perfectly legal!"  

[Taomeow]

Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 Questions, edited by Anne-Marie Blondeau and Katia Buffetrille. Foreword by Donald Lopez. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008, pp. 81–84.

What were the conditions regarding human rights in Tibet before democratic reform? [Questions 12, 13, and 92, 2001]

Before 1959, all except 5 percent of the Tibetan population were slaves or serfs in a feudal system in which they were regarded as saleable private property, had no land or freedom, and were subject to punishment by mutilation or amputation [from both the 1989 and 2001 editions]. The serfs were liable to be tortured or killed [from the 1989 edition]. Economy and culture were stagnant for centuries, life expectancy was 35.5 years, illiteracy was over 90 percent, 12 percent of Lhasa’s population were beggars, and the Dalai Lama was responsible for all of this [from the 2001 edition].

[liminal_luke]

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 Questions, edited by Anne-Marie Blondeau and Katia Buffetrille. Foreword by Donald Lopez. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008, pp. 81–84.

What were the conditions regarding human rights in Tibet before democratic reform? [Questions 12, 13, and 92, 2001]

Before 1959, all except 5 percent of the Tibetan population were slaves or serfs in a feudal system in which they were regarded as saleable private property, had no land or freedom, and were subject to punishment by mutilation or amputation [from both the 1989 and 2001 editions]. The serfs were liable to be tortured or killed [from the 1989 edition]. Economy and culture were stagnant for centuries, life expectancy was 35.5 years, illiteracy was over 90 percent, 12 percent of Lhasa’s population were beggars, and the Dalai Lama was responsible for all of this [from the 2001 edition].

 

Yikes!  First I find out that the FDA can't be trusted, then I'm told the climate is continuously changing quite apart from human activity, and now this.  Are none of my assumptions about the world rooted in reality?

 

(Luke returns to his tea, content, at least for the time being, to leave the geopolitical questions of the day unanswered.)

Edited April 16, 2023 by liminal_luke

[Taomeow]

6 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

Are none of my assumptions about the world rooted in reality?

 

 

Only the  "everybody knows" kind coming Urbi et Orbi (as the Pope of Rome would put it) from the mass dispensers.  If you have any of those you can fully trust them to be rooted in anything but reality.  

  

Speaking of the Pope of Rome...  no, I think you've had enough for one day.

 

And Mother Theresa, the monster that she was... no, I'll stop right there. 

 

Apologies.      

[liminal_luke]

5 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

Only the  "everybody knows" kind coming Urbi et Orbi (as the Pope of Rome would put it) from the mass dispensers.  If you have any of those you can fully trust them to be rooted in anything but reality.  

  

Speaking of the Pope of Rome...  no, I think you've had enough for one day.

 

And Mother Theresa, the monster that she was... no, I'll stop right there. 

 

Apologies.      

 

Oh, no apologies necessary.  IMO, you are the forum's foremost dispeller of mass dispensed assumptions and some of us (me, anyway) appreciate and admire you for it.  We all would if there was any justice in the world but unfortunately....

 

[Gerard]

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

And Mother Theresa, the monster that she was... no, I'll stop right there. 

 

Apologies.      

 

Why? No need. It's good stuff exposing the truth.

 

You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion. (L. Ron Hubbard)

 

Mother Theresa's religion.

 

Another wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

Religion is literally littered with wolves at all levels. 

 

[Taomeow]

Every single message should be met with these 3 questions:

1) what do they want me to feel; 

2) what do they want me to do;

3) who gains from me feeling this or doing this.

[old3bob]

the amazing thing is that Spirit will work with or through anything it can,  something that is hard to see if we put limits on it.

[wandelaar]

Who needs science? Much better to collect anecdotes to substantiate your own preconceptions. And when science says the same thing you already thought to be the case anyhow, well then by all means go ahead and quote the scientists. Welcome to the post-truth era.

[Taomeow]

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Who needs science? Much better to collect anecdotes to substantiate your own preconceptions. And when science says the same thing you already thought to be the case anyhow, well then by all means go ahead and quote the scientists. Welcome to the post-truth era.

 

What exactly is "science" and who exactly are "scientists"?  I come from 4 generations of Ph.D.s -- in fact, my great-grandfather was one of the pioneers of a whole new science -- but none of these people ever thought that the definition of "science" is "whatever is profitable for a corporation and heavily promoted by a mainstream authority getting a cut of the profits."  They had entirely different definitions.  What's yours?  

[silent thunder]

Institutional Science has become as embarrassingly dogmatic in some areas as the old priesthoods.  You either repeat the assumptions handed down by The great god Materialism and the unsupported assumptions of the priesthood of the Cartesian Model and molecular biology; or you are reviled, rejected and driven out.  Marked heretic and ostracised.

 

True Science occurs precisely where there are unanswered questions, freely explored... Not where there are unquestionable assumptions endlessly repeated, that it is heresy to question.

 

Though the tide seems to be shifting...  Sheldrake, Haramein, Bohm, Hoffman to mention a few.

 

 

 

 

[searcher7977]

19 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

What exactly is "science" and who exactly are "scientists"?  I come from 4 generations of Ph.D.s -- in fact, my great-grandfather was one of the pioneers of a whole new science -- but none of these people ever thought that the definition of "science" is "whatever is profitable for a corporation and heavily promoted by a mainstream authority getting a cut of the profits."  They had entirely different definitions.  What's yours?  

 

^{I think one very good definition of science is simply the scientific method, which includes the results of said method. Scientists would be anyone who applies the scientific method. Of course, it is important to recognize the limitations or common problems of the scientific method, namely restriction to what can be observed and measured, and isolated reductionism. But, that does not negate the immense usefulness of it.}

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method}

 

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by searcher7977

[Taomeow]

On 5/25/2023 at 10:14 AM, searcher7977 said:

 

^{I think one very good definition of science is simply the scientific method, which includes the results of said method. Scientists would be anyone who applies the scientific method. Of course, it is important to recognize the limitations or common problems of the scientific method, namely restriction to what can be observed and measured, and isolated reductionism. But, that does not negate the immense usefulness of it.}

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method}

 

 

 

Yes, that's a good definition.  Too bad most actual practices of life sciences and many in other fields haven't been applying this method since corporate patronage of science went into full swing.