View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
Cockrow Hill Bell Barrow submitted by Andy B : A recent drone image released by Highways England showing the progress of the M25/A3 junction work. I have highlighted the location of the barrow with an arrow (a bit below so as not to obscure it) https://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=18514 |
We are on the cusp of one of those extraordinary developments that might, but usually don't, transform an academic subject. Archaeology is quite used to the fact that public works both discover and destroy archaeological sites. In fact archaeologists have waxed prosperous hiring themselves out to companies whose work discovers sites and then--after the archaeologists have put in a quick report--destroys them.
Archaeology has also got used to aerial photography discovering archaeological sites though in this case not destroying them. That is left to the archaeologists. What it is not used to is drones. In the hands of archaeologists they will no doubt be used responsibly i.e. without disturbing any paradigms. But drones are for everyman. They will do for archeology what metal detectors did for numismatology.
On second thoughts... not much.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
I decided it was time to post up on Medium some principles of Applied Epistemology--I allude to it from time to time on the Medium medium medium. I worked on it sporadically but over a period of time and put my final thoughts up four days ago. Nobody read it! Three people from outside Medium read it--possibly you folks--but that will be it now. Was it worth it? Well I treat my whole medium career as a place to try out stuff so... probably. Anyway, here it is spread over a few posts. I can amend it so feel free to criticise either in detail or in whole.
-------------
World problems and how not to solve them.
A problem only exists because we don�t know how to solve it. Since that is a problem in itself we tell ourselves �we�re solving it�. We hunt feverishly for a solution but, while that�s happening, we create temporary �workarounds� and assume in the fullness of time we�ll find out what�s causing the problem, solve it and ensure it won�t happen again. Meanwhile the workaround does the job. In the fullness of time, we have a tendency to assume the workaround was the solution.
The technique, effective though it is, carries a grave danger. In applied epistemology, it is called �careful ignoral�. Ignorance may be bliss but if �careful ignorance� is necessary it could be storing up trouble. Take the latest Big One to hit us, the COVID pandemic. We still don�t know what caused it but we�ve dealt with it. We worked around it. Are we busy looking for what caused COVID so it doesn�t happen again? Mmm�
Having dealt with COVID, we�re not all that bothered about pandemics in general. We weren�t much bothered about them before COVID, so pandemics are unlikely to hurtle up the world�s agenda now we�ve dealt with the one that was. We have tacitly adopted a policy of �next time it happens, we�ll know what to do� even though we�re not sure what did happen or what we did.
We�re not bothered about it, that�s the important thing.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
It is the benchmark for all �world problems�. We can be ludicrously complacent about ones that might polish us off but go into total meltdown about ones of almost-nil importance. (Don�t ask, one of them will be your pet peeve and I will have made an enemy for life if I dismiss it as relatively insignificant.)
This is not necessarily a bad strategy. It may be a case of �what doesn�t kill us makes us stronger�, a nostrum that should otherwise be approached with extreme caution. Pandemics, for example, come and go and we ride them out. The human race, we have discovered, has plenty of spare capacity so even the worst one on record � the Black Death � was scarcely more than an actuarial blip in the relentless advance of humanity. To be honest, the Black Death helped rather than hindered the relentless advance. As long as you weren�t around at the time.
By the by, we still don�t know what caused the Black Death. We have chosen to believe it was pathogens carried by fleas and spread by rats but is that true or is it just careful ignoral? Let�s ask the two contending authorities:
The world�s leading expert on pandemics is on Mastermind and is asked, �What spread the pathogens that caused the Black Death?� He (or she) answers, �Rats,� and Magnus Magnusson says, �Correct.� |
The world�s leading applied epistemologist is on Mastermind. He (or she) answers the same question with, �We don�t know.� Magnus says, �You passed on the Black Death, the answer was �rats�.� The applied epistemologist says, �Rats.� |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
We reached our COVID position in much the same way, as can be illustrated using that applied epistemological standby, the ten-step programme (there is a technical reason why there are ten, which I�ll tell you about some other time):
(1) COVID is being studied with great intensity by the best scientific minds all around the globe. Except what caused it. That is being carefully ignored. Or being blamed on Chinese intransigence since nobody likes to admit they�re not doing what they should be doing.
(2) When we say �the best scientific minds� we are referring to people trained and grown to eminence in western-style universities and research institutes. That means they have all been trained in the same way, using the same data sets and operating to the same paradigms and parameters.
(3) They won�t necessarily all come to the same conclusion but the conclusions won�t vary much and gradually, thanks to the magic of peer review, they will coalesce into one �generally accepted explanation�.
(4) Since academia operates by internal recruitment, promotion and promulgation, has no external supervision and is the highest authority for these kinds of questions, this will become in due time the only explanation. Students are not typically taught more than one in the brief time available for COVID explanations, they are taught the generally accepted one.
(5) When those students become in their turn academics they will teach it not as �the generally accepted explanation� but as the �cause of COVID�. This is not dishonest, it is just the way universities, the human mind and reliance on old lecture notes operate. Suffice it to say, within a single generation there will not only be a single explanation, it will be the �known explanation�. If it is already known, there is no reason to consider alternatives.
Only three sets of people will be interested in exploring these alternatives.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
(6) The first is dissident academics � yes, they do exist. And they are damned dangerous. They speak the language, they know where the bodies are buried, they might easily acquire a standing in the world beyond academia. Nor do they have to be right, the mere news that accredited academics are searching for alternatives undermines faith in the Standard Explanation. �If the experts are having doubts, why the hell should the rest of us give it the time of day?� That is why dissident academics are treated as heretics and cease to be academics ASAP.
(7) The second set of alternative-seekers is a much larger group and wholly divorced from academia. From polite society in general. They are the crazies with their conspiracy theories, bad science and reluctance to use joined up thinking. Or rather join up any stray thought that happens to occur to one of them and off it flies on internet wings to take its place among the others. However, the looney-tunes are useful because of their tenaciousness in amassing data and their fecundity with off-the-wall theorising. Like spaghetti, one of them may stick.
(8) The third group consists of what we might term �metathinkers� (and includes applied epistemologists). People who are aware, for one reason or another, that �the known explanation� is in reality a �best guess hypothesis�. They know from study and experience there is no guarantee it will be the correct solution. Indeed, they know there is good reason to suppose it won�t be. Correct solutions tend to have quite dramatic effects as they cascade through the intellectual firmament; incorrect ones just sort of �hang around�, being taught and learned without much cognitive traction. It is not difficult to recognise the difference.
(9) But beware! Successful Best Guess Hypotheses have been arrived at not because they were nearest-the truth, but because they were best fitted to act as �workarounds�. For example, global warming being caused by the greenhouse effect is a Best Guess Hypothesis and that has produced immense traction. It has caused the whole world to change its ways. Whether that means it has mended its ways remains to be seen.
(10) Yes, well, that�s why we use the ten-step technique. It�s always the tenth one that�s important. The one that leads to some real head scratching. I hope to God it isn�t fleas.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
I actually think that rival paradigms did develop during Covid.
Once it became clear that Covid was a critical moment, and could not be solved in the short term, it was a case of how best to manage. The world divided into camps, those that opted for the Chinese/WHO European lockdown model, ie, it's the governments job to look after the people, the country, the health service, and let's say those that didn't, or in many cases (poorer nations) couldn't.
Perhaps the most interesting in the latter camp was the South Koreans, who were an example of "Cities First". Unlike in Europe where we have a suspicion of technology, Koreans (fearing a catastrophic wipe out) in the big cities, saw track and trace as the best solution to their survival, so logically demanded more and more track and trace from their government, whilst also demanding that this was then done nationwide.
It will of course eventually happen here. The Lockdown is a primitive desperate response. It's only because we oldies, townies and country folk have a catastrophic fear of modern information technology infringing our privacy that we don't take advantage of the tech now.
Let's give a free smart phone to all, and then stand and clap, track and trace.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
I actually think that rival paradigms did develop during Covid. |
Rival theories, not paradigms... unless you say what they are.
Once it became clear that Covid was a critical moment |
After about a week!
and could not be solved in the short term |
You'll have to explain this. I never heard anyone saying it couldn't be 'solved' in either the short or long term.
it was a case of how best to manage. The world divided into camps, those that opted for the Chinese/WHO European lockdown model, ie, it's the government's job to look after the people, the country, the health service, and let's say those that didn't, or in many cases (poorer nations) couldn't. |
This is in itself interesting because of course the normal way to manage similar diseases is to do nothing at all. The rest of your post describes the various management models and not relevant here except insofar as being an example of you/yourself them/themselves falling into the
In the fullness of time, we have a tendency to assume the workaround was the solution. |
trap.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
Another in my rolling programme to bring applied epistemology to the masses via medium.com
----------------
Donald Trump And The Lowest Common Denominator
Applied epistemology specialises in things everyone (else) gets wrong. We don�t make a lot of progress because when everyone�s getting it wrong together, anyone who says different is ipso facto a looney tune. And we get it wrong ourselves sufficiently often to give that belief plausibility.
This also applies when there are two groups of people saying the same (but opposite) things. Should applied epistemologists intervene to point out error, each group assumes they belong to the rival group. Since lots of questions have only two answers, yes/no, they are often right in this assumption. On this question. But once you�ve been placed on the wrong side for anything, that�s it for you, chummy. You�re not allowed to pick and choose when it�s the righteous vs the ungodly.
It is though possible to set up a situation under controlled conditions where not only is everyone wrong, it can be demonstrated they are wrong. It is instructive to see how individuals react when it is demonstrated to them. Here�s an example. [You have to spot the error.]
�Donald Trump�s policies are really stupid.�
�But they�re very popular.�
�Well, yes, he can always appeal to the lowest common denominator but when you examine them in any detail they fall to pieces.�
�That may be so, but they should be given a chance. What�s there to lose, the state we�re in?� |
Did you spot it? You spotted things you thought were wrong � and they may well be wrong � but they were not demonstrably wrong. The one demonstrable error in that exchange was the use of the phrase �lowest common denominator�. The speaker meant �highest common factor�.
Of course you don�t agree just because I�ve said so � nobody agrees with applied epistemologists, remember � but unfortunately you will have to agree in the end because you learned all about highest common factors and lowest common denominators at school so either you get with the program or start doubting everything they taught you at school. Your choice, bub.
You think a Lowest Common Denominator is a small number because it has the word 'lowest' in it but that�s not what you learned in math class. The lowest common denominator of 3, 7 and 10 is 210. That�s a high number. The highest common factor of 3, 7 and 10 is� um� one. And that�s quite a low number. We can tell which of the two the speaker intended, and what the audience (including you) understood by it, if we substitute the correct one
�Donald Trump�s policies are really stupid.�
�But they�re very popular.�
�Well, yes, he can always appeal to the highest common factor but when you examine them in any detail they fall to pieces.�
�That may be so, but they should be given a chance. What�s there to lose, the state we�re in?� |
Except nobody would ever say this, they would be using some other tired idiom. So now for the acid test: how are you going to react to this electrifying applied epistemological news that everyone is habitually saying the diametrically wrong thing despite every last one of them having been taught the right one?
By dismissing it as of no importance. A shrug will see us on our way. That�s good news from our point of view, we normally get roundly abused. When we�re noticed at all.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
I have deleted this story from Medium. I chose quite the wrong example since, as two people pointed out, the Lowest Common Denominator could be applied to the mass of Trump supporters as opposed to the arguments. Shame because the LCD/HCF confusion is universal.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
My favourite recurring piece of AE was on show at the Blackpool South by-election result. Up steps the Labour candidate, having won a resounding but entirely predictable victory. He has, remember, just spent every waking hour for the last month canvassing voters on the doorstep which had almost no effect. This is almost certainly the culminating point in his political career. It will be the first and probably last time he will command a national audience.
He takes out some folded paper from his inside pocket, lays it carefully on the lectern and starts reading, clearly but woodenly, a speech of grinding technicality and orthodoxy. |
What is it he doesn't know? If he was determined to deliver these particular words then learning them by heart and delivering them apparently off the cuff would have been a minor tour de force. How long would that have taken him? A few hours. He could have got someone else to write the same speech but in better prose. He could have written or got someone else to write a different speech, one more suited to the occasion.
Did he really not know any of this? It is difficult to believe but it seems he didn't. Or he did, but didn't care. And he is going to be an MP for the next six years. He has about a one in three chance of becoming a member of the government.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that he just might in fact be a good MP? A bit of slog, rather than shine, and in a couple of years, whoever is in charge, he could be on a Select Committe, actually influencing things. Granted it's a shame he didn't put his sandwiches on the lectern as well.....but a promising start.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
I don't doubt any of that though since presumably Blackpool South will return to its Tory roots in 2029 and our new red star (he's all over the telly this morning with Sir 'Lord' Starmer) he won't qualify for a decent select committee at all (I've been reading Rory Stewart's account of how they operate).
The AE point stands. (George Galloway might have used the sandwich trick. Even eaten them while he spoke to aid comprehensibility.)
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
"We are talking about something on which everyone agrees: clean drinking water, swimming in clean water, walking your dog next to a clean river, and it's not working."Dr Renaut Foucart, Lancaster University, 'political economist and an expert on the water industry' Channel 4 News |
An elegant use of the bogus list. We all agree on clean drinking water, which the water industry provides in bounteous and relatively cheap amounts. The continued used of the word 'clean' hurries us through the other two, which we most certainly do not agree about. Not if we have to pay squillions to get them.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
Coupla AE theory stories I posted on Medium, yesterday and today, to see if I got any traction (of which I will report in a few days). I have kept to the original paragraphing.
----------------
Old Hat Syndrome
We love hearing new things. We add them to our stock of knowledge and give ourselves a pat on the back for still being on the ball, not like some people we know. We then pass these gobbets of information along to the people we do know with an air of casual omniscience.
Except
We do not like to hear new things that may require our brains to be rewired. If that happens there is no knowing where it will end. The amount of rubbish we carry around in our heads means it may never end, such is the network nature of our synapses. ‘If that’s true then that must be true which means etc etc.’ So
How to ensure we can learn new things but not new ‘things’
We have various methods, the most basic of which is to select the people we spend time with, including the media we come into daily contact with, on the basis that they share our own general set of assumptions. Hence none of them is likely to come out with anything that will call our own assumptions into question. Well, when was the last time it happened to you?
But it can happen.
We live in a free society made up of all sorts, and now and again someone says something which sounds both true and disturbing. The first line of defence is the straightforward ad hominem one. ‘Who the hell is this person?’ It turns out he (it generally is) is a looney tune of some sort. Or worse, a Tory. Anyway, he’s not worth listening to and we return to our workaday world undisturbed.
But sometimes he isn’t.
Or at any rate we cannot immediately dismiss him. Our brain recognises this new something has the potentiality to require a re-wire job and, since the idea cannot be excluded as being obviously fruitcake, it will have to be processed. But the act of processing itself carries the potentiality of re-wiring. How do we know ahead of time what will get called into question?
What to do?
We have a variety of defences, which I will tell you about another time, but one of the best is ‘Old Hat Syndrome’. Somebody launches something at you. It’s new, it’s big, it’s dangerous. Your brain immediately — and I mean immediately — tells you it isn’t new at all, you’ve heard it all before. It’s very old hat. So old you can’t precisely say when you first heard it but, by God, you dealt with it at the time, or anyway somebody did, and you have no intention of dealing with it all over again.
You can try it out yourself here https://medium.com/p/57b3f43f9f05 and remember, you may well be right. But it won’t matter if you’re not.
-----------------
The referred story is to do with differences between men and women.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
Seeing is not believing, you hope
Yesterday I was telling you about ‘old hat syndrome’, today’s topic is ‘careful ignoral’.
When we are confronted with evidence that appears to demonstrate that A is true when we believe, au contraire, B is true, we have a decision to make. We could always ditch B and embrace A but we may be very attached to B.
B may be really quite fundamental to who we are, to what we believe. It may be better to put A on hold while we explore other possibilities. Or, better still, let people who are paid to do these things explore the possibilities and let us know what they come up with in the fullness of time.
“I’m quite prepared to ditch B if it proves to be wrong, I’m that kind of person, only I’m not going to do it right now, just on your say-so.” |
It is often essential we carry on believing something even though there is evidence to the contrary. As it happens, our modern world is based on such an exercise in, as we call it, ‘careful ignoral’. This is what happened…
Science is quite beholden to Isaac Newton and his analysis of how the universe works. It certainly appeared to work the way he said when we observed it through our new-fangled telescopes. Apart from the planet Mercury. This had an orbit that almost but didn’t quite conform to Newtonian principles.
Which was a nuisance because the whole point of this new ‘science’ everyone was talking about was there could be no exceptions. Things were either Universal Laws or they weren’t. Were we to going to throw the Newtonian baby out with the Ptolemaic bathwater because of Mercury?
No, we decided, it was ‘observational error’. The damn sun kept getting in the way. We would wait until better telescopes came along and that would clear up why Mercury wasn’t being Newtonian when everything else was. When better telescopes arrived, they didn’t clear it up. So we waited for even better telescopes.
A six year-old would have pointed out the least likely explanation was ‘observational error’ because telescopes had improved by orders of magnitude but the problem had remained exactly the same. Indeed we were able to examine the ‘perturbations of Mercury’ with greater and greater accuracy.
But small children are kept out of observatories — you wouldn’t want raspberry jam on the lenses — so we had to wait three hundred years until Einstein came up with the correct explanation: it wasn’t Mercury behaving badly, the light from Mercury was being bent by the gravitational force of the Sun.
So it was observational error after all, tell the kid. And give him a clip round the ear while you’re about it. But don’t mention the three hundred year hiatus, it might cause him to question his faith in the way grownups run the world.
Oh, you wanna know how ‘careful ignoral’ effects you, not cosmologists or small children? Well, all right, but please remember it’s better not to know you’re carefully ignoring something if you have been carefully ignoring it all this time for some good reason, so on your own head be it. Here’s an example I heard on the radio yesterday.
A BBC reporter was in Oakland, California and was describing what a dreadful condition it had got itself into. He was being very graphic, rather over-relishing his task I thought, though in truth it wasn’t that different from all the other rundown cities in America the BBC has been telling us about over the years.
After praising Oakland’s fine radical tradition (true enough, I was there when it peaked in the nineteen-sixties though not much contributing to it) and ‘the resilience of the people’ (translation: they can’t afford to leave and are making the best of it), our man on the spot sought out academic experts to explain the precipitate decline. One thing Oakland is not short of is academic experts. Though near rather than in Oakland.
It turned out be the fault of either Jerry Brown, an ex-mayor of Oakland, or Ronald Reagan, an ex-governor of California. Both were named as Chief Culprit by our intrepid reporter’s sources and passed along to us without comment. ‘One left one, one right one, and both with a bit of shite on,’ in the best traditions of the BBC.
Now a child of six would tug the BBC man’s sleeve and enquire which of these two men had caused the precipitate decline of all the other rundown cities in America. But the BBC does not employ six year-olds because this would have led to a consideration of what the cities did have in common, which is presumably the cause of the decline and which is presumably being carefully ignored. And presumably for very good reasons.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|