Crichton on Fear & Complexity

[Art Eatman]

This is a very long read, but definitely worth every minute. About halfway in he gets into environmental "management". Yellowstone, elk, deer, predators, fires, errors, errors, errors...

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html

I think it's worth bookmarking and saving for future reference.

 

[kir_kenix]

this was a good read. fear is the enemy of everything, whether its conservation, gun rights, pollution or war. im tired of hearing about how we are destroying the world, or the envirement, or whatever. i am going to print this off and show it to a couple of my friends.

thanks art.

 

[KMKeller]

Excellent article.

 

[qwert65]

It certainly makes you think

 

[Titan6]

Good.

Now, if some physicist would just hurry up and finish that grand unified theroy of everything and put it in a handy Power Point presentation or short novel that explains the whole universe (99.999999999999999999999% of which we have not even seen or have any concept of) that would be nice. I would not have to do so much thinking and make my head all achy.

I saved that one to favorites.

 

[campbell]

Crichton can be entertaining, but he's not real useful for scientific subjects. He's got a habit of cherry picking his sources, and often just flat out doesn't know what he's talking about.

This over at Real Climate and this article by Chris Mooney are just a couple examples. He's kind of the John Lott of science. Sure he can tell you what you want to hear, but his methods are less than rigorous.

 

[ArmedBear]

campbell, I disagree for two reasons.

For one thing, he often cherry-picks sources because he's making a counterargument. A speech is given for a reason; it's not a textbook.

That "Real Climate" site cherry picks, also, for the purpose of persuasion, not science.

Chris Mooney writes, "Crichton frets about 'Why Politicized Science is Dangerous.' But he may himself have provided a case study." If you've actually read the appendix to State of Fear, you realize that Crichton does not claim to be a scientist or to provide a comprehensive list of articles about climate change, or even to argue that human contributions to it do not exist. He is merely trying to show that the party line about climate change is not shared by all scientists in the field, that it has become a party line. He also wishes to demonstrate that "scientific consensus" is a political, not a scientific, term.

 

[campbell]

He also wishes to demonstrate that "scientific consensus" is a political, not a scientific, term.

Generally the consensus in a given scientific field is based off the science, not politics. Nothing is every unanimous. There's always going to be the guy who doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS, that evolution is a pinko conspiracy, or that the earth is flat.

If someone is consistently bucking the generally accepted theory in a scientific discipline, they're usually either a groundbreaking genius, or a crank. IME, the odds favor "crank".

 

[ArmedBear]

And campbell, anyone with any education would have to recognize that a site that uses this picture on its front page exists for the purpose of disseminating propaganda, not furthering scientific inquiry, whether or not he likes the propaganda therein.

Someone with an education would also understand what a false dichotomy is.

If someone is consistently bucking the generally accepted theory in a scientific discipline, they're usually either a groundbreaking genius, or a crank. IME, the odds favor "crank".

Right or wrong on a given topic, Michael Crichton is guilty only of being a man with a broad education and critical thinking skills.

WRT Complexity, once known as Chaos, I think it's the most interesting topic in the world today, and by far the most misunderstood. People all over the belief spectrum from creationists to political progressives display a very dangerous lack of understanding of the principle.

 

[campbell]

And campbell, anyone with any education would have to recognize that a site that uses this picture on its front page exists for the purpose of disseminating propaganda, not furthering scientific inquiry

Look at who writes the site, the data sources, etc. If this is propaganda, then the whole field of climatology must be in on it.

Michael Crichton is guilty only of being a man with a broad education and critical thinking skills.

Come on, "Don't listen to all those experts, I've got the really real truth right here" is a way to sell books.

 

[ArmedBear]

You have no clue about money in academia, do you?

Or human behavior?

campbell, it doesn't matter who writes propaganda. It's still propaganda.

And "Appeal to Authority" is a specific type of logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Sadly, I think that the modern academy is more interested in indoctrination than in teaching how to think, for a number of reasons. WRT selling books vs. getting grants and amassing power... how and why people believe that the incentives that exist for individuals or in business suddenly disappear when the actors are academics and politicians is beyond me.

Michael Crichton writes that he wants people to think for themselves, not accept some party line developed by people with their own agendas. I fully agree, though I often wonder just how well many people, even with formal "education" are equipped to do so.

 

[campbell]

I'm not going to delve into my background, but yes, I have a very good clue as to how all this works.

Anyways, this really isn't why I post on this forum. I'll just re-iterate that Crichton's writings are not considered credible by the overwhelming number of professional researchers in that field. Caveat emptor.

 

[Titan6]

Look at who writes the site, the data sources, etc. If this is propaganda, then the whole field of climatology must be in on it.

Ponder that thought for a moment. You might be on to something.

Come on, "Don't listen to all those experts, I've got the really real truth right here" is a way to sell books.

Exactly. The tide goes in and out, the ocean remains.

 

[ArmedBear]

Anyways, this really isn't why I post on this forum. I'll just re-iterate that Crichton's writings are not considered credible by the overwhelming number of professional researchers in that field. Caveat emptor.

Did you read the article in question? Because that's really not what it's about, anyway.

I'm not going to delve into my background, but yes, I have a very good clue as to how all this works.

You're not doing a very good job of showing it. Surely there are other websites you could have chosen, for example. And surely you are aware, then, that "All the experts say:" is the beginning of a logical fallacy if you're offering no other information.

 

[Art Eatman]

Whether or not the atmospheric scientists are correct or are not correct is irrelevant. What Crichton is talking about is a separate issue: The uses of whatever facts exist in a manner to create fear or to support a political stance.

The absence of understanding of complexity, of "unintended consequences" is quite adequately exemplified by his description of the NPS mismanagement of Yellowstone.

Separately, we ourselves support his views in our own discussions of gun control laws.

You don't have to be a scientist or a lawyer to recognize misuse of facts.

Art

 

[Cosmoline]

Very interesting article. The sordid tale of Yellowstone is just one example of the NPS's fanatical absurdities. The enviromental movement has long been wedded to the idea of drawing bright lines between "human" and "environment." This is why we have a patchwork quilt of developed and undeveloped areas. It's an idea premised on the belief that humans and wildlife cannot coexist. I live in a city that defies this conventional wisdom. A quarter million people live in a modern city where brown bears come to hunt at night and hundreds of wild moose wander the parks. So I know the conventional wisdom is a lie. Just as I know the environmental movement is lying about the impact of drilling in ANWR.

His point about radiation deaths is excellent. We're designed to withstand enormous loads of radiation, and we're getting pounded with the stuff every second of every day. The same point could be made about "GM" foods. I've actually heard people complain that GM foods are bad because they eat the "bad genes." Of course we eat an enormous amount of genetic information every time we take a bite of anything, esp. that healthy raw food. I know this. So my knowledge trumps the fear.

Likewise, conventional wisdom told me that when I had a BMI over 50 I was doomed to die. If I'd listened to conventional wisdom I would have checked myself into a hospital in a wheelchair and racked up massive medical bills. Instead I just started walking and riding a bike more and ate better foods. According to the Official Chart I should still be dead, instead of treking through snow drifts or riding half centuries to the range. I should not have a falling blood pressure and my heart should essentially explode. But I know that the BMI chart is an old statistical tool designed for analysis of mass amounts of raw data. It was never intended to diagnose people, esp. not people built on my scale. It's not even supposed to be used for individuals, but becaus it churns out an easy number people who should know better have been doing exactly that. Knowledge trumps the fear, again.

To bring this back to firearms, I think fear has always been our biggest enemy. The cure is again simple, though. Knowledge. The more people know about firearms the harder it is to ply them with fear. It's the reason I stopped being an anti. I LEARNED that I had been incorrect.

 

[Titan6]

Whether or not the atmospheric scientists are correct or are not correct is irrelevant. What Crichton is talking about is a separate issue: The uses of whatever facts exist in a manner to create fear or to support a political stance.

I think it was Darrell Huff who first presented the thesis that people will more easily believe a lie if it is backed by statistics, even when the base data was deliberately massaged... shall we call it the numerology of the 21st century?

The idea is still the same although the data manipulation has gotten more complex. It is harder to bury a lie when most people have relatively powerful computers, near instantaneous world wide communications and huge databases of information to call upon. But the casual observor will swallow most things hook, line and sinker.

 

[Cosmoline]

As far as the greenhouse business, you have to be careful to distinguish between the real consensus of scientists and the media/Al Gore hype. They are two radically different things. There is strong evidence of warming. I've seen the glaciers melt myself. But the etiology and reaction are more complex than anyone can imagine. This is the earth's climate we're talking about--a system so complicated even the most powerful computers making billions of calculations can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow in Portland. We know the climate has swung through rapid changes in the past, and we know life has survived these. What exactly will come of the current trends nobody can say. Personally, I'd like to see fewer cars because I hate cars and I disagree with the compromises we've made to accomodate them as a form of personal transport. We let the technology dictate to us far to much, and we're so dependent now the mere thought of being carless is enough to terrify otherwise rational people. Again, FEAR controls us.

BMI index is another example. It started out as a broad brush statistical tool, but health care providers have come to use it more and more as a means of individual diagnosis. We're now told we will all die shortly because the chart says so. Must be time to panic and have surgery or go on bizarre crash diets.

 

[whuffines]

The Coming Ice Age - Circa 1975

The attached is interesting... from Newsweek in 1975. The last paragraph is ... interesting.

 

[Polishrifleman]

Great Article, here are a couple pieces of text that should ring true no matter what side of the fence you lean toward.

Kill the wolves, and save the elk. Move the grizzlies, and avoid the lawyers. And on, and on. It’s this simplistic, cause-and-effect thinking that must go.

.......we must eliminate fear. Fear may draw a television audience. It may generate cash for an advocacy group. It may support the legal profession. But fear paralyzes us. It freezes us. And we need to be flexible in our responses, as we move into a new era of managing complexity. So we have to stop responding to fear:

Amen!

 

[roo_ster]

campbell paints too pretty a picture of scientific consensus.

You gotta remember, scientists are humans with human motivations and weaknesses.

In the long run(1), I am confident science and scientific consensus will ferret out the factual from the fatuous. In the short run(2), there are no such guarantees. Too much money, too much prestige, too many lives(3) are at stake to think otherwise.







(1) long run = time past which any currently alive are dead & buried

(2) short run = human lifespan

(3) Take the former USSR as an example. Science that disproved reigning orthodoxy was suppressed in such a way that Galileo would have though hiimself the very posterchild of coddled free inquiry.

 

[roo_ster]

BTW, MC's lecture was a fine example of distilling some fairly difficult concepts down for the interested, educated layman. We don't have enough of those sorts of folks, nowadays.

We lost one of the best when Asimov died.