[Terrapreta] maybe controversial

[lou gold]

Hi Sean,

I guess in old-school science we might separate science and belief -- sort
of make it a matter of EITHER science OR belief. But this won't work.

They tried that with light thinking it was EITHER a particle OR a wave. If
you believed it is a wave, you designed an appropriate experiment, tested
your hypothesis, and discovered that it's a wave. But if you believed it is
a particle, you designed an experiment and found it to be a wave. It drove
them nuts until they realized that the logical paradigm of EITHER/OR was too
limited to answer the question. So they transcended the contradiction with
an emergent logic of BOTH/AND. Light is BOTH a particle AND a wave.

I think that we have arrived at an analogous position with regard to the new
earth challenges that exponential population growth has produced. It didn't
matter too much what people believed when there were few of us. But know it
matters a great deal -- precisely, because belief triggers behavior. The
fight of science vs belief belongs with Galileo.  That was  the high-profile
EITHER/OR  situation.  But times have changed and now we need to think in
terms of BOTH belief AND science. IMHO, this this the step we are now trying
to take. And, just as with the problem of light, we need to BOTH believe AND
employ the scientific method.

I don't expend much energy (near zero) on the AGW debate because I believe
there are additional serious questions such as where are 9 billion people
going to get enough drinking water, where will the plants that feed them get
enough water, and etc? We, the collective WE on this planet have stepped
into a whole new experiment. Now we must BOTH believe that our behavior
matters AND that we can implement the right actions. This is what I think
Gore was talking about.

And so, once again someone has given me a chance to spout off. Thank you
Sean and thank you to those willing to endure such a flow of words.

hugs and blessings to all,

lou

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:

>  Hi Lou,
>
> I think it might be worthwhile to separate science from beliefs.  No
> scientists' that I know conduct themselves upon belief nearly as much as
> they use the Scientific Method.  This method is born almost as a way to
> operate sans belief.  The wisdom of scientists is not at issue either.  The
> IPCC scientists do not make policy (maybe some policy recommendations in
> there area of research).
>
> Some will say the "Scientific Method" is flawed.  They are right.  In the
> realm of observable real world phenomenon, that are all measurable without
> the aid of the human belief system, I think that the "Scientific Method"
> serves mankind better than our beliefs.  I will suspend my belief and/or
> disbelief to use my 5 sense faculties, my mind, and my hands, to try and
> effect a change in what I observe happening in the world.  I think this
> makes me appear to be a "strong believer" in the validity of the "Scientific
> Method", though.
>
> Hehe ... see, so can I use my belief as a tool, too?  To what end?  To try
> and convince anyone who disbelieves about the science that I think I
> understand?  Ahhhhh ... I can't do it ... no one cares what I believe!  I'd
> rather not discuss this in terms of beliefs.  I've got not problem with
> anyone's beliefs (unless of course they are into proselytizing and/or
> ramming it into my head).
>
> I reject belief as a tool for climate scientists.
>
> Regards,
>
> SKB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> *To:* Jim Joyner <jimstoy at dtccom.net>
> *Cc:* Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:50 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] maybe controversial
>
> Jim,
>
> Well, reading your response does make me think that you are a man of
> strong beliefs.
>
> No, I am not diminishing anything when I say that egos and beliefs are
> tools. What is at issue is not whether we have them but rather how we use
> them. Right now we are hammering the earth. I think you would agree with
> that statement and not call it a "badly fallacious analogy," or would you?
> You see, it all depends on how something is (or is not) used. So I will go
> back my analogy: a good carpenter knows when not to use his hammer and a
> good scientist is careful about what his discovery is used for. In the final
> analysis his choice will require wisdom more than knowledge. And what he
> considers as wise will be very influenced by his beliefs. There no getting
> around it. So I truly believe that it is better to openly share one's
> beliefs and reveal their implications in action so that we might better
> understand whether to use them or not.
>
> And there is nothing at all wrong with "wish" as you have expressed it
> (close to a "desire"), Ghandi famously said, "We must be the change that we
> desire." Yes, this is indeed "be-lief." St Francis said the same in another
> way, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." And little me wishes a
> future full of big trees and happy children, so I must be here saying these
> things. You are correct, my "be-wish" is not knowledge but it guides my
> search and hopefully leads me to it. Do you really wish to make this beacon
> dim? What would you use instead?
>
> If I say, "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" it might (and has historically)
> lead to wars and slaughter. But if I say that and also say, "We are all
> Children of God" the outcome is quite different. And the difference that
> makes the difference in this case is ... belief! If properly used and
> understood, what a glorious thing it is!
>
> But there's a limit (as you suggest). It's not good to get too attached to
> your beliefs because then you will take them "personally" and THAT is where
> the mischief begins. Buddha saw this clearly and therefore counseled for "no
> attachment" rather than "no belief." And as this detachment develops it
> becomes, yes, just like a hammer that one can pick up or put down as is
> appropriate to the situation. It's called "right action." And that is
> precisely what I BELIEVE we are all looking for.
>
> A bow of gratitude to you (and this forum) for allowing me to "spout off"
> a bit. Apologies if there was (is) any offense in my words.
>
> hugs and blessings,
>
> lou
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Jim Joyner <jimstoy at dtccom.net> wrote:
>
> > Lou,
> >
> > I would agree that beliefs abound; I would not agree that they are
> > necessary for human life, certainly not survival. They rather seem an
> > anathema to life to me. To say, "egos and beliefs, like other tools such as
> > hammers, are only tools" is to use a badly fallacious analogy.
> >
> > Please don't confuse knowledge with beliefs. Knowledge *is* necessary
> > for humans to survive, and difficult enough, But belief (whether correct or
> > incorrect) is bound to something purely personal, and I mean that in the
> > worst sense. ("Person" or "personal" comes from persona, a mask, a false
> > front, the ego -- in a sense something that doesn't really exist except in
> > thought. At best an illusion, at worst a delusion. The root word in belief
> > is "lief" or wish. To say I believe is to say I be-wish . . . not a
> > statement of knowledge)
> >
> > If I say, "the sun is coming up at 6:30AM", that is simply a statement
> > of content that may be right or wrong : knowledge. It is not who I think I
> > am. One can easily disagree with knowledge as right or wrong . . . if that
> > is all it is, then no one will care.
> >
> > If, however, I say, I *believe* that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the
> > content of the statement isn't really the issue (right or wrong, rational or
> > irrational). What is being stated is who I think I am. If that statement is
> > threatened (disagreed upon), it is the same a as death threat to the speaker
> > -- and he/she will fight as if death itself were at the door. Given
> > legitimate use of weapons (gov't), he/she will dominate other life by force.
> > Never fails. No exceptions. Just look around.
> >
> > To put beliefs on a level with "tools such as hammers" is to be Neville
> > Chamberlain holding up a piece of paper signed by Hitler and saying, "you
> > see, everything will be alright, they simply see things differently that we
> > do".
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > lou gold wrote:
> >
> > yes, yes belief is only belief. like ego it is a necessary tool for
> > survival. just try to function without any beliefs (such as crossing a
> > street is potentially dangerous).
> >
> > but egos and beliefs, like other tools such as hammers, are only tools.
> > it is important to know when not to use them.
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Jim Joyner <jimstoy at dtccom.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Probably, the most dangerous commodity on the face of the planet is
> > > human belief systems. Not their content necessarily (which may or may not be
> > > correct), but just act of the believing, ultimately an expression of ego.
> > >
> > > The worst of such belief systems are argued with the notion that logic
> > > makes them valid. They conveniently forget that all knowledge is based on
> > > assumptions or axioms, and that the quality of all thought (and probably the
> > > quality of human life) rests on the quality of assumptions made. They start
> > > with a belief, then they use the rational facility to justify it. Religions,
> > > governments and political ideologies come to mind. Sometimes, science. Some
> > > belief systems seem more innocuous than others. But, it may be they just
> > > don't have the guns yet to enforce the belief.
> > >
> > > These belief systems have been and are the source of practically all
> > > human suffering on the planet, not to mention the innocent bystander
> > > species.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Terrapreta mailing list
> > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com
> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
> http://youtube.com/my_videos_______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>


-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
http://youtube.com/my_videos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080412/b39055a2/attachment.html