On an iPod so briefly;

Absolutely! I often find the term "meaning" helpful, in that the fact of something still invites discussion of it's meaning vis a vis a query we have. 

This shares an affinity with the difference between a description and an interpretation. We may share an empirical description but come to different interpretations vis a vis a query about it.

A point worth noting!

Cheers

- Quick note from Derek's iPod

On Mar 22, 2011, at 15:07, "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Derek, please call me Fil.
> 
> We actually agree.  If I gave a different impression, then I miswrote
> and I appreciate you pointing it out.
> 
> I don't consider a "view" the same as a "fact."  The holocaust etc are
> facts.  To deny facts is irrational.  I strive to be as rational as
> possible.  Philosophers might argue how we can know a fact, but I'm
> not that complicated in my thinking.
> 
> To have a view means having a view on something, which to me means
> there have to be things to view.  Those things are facts.  I guess I'm
> talking about the interpretation of fact rather than the fact itself;
> what the facts mean.
> 
> I have often found that I've been able to strengthen my own views - or
> accept that they are flawed and revise them - by comparing them with
> the views of others.
> 
> That's what I intended.
> 
> Does this clear things up?
> 
> Cheers.
> Fil
> 
> On 21 March 2011 17:43, Derek B. Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Small thing here, but no, alternative views are not always worth
>> considering.
>> Some refer to it as the "criteria of debatability". Lawyers make use of this
>> criteria and it is fundamental.
>> One does not entertain a discussion about whether the Holocaust happened
>> because the claim does not meet the criteria of debatability. It is simply
>> not debatable. Nor is the battle of Waterloo, the Norman invasion or the
>> earthquake that just killed thousands.
>> It is in fact essential to be judicious about what arguments we choose to
>> entertain and which we do not.
>> I have no particular comment to make concerning global warming, but there is
>> a worrying trend about these days that suggests there is no way to really
>> know anything, and so every point of view is worth hearing. The consequences
>> of such a position could be catastrophic.
>> I use Mr. Salutri's casual usage here (in an effort to be accommodating, to
>> be sure) as a moment to mention this.
>> dbm
>> 
>> _____________
>> Derek B. Miller
>> Director
>> The Policy Lab
>> 321 Columbus Ave.
>> Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
>> Boston, MA 02116
>> United States of America
>> Phone
>> +1 617 440 4409
>> Twitter
>> @Policylabtweets
>> Web
>> www.thepolicylag.org
>> 
>> On Monday, March 21, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Filippo A. Salustri wrote:
>> 
>> Alternative views are always worth considering, if for no other reason
>> that they provide tests to validate the 'convention.'
>> My reading of the current research is that the notion of climate
>> change stands up to all credible tests. So I'm still going to play
>> the odds.
>> 
>> I worry about the proposal to increase the number of scientists
>> (presumably not only physicists, but chemists, biologists, etc would
>> all have things to contribute). The scientists we do have aren't
>> sufficiently trusted anymore, I think. More of them might just make
>> matters worse.
>> 
>> I do think that politics plays a very large role in things. And I'm
>> unconvinced it is a good role. For what it's worth, I will continue
>> to remain a-political and focus on the scientific aspects of things.
>> I just find the political aspects insufficiently robust to use as a
>> basis for reasoning about things. I know that puts me at a
>> disadvantage in today's world, but I do what I can.
>> 
>> Cheers.
>> Fil
>> 
>> On 21 March 2011 17:06, Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Anthony,
>> 
>> My objective was to provide an alternative view regarding the situation. I
>> carefully follow the idea of global warming and also consider several
>> alternative perspectives and scenarios.
>> 
>> It is interesting that scoring the literature in different languages brings
>> us to different traditions and alternative views. Right or wrong, it is
>> interesting to consider them. One never knows what is right. Check the
>> history of phlogiston.
>> 
>> I also wanted to raise several alternative issues that I believe are not
>> emphasized enough or are overshadowed with the warming concern. These are
>> new energies, deforestation, and pollution. In the short term, they might be
>> crucial for health and quality of life.
>> 
>> About energy density. You have detected a trend. My expectation is that we
>> are moving along this trend towards energies of higher densities. What kind?
>> I am not engaging in predictions. However, it will be something that we
>> already know and have discarded as unfeasible. Such a view is derived from
>> history of technology.
>> 
>> If the money for green design and products are put towards a program on new
>> energies and engines, including natural science and engineering education,
>> over a 20 year period, those money might be used more productively. If the
>> TARP money that were given for free to the banks (about one trillion
>> dollars) were used for such a fund, we might have come with something good.
>> We need more people in physics, more talent in physics, instead of in the
>> financial banks. We need years to build those people, and meanwhile we need
>> to work on new energies and engines.
>> 
>> We are talking for 40-50 years about new energy sources and new engines, but
>> the investments in research and education are miniscule.
>> 
>> I read a few days ago about the electric cars from the period 1890-1910. To
>> my surprise, they were doing 20-80 miles without charging. Actually, at the
>> beginning of the automotive era the electric car outpaced the cars with
>> internal combustion engine. However, they very quickly lost the completion.
>> We are back a hundred years. I don't believe that electric cars are the
>> future, but this illustrates the trajectories of human inventions and
>> technical progress.
>> 
>> Several people mentioned the political forces. That might be the key. While
>> big oil rules, we will fight for oil. And we will make chemical batteries
>> for electric cars.
>> 
>> Just some musing.
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> Lubomir
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
>> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anthony
>> Thompson
>> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 12:35 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Design, global warming, equilibrium mechanisms, and resilience
>> of the humankind
>> 
>> Hi Charlotte and Lubomir,
>> 
>> Good discussion starting here!
>> 
>> I want to challenge some of the things that Lubomir says, however.
>> 
>> Global warming: Lubomir says "we are not sure yet". But what is it that we
>> are not sure of? "We" -- if we mean the global scientific community studying
>> climatology, (and not "we- the general public") have quite a lot of
>> certainty that humans are influencing climate beyond anything that can be
>> explained by Milankovitch cycles (earth's tilt, etc.). We (the former) know
>> with quite a lot of certainty that the temperature now is warmer than
>> anything that society as we know it has experienced.
>> 
>> Re: meteorology being the west's foundations for predictions... well, not
>> really in the climate models that are widely used. Meteorology - primarily
>> related to weather processes forecasting - is about short-term (weather) and
>> is quite a lot different than long-term (climate).
>> 
>> Ice melt... is changing in very significant ways -- it's too simple to say
>> that it's simply melting & regenerating. Glacial ice is not re-forming
>> anywhere near the rate at which it's melting. This leads to huge problems
>> for water supplies, especially in some of the areas of the world with the
>> highest populations (e.g. India, Bangladesh, some areas in China and South
>> America). Arctic ice is thinning: so that now ice melts more completely in
>> the summer months than in anytime since human society as we know it has
>> developed. So while the ice does re-form in the winter, it is not as thick,
>> and there is not "old ice" that has been around for centuries. Summer ice
>> melt leads to major concerns of reduced albedo, leading to reinforcing
>> cycles of increased energy absorption.
>> 
>> Deforestation... is a huge concern within discussion of the global carbon
>> cycle, and solutions to global warming can not be discussed without
>> discussing the role of forests.  Not sure why you would say that westerners
>> don't care about it... any more / less than westerners care about other
>> things. I mean that those who understand some of the complexities certainly
>> DO understand the importance of forests, while those who sit back and
>> question whether or not humans are influencing climate may not.
>> 
>> My point: there is quite a lot of certainty around the idea that humans are
>> impacting the climate. There is MUCH LESS certainty about what the effects
>> of what we are doing will be... increased temperatures / precipitation here,
>> decreased temps / precip there. I think it's important that we -- as
>> scientists -- be accurate on these points.
>> 
>> With regard to energy transitions... the challenge now is that there is now
>> energy source that provides energy density. In previous energy transitions,
>> society has been able to move to a more energy dense energy source... coal
>> had more energy per unit than wood, and oil had more energy per unit than
>> oil. As we face the end of oil... we do not have an energy source to move to
>> that is more dense than what we are using now. The sun provides 10,000x the
>> amount of energy that human society uses... but we do not have a good way to
>> capture it, let alone transport it after we capture it.
>> 
>> This is what the "sustainability" movement is doing: bringing together all
>> of these separate issues (global warming, deforestation, ocean
>> acidification, freshwater access, energy, pollution, etc. etc. et.c) to say
>> that we (global society) has lots of problems that affect different people
>> in different ways. Some of those sustainability people are able to portray
>> this as an ocean full of opportunities... rather than a lot of reasons to be
>> depressed!
>> 
>> I agree very much with Charlotte's point that media reporting greatly
>> influences society's perception of environmental (and social) problems. The
>> challenge in the west is the increasing rate of ownership of media by big /
>> private industry... which often has a motive to increase profits n the way
>> of the status quo... which is often destructive of the global system.
>> 
>> Our role... as researchers working with product/service design... can/should
>> be to finds way for businesses to do what they need to do (be profitable) in
>> ways that do not destroy ecological and social systems. To do this, we need
>> both radically new approaches to meeting human needs... while also meeting
>> people who are doing design / product development work on a day-to-day basis
>> to provide the incremental innovations that bring them along. I'd like to
>> open up a discussion about how we can support that to happen...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
>> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
>> Ryerson University
>> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
>> M5B 2K3, Canada
>> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
>> Fax: 416/979-5265
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> Ryerson University
> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
> M5B 2K3, Canada
> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
> Fax: 416/979-5265
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/