Tag Archives: Joseph Chilton Pearce

Thoughts on thinking, or, what have we done to ourselves by over-emphasizing abstract thought?

Posted on by

I was already mulling this topic when, this morning, a video of a deer popped up on my twitter feed.

The video shows a buck maneuver his rack so he can get under a gate.

Here’s four screen grabs so you can see how he did it.

approaches gate
lowers head to get left-side antlers under
twists head to get right-side antlers under
done

It’s striking, isn’t it?

But to my eye, this maneuver also demonstrates something profound about reality and about how we think.

It embodies a type of thinking.

Literally.

We think with our bodies.

Notice how we respond to this video of the deer by saying “clever deer” or “smart animal.” That’s a tell. We recognize that what we’re seeing is a kind of thought, a kind of intelligence.

The deer has “figured something out.” It’s “solved a problem.”

Continue reading →

Data dreams

Posted on by

It’s long past time to draw a line between actual data and fantasy “models” — and set public policy accordingly

Over on Facebook, I linked to an essay by the Swedish writer Malcom Kyeyune titled Why the Experts are Losing, which elicited this comment from a (dear) friend:

So, when dealing with complicated things, who should one listen to if not someone who actually knows the topic? And what should one look at besides data?

Many of the people who we have elevated to the position of “expert” are not experts at all. They are, to be blunt, fools. Photo by Rachel on Unsplash

The comment got me thinking about data.

Specifically, it got me thinking about a mistake that I think people make when they look at “data” and “research consensus” as the basis of their policy preferences.

Because of course we need to base policy on data.

But many people are making a huge mistake when they cite “data” — a mistake that is tied closely to our reliance on “experts.”

There is a WORLD of difference between “data” that is based on actual reality — meaning data collected on something that has happened — and “data” that is generated by computer modeling — meaning “data” that predicts something that is supposedly likely to happen in the future.

Models are not reality.

It’s my observation that many people overlook that distinction…

Continue reading →