4 ms·

Spirituality is very sweet and pleasant. This article for example is a joy to read. But for that very reason, it's very dangerous. Look at this question: “Why w

by dsign 5y ago

Spirituality is very sweet and pleasant. This article for example is a joy to read. But for that very reason, it's very dangerous. Look at this question: “Why would the old pines trust their reproductive success to these birds and animals?” . In nature, things just are, they don't have human character. They don't "trust" in the same way that a grandma trusts the grandchildren of her neighbors to clean her garden. You can say "birds and animals have been around pines for long enough that pine cones evolved," and that's it. Then there is this one: "Recognizing that forest ecosystems, like societies, have elements of intelligence would help us leave behind the old notion that they are inert and predictable." Of course they are not inert. But the notion of unpredictability in this context requires, at the very least, some elaboration. Since living organisms like humans are walking ecosystems[1], the treatment of many common and rare ailments depends on our capacity to model and predict ecosystems[2][3][4][5][6]. And just slightly further from home, our capacity to heal and maintain those ecosystems the article's authors love so much also depends on predicting. We can not just walk away saying they are "unpredictable", specially without providing any proof. Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen. [1]: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/9/2/40 https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/9/2/40 [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7350295/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7350295/ [3]: https://aacijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13223-015-0102-0 https://aacijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1322... [4]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK552154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK552154/ [5]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41531-021-00156-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41531-021-00156-z [6]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7333005/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7333005/

jgraham 5y ago
The article's author is Suzanne Simard [1], who was the first to observe and study the fungi-mediated carbon transfer between trees of different species. This isn't a non-expert romanticising science; this is one of the world's leading experts on the topic at hand trying to make their research accessible to a wide audience. More than that, the idea that communicating via metaphor is necessarily dangerous and misleading seems wrong. These complex biological systems are indeed very different to our human experience. And in many cases our understanding is very nascent; requiring creative thought to develop new insights and make progress. In that context, using metaphors as hooks helps to guide our thoughts and suggest possible paths to further elucidation. Of course, at some point one needs to back up the mental model with hypotheses that can be tested quantitatively, and to actually go out and do the experiment. And it is true that one can take the mental model implied by a metaphor and overapply it, making you believe you understand something that you don't. But that can also happen with any kind of model; one can learn some equations relating supply and demand and feel like that's sufficent to "understand eonomics" but end up making bad predictions when the real world situation turns out to more complex than the assumptions underlying the model. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Simard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Simard
- dsign 5y ago
  One can be the leading expert in a field and still believe weird things, sometimes to the detriment of said field. Though in this case is more likely Dr. Simard and her editor agreed this was the best language to present her subject to a wide audience... imho, again to the detriment of her field. > fungi-mediated carbon transfer between trees of different species. I knew first from Suzanne Simard in Peter Wohlleben's book "The Hidden Life of Trees". Among other things, it describes how fungi interact with trees. It's absolutely fascinating and can very much recommend. Just as Dr. Simard, Wohlleben likes to attribute personality to trees. From the broad viewpoint of cognitive theory, it kind of makes sense. It doesn't change the fact that these are natural systems worth understanding, modelling and predicting. Anthropomorphizing ecosystems via parables in a popular science book directs public opinion in ways that can be very counter-productive.
- DiggyJohnson 5y ago
  > More than that, the idea that communicating via metaphor is necessarily dangerous and misleading seems wrong. Thank you for this point. I think this is one of the gaps in science communication.

by dsign 5y ago

jgraham 5y ago

The article's author is Suzanne Simard [1], who was the first to observe and study the fungi-mediated carbon transfer between trees of different species. This isn't a non-expert romanticising science; this is one of the world's leading experts on the topic at hand trying to make their research accessible to a wide audience. More than that, the idea that communicating via metaphor is necessarily dangerous and misleading seems wrong. These complex biological systems are indeed very different to our human experience. And in many cases our understanding is very nascent; requiring creative thought to develop new insights and make progress. In that context, using metaphors as hooks helps to guide our thoughts and suggest possible paths to further elucidation. Of course, at some point one needs to back up the mental model with hypotheses that can be tested quantitatively, and to actually go out and do the experiment. And it is true that one can take the mental model implied by a metaphor and overapply it, making you believe you understand something that you don't. But that can also happen with any kind of model; one can learn some equations relating supply and demand and feel like that's sufficent to "understand eonomics" but end up making bad predictions when the real world situation turns out to more complex than the assumptions underlying the model. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Simard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Simard

dsign 5y ago
One can be the leading expert in a field and still believe weird things, sometimes to the detriment of said field. Though in this case is more likely Dr. Simard and her editor agreed this was the best language to present her subject to a wide audience... imho, again to the detriment of her field. > fungi-mediated carbon transfer between trees of different species. I knew first from Suzanne Simard in Peter Wohlleben's book "The Hidden Life of Trees". Among other things, it describes how fungi interact with trees. It's absolutely fascinating and can very much recommend. Just as Dr. Simard, Wohlleben likes to attribute personality to trees. From the broad viewpoint of cognitive theory, it kind of makes sense. It doesn't change the fact that these are natural systems worth understanding, modelling and predicting. Anthropomorphizing ecosystems via parables in a popular science book directs public opinion in ways that can be very counter-productive.
DiggyJohnson 5y ago
> More than that, the idea that communicating via metaphor is necessarily dangerous and misleading seems wrong. Thank you for this point. I think this is one of the gaps in science communication.