Re: Vaccine Scare Shows How Emotions Trump Facts - article on NPR.org

[Guest guest]

Dr. Bruce Lipton has done some great work on cell biology and has shown that, among other things, cells react to all of their environment. Others have shown that our emotions change how we see things and the environment that our cells 'see.'. Dr. R. Hawkins has shown that some/most of our knowledge is really belief and that we 'know about'/believe many things but can only 'know' what we can fully experience.

Human beings are very complex animals, although animals who have recently been trained to disbelieve our intimate connection to all others and to the universe. We have been told/taught that we are 'separate' for good reasons, even though we are very much connected and together; we often feel that we are alone even though we cannot be. That makes it easy for others to sell goods and services to make us feel good, temporarily, but denies what we really are, spiritual beings having a human experience.

At the leading edge of system science, people like Ervin Laszlo have hypothesized that the origin of all energy and matter (stable bundles of energy) was born of intelligent consciousness thus, perhaps, explaining how life was able to develop within the available time in the universe (it was pre-informed). Several system scientists have developed hypotheses and even theories that show that large systems of simple components self-organize and are subject to dramatic bifurcations, from time to time, and dramatically change the system and its inter-relationships. This would possibly result in whole new species, etc. It will also be changing our whole environment.

Some of the supposed attack on science is a possible change of our fundamental understanding of what the universe is really made of and how it really works as a very complex system. Just as Newton toppled the old ways and Einstein and Bohr toppled Newton, at least for very-large and very-small systems, the new science may be under great change. Expect dramatic disagreements during the death of the old ways.

Our very environments (indoor and outdoor) will soon be seen as so much more complex and interconnected than anyone ever believed before. That will explain many present conundrums and provide a whole new raft of questions about what we really know.

Exciting times, but hard on those who already know it all!

Jim H. White Rabble-rousing again.

Vaccine Scare Shows How Emotions Trump Facts - article on NPR.org

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/02/risky_business_reactions_to_th.html (yup, that is the URL - I checked it twice. If however it doesn't work just put the subject line into Google and the article should be #1 on the list - it was when I just tried it). And for those of you getting a digest message, here it is again - Vaccine Scare Shows How Emotions Trump Facts - article on NPR.org. (Feb 2010 article)(For those who just want to read the article and not be bothered with the rest of this or perhaps to read it first, form one's own impressions, and then read my post - here you go.)For all others, feel free to read on...and yes, I really did send this to 7 different listserves! So, while I apologize sincerely to the many of you who are going to get multiples of this email, I do have a good reason for doing so. If you are receiving this email directly from me, you deal with the concept of risk and the on-going challenge of trying to explain it to a variety of persons, some of whom don't have a strong background in science, math, statistics, public health, epidemiology, and the concept of risk. So, I think that members of each list copied will find the article (and maybe this discussion) at least of interest and perhaps of value. If you agree, read on - and if not, the delete button awaits. The article isn't really about the vaccine scare as much as it is about how we decide about risk and how our emotions can sway our judgment, even if we do have a background in science, math, etc. Even on these lists I have read many a reply that was much more of an emotional response than an intellectual one. We all have done it at times - myself included. So, how do we decide on something and balance that relationship of those two responses (the emotional one and the intellectual one). They do not have to be mutually exclusive either. This is important to me for several reasons:

I provide risk communication services, too, like so many of you do.

I also teach Conflict Management and Resolution.

I am often asked to provide both of these together often with some health and/or safety issue.

I often see persons deciding about risk based on their emotions. Science has been devalued more and more these days (some would go so far as to say that science is "under attack"). Did you know that the more we repeat something, the more we believe it. It follows then that the more we believe it, the more we are likely to stick to our belief even in the face of overwhelming (scientific) evidence to the contrary. Also, of course, if others say something together, we'll often go with them. So, the question I have for someone who has a firmly held belief is, "What would have to be the case for you to believe otherwise?" Here's what I mean. Paraphrasing the lines from a movie (and changing the ending to suit this discussion), "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans decided things based on science. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." [Let me know if you can identify the movie - without doing an online search please.] As I mentioned above, in much the same way others grab a hold of the wrong idea, so could we. We could easily have something all wrong. Again, look at some of our discussions - we disagree, often with conviction, too often with arrogance, and occasionally with mean-spirited ferocity. Let me use an example that I think we all can relate to and put it into our terms. What would it take to convince you that lead was not a toxic metal? To be clear, I am quite convinced that lead is a toxic metal. I've read the studies, I've seen the reports, I understand the science and the evidence. So, what would it take? I mean, there's that whole, flat earth-centered universe thing to consider. If I were to ask someone with whom I disagree, "what would it take to get you to change your mind?", then I should be equally prepared to ask myself and answer the same question. What would it take for me to change my mind about a closely held belief? Overwhelming objective, scientific evidence, free of sources of bias that was replicated that strongly refuted my belief and proved the opposite. A well designed hypothesis that stood up to repeated testing and proved the null hypothesis with a very low p-value (or other statistical test of your choosing). That's what it would take - for me. But for others, it's all about the emotions. So, what would it take for you?How do you decide on things for which there is both a scientific basis and an emotional component? Other comments? Thanks all! - -- Klane, M.S.Ed., CIH, CHMM, CET

Klane's Education Information Training Hub, LLC (KEITH)

491 Norridgewock Rd.

Fairfield, ME 04937-3116

P: 207-453-KEITH (5348)

jonathan@...

www.trainerman.com

"Take a step in the right direction"

[Guest guest]

Sorry for the slight delay in responding to your email but I lost track of some of the references.

My first introduction to new ways of looking at things was by buying and studying books, DVDs and CDs by R. Hawkins. He is a psychiatrist turned Avatar (above the Guru level) who discovered a way to measure the amount of spiritual power in virtually everything, plus a scale of that power and how it tells us about the degree of spiritual advancement and truth in things, animals and people. He uses physiology (the temporary strength of a raised arm) to measure the truth of a statement; all thoughts dwelt upon and all actions/happenings are stored in the universe and can be captured. For the first time in the history of mankind some of us can measure the truth of a statement, a document, etc.; religions, governments, business associations and most people have run from this in panic - who wants to know the truth; we want to prove that we are right and that they are wrong. 's web site for publications, etc., is www.veritaspub.com and the one books that you should read is "Truth vs Falsehood: how to tell the difference." I have all of his books except the last one and most of his CDs and DVDs. He is labeled as a quack by those who find his work dangerous to their preconceptions.

A later discovery of mine that helped me understand what is going on at the leading edge of cell biology was the work of a cell biologist, Bruce Lipton and his Biology of Belief, 2005. He also has a few videos on YouTube on the "Biology of Belief, the "Biology of Perception" and "The New Biology - Where Mind and Matter Meet." Everyone in our field should get to know his work and ideas well because his research shows us that cells are very aware of their environment and that they may change their DNA (an impossibility according to conventional wisdom), under some conditions, to survive dangerous environments. Since he is suggesting that cells are acting differently than what present university courses are teaching, he is labeled as a quack.

Stuart A. Kaufman has been studying the self-organization of large systems of simple components for decades and shows how the mathematics of the process provide some powerful evidence of larger systems behaving as much more than the sum of their components; one conclusion is that life only occurs close to a line in state space between overly-organized systems and overly-chaotic systems. Life does not have to investigate all possible systems, only those close to this magical line. We studied his book "Reinventing the Sacred" in our Forum on Faith and Science. His definition of Sacred is not a religious one in the ordinary sense of the word. His web site is www.stuartkaufman.com and a review of comments on him, and others who are working in this area, is that he/they are quacks; notice any pattern here?

Another researcher in the chaos area (I bought his into course on Chaos theory from The Teaching Company) is Strogatz (www.stevenstrogatz.com) with his original book "Non-Linear Dynamics and Chaos." There are a number of items by his students and other researchers on YouTube that are instructive to watch. His course does a good job of introducing the concept of bifurcations in complex systems, where only information, not energy, is needed to push an system at a bifurcation point (an instability point) one way or another. One of the inferences is that, if our human society is approaching a bifurcation point (as all complex systems do at some point) then the way we think and feel (information in this universe of ours) will influence which path the universe will choose when it goes unstable. It could be to decimation or a new spiritual future.

Finally, Ervin Laszlo (www.ervinlaszlo.com) has turned the hard question of biological science around and instead of trying to understand how simple minerals, etc., could assemble into life in the time available and inferred, he asked if intelligent consciousness, plus a vast store of 'potential' energy, if it stored all lessons learned forever, could result in energy, long-term-stable packets of energy that we call mass could result in life. If the information available from previous failures is available to new attempts, and there is a thin line in state space that favors life, the answer may be life. Unfortunately, since our planets subsystems, as perturbed by humans, are likely close to a bifurcation point, it may be that the time of the human is soon to be over. His later books, including "Chaos Point: 2012 and Beyond" work hard on that point. See also The Club of Budapest and its web site (www.clubofbudapest.com) for more on his many collaborators. I recommend "Science and the Akashic Field," 2007 edition or "Akashic Field", Second Edition, 2007, for more understanding of his hypothesis. There are many review of his work that declare him and his collaborators as quacks, so he is in good company. Note that no one has yet determined how to change his hypothesis into a theory; this is common in most biology at the leading edge. He does not yet have a theory, only a hypothesis.

If you take a few weeks off in the new year you may be able to read most of the above; it will likely take longer to digest them.

Happy Holidays to you all !!

Jim H. White SSC

Vaccine Scare Shows How Emotions Trump Facts - article on NPR.org

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/02/risky_business_reactions_to_th.html (yup, that is the URL - I checked it twice. If however it doesn't work just put the subject line into Google and the article should be #1 on the list - it was when I just tried it). And for those of you getting a digest message, here it is again - Vaccine Scare Shows How Emotions Trump Facts - article on NPR.org. (Feb 2010 article)(For those who just want to read the article and not be bothered with the rest of this or perhaps to read it first, form one's own impressions, and then read my post - here you go.)For all others, feel free to read on...and yes, I really did send this to 7 different listserves! So, while I apologize sincerely to the many of you who are going to get multiples of this email, I do have a good reason for doing so. If you are receiving this email directly from me, you deal with the concept of risk and the on-going challenge of trying to explain it to a variety of persons, some of whom don't have a strong background in science, math, statistics, public health, epidemiology, and the concept of risk. So, I think that members of each list copied will find the article (and maybe this discussion) at least of interest and perhaps of value. If you agree, read on - and if not, the delete button awaits. The article isn't really about the vaccine scare as much as it is about how we decide about risk and how our emotions can sway our judgment, even if we do have a background in science, math, etc. Even on these lists I have read many a reply that was much more of an emotional response than an intellectual one. We all have done it at times - myself included. So, how do we decide on something and balance that relationship of those two responses (the emotional one and the intellectual one). They do not have to be mutually exclusive either. This is important to me for several reasons:

I provide risk communication services, too, like so many of you do.

I also teach Conflict Management and Resolution.

I am often asked to provide both of these together often with some health and/or safety issue.

I often see persons deciding about risk based on their emotions. Science has been devalued more and more these days (some would go so far as to say that science is "under attack"). Did you know that the more we repeat something, the more we believe it. It follows then that the more we believe it, the more we are likely to stick to our belief even in the face of overwhelming (scientific) evidence to the contrary. Also, of course, if others say something together, we'll often go with them. So, the question I have for someone who has a firmly held belief is, "What would have to be the case for you to believe otherwise?" Here's what I mean. Paraphrasing the lines from a movie (and changing the ending to suit this discussion), "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans decided things based on science. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." [Let me know if you can identify the movie - without doing an online search please.] As I mentioned above, in much the same way others grab a hold of the wrong idea, so could we. We could easily have something all wrong. Again, look at some of our discussions - we disagree, often with conviction, too often with arrogance, and occasionally with mean-spirited ferocity. Let me use an example that I think we all can relate to and put it into our terms. What would it take to convince you that lead was not a toxic metal? To be clear, I am quite convinced that lead is a toxic metal. I've read the studies, I've seen the reports, I understand the science and the evidence. So, what would it take? I mean, there's that whole, flat earth-centered universe thing to consider. If I were to ask someone with whom I disagree, "what would it take to get you to change your mind?", then I should be equally prepared to ask myself and answer the same question. What would it take for me to change my mind about a closely held belief? Overwhelming objective, scientific evidence, free of sources of bias that was replicated that strongly refuted my belief and proved the opposite. A well designed hypothesis that stood up to repeated testing and proved the null hypothesis with a very low p-value (or other statistical test of your choosing). That's what it would take - for me. But for others, it's all about the emotions. So, what would it take for you?How do you decide on things for which there is both a scientific basis and an emotional component? Other comments? Thanks all! - -- Klane, M.S.Ed., CIH, CHMM, CET

Klane's Education Information Training Hub, LLC (KEITH)

491 Norridgewock Rd.

Fairfield, ME 04937-3116

P: 207-453-KEITH (5348)

jonathan@...

www.trainerman.com

"Take a step in the right direction"

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the detailed reply Jim!

Be well and happy holidays to you, too!

-

Klane, M.S.Ed., CIH, CHMM, CET

Klane's Education Information Training Hub, LLC (KEITH)

491 Norridgewock Rd.

Fairfield, ME 04937-3116

P: 207-453-KEITH (5348)

jonathan@...

www.trainerman.com

Twitter: @ theCIH "Take a step in the right direction"

Sorry for the slight delay

in responding to your email but I lost track of some of

the references.

My first introduction to

new ways of looking at things was by buying and studying

books, DVDs and CDs by R. Hawkins. He is a

psychiatrist turned Avatar (above the Guru level) who

discovered a way to measure the amount of spiritual

power in virtually everything, plus a scale of that

power and how it tells us about the degree of spiritual

advancement and truth in things, animals and people. He

uses physiology (the temporary strength of a raised arm)

to measure the truth of a statement; all thoughts dwelt

upon and all actions/happenings are stored in the

universe and can be captured. For the first time in the

history of mankind some of us can measure the truth of a

statement, a document, etc.; religions, governments,

business associations and most people have run from this

in panic - who wants to know the truth; we want to prove

that we are right and that they are wrong. 's web

site for publications, etc., is www.veritaspub.com

and the one books that you should read is "Truth vs

Falsehood: how to tell the difference." I have all of

his books except the last one and most of his CDs and

DVDs. He is labeled as a quack by those who find his

work dangerous to their preconceptions.

A later discovery of mine

that helped me understand what is going on at the

leading edge of cell biology was the work of a cell

biologist, Bruce Lipton and his Biology of Belief, 2005.

He also has a few videos on YouTube on the "Biology of

Belief, the "Biology of Perception" and "The New Biology

- Where Mind and Matter Meet." Everyone in our field

should get to know his work and ideas well because his

research shows us that cells are very aware of their

environment and that they may change their DNA (an

impossibility according to conventional wisdom), under

some conditions, to survive dangerous environments.

Since he is suggesting that cells are acting differently

than what present university courses are teaching, he is

labeled as a quack.

Stuart A. Kaufman has been

studying the self-organization of large systems of

simple components for decades and shows how the

mathematics of the process provide some powerful

evidence of larger systems behaving as much more than

the sum of their components; one conclusion is that life

only occurs close to a line in state space between

overly-organized systems and overly-chaotic systems.

Life does not have to investigate all possible systems,

only those close to this magical line. We studied his

book "Reinventing the Sacred" in our Forum on Faith and

Science. His definition of Sacred is not a religious one

in the ordinary sense of the word. His web site is www.stuartkaufman.com

and a review of comments on him, and others who are

working in this area, is that he/they are quacks; notice

any pattern here?

Another researcher in the

chaos area (I bought his into course on Chaos theory

from The Teaching Company) is Strogatz (www.stevenstrogatz.com)

with his original book "Non-Linear Dynamics and Chaos."

There are a number of items by his students and other

researchers on YouTube that are instructive to watch.

His course does a good job of introducing the concept of

bifurcations in complex systems, where only information,

not energy, is needed to push an system at a bifurcation

point (an instability point) one way or another. One of

the inferences is that, if our human society is

approaching a bifurcation point (as all complex systems

do at some point) then the way we think and feel

(information in this universe of ours) will influence

which path the universe will choose when it goes

unstable. It could be to decimation or a new spiritual

future.

Finally, Ervin Laszlo (www.ervinlaszlo.com)

has turned the hard question of biological science

around and instead of trying to understand how simple

minerals, etc., could assemble into life in the time

available and inferred, he asked if intelligent

consciousness, plus a vast store of 'potential' energy,

if it stored all lessons learned forever, could result

in energy, long-term-stable packets of energy that we

call mass could result in life. If the information

available from previous failures is available to new

attempts, and there is a thin line in state space that

favors life, the answer may be life. Unfortunately,

since our planets subsystems, as perturbed by humans,

are likely close to a bifurcation point, it may be that

the time of the human is soon to be over. His later

books, including "Chaos Point: 2012 and Beyond" work

hard on that point. See also The Club of Budapest and

its web site (www.clubofbudapest.com)

for more on his many collaborators. I recommend "Science

and the Akashic Field," 2007 edition or "Akashic Field",

Second Edition, 2007, for more understanding of his

hypothesis. There are many review of his work that

declare him and his collaborators as quacks, so he is in

good company. Note that no one has yet determined how to

change his hypothesis into a theory; this is common in

most biology at the leading edge. He does not yet have a

theory, only a hypothesis.

If you take a few weeks off

in the new year you may be able to read most of the

above; it will likely take longer to digest them.

Happy Holidays to you all

!!

Jim H. White SSC

Vaccine Scare Shows How Emotions

Trump Facts - article on NPR.org

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/02/risky_business_reactions_to_th.html

(yup, that is the URL - I checked it twice.

If however it doesn't work just put the

subject line into Google and the article

should be #1 on the list - it was when I just

tried it). And for those of you getting a

digest message, here it is again - Vaccine

Scare Shows How Emotions Trump Facts - article

on NPR.org. (Feb 2010 article)

(For those who just want to read the article

and not be bothered with the rest of this or

perhaps to read it first, form one's own

impressions, and then read my post - here you

go.)

For all others, feel free to read on...and

yes, I really did send this to 7 different

listserves! So, while I apologize sincerely

to the many of you who are going to get

multiples of this email, I do have a good

reason for doing so. If you are receiving

this email directly from me, you deal with the

concept of risk and the on-going challenge of

trying to explain it to a variety of persons,

some of whom don't have a strong background in

science, math, statistics, public health,

epidemiology, and the concept of risk. So, I

think that members of each list copied will

find the article (and maybe this discussion)

at least of interest and perhaps of value. If

you agree, read on - and if not, the delete

button awaits.

The article isn't really about the vaccine

scare as much as it is about how we decide

about risk and how our emotions can sway our

judgment, even if we do have a background in

science, math, etc. Even on these lists I have

read many a reply that was much more of an

emotional response than an intellectual one.

We all have done it at times - myself

included. So, how do we decide on something

and balance that relationship of those two

responses (the emotional one and the

intellectual one). They do not have to be

mutually exclusive either.

This is important to me for several reasons:

I provide risk communication services,

too, like so many of you do.

I also teach Conflict Management and

Resolution.

I am often asked to provide both of these

together often with some health and/or

safety issue.

I often see persons deciding about risk

based on their emotions.

Science has been devalued more and more

these days (some would go so far as to say

that science is "under attack").

Did you know that the more we repeat something,

the more we believe it. It follows then that

the more we believe it, the more we are likely

to stick to our belief even in the face of

overwhelming (scientific) evidence to the

contrary. Also, of course, if others say

something together, we'll often go with them.

So, the question I have for someone who has a

firmly held belief is, "What would have to be

the case for you to believe otherwise?" Here's

what I mean. Paraphrasing the lines from a

movie (and changing the ending to suit this

discussion),

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky

dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen

hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was

the center of the universe. Five hundred years

ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and

fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans

decided things based on science. Imagine what

you'll know tomorrow." [Let me know if you can

identify the movie - without doing an online

search please.]

As I mentioned above, in much the same way

others grab a hold of the wrong idea, so could

we. We could easily have something all wrong.

Again, look at some of our discussions - we

disagree, often with conviction, too often with

arrogance, and occasionally with mean-spirited

ferocity. Let me use an example that I think we

all can relate to and put it into our terms.

What would it take to convince you that lead was

not a toxic metal? To be clear, I am quite

convinced that lead is a toxic metal. I've read

the studies, I've seen the reports, I understand

the science and the evidence. So, what would it

take? I mean, there's that whole, flat

earth-centered universe thing to consider.

If I were to ask someone with whom I disagree,

"what would it take to get you to change your

mind?", then I should be equally prepared to ask

myself and answer the same question. What would

it take for me to change my mind about a closely

held belief? Overwhelming objective, scientific

evidence, free of sources of bias that was

replicated that strongly refuted my belief and

proved the opposite. A well designed hypothesis

that stood up to repeated testing and proved the

null hypothesis with a very low p-value (or

other statistical test of your choosing). That's

what it would take - for me. But for others,

it's all about the emotions.

So, what would it take for you?

How do you decide on things for which there is

both a scientific basis and an emotional

component?

Other comments?

Thanks all!

-

-- Klane, M.S.Ed., CIH, CHMM, CET

Klane's Education Information Training Hub, LLC (KEITH)

491 Norridgewock Rd.

Fairfield, ME 04937-3116

P: 207-453-KEITH (5348)

jonathan@...

www.trainerman.com

"Take a step in the right direction"