Today I Learned

It takes time for earth worms to occupy available ecosystems. It's not like they're natural migrators. In particular, they're slow to cross rivers. Not very good swimmers either. I'm addition to agriculture and construction, anglers also seem to be spreading them.

11k years isn't a ton of time. But yeah, I'm sure 🦆🪿 have been crapping out worm 🪱 🥚 s. Also consider that the premise of them existing is based on a sampling of some data.

Academically I consider myself a scientific materialist, which means I'm trying to believe as little as I possibly can(but not more). The way I try to think about these things is in terms of abstractions of belief; I believe the field data however much I do based on their protocol and method; I believe the derived statistics from those data quite a bit less depending whatever uncertainty metrics they offer and the specific procedure; I believe the conclusions even less depending on how well supported, and I believe theory, an abstraction and consolidation of conclusions and results the least.

I'm spelling this out because I don't believe scientific philosophy or it's extensions to be well taught or understood by both ley and trained individuals. There is a tension that exists between theoreticians and experimentalists, that frankly, the theoreticians are regularlly coming out on the wrong side of. I think this has its origins in the academic tradition of western civilization coming from religion. I work to invert the belief structure by focusing on only having to believe the most minimum that I need to believe.

This is where factoids become, well problematic. There is a tendency to see scientifically generated statements as statements of fact, when actually, for a scientific statement to be scientific, it can't be taken to be 100% true. At it's core, the statement needs to be falsifiable to be a scientific statement. Which means, it can't be 100% true; there needs to be at least some epsilon of uncertainty for a statement to be falsifiable, which means while we might be highly confident in it, there is some potential it just may not be that way.

But the tradition of religion doesn't work that way. Truth is absolute in the religious philosophies that underpin the western academic tradition. So culturally there is this tendency to want to 'believe' the most abstracted elements of scientific work (conclusions, theories, etc..), when in fact these elements are the things we should believe the least, because of the cultural definitions and understandings of truth that these traditions find their roots in.

So it's not unusual to want to make broad statements of fact from limited information, but we should be considering the caveat that this thing we are saying is what we believe the least. We may still believe it, but we believe the statistics used the generate the conclusion moreso, and we believe the data generated to support the statistics even moreso. It's just not particularly interesting to humans to say something along the lines of "We did not find evidence of earthworm behavior in this sediment, that sediment or that other sediment over there", when in fact that is where we should be putting the majority of the weight of our belief (assuming you subscribe to scientific materialist as a way of getting at the truth of things).

Factoids don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, but just because something is pleasing to think, this has no bearing on its relationship to truth.

I wasn’t expecting to read “oh shit, the plot thickens” in the comments section of an article about earthworms. Today is going to be a good day.