Correct. Nothing is certain. We've known that since Kant. NOW what? That there are no certain facts does not imply that some facts are not more enduring and useful than others. We need to get beyond the sophomoric revelation that "everything is relative."
n Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Grant Holland Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:37 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen e. p. ropella; Frank Wimberly Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education I agree with Glen. Simply look at a basic statistics course. There we learn the idea of "confidence intervals". You don't really ever "prove" anything in statistics. Rather you may be able to "gain confidence" based on probabilities - along with your previously established "tolerance for maybe being wrong". The whole scientific method eventually comes down to "statistical inference". The best we can do is "infer" - not "know". Then consider the plight of deductive logic. There we are presented with the laws of thought. But those laws can only be put to work once they have been given a set of "assumptions" (axioms, hypotheses, etc.) to work on. The whole edifice depends on having started with the "correct" assumptions. But the laws of thought do not tell you how to select those. "Jes sayin'" Grant On 6/9/15 4:10 AM, glen wrote: > I enjoyed both the article and others' reactions to it, especially Grant's distinction between determined vs. determinability. My own reaction was one slightly tinged with nausea. Yes, it is lamentable when one's ideas, one's ideology, allow(s) one to deny "truth" (new evidence). But it is that very same thing that allows one to lament the denial of truth. > > McIntyre seems to be just as willfully ignorant as those he accuses, > by assuming > > a) there _exists_ a singe, One True Truth, and > b) we (all of us or an in-group few of us) can approach that Truth. > > The point has been made most clearly by Orgel's 2nd Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule . Why is it that we think that what we think is better (or more real, or more effective, or more ... whatever) than what _is_? Why is it that we think so intently about what we think? We're like a bunch of navel-gazing drug addicts, thinking intently about our own thoughts while the world moves on around us. > > There's a kind of circularity to McIntyre's lament (as well as other truthers who continually lament the "truthers" -- 9/11 or whatever, or the deniers that continually complain about the "deniers" -- climate change or whatever). The most frustrating instance of this circularity is the escalation to absurdity exhibited by the ongoing co-evolution between "social justice warriors" and "political correctness freedom fighters" (for lack of a better term). At some point, the frequency of the circular back and forth out paces the recovery time needed by my "outrage neurons". > > At some point, all the finger-pointing, all the childish "yes it is" "no it's not" "yes it is" back and forth makes me wish people like McIntyre would soften their own rhetoric just enough to exhibit more self-doubt and less other-doubt. it would have been more palatable if, e.g., he'd ended the article with "I do my best, but often fail respect the truth." ... or something of that sort, rather than ending with the implication that he's _always_ capable of respecting the truth and knows full well that he always infallibly does, especially right now in this article. > > But, as Russ points out, other-doubt is profitable, while self-doubt is not. > > -glen > > On 06/08/2015 06:19 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: >> Philosophy haters do not read the linked article. It mentions Andy Norman. He is a member of the faculty at Carnegie Mellon, in the department where I used to work. My daughter was a friend of his when they were in high school in the 1980s. I am old. >> >> Frank >> >> http://m.chronicle.com/article/The-Attack-on-Truth/230631/ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
