Jim P,
Interesting. But if all the scientist did was "average" three defective modes of inquiry, wouldn't we be stuck with the "least total error," yet an error nevertheless? We would have all agreed that the earth is flat, Euclidean geometry is the true physical geometry, a part can never be greater than the whole and so forth. The other methods are experimentally defective. Even if the average was taken just from within the scientific community, are there not numerous examples of "leaps" in knowledge occurring by virtue of the beliefs held out along the fringes of the distribution?
Jim W
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 3:10 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: What
Dear Folks--
I'm trying to think of some sort of non psychologistic sounding way of describing or accounting for the drive to settle doubt. I'm thinking that doubt represents uncertainty (a measure of information) and uncertainty poses risk. In general, dynamic sytems tend toward equilibriums around their mean values. Perhaps the behavior we call inquiry is a form of this "moderation in all things". The mean is the point in every distribution which yields the least total error if taken as the value for every member of the distribution. The mean is also the point of dynamic random equilibrium. Maybe doubt is a form of dynamic disequilibrium and inquiry a form of "regression to the mean". In a pluaralistic universe -- truth is the mean or that which mediates between extremes. Not the extremes that we imagine separate our truth from the falsehood of others, but the extremes that actually exist each from another and of which our point of view of truth is but one. Truth is what drives consensus and is common to all POVs -- the lowly average.
The tenacious think feeling is truth, the authoritarian will, the rationalist reason and the scientist the 'average' of em all.
Mostly I'm trying to get a better handle on some non psychologistic sounding ways of thinking about doubt, inquiry and belief. Maybe I've just substituted one set of mis-used words for another -- without any real progress in understanding. Curious what others might think of these borrowed (and probably misapplied) ideas.
Jim Piat
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
