Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Is the failure to perform and encourage independent reasoning the same thing as stifling it? Are not those that presume that role also imposing a potentially stifling control system just like religious codes of conduct? From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 9:51 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education It has been suggestedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age that stifling of independent reasoning (aka willful ignorance) contributed to the end of the Islamic Golden Age. I've seen other references calling it a rise in anti-rationalism. Western civilization may be heading the same way. Robert C PS sorry to enter the thread a little late. R On 6/10/15 7:05 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME -- rec -- On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.commailto:sasm...@swcp.com wrote: Nick, It's the _shocked_ outrage I find tiresome. By all means be outraged at any and all forms of corruption that take your fancy, and forge that outrage into action. But if someone is shocked and thinks that shock is worth mentioning, then he or she hasn't been paying attention or is exhibiting another kind of willful ignorance. -- rec -- Roger (et alii) - And what of shocked but not surprised? The longer I live, the more I experience this dichotomy... my intellectual self has catalogued a wide enough range of behaviour and experience in the world, that when confronted with a specific new point fact in the universe, I can usually find a place to hang it in my world-view tree, but that doesn't mean it doesn't disturb my soul when I first apprehend the factoid in question. I wonder how this is affected by our wide-ranging apprehension mediated (mostly, or formerly) by journalism (nod to Tom) and now (more recently) crowd-sourcing of information from around the world (including in the (willfully hidden from self?) corners of our own back yards). On one hand we get desensitized (thus losing shock value) and on the other hand we are given much more context in which to help us properly understand whatever shocked but not surprised factoid just got bounced off our apprehension. Every time I feel shocked (if not surprised) I am thankful that my soul remains tender enough to experience that. While I do have plenty of callouses of cynicism, it is nice to be reminded that I am still alive inside these multiple layers of insulation (economic and other forms of security, cynicism, etc.). - Steve On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.netmailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: But Roger, isn’t this a ticket to apathy? Where is the spur to action without outrage? I know that question sounds odd, but I am really asking it. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.commailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:37 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education Of course the really fun thing about statistics is the ongoing discussion about the willful ignorance of scientists submitting papers with technically correct but wholly dubious claims of statistical significance, because -- rather, becorrelate -- their salaries depend on getting published. Funny that the language naturally inserts a causal claim into that observation, where I would rather put the cause on the system than the individuals, and I have to invent a word to back off I'm tending to see this issue theologically. The technical name for we're all imperfect and we've always been so is original sin. Feeling a bit of impostor syndrome? That's how the personal experience of original sin manifests. Disgusted that cops aren't fair, that rich people get privileges, that politicians repay rich people with more privileges, that FIFA is corrupt, that Australia outsources immigrant detention camps to Nauru, that Nauru denies visas to Australian civil rights lawyers seeking to defend immigrant rights, and so on? Yeah, well, be disgusted, but try not to get too righteous about it and spare us the expressions of shocked outrage. If you're shocked at this, then you haven't been paying attention. So, are there any entirely good or entirely bad persons? Or are they entirely figments of our imaginations? -- rec -- On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:10 AM, glen geprope...@gmail.commailto:geprope...@gmail.com wrote: Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I tend to think the best tool is ... well, it goes by
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
It has been suggested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age that stifling of independent reasoning (aka willful ignorance) contributed to the end of the Islamic Golden Age. I've seen other references calling it a rise in anti-rationalism. Western civilization may be heading the same way. Robert C PS sorry to enter the thread a little late. R On 6/10/15 7:05 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME -- rec -- On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com mailto:sasm...@swcp.com wrote: Nick, It's the _shocked_ outrage I find tiresome. By all means be outraged at any and all forms of corruption that take your fancy, and forge that outrage into action. But if someone is shocked and thinks that shock is worth mentioning, then he or she hasn't been paying attention or is exhibiting another kind of willful ignorance. -- rec -- Roger (et alii) - And what of shocked but not surprised? The longer I live, the more I experience this dichotomy... my intellectual self has catalogued a wide enough range of behaviour and experience in the world, that when confronted with a specific new point fact in the universe, I can usually find a place to hang it in my world-view tree, but that doesn't mean it doesn't disturb my soul when I first apprehend the factoid in question. I wonder how this is affected by our wide-ranging apprehension mediated (mostly, or formerly) by journalism (nod to Tom) and now (more recently) crowd-sourcing of information from around the world (including in the (willfully hidden from self?) corners of our own back yards). On one hand we get desensitized (thus losing shock value) and on the other hand we are given much more context in which to help us properly understand whatever shocked but not surprised factoid just got bounced off our apprehension. Every time I feel shocked (if not surprised) I am thankful that my soul remains tender enough to experience that. While I do have plenty of callouses of cynicism, it is nice to be reminded that I am still alive inside these multiple layers of insulation (economic and other forms of security, cynicism, etc.). - Steve On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: But Roger, isn’t this a ticket to apathy? Where is the spur to action without outrage? I know that question sounds odd, but I am really asking it. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/ *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow *Sent:* Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:37 PM *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education Of course the really fun thing about statistics is the ongoing discussion about the willful ignorance of scientists submitting papers with technically correct but wholly dubious claims of statistical significance, because -- rather, becorrelate -- their salaries depend on getting published. Funny that the language naturally inserts a causal claim into that observation, where I would rather put the cause on the system than the individuals, and I have to invent a word to back off I'm tending to see this issue theologically. The technical name for we're all imperfect and we've always been so is original sin. Feeling a bit of impostor syndrome? That's how the personal experience of original sin manifests. Disgusted that cops aren't fair, that rich people get privileges, that politicians repay rich people with more privileges, that FIFA is corrupt, that Australia outsources immigrant detention camps to Nauru, that Nauru denies visas to Australian civil rights lawyers seeking to defend immigrant rights, and so on? Yeah, well, be disgusted, but try not to get too righteous about it and spare us the expressions of shocked outrage. If you're shocked at this, then you haven't been paying attention. So, are there any entirely good or entirely bad persons? Or are they entirely figments of our imaginations? -- rec -- On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:10 AM, glen geprope...@gmail.com mailto:geprope...@gmail.com wrote: Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I tend to think the best tool is ...
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Well, if we are using physiological shock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_(circulatory) as an analogy for the life of the mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sound_of_the_Life_of_the_Mind, then avoiding it would be imperative since it would cause a stiffening, ceasing effect on activity (and hence, activism). -Arlo James Barnes 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Nick, It's the _shocked_ outrage I find tiresome. By all means be outraged at any and all forms of corruption that take your fancy, and forge that outrage into action. But if someone is shocked and thinks that shock is worth mentioning, then he or she hasn't been paying attention or is exhibiting another kind of "willful ignorance". -- rec -- Roger (et alii) - And what of "shocked but not surprised"? The longer I live, the more I experience this dichotomy... my intellectual self has catalogued a wide enough range of behaviour and experience in the world, that when confronted with a specific new point fact in the universe, I can usually find a place to hang it in my world-view tree, but that doesn't mean it doesn't disturb my soul when I first apprehend the "factoid" in question. I wonder how this is affected by our wide-ranging apprehension mediated (mostly, or formerly) by journalism (nod to Tom) and now (more recently) crowd-sourcing of information from around the world (including in the (willfully hidden from self?) corners of our own back yards). On one hand we get desensitized (thus losing "shock value") and on the other hand we are given much more context in which to help us properly understand whatever "shocked but not surprised" factoid just got bounced off our apprehension. Every time I feel "shocked" (if not surprised) I am thankful that my soul remains tender enough to experience that. While I do have plenty of callouses of cynicism, it is nice to be reminded that I am still alive inside these multiple layers of insulation (economic and other forms of security, cynicism, etc.). - Steve On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: But Roger, isn’t this a ticket to apathy? Where is the spur to action without outrage? I know that question sounds odd, but I am really asking it. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:37 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education Of course the really fun thing about statistics is the ongoing discussion about the "willful ignorance" of scientists submitting papers with technically correct but wholly dubious claims of statistical significance, because -- rather, becorrelate -- their salaries depend on getting published. Funny that the language naturally inserts a causal claim into that observation, where I would rather put the cause on the system than the individuals, and I have to invent a word to back off I'm tending to see this issue theologically. The technical name for "we're all imperfect and we've always been so" is original sin. Feeling a bit of impostor syndrome? That's how the personal experience of original sin manifests. Disgusted that cops aren't fair, that rich people get privileges, that politicians repay rich people with more privileges, that FIFA is corrupt, that Australia outsources immigrant detention camps to Nauru, that Nauru denies visas to Australian civil rights lawyers seeking to defend immigrant rights, and so on? Yeah, well, be disgusted, but try not to get too righteous about it and spare us the
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME -- rec -- On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote: Nick, It's the _shocked_ outrage I find tiresome. By all means be outraged at any and all forms of corruption that take your fancy, and forge that outrage into action. But if someone is shocked and thinks that shock is worth mentioning, then he or she hasn't been paying attention or is exhibiting another kind of willful ignorance. -- rec -- Roger (et alii) - And what of shocked but not surprised? The longer I live, the more I experience this dichotomy... my intellectual self has catalogued a wide enough range of behaviour and experience in the world, that when confronted with a specific new point fact in the universe, I can usually find a place to hang it in my world-view tree, but that doesn't mean it doesn't disturb my soul when I first apprehend the factoid in question. I wonder how this is affected by our wide-ranging apprehension mediated (mostly, or formerly) by journalism (nod to Tom) and now (more recently) crowd-sourcing of information from around the world (including in the (willfully hidden from self?) corners of our own back yards). On one hand we get desensitized (thus losing shock value) and on the other hand we are given much more context in which to help us properly understand whatever shocked but not surprised factoid just got bounced off our apprehension. Every time I feel shocked (if not surprised) I am thankful that my soul remains tender enough to experience that. While I do have plenty of callouses of cynicism, it is nice to be reminded that I am still alive inside these multiple layers of insulation (economic and other forms of security, cynicism, etc.). - Steve On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: But Roger, isn’t this a ticket to apathy? Where is the spur to action without outrage? I know that question sounds odd, but I am really asking it. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow *Sent:* Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:37 PM *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education Of course the really fun thing about statistics is the ongoing discussion about the willful ignorance of scientists submitting papers with technically correct but wholly dubious claims of statistical significance, because -- rather, becorrelate -- their salaries depend on getting published. Funny that the language naturally inserts a causal claim into that observation, where I would rather put the cause on the system than the individuals, and I have to invent a word to back off I'm tending to see this issue theologically. The technical name for we're all imperfect and we've always been so is original sin. Feeling a bit of impostor syndrome? That's how the personal experience of original sin manifests. Disgusted that cops aren't fair, that rich people get privileges, that politicians repay rich people with more privileges, that FIFA is corrupt, that Australia outsources immigrant detention camps to Nauru, that Nauru denies visas to Australian civil rights lawyers seeking to defend immigrant rights, and so on? Yeah, well, be disgusted, but try not to get too righteous about it and spare us the expressions of shocked outrage. If you're shocked at this, then you haven't been paying attention. So, are there any entirely good or entirely bad persons? Or are they entirely figments of our imaginations? -- rec -- On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:10 AM, glen geprope...@gmail.com wrote: Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I tend to think the best tool is ... well, it goes by many names. One name is active listening ... empathy ... etc. The technique is well known to all of us (well unless we're autistic or psychopathic). When you hear someone say something that just sounds wrong, there are 2 basic steps: 1) find out why you think they're wrong (including the statistics that surround any of the facts involved), and 2) try to figure out what the speaker _really_ means by whatever nonsense they're spouting. Since I don't believe our thoughts are very accurate at all, I have no problems empathizing with someone who spouts (apparent) nonsense. I do it myself on a regular basis. I try not to. But it's difficult. In fact, the reason I find purposeful nonsense (including climate denial or chemtrails, but more like chatbots) so cool is because of the accidental nonsense in which we bathe. On 06/09/2015 08:36 AM, Grant Holland wrote: Righto. So what we do is put a measure on how much confidence we have. Statistics gives us
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
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/ -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella There's a chamber that should always be full 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Senator John Thune recently issued this tweet. You can argue that it's a denial of truth. But really, it's more like a tribal call. He is saying I hate Obama, and he will be applauded by those who also hate Obama. It's not a matter of truth. Here's Krugman's post on it: http://goo.gl/6a4yue. Here's my Google+ post: https://goo.gl/tt19Jz -- Russ On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:11 AM glen g...@ropella.name 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/ -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella There's a chamber that should always be full 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Nick, Righto. So what we do is put a measure on how much confidence we have. Statistics gives us some tools for that - namely the moment functionals (mean, variance, skewness, etc.); and information theory gives us some more general tools for that - entropy and the other entropic funtionals. So maybe it's a mixture of the relative and the absolute. Maybe we've moved up to the junior level? Grant On 6/9/15 9:14 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: 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
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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I tend to think the best tool is ... well, it goes by many names. One name is active listening ... empathy ... etc. The technique is well known to all of us (well unless we're autistic or psychopathic). When you hear someone say something that just sounds wrong, there are 2 basic steps: 1) find out why you think they're wrong (including the statistics that surround any of the facts involved), and 2) try to figure out what the speaker _really_ means by whatever nonsense they're spouting. Since I don't believe our thoughts are very accurate at all, I have no problems empathizing with someone who spouts (apparent) nonsense. I do it myself on a regular basis. I try not to. But it's difficult. In fact, the reason I find purposeful nonsense (including climate denial or chemtrails, but more like chatbots) so cool is because of the accidental nonsense in which we bathe. On 06/09/2015 08:36 AM, Grant Holland wrote: Righto. So what we do is put a measure on how much confidence we have. Statistics gives us some tools for that - namely the moment functionals (mean, variance, skewness, etc.); and information theory gives us some more general tools for that - entropy and the other entropic funtionals. So maybe it's a mixture of the relative and the absolute. Maybe we've moved up to the junior level? Grant On 6/9/15 9:14 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: 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. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Float away from those horizons 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
As a died-in-the-wool PhilosoPHILE, I really appreciate the article and Nick's commentary here. Pierce's pragmatic distinction between Truth(tm) and Real(ity) is precisely what I believe Philosophy to prove it's value to *all of us*. To some this distinction may be subtle but I contend, critical. Also the distinction between long-time-scale converging opinions vs "criticism"... key stuff. - Steve Frank, That is a splendid article, http://m.chronicle.com/article/The-Attack-on-Truth/230631/ and I think you undersell it. Even the worse philosophophobes on the list will be happy to read it, and take strength from it. NOT SO MY RESPONSE TO IT, which I copy in below. Philosophophobes beware! Nick Begin philosophophobe free zone: The confusion about truth has its roots in the deep history of Pragmatism. Peirce famously said that the truth is that upon which we are fated to agree and the real is that which is the case, no matter what you, or I or any other person might believe. Some pragmatists (James, perhaps?) took this to mean that the truth is whatever we happen to agree upon. Peirce hated that interpretation because he was well aware that it may take millennia for the fated convergence of opinion to take place. He deplored literary criticism. Dewey was rather on Peirce's side of this argument, and after WWII, and around the time of Dewey's death, this country basked in the glow of a Deweyan consensus until the Left Critics started to hack away at it, and the right wing took up the cry. The author does not mention the role of the field of anthropology in all of this, which, I gather, almost destroyed itself as a field over this very issue, and almost took down social science with it. We probably won't get through this mess until we find a solution to the problem that the Pragmatists struggled over -- that the only measure of the truth or falsity, the reality or unreality, of our experiences is other experiences. How, now, do we pick out from our experiences those upon which the community of inquiry is fated to agree, in the very long run? End of philosophophobe free zone Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 9:20 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education 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/ Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Phone (505) 670-9918 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I tend to think the best tool is ... well, it goes by many names. One name is active listening ... empathy ... etc. The technique is well known to all of us (well unless we're autistic or psychopathic). When you hear someone say something that just sounds wrong, there are 2 basic steps: 1) find out why you think they're wrong (including the statistics that surround any of the facts involved), and 2) try to figure out what the speaker _really_ means by whatever nonsense they're spouting. Since I don't believe our thoughts are very accurate at all, I have no problems empathizing with someone who spouts (apparent) nonsense. I do it myself on a regular basis. I try not to. But it's difficult. In fact, the reason I find purposeful nonsense (including climate denial or chemtrails, but more like chatbots) so cool is because of the accidental nonsense in which we bathe. On 06/09/2015 08:36 AM, Grant Holland wrote: Righto. So what we do is put a measure on how much confidence we have. Statistics gives us some tools for that - namely the moment functionals (mean, variance, skewness, etc.); and information theory gives us some more general tools for that - entropy and the other entropic funtionals. So maybe it's a mixture of the relative and the absolute. Maybe we've moved up to the junior level? Grant On 6/9/15 9:14 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: 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. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Float away from those horizons 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
On 06/09/2015 10:36 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote: because -- rather, becorrelate -- their salaries depend on getting published. Ha! I laughed out loud at that... thanks! I'm tending to see this issue theologically. The technical name for we're all imperfect and we've always been so is original sin. There are other metaphysical stances we can use. I think a better technical name is sample, as in each person (at each time point) is a sample of the possibility space presented to us by the universe. The metaphysical part is the assumption that there's a search mechanism (cf neo-Darwinism) that put each sample at that point in the space. So, are there any entirely good or entirely bad persons? Or are they entirely figments of our imaginations? With this metaphysics, then, we can rephrase your question as: Is there an optimum, a unique one? Is it a global optimum or just a local one? What's the dimensionality of the space? Do the optima of the subspaces correlate with the optima of the whole space? Etc. The One True Truth believers will answer yes to the first question. And I think the people who think we (collectively or alone) are capable of (consciously) approaching the optimum should answer yes to 4th quesion, too. My point about evolution being smarter than we are (collectively or alone) seems to have been lost, though. The proto-theological stance, in this metaphysics is that our Lord Evolution has a plan for each and every one of us ... a mysterious plan we are incapable of grasping with our little minds. And to continue answering Nick's question, after attempting to figure out what some nonsense-spouting sample is trying to say, the next most powerful method is to study the solutions demonstrated to us by our Lord Evolution ... which is exactly what we're trying to do in fields like ALife or biomimetics. It's a wonder anyone would call that sophomoric. Reverse engineering the black box solutions provided to us by our Lord is anything but. And it seems a hell of a lot more productive than sanctimonious whining about the willful ignorance of the another tribe. But, as usual, I could be wrong. My position was recently rebuked by a man much smarter than me with a fairly difficult challenge to this metaphysical stance. Thank God I'm agnostic. -- ⇔ glen 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Of course the really fun thing about statistics is the ongoing discussion about the willful ignorance of scientists submitting papers with technically correct but wholly dubious claims of statistical significance, because -- rather, becorrelate -- their salaries depend on getting published. Funny that the language naturally inserts a causal claim into that observation, where I would rather put the cause on the system than the individuals, and I have to invent a word to back off I'm tending to see this issue theologically. The technical name for we're all imperfect and we've always been so is original sin. Feeling a bit of impostor syndrome? That's how the personal experience of original sin manifests. Disgusted that cops aren't fair, that rich people get privileges, that politicians repay rich people with more privileges, that FIFA is corrupt, that Australia outsources immigrant detention camps to Nauru, that Nauru denies visas to Australian civil rights lawyers seeking to defend immigrant rights, and so on? Yeah, well, be disgusted, but try not to get too righteous about it and spare us the expressions of shocked outrage. If you're shocked at this, then you haven't been paying attention. So, are there any entirely good or entirely bad persons? Or are they entirely figments of our imaginations? -- rec -- On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:10 AM, glen geprope...@gmail.com wrote: Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I tend to think the best tool is ... well, it goes by many names. One name is active listening ... empathy ... etc. The technique is well known to all of us (well unless we're autistic or psychopathic). When you hear someone say something that just sounds wrong, there are 2 basic steps: 1) find out why you think they're wrong (including the statistics that surround any of the facts involved), and 2) try to figure out what the speaker _really_ means by whatever nonsense they're spouting. Since I don't believe our thoughts are very accurate at all, I have no problems empathizing with someone who spouts (apparent) nonsense. I do it myself on a regular basis. I try not to. But it's difficult. In fact, the reason I find purposeful nonsense (including climate denial or chemtrails, but more like chatbots) so cool is because of the accidental nonsense in which we bathe. On 06/09/2015 08:36 AM, Grant Holland wrote: Righto. So what we do is put a measure on how much confidence we have. Statistics gives us some tools for that - namely the moment functionals (mean, variance, skewness, etc.); and information theory gives us some more general tools for that - entropy and the other entropic funtionals. So maybe it's a mixture of the relative and the absolute. Maybe we've moved up to the junior level? Grant On 6/9/15 9:14 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: 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. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Float away from those horizons 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
“Yeah, well, be disgusted, but try not to get too righteous about it and spare us the expressions of shocked outrage.” As we are coming up on the Tour de France, I’m reminded of the outrage over cheating. What exactly is the question being asked by that competition? Is it to find the genetically most gifted person? The person that trains the hardest? The best use of barely-legal training techniques? The best team tactics? The most advanced alloys and aerodynamics? Isn’t it unfair that a genetically gifted person would have to compete against a less gifted person? My take on all that is all of the cyclists put themselves through a hell that is just unimaginable to most people, but there is no level playing field, just various definitions of one. What would anyone do in that situation -- faced with a short 10 year career -- but try to win at all costs?So many useless spectators. Marcus 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
On 6/9/15 12:16 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: So many useless spectators. And this one too! Absolutely! 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Two great gems from this thread! On 06/09/2015 10:36 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote: So, are there any entirely good or entirely bad persons? Or are they entirely figments of our imaginations? absolutely! And Glen wrote: Thank God I'm agnostic. Absolutely! 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Abductively! -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:40 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education Two great gems from this thread! On 06/09/2015 10:36 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote: So, are there any entirely good or entirely bad persons? Or are they entirely figments of our imaginations? absolutely! And Glen wrote: Thank God I'm agnostic. Absolutely! 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Glen, I like it. Very well put. Grant On 6/9/15 9:56 AM, glen wrote: Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I tend to think the best tool is ... well, it goes by many names. One name is active listening ... empathy ... etc. The technique is well known to all of us (well unless we're autistic or psychopathic). When you hear someone say something that just sounds wrong, there are 2 basic steps: 1) find out why you think they're wrong (including the statistics that surround any of the facts involved), and 2) try to figure out what the speaker _really_ means by whatever nonsense they're spouting. Since I don't believe our thoughts are very accurate at all, I have no problems empathizing with someone who spouts (apparent) nonsense. I do it myself on a regular basis. I try not to. But it's difficult. In fact, the reason I find purposeful nonsense (including climate denial or chemtrails, but more like chatbots) so cool is because of the accidental nonsense in which we bathe. On 06/09/2015 08:36 AM, Grant Holland wrote: Righto. So what we do is put a measure on how much confidence we have. Statistics gives us some tools for that - namely the moment functionals (mean, variance, skewness, etc.); and information theory gives us some more general tools for that - entropy and the other entropic funtionals. So maybe it's a mixture of the relative and the absolute. Maybe we've moved up to the junior level? Grant On 6/9/15 9:14 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: 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. 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
This tweet turned up in a search for the #wcsj2015 hashtag -- a conference of science journalists going on in South Korea where a Nobel biologist has made such a sexist ass of himself that the Royal Society decided to publicly distance itself ( https://royalsociety.org/news/2015/06/tim-hunt-comments/) from him -- but the subtitle of the book featured in the tweet bears on this discussion: https://twitter.com/AskAstroAlex/status/608419170821246976 -- rec -- On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Grant Holland grant.holland...@gmail.com wrote: Glen, I like it. Very well put. Grant On 6/9/15 9:56 AM, glen wrote: Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I tend to think the best tool is ... well, it goes by many names. One name is active listening ... empathy ... etc. The technique is well known to all of us (well unless we're autistic or psychopathic). When you hear someone say something that just sounds wrong, there are 2 basic steps: 1) find out why you think they're wrong (including the statistics that surround any of the facts involved), and 2) try to figure out what the speaker _really_ means by whatever nonsense they're spouting. Since I don't believe our thoughts are very accurate at all, I have no problems empathizing with someone who spouts (apparent) nonsense. I do it myself on a regular basis. I try not to. But it's difficult. In fact, the reason I find purposeful nonsense (including climate denial or chemtrails, but more like chatbots) so cool is because of the accidental nonsense in which we bathe. On 06/09/2015 08:36 AM, Grant Holland wrote: Righto. So what we do is put a measure on how much confidence we have. Statistics gives us some tools for that - namely the moment functionals (mean, variance, skewness, etc.); and information theory gives us some more general tools for that - entropy and the other entropic funtionals. So maybe it's a mixture of the relative and the absolute. Maybe we've moved up to the junior level? Grant On 6/9/15 9:14 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: 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. 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
But Roger, isn’t this a ticket to apathy? Where is the spur to action without outrage? I know that question sounds odd, but I am really asking it. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:37 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education Of course the really fun thing about statistics is the ongoing discussion about the willful ignorance of scientists submitting papers with technically correct but wholly dubious claims of statistical significance, because -- rather, becorrelate -- their salaries depend on getting published. Funny that the language naturally inserts a causal claim into that observation, where I would rather put the cause on the system than the individuals, and I have to invent a word to back off I'm tending to see this issue theologically. The technical name for we're all imperfect and we've always been so is original sin. Feeling a bit of impostor syndrome? That's how the personal experience of original sin manifests. Disgusted that cops aren't fair, that rich people get privileges, that politicians repay rich people with more privileges, that FIFA is corrupt, that Australia outsources immigrant detention camps to Nauru, that Nauru denies visas to Australian civil rights lawyers seeking to defend immigrant rights, and so on? Yeah, well, be disgusted, but try not to get too righteous about it and spare us the expressions of shocked outrage. If you're shocked at this, then you haven't been paying attention. So, are there any entirely good or entirely bad persons? Or are they entirely figments of our imaginations? -- rec -- On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:10 AM, glen geprope...@gmail.com mailto:geprope...@gmail.com wrote: Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I tend to think the best tool is ... well, it goes by many names. One name is active listening ... empathy ... etc. The technique is well known to all of us (well unless we're autistic or psychopathic). When you hear someone say something that just sounds wrong, there are 2 basic steps: 1) find out why you think they're wrong (including the statistics that surround any of the facts involved), and 2) try to figure out what the speaker _really_ means by whatever nonsense they're spouting. Since I don't believe our thoughts are very accurate at all, I have no problems empathizing with someone who spouts (apparent) nonsense. I do it myself on a regular basis. I try not to. But it's difficult. In fact, the reason I find purposeful nonsense (including climate denial or chemtrails, but more like chatbots) so cool is because of the accidental nonsense in which we bathe. On 06/09/2015 08:36 AM, Grant Holland wrote: Righto. So what we do is put a measure on how much confidence we have. Statistics gives us some tools for that - namely the moment functionals (mean, variance, skewness, etc.); and information theory gives us some more general tools for that - entropy and the other entropic funtionals. So maybe it's a mixture of the relative and the absolute. Maybe we've moved up to the junior level? Grant On 6/9/15 9:14 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: 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. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Float away from those horizons 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Nick, It's the _shocked_ outrage I find tiresome. By all means be outraged at any and all forms of corruption that take your fancy, and forge that outrage into action. But if someone is shocked and thinks that shock is worth mentioning, then he or she hasn't been paying attention or is exhibiting another kind of willful ignorance. -- rec -- On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: But Roger, isn’t this a ticket to apathy? Where is the spur to action without outrage? I know that question sounds odd, but I am really asking it. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow *Sent:* Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:37 PM *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education Of course the really fun thing about statistics is the ongoing discussion about the willful ignorance of scientists submitting papers with technically correct but wholly dubious claims of statistical significance, because -- rather, becorrelate -- their salaries depend on getting published. Funny that the language naturally inserts a causal claim into that observation, where I would rather put the cause on the system than the individuals, and I have to invent a word to back off I'm tending to see this issue theologically. The technical name for we're all imperfect and we've always been so is original sin. Feeling a bit of impostor syndrome? That's how the personal experience of original sin manifests. Disgusted that cops aren't fair, that rich people get privileges, that politicians repay rich people with more privileges, that FIFA is corrupt, that Australia outsources immigrant detention camps to Nauru, that Nauru denies visas to Australian civil rights lawyers seeking to defend immigrant rights, and so on? Yeah, well, be disgusted, but try not to get too righteous about it and spare us the expressions of shocked outrage. If you're shocked at this, then you haven't been paying attention. So, are there any entirely good or entirely bad persons? Or are they entirely figments of our imaginations? -- rec -- On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:10 AM, glen geprope...@gmail.com wrote: Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I tend to think the best tool is ... well, it goes by many names. One name is active listening ... empathy ... etc. The technique is well known to all of us (well unless we're autistic or psychopathic). When you hear someone say something that just sounds wrong, there are 2 basic steps: 1) find out why you think they're wrong (including the statistics that surround any of the facts involved), and 2) try to figure out what the speaker _really_ means by whatever nonsense they're spouting. Since I don't believe our thoughts are very accurate at all, I have no problems empathizing with someone who spouts (apparent) nonsense. I do it myself on a regular basis. I try not to. But it's difficult. In fact, the reason I find purposeful nonsense (including climate denial or chemtrails, but more like chatbots) so cool is because of the accidental nonsense in which we bathe. On 06/09/2015 08:36 AM, Grant Holland wrote: Righto. So what we do is put a measure on how much confidence we have. Statistics gives us some tools for that - namely the moment functionals (mean, variance, skewness, etc.); and information theory gives us some more general tools for that - entropy and the other entropic funtionals. So maybe it's a mixture of the relative and the absolute. Maybe we've moved up to the junior level? Grant On 6/9/15 9:14 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: 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. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Float away from those horizons 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 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Frank, That is a splendid article, http://m.chronicle.com/article/The-Attack-on-Truth/230631/ and I think you undersell it. Even the worse philosophophobes on the list will be happy to read it, and take strength from it. NOT SO MY RESPONSE TO IT, which I copy in below. Philosophophobes beware! Nick Begin philosophophobe free zone: _ The confusion about truth has its roots in the deep history of Pragmatism. Peirce famously said that the truth is that upon which we are fated to agree and the real is that which is the case, no matter what you, or I or any other person might believe. Some pragmatists (James, perhaps?) took this to mean that the truth is whatever we happen to agree upon. Peirce hated that interpretation because he was well aware that it may take millennia for the fated convergence of opinion to take place. He deplored literary criticism. Dewey was rather on Peirce's side of this argument, and after WWII, and around the time of Dewey's death, this country basked in the glow of a Deweyan consensus until the Left Critics started to hack away at it, and the right wing took up the cry. The author does not mention the role of the field of anthropology in all of this, which, I gather, almost destroyed itself as a field over this very issue, and almost took down social science with it. We probably won't get through this mess until we find a solution to the problem that the Pragmatists struggled over -- that the only measure of the truth or falsity, the reality or unreality, of our experiences is other experiences. How, now, do we pick out from our experiences those upon which the community of inquiry is fated to agree, in the very long run? _ End of philosophophobe free zone Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 9:20 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education 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/ Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Phone (505) 670-9918 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
Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Thanks, Frank. Great article. This is reminiscent of the philosophical issue of the ontological vs the epistemological that has been all over quantum theory for some time now. This is the whole issue raised by the uncertainty principle. In quantum theory it seems to be framed by the question of what exists? (the ontic) vs what can be know?, or what can we reliably measure (the epistemic). This issue is address in QM by the quantum theory of measurement, and is a basic topic in QM. There's a very good article on this by a philosopher of science investigator named Harald Atmanspacher, entitled Determinism is Ontic, Determinability is Epistemic. It can be obtained here from the PhilSci Arhive web site. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/939/ Good reading, Grant On 6/8/15 7:19 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/ Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Phone (505) 670-9918 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
