On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:02:36 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:54:04 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:12:40PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: >> > On 6/10/2014 5:22 PM, Russell Standish wrote: >> > >In answer to Bruno's question, indeed the ability to influence one's >> > >subjective probability in this was will lead to a departure from >> > >normality, one that is not visible objectively to any third party. In >> > >short, the reality you inhabit will increasingly become "magical", >> > >like a white rabbit or Harry Potter universe. >> > >> > Or like Max Tegmark surviving every suicide attempt with his quantum >> machine gun. >> > >> >> Not unlike that indeed, except that committing suicide may not even be >> necessary. >> > > actually nothing to do with what you say here, but by confession due to me > being too lazy to actually root back to a more appropriate post in the > "tronnies" thankfully much shorter and more thread-concentrate-to-singular > than the lovely edgar (where are you edgar?). > > If John Clarke is the star of the thread (for supply a knock down > falsification plus identifying the prediction for Mr. Ross and the rest of > us, where we'd all been blinded by the 101 non-predictions supplied by him, > to think there were none at all) and Liz is the most courageous (for at > possibly the low point of Mr. Ross's prestige in this thread, suddenly > announcing - having read some of his book - that his idea was elegant and > maybe crazy enough to be right). If those, then I would say you have been > the Fairest and most respectful to the guy, in that you've offered your > knowledge same presumably you would a peer, and tried to make it simplest > and most useful to him. > > The guy, love him, failed all you, of course. Which the group as a whole > has been pretty good about...no one turning the knife as it were....instead > all demurring into this thread-evening banter of pipe smoking good natured > philosophical wonderingness. All good. > > I'm doing this too, in that my focus is very much on the fact he failed > all of you despite the obvious time and large amount of knowledge offered > by all, but particularly you three. I'm addressing you, because mine is > more relevant to your trait in this thread of 'knowledge + fairness'. > > so my philosophical smoke rings from the pipe of wondering would be: would > it have been even fairer....and possibly even essential for scientific > progress....to actually nail Ross's inadequecies - whether psychological or > in knowledge - as a definite milestone fairly early on, and then turn to > the intermediate problem - of a methodological nature I should think - of > 'controlling' for the gaps or short-falls (methodological as in 'how to > control') after-which return to his ideas from scratch, adding in or > correcting for his shortcomings, and THEN looking for what if anything, of > value, may be there? > > I only mention this, because it could be we are at a juncture in history > where it is particularly likely important insights will come from 'beyond > the periphery'... > > ...in which case we should have to recognize this is not going to be so > easy as the peripheral/outsider contributors in history...because it was > simpler back then, > > and a lot more complex now. such that, maybe if knowledge is to 'get it' > when that genius from the outsider comes forward, if he is there, some > degree of 'controlling' > > will be crucial lest it will be missed. >
p.s. another point to note about the historical 'outsider' geniuses, is that conditions were so different back then, in fact based on the criteria of an outsider today, they weren't even outsiders at all. In that...they did not exhibit gaps in knowledge that would currently be almost impossible not to have outside a specialized scientific field. those historical outsiders were every bit as knowledgable as the 'insiders' and in fact there was no such real distinction as such. It was much more a dogmatic line of distinction back then, in that, outsider or insider did not matter so much as whatever the contemporary 'proto-consensus' happened to be. Not respecting that consensus, would make you an outsider, whether or not you were an outsider to begin with. Likewise, respecting it and being knowledgable or less than knowledgeable, could get you respect regardless of whether you were an insider or an outsider (being the right social class a lot more important though....by no means crucial or anything like it was in every other domain). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
