Quoting Russ Abbott circa 09-12-02 01:18 PM: > Glen, do you distinguish between perceptions/[perspectives, models and > scientific theories?
Yes. I laid out many of the differences recently in the thread about models vs. rhetoric. > Do you think of people who believe enough in quantum > theory, general relativity, biological evolution, even Newtonian dynamics to > act on it as certifiably WACKO? You're playing a shell game. I did not say "believe ENOUGH", thereby implying that they do NOT believe somewhat. If someone leaves room for reasonable doubt, then they're not a wacko, no. And, since you list scientific theories, I can say that no scientist can be called a scientist if they don't doubt the theories they act upon. Doubt is necessary. If you never doubt the truth of your pet belief, then yes, you are a wacko. > That's not to say that these theories won't > ever be revised, overturned, etc. But to call people who act on what those > theories predict WACKO seems extreme. I didn't say that. I even used a long-winded phrase to make it clear. I said: "... to the extent that they are convicted, committed, and unwaveringly confident in their own rhetoric ..." You don't need to be a wacko to act on your beliefs. But if you are absolutely CERTAIN, with no doubt at all, that your beliefs are true and nothing anyone around you says will ever shake your unwavering confidence, then yes, you are a wacko. > What about the model you have in your head as you cross the street? That > model included cars coming at you. Not acting on that model seems more WACKO > than acting on it? Again, because I don't want you to miss my point, I'll say that I'm not talking about reasonable people who doubt their beliefs from time to time. If you unwaveringly believe and are totally convinced of your model of how cars, streets, and street crossings work, then yes you are a wacko. Even if you're model happens to BE true, you're still a wacko because all sane people doubt themselves periodically. But if you act on a belief that it's a very very very good idea to look both ways before crossing because you MIGHT get hit, then no, that's not the beliefs of a wacko. It's very easy to doubt that you might get hit by a car. So, if you doubt yourself, you're not a wacko. > I think it would be useful to refine your statement a bit. Waiting for the > light to change at a busy intersection (because of your model of how traffic > lights, traffic, etc. work--which is not always the way it is but which > works often enough and which may include drunk drivers and cases in which > cars run red lights) seems more sane than following Jim Jones to Guyana. Again, you're playing a rhetorical shell game. I didn't say anything about crossing the street or acting on a reasonable belief in your models. I explicitly (and took great pains to be explicit) that if you are convinced and unwaveringly confident in your model, then you're a wacko. I won't take advice from anyone who is so utterly convinced of their own beliefs that no amount of data or rhetoric could ever change those beliefs. Such people ARE the equivalent of Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
