I'm afraid I became permanently biased against the "philosophy of philosophysing" during one particular infinite-duration 45-minute philosophy undergrad class that I once had ill-advisedly enrolled in to satisfy a humanities undergrad requirement.
During that 45 minutes in Hell, a self-satisfied, pompous, self-important twit of a a philosophy professor beat the "If a tree falls in the forest yada yada" chestnut into a bloody, distasteful pulp. Repeatedly. Further, my repeated cycling in and out of the university environment and into the actual work force as a student engineer over the 8 year period that I took to get my bachelor's degree only had the effect of reinforcing my already somewhat strong distaste for "talkers", versus "doers". Those who can, do, those who can't, teach: there are very good reasons that this nugget of observation has become a part of our lexicon. --Doug -- Doug Roberts [email protected] [email protected] http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >Logorrhea > (psychology)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logorrhea_%28psychology%29>, > a communication disorder resulting in incoherent talkativeness > > I picked at this one deliberately. (Apologies to Nick for accidentally > suckering him into the *ReplyAll* vs *Reply* error we all make from time > to time. I will take his appeal to discuss the details offline.) > > It started with the discussion of "what means prime?". While I'm too > familiar with what often feels to be pathological logorrhea, I'm also > familiar with attempts to discuss topics without an existing (or consistent > or apt or sufficient) frame of reference. > > Scientists rarely argue with religious zealots while religious zealots are > eager to argue with scientists. The argument breaks down (or never starts) > because the two groups are not really talking about the same thing and > apparently only one side understands that. It is my assertion that a lot > of discussions that are presumed to be about technology, physical science, > or even mathematics have a similar problem. Robert Holmes tried to caste > some light on how it might get decided "what means Prime?" > > In direct response to Doug's (rhetorical but pointed) question, "talk > incessantly about it rather than doing it?": A great deal of the work of > philosophy (including natural philosophy) is sorting out the questions > before attempting to answer them. Sorting out the *nature* of the > questions *is* the work to be done and in some sense talking (incessantly) > about it is the only way to do it. In physics and engineering, asking the > right question is paramount. > > Plenty of folks spent huge amounts of time and energy trying to niggle out > the nature of Phlogiston or Aether or the Epicycles that the planets *must* > be following before someone had the temerity to consider the possibility > that they were asking the wrong questions, though those very questions were > more apt than the ones being asked before them. > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Douglas Roberts <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Just out of idle curiosity, what's the '...ysics' or '...ology' word for >> 'prefers to talk (incessantly) about it rather than doing it?' >> >> Unless, of course, that is an unsuitable question. The question >> emerged, unbidden, you see... >> >> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Metaphysics being the nature of being and existence, Epistemology >>> being the nature of knowledge. Whether emergence is Epistemological or if >>> it is Phenomenological or Metaphysical is an interesting question and not >>> an unsubtle one... >>> >>> >>> I think this is metaphysics, no? >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] >>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith >>> *Sent:* Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:44 AM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings >>> >>> >>> >>> On Primeness... >>> >>> I am mathematician by training (barely) but I don't think anyone should >>> listen to me about mathematics unless serendipitously I happen to land on a >>> useful or interesting (by whose measure?) mathematical conjecture (and >>> presumably some attendant proofs as well). >>> >>> That said, I've always wondered why the poets among the mathematicians >>> didn't hit on naming the "naive" Primes (Primes+1) - Prime' (Prime * >>> prime*). Perhaps there are too many mathematicians with stutters >>> and/or tourette's that would be set off by such a construct? >>> >>> Who can answer the question of why we (this particular group, or any one >>> vaguely like it) can get so wrapped up on such a simple topic? There IS a >>> bit of circular logic involved in defining mathematics as that which >>> mathematicians study. Or as Robert suggests, that his definition of a >>> mathematical construct (Prime numbers in this case) is not legitimate >>> because he is not a mathematician. I'd say his definition is not useful >>> because it deals in concepts which are not mathematical in nature (in >>> particular "attractive", "shade", "blue") which are terms of interest and >>> relevance in aesthetics and psychophysics (both of which are known to >>> utilize, mathematics but not vice-versa). Numerology, on the other hand >>> uses all three! >>> >>> We seem to wander off into epistemological territory quite often without >>> knowing it or admitting to it. I am pretty sure a number of people here >>> would specifically exclude epistemological discussions if they could, while >>> others are drawn to them (self included). >>> >>> While I do find discussions about the manipulation of matter >>> (technology), and even data (information theory) and the nature of physical >>> reality (physics) and formal logic (mathematics) quite interesting (and >>> more often, the myriad personal and societal impacts of same), what can be >>> more interesting (and the rest grounded in) than the study of knowledge >>> itself? >>> >>> That said, I don't know that many of us are well versed in the discourse >>> of epistemology and therefore tend to hack at it badly when we get into >>> that underbrush, making everyone uncomfortable. On the other hand, I'll >>> bet we have a (large?) handful of contributors (and/or lurkers) here with a >>> much broader and deeper understanding than I have but who perhaps recognize >>> the futility of opening that bag of worms. >>> >>> Our "core" topic of Complexity Science is fraught with epistemological >>> questions (I believe), most particularly questions such as "whence and what >>> emergence?" as Nick's seminars of 2+ years ago considered. I don't know if >>> the topic was approached from the point of view of "what is the nature of >>> knowledge?" or more specifically, "how can we define a new concept such as >>> emergence and have it hold meaning?". In my view, "emergence" is strictly >>> "phenomenological" as are the many (highly useful) constructs of >>> statistical physics. >>> >>> I promised a maunder here, I trust I succeeded in delivering! >>> >>> Carry on! >>> - Steve >>> >>> >>> Actually you can't define primeness any way you want. The definition >>> needs to be negotiated by the community of professionals who are can >>> credibly agree on the definition. >>> >>> >>> >>> My definition of primeness is "anything bigger than 3 and painted an >>> attractive shade of blue". But no one listens to me. Nor should they, >>> because I'm not a mathematician. >>> >>> >>> >>> —R >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Grant Holland < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> George's observation (from Saturday) under "mathematician" pretty much >>> captures the issue for me. One can define "primeness" any way one wants. >>> The choice of excluding 1 has the "fun" consequence that George explains so >>> well. Maybe including "1" has other fun consequences. If so, then give that >>> definition a name ("prime" is already taken) , and see where it leads. You >>> can make this stuff up any way you want, folks. Just follow the >>> consequences. Some of these consequences provide analogies that physicists >>> can use. Some don't. No matter. We just wanna have fun! >>> >>> Grant >>> >>> >>> On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote: >>> >>> Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a >>> >>> >>> >>> *mathematician* >>> >>> >>> >>> it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, >>> like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural >>> number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 >>> and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work. >>> >>> >>> >>> *statistician* >>> >>> >>> >>> do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of >>> entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point >>> of view usage says 1 is not prime >>> >>> >>> >>> *artist* >>> >>> >>> >>> try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as >>> prime. I didn't see any. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, Duncan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it >>> depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case. >>> >>> PMcC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime... >>> >>> >>> Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk >>> once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone: >>> >>> "Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7" >>> >>> That's how I remember. >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> George Duncan >>> georgeduncanart.com >>> >>> (505) 983-6895 <%28505%29%20983-6895> >>> Represented by ViVO Contemporary >>> >>> 725 Canyon Road >>> >>> Santa Fe, NM 87501 >>> >>> >>> Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward. >>> Soren Kierkegaard >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 >> > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > > ============================================================ > 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 >
============================================================ 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
