Douglas Roberts wrote at 01/15/2013 03:27 PM: > Well, define "tool". > > Dick is (or was) a theoretical astrophysicist, and Bart was a lawyer. But > even the simplest little bit of technology would always stump either one > of them. For the longest time I considered it to be a studied stupidity. > I later came to believe that it was either genuine, or a deep intrinsic > mental laziness.
I define tool as an artifact (noun or verb, thing or process) with a pass-through purpose. For example, I have a coffee mug because I use it to drink coffee, not because I value it as an end in itself. I view processes like boiling water or programming the same way. I know some people program (or do math) simply as puzzles... because they enjoy doing that. I don't. So, to me, they are tools. One man's tool can be another's end. I suspect Dick had methods he invented for his astrophysics and Bart invented methods for ... billing people. 8^) And I suspect they were competent with those tools. But I also suspect those tools did not translate well to non-astrophysicists or non-lawyers ... or perhaps even very many astrophysicists or very many lawyers. -- 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
