I would rework Steve's explanation. Just as infants babble to learn the correct sounds for their native language by feedback, older children babble explanations to see what works. Unfortunately, correctly formed explanations can be uninformed opinions or fallacious reasonings or imaginary evidence, and flawed as they are they can still sound true to some social population, so people get positive feedback for ridiculous explanations and build up self-consistent systems of explanations. Voila, the party of tea or the birthers or the church of scientology or sociologists crafting a bespoke vocabulary for linear algebra.
I really enjoyed reading http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Cant-the-Sciencesthe/142239/ this morning. It's all about the evidence and the reasons. -- rec -- On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, glen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nick's "metaphor" answer is generative (even if vague). Steve's > "selection" answer is constraint-based. So, they're in different > categories. I'll posit another generative answer: finite capacities. As > social animals, we're bred to interact, even if there's nothing to actually > interact _about_. The best interactors (idealized by gossiping over too > much coffee) often seem to have no subject at all. They wander from > subject to subject, never spending enough time on any one subject to > satisfy anyone, including themselves. > > But when they finally tire out, they're satisfied that they interacted. > > The reality of it is that every one of these interactors would _love_ to > have the time, energy, IQ, databases, etc. to do a complete analysis of > every subject that might come up during gossip time. But, of course, they > don't. So, the semantic drift is purely an artifact of finite capacity ... > much to the chagrin of the privileged, who have plenty of time, energy, IQ, > and database access to do a more complete analysis of any issue of their > choosing. > > Of course, one defining feature of the geek is that, when a subject with > which they're familiar comes up during gossip time, the cork is popped and > out comes a gush of data ("info" is too generous a word for it). But when > the subject is not something on which they've already familiarized > themselves, they shush right up. And that self-imposed shushing is what > _prevents_ them from being a good interactor. > > Yes, you heard me right. The unwillingness to yap to no end about stuff > you know nothing about _prevents_ you from being a good, social, citizen > ... grooming your fellow morons, ensuring them that you're part of their > clan. ;-) I, for one, go to great lengths to ensure my fellow morons that > I am a member of the clan! > > > [email protected] wrote at 10/12/2013 05:29 AM:> If "we have a > responsibility to try to find" anything, I think it > >> is to try to find *why* some people insist on (1) glomming onto bits >> of jargon with very well-defined in-domain meanings, (2) ignoring much >> or all of those meanings while re-applying the jargon (often without >> ANY definition to speak of) in a new domain, while (3) refusing to >> let go of some (or all) of the Impressive Consequences derived in >> the original domain by derivations that (4) depend on the jettisoned >> definitions (and the rest of the technical apparatus of the original >> domain). >> > > Nick Thompson wrote at 10/12/2013 09:52 AM: > >> I [...] know, deep down, that this has something to do with the crucial >> role of >> metaphor in science. Even Kuhn, right?, had something positive to say >> about >> having conceptual Genies escape from one scientific bottle and infect the >> next. Perhaps I have to take a kind of pragmatist position here: If we >> don't assume (wrongly) that all uses of a word avert to a common core, >> then >> we will never have the sort of conversation in which the different >> meanings >> get articulated and the forementioned frauds (and Freuds) and hucksters >> get >> exposed. >> > > > Steve Smith wrote at 10/12/2013 11:42 AM: > >> I am left to wonder if this isn't an artifact of the *evolutionary* >> nature of ideas. To invoke a genetic analogy... it is perhaps more >> efficient in the scheme of things for a phenotype (scientific discipline?) >> to appropriate memes (terms, concepts) from other genotypes (the scientific >> literature of another domain) and then (ab)use them (let semantic drift >> explore the adjacent likely space of their meaning) until they fit (well >> enough) to have significant utility. >> > > -- > =><= glen e. p. ropella > Who cares to care when they're really scared > > ==============================**============================== > 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<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
