To me "metaknowledge" denotes knowledge about knowledge. For example, "I know 7,486 aphorisms". That's a false statement.
Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Sep 21, 2017 2:25 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Hmm! > > I meant "meta knowledge" as knowledge of how to go about something gleaned > from watching others succeed and fail at it. Is that the same thing? > > n > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:39 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Cc: 'Mike Bybee' <mikeby...@earthlink.net> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia > > To clarify, I meant `meta-knowledge' in the sense of "Do I know what I > know?" or "Do I know I don't know?" as opposed to the idea of drawing > conclusions by studying other studies. Can one label their questions or > propositions as vague or not vague.. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 1:32 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < > friam@redfish.com> > Cc: 'Mike Bybee' <mikeby...@earthlink.net> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia > > Glen, > > This baffled me as much as it interested me. In the end, I wasn't sure > whose side you were on. My problem may be that, being a Peircean, > philosophy is for me just an extension of the scientific method and > philosophical knowledge is just "meta-knowledge" gleaned from the same > sources as scientific knowledge. Speaking as a sort-of ornithologist, I > still think the metaphor stinks. It still strikes me as one of those > unthinking philosophical platitudes trotted out by people without the > knowledge of experience to think philosophically. Remember that guy Donald > Griffin who thought he knew about "mind" because he knew so much about bats > and insects? > > Nick > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ? > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:28 PM > To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia > > It's definitely sage. But the sagacity doesn't hinge on the word > "science", it hinges on the word _useful_. Science is often thought to be > a body of knowledge. But there's a huge swath of people, me included, who > think science is not knowledge, but a method/behavior for formulating and > testing hypotheses. It's not clear to me that Feynman actually said this. > But Feynman is a good candidate because he cared far more about what you > _do_ than what you claim to _know_. > > Philosophy (of anything) can be useful. But to any working scientist, it > is far less useful than, say, glass blowing, programming, or cell sorting. > And if you think distinguishing between the usefulness of beakers from the > usefulness of ... oh, let's say Popper's 3 worlds, then your expression > says more about you than it does about them. > > > On 09/20/2017 08:27 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > By the way, the Feynman quote is really dumb, and it’s annoying that > people keep trotting it out as if it was sage. The reason birds can’t make > use of ornithology is they can’t read. Think how useful it would be for a > cuckoo host to be able to spend a few hours reading a text on egg > identification. Is the reason physicists can’t make use of philosophy of > science that they can’t think? I doubt anyone who cites this “aphorism” > would come to that conclusion. Bad metaphor. > > -- > ☣ gⅼеɳ > > ============================================================ > 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 > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > ============================================================ > 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 > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > ============================================================ > 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 > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > ============================================================ > 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 > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove