Naw back at ya. I am not picking a fight or being contentious just to be contentious. I am trying to be a little dog nipping at the heels of assumptions and presuppositions.
Because this list is not a scholarly forum where you spend an exquisite amount of time picking your words and making your statements as precise as possible I am assuming that your language reveals said assumptions/presuppositions. So when you use rational man, I think you really deep down mean exactly that. And when you shy away from that as in the post I am responding to, you still cannot get away from your core position. We have two people with two idiosyncratic opinions. Each communicates his/her opinion to the other and they interact trying to discern what each other means in order to see if their individual opinions are the same, or somewhat the same, or substantially the same. If the conversation leads both parties to agreeing with each other that their individual opinions are really the same, shared, opinion — even if stated somewhat differently — voila, we have Truth. I think this is a fair restatement of what you say (and say when channeling Pierce). However ... the first imposition on the process focuses on the language we use to communicate/interact. I believe that Pierce, you, and all of the scientists and mathematicians and CS types on this list are going to insist on using a very narrow set of languages and would prefer just one - mathematical logic. Definitely one with well defined terms and formalized grammar, i.e. one that is "rational." Well of course you say; how else could we proceed? Well, one possibility is that you come over and we drop acid together - or better yet the one hallucinogen derived from the Ariocarpus cactus that empirical evidence suggests yields consensual hallucinations - and we use that 'language' to see if our opinions converge. You are nuts, you say. AHA! I say. You are privileging YOUR means of communication and simultaneously asserting that Truth can only be found within the set of possible conversations conducted using YOUR language and YOUR rules of conversation/interaction. Now, let us return to your signal. Imagine we have a thousand people listening to it. 999 of them use your statistical/probability tests and agree that is is simply noise - a random signal. I, on the other hand, recognize that the signal is the voice of God, speaking the Language of the Birds, and He is giving me clear and precise knowledge. So what is True? Is the signal noise or is it knowledge? And further suppose that I write some bad free verse that manages to bypass the conscious and speak directly to the subconscious and the 999 slowly begin to agree with my position vis a vis the signal? At what point does the Truth shift from noise to knowledge? (BTW, I would argue that their simply agreeing with me based on what they understand of my poetry, is insufficient - they must actually experience and directly perceive the signal before we can be accord.) The main point I made in my polemic, and continue to make: Pierce, science, 'reasonable and rational' beings can never find more than local Truth, for themselves, and it is immoral to impose that Truth on others. Ceding a point - Pierce, and scientists, are not wrong when they assume that their approach leads to truth as long as they restrict the domain of application to things like Physics, Math, and Logic. I vehemently react, negatively, when they blithely assert that the same approach is appropriate for finding truth in epistemology, morality, social conventions, public policy, governance, etc. etc. dmw On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Naw. Come on Dave. You're just picking a fight! I don't meed the > "rational man" at all. All I need is that people either will, or will > not, share an opinion in the very long run, and that opinion, by > definition, if shared, is what we mean by truth. And the edge I am > talking about here is emotional. I am not pressing this view with the > ferocity that you take me for. Persistence, perhaps, but not ferocity. > > 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 Prof David > West > Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44 AM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely > Nothing!” > > Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at > FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold > compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank. > > The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First, > you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the > 'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method > privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a > Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational man" > — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the > conversational table. > > see you in December > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > David, > > > > Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to. > > Please come back so I can administer cold compresses. > > > > I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I > > have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of > > edge I don't think I ever would have given it. Try this: Imagine > > that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer > > space. > > Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal. Now, I > > say, the signal can either be random or systematic. Let's say that > > the last ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 > > hz. Now, it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be > > produced by a random signal. But now let us double the number of > > readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the > > measurements has also diminished by the square root of two. Now double > > again, and > > diminish the variation once again by root 2. And so on. While we both > > would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is > > not random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample > > is drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz. It's > > that way with truth. It's quite possible that our experience is > > random, and no amount of consistency can ever convince a rational man > > that the randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random. > > However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man > > will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be > > confirmed in the very long run of human experiences. On Peirce,s > > account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth" > > It is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the > > midst of will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. > > > > Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything > > at all that is True. I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what > > truth would be if there ever were any. > > > > Come back. We miss you. > > > > 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 Prof David > > West > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam@redfish.com> > > Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!” > > > > Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with > > Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the > > past few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in > > a lot of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of > > assertions and assertions are, at minimum, ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I > > am making no such claim, as will be explained later. > > > > There can be no Truth. > > Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated > > - ‘truths’ are possible. > > Until the Universe achieves ‘heat death’ (at which time there > > might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only > > ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible. > > All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally > > illusory. > > > > There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed. > > To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded > > privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic, > > scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?” > > > > There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating > > or sharing, Truth; were It to exist. > > Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the > > Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.” > > More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said > > about software and software development. Specifically that a program > > was the expression of a consensual theory share among those that > > developed it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the > > humans engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be > > reduced to documentation and therefore cannot be > > transmitted/communicated to other minds. (Actually, transmission would > > be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously, empathy.) > > > > As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be > > an intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for > > establishing orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is > > that the ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global > > – every living person at once – and therefore can only result in a > > consensus of the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second > > reason for this belief is that the only ones allowed at the > > conversational table are those proficient in and willing to abide by > > specific rules of discussion. > > This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above. > > > > A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse: > > “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be > > their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within > > them.” Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to > > epistemology and metaphysics. > > > > None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same > > essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one. > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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
