When I was in highschool I read a book about the Great Books by Mortimer J Adler. He said that it's easy to define truth but hard to decide what's true. According to him a proposition is true if it asserts what is the case. An analytic statement.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, May 16, 2020, 9:30 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmmm. I am afraid I may have underemphasized something in my discussions > of “truth”. The Pragmatic Maxim (which is what Jon refers to), is > > > > *Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we > conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of > these effects is the whole of our conception of the object*. (CP 5.402; > emphasis added)as cribbed from > http://www.asatheory.org/current-newsletter-online/the-pragmatic-maxim > > > > Please note that, as applied to the word, “truth”, the maxim is a thesis, > not about what truth IS, but what we mean when we say something is a > truth. The consequences for scientific practice – what I call the > practicial consequences – of looking for the truth of the matter is to send > every scientist looking for that answer upon which science will rest in the > very long run. > > > > This is an interesting example of intensionality. Nothing in the > pragmatic maxim implies that there is a truth of any matter. It implies > only that when you say anything is true, you are implying that, in the very > long run opinion, will come to agree with you. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 7:47 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] from 5/15 virtual FRIAM > > > > Jon- > > > > While reading your essay I had several associations. I recently read the > assertion that in developing axiomatic systems and proving the entailed > theorems mathematicians are writing for God as the authority. So > mathematics, from that point of view is a conversation with God. > > > > At the other extreme (?) I thought Reuben Hersh held a view similar to the > one you attribute to Nick: that mathematics is the set of theorems that > mathematicians agree to by consensus. > > > > I agree that Newtonian physics and differential calculus are the correct > model for objects moving in a vacuum. I was given an $85 ticket by a > rookie police officer for rolling through a stop sign. She said my wheels > never completely stopped turning I don't think any experienced officer > would have given me a citation. I had fantasies of writing to the judge > explaining that an object moving along a continuous path can stop for zero > seconds (unit of time irrelevant). This happens when you throw an object > straight up (directly away from the center of the earth). I don't know > about whether space and time have the Hausdorff property but for traffic > purposes it doesn't matter. > > > > In the Woody Allen film "Sleeper", Allen's character wakes up 200 years in > the future. He's getting in to know a stranger and he tells him that he > owned a health food store in Greenwich Village. The stranger looked > puzzled and then said, "Oh, those were the days before scientists realized > that the ideal diet consists of steak and chocolate milkshakes". > > > > I feel, without evidence, that mankind will not last long enough to see > all science as settled. There is hope for pure math. > > > > Is any of this responsive to your email? > > > > Frank > > > > > > > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2020, 7:07 PM Jon Zingale <[email protected]> wrote: > > Disclaimers: > 1. TLDR Warning > 2. These opinions will be poorly founded and are subject to change. > > > > Dave, > > You write: `Nick raised the issue of being contrarian with regards > science and > > could get no one to admit to anything beyond ignoring doctor's orders.` > > > Questions like the one Nick posed fill me with a sense of *aporia*. > I am left without an immediate response. Personally, I find it useful > to factor science into a number of modes or senses. The ultimate goal > for me is to sketch out the kind of space where I can investigate the > *shape* > of my own conception of science. Ultimately, whatever science is to me > cannot be a single consistent entity, but rather a kind of *eidetic > variation*. > > * Science as institution. Science can be identified with its institutions: > STEM outreach after-school programs, publishing companies, research > centers, > and the like. Here science is sometimes portrayed as a career with clear > delineations regarding who is *good* or *bad* at science. Its goals are > set by > commitees and participation is all but automated through bureaucratic > policy. > The authority we assert when we reference expertise, degrees and > associations > is one of institutional authority. While there is probably a lot for me to > pick > apart here, I will stick to two or three contrary beliefs I hold. For me, > the > notion of STEM is awkward exactly because mathematics is a liberal art and > > not necessarily a science. Mathematics exists to describe relationships > and to > facilitate thought. It's home is not far from painting, drawing or the > activities of thespians. Another belief I hold is that any institution is > susceptible to *legitimation crisis*. It is very possible, as is often > argued of > our news outlets, for scientific institutions to fail in their duty to > produce > science. > > > > For anyone who is interested in these potential short-comings I recommend > > reading the history of the Belousov- > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov%E2%80%93Zhabotinsky_reaction>Zhabotinsky > reaction > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov%E2%80%93Zhabotinsky_reaction>. > While the story ends > > well, it leaves the critical reader wondering what *good science* has > been left to die. > > Here, I hold the belief that there is very likely science, as legitimated > by other > > scientific senses, which have been de-legitimated by science as > institution. > > > > Science as institution is not itself consistently decided. It is prone > to as-well-as open to inter-institutional disagreement. Putting aside for > the > moment that agreement will one day be reached (an ontological claim that > > may itself not be amenable to scientific inquiry) any *active* area of > research > is riddled with competing theories. Extreme cases include cosmology and > string theory. A weaker example is the Feynman-Wheeler electron > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe>. > > > * Science as abstract authority. It is a personal pet peeve of mine when > someone forms a sentence like, "Well, science says X". It is a strange > side- > effect of our culture that the notion of science can be lifted to the > status > of abstract authority. The function of such a statement is to end > discussion, > to leave ideas stillborn. To the degree that I find this > behavior appalling, > > I hold beliefs contrary to science in this sense. > > * Science as methodology. Science as the product of scientific methodology > has a great number of sub-topics whose surface I will barely ever get to > know. > Scientific method, peer-review publishing, description production, > explanation > production, Occam's Razor and the constructivists. Many scientific results > have at the core of their methodology useful but known-to-be troublesome > assumptions. The scientific method itself is a co-recursive algorithm and > therefore subject to limitations like NP-completeness and decidability. > At the root of our most trusted tools, like differentiation, hide > the uncertainties > > of second-order logic. In an attempt to remedy perceived failings in the > tools of > > formal logic, the constructivists (under the impetus of Brouwer, Heyting > and others) > > proceeded to develop new logics which in turn were used to create new > forms of > > analysis, non-standard analysis and synthetic differential geometry to > name two. > > > > This proliferation of new tools, however, introduce new complexities. > > Theorems which were abhorrent in one logical frame (Banach-Tarski) became > > non-issues in another, but now in the new frame live other abhorrent > theorems <https://www.iep.utm.edu/con-math/#SH3a> > > which didn't exist in the first (Specker's Theorem). I suspect it will not > be > > possible for science as methodology to decide which logical frame is > somehow > > the *most correct*. As it stands I do value the predictions afforded by a > classically > > founded differential calculus, even if its foundations are unresolvable. > Perhaps > > less controversially, I hold space for the existence of Chaitin random > numbers. > > In a Scientific American article > <http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~km9/Randomness%20and%20Mathematical.pdf> Chaitin > writes: > > > > 'Although randomness can be precisely defined and can even be measured, > a given number cannot be proved to be random. This enigma establishes a > limit to what is possible in mathematics'. > > Lastly on this point and just to bait Nick... > Nick often attributes to Peirce that, "Truth is what we will ultimately > come to agree upon". This idea is perhaps non-scientific in that it > may be a form of Ramsey statement (thanks Glen!) which falls on the side > of metaphysics. A truth-principle like this with Ramsey meta-physicality > would > suggest that truth is *here*, but we cannot *know* it, despite Nick's > deepest wishes. > Further, if we could *know* a thing in this way, we would only be able to > *verify* > it once *all of the ballots were in*. > > * Science as metaphor. In a *very* *narrow* context, science can be > construed as > metaphor between mathematical model and physical observation. Nick often > > points out that while *instantaneous velocity* is mathematical, we should > be leery > > of calling it physical. When we apply the notion of an arc to the path of > a ball, > we are importing and projecting onto physical space the properties of a > model. > These properties almost invariably entail the continuity and smoothness of > time and of space. Arguably, even time and space are imported. I do believe > that time and space are *worth the import*, but I do not think of the > metaphor > as establishing truth. > > * Science as culture. A biologist friend of mine asked me to validate his > claim that our universe is four dimensional. I took the opportunity to > elaborate > on the concept of dimension as I think of it, namely as an assertion about > linear independence. I attempted to move the conversation to a discussion > about models and what we intend to describe. I am ok with a four > dimensional > time-space if we are discussing Einstein's relativity theory. Clearly, in > other > physical contexts I may wish to talk meaningfully about infinite > dimensional > Hilbert spaces or six dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds. He left the > conversation > miffed. Science has a cultural component, we argue and push and struggle to > define scientific contexts with each other. Imre Lakotos wrote a wonderful > book about this called "Conjectures and Refutations". It playfully covers, > in dialogue form, the development of modern topology from the perspective > of mathematics culture. > > * Temporality in Science. Because Newton and Einstein held different > beliefs, > we cannot rely (nor should we) on science to be consistent in time. We can > hope, > along with Nick, that some scientific acquisition will meet the ultimate > gold- > standard, jump the limit of our methodologies and finally and gloriously be > classified as *known true*. While it would likely be the case that if > Newton > were here today he would agree that Einstein's theory is better, there are > other > examples which exhibit oscillatory behavior. Is coffee good for you? Should > you avoid red meat? It is hard for me to keep up with the temporality of > science, and I suspect that we are capable of believing things which are > not- > now-but-will-one-day-satisfy the scientific criteria of one or many of the > > senses above. > > In many ways I feel that I am taking a bold risk in rambling here, so I > hope > that it meets your (Dave) satisfaction. I also hope that it inspires others > to take a chance and spill some *e-ink*. > > > > Full of it, > > Jon > > -- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... > ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > -- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... > ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
