Excellent! This is the kind of skepticism I was incapable of formulating by myself. Thanks! I hope to revisit the paper now.
On August 12, 2020 12:55:02 PM PDT, Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: >I promised to read and comment, so here goes. > >I really dislike (detest) this kind of analytic epistemology (analytic >philosophy in general) as it contributes nothing to my understanding of >how things are — how people think, why people have certain beliefs, how >people judge something to be "true." > >Given Glen's commitment to Vico-ism, I am surprised he finds the >article compelling in some way. > >Some questions: > >1- Does Carter know anything? I.e. is there an example of a bit of >knowledge that came to be in his possession via the K-AB framework? He >certainly does not provide one, even as an illustrative example. > >2- Assuming that the K=AB framework is useful. How many 'trials' are >required to constitute "aptness?" For a belief to transform to >knowledge must it be the case that all trials were apt, most of the >trials, a super majority of the trials? > >3- Can the K=AB framework yield an integrated body of knowledge, or >merely the occasional isolated knowledge factoid? > >4- Does a belief and or a bit of knowledge need to be expressed in >words? If so, exactly how does the K=AB framework resolve the inherent >ambiguity of language? > >4b- For example: I believe I encountered and am having a discussion >with a One-eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater. I apply the >framework aptly and I now I know I am talking with one. What I do not >know, however apt my belief, is whether or not the creature is purple >or the people it eats are purple. At minimum the framework yields >incomplete and ambiguous knowledge. ("I like short shorts.") > >5- Glen 'knows' Trump is an evil idiot. Can Glen lead me along the >apt-path that resulted in that knowledge? Could Carter? > >6- Re: collective knowledge. Is a collective a 'Thing'? Can that Thing >embody/contain/possess knowledge? (or belief?) > >7. Clearly, groups appear to share collective knowledge and belief - at >least at a statistical level. It is even possible to observe what >appears to be collective knowledge that does not exist, per se, in any >of the members of the group — the Delphi technique would be one >example. (Emergent knowledge from a complex system?) > >As a cognitive anthropologist, I am constantly challenged by the >problem of explaining how culture — apparently shared collective >knowledge, behavior, and ability — comes into existence, maintains >itself, evolves, and adapts to changing contexts, including encounters >with other cultures. > >Formalisms, like those espoused by Carter, are so far removed from >concrete reality they offer little in the way of guidance or >assistance. And advocates of those formalisms seldom have any interest >in applied work any more than advocates of "pure" mathematics tend to >denigrate applied math. -- glen - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/
