There is a lyric - "Mr. Purple People Eater whats your line? Its eating purple people, and it sure is fine." Resolves the ambiguity.
davew On Thu, Aug 13, 2020, at 6:09 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > Brief responses, Dave. > > When I first heard that song in 195? I wondered whether the eater or the > people were purple. Maybe everyone did. > > I like your fair-minded rhetoric. For example, "offers little" rather than > "offers nothing". > > I prefer pure math but I don't disdain applied math. My dissertation was > about finite element methods, a numerical analysis approach used in > structural analysis, fluid mechanics, etc. > > Is logical positivism a subfield of analytic philosophy? I used to know. > > As an anthroplogist you might appreciate this book about ethnic identity in > New Mexico: > > Nación Genízara: Ethnogenesis, Place, and Identity in New Mexico (Querencias > Series) > https://www.amazon.com/dp/0826361072/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_i_MpdnFbBG2K8TF > > Frank > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:34 AM glen <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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.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/
