Harry quoted me:
me> It is, I think, even worse to start with ad hoc generalizations of the
me> emergent properties of the aggregate and then employ them as
me> hypotheses from which, with the application of scientific reasoning,
me> we hope to deduce a science of the good society.
And opined:
hp> Maybe you don't know what "ad hoc" means.
C'mon Harry. Lay off the condescension. "To this", to the purpose at
hand. In this case, to the purpose of creating suitable slogans for
an ideology.
hp> I am also not sure how "emergent properties of the aggregate" applies
hp> to an Assumption about individual action.
Your "Assumptions" are not about individual action. They are about
"Man" in the 19th century sense of generalizing to all of man- or
human-kind, as I think you were at pains to explain in an earlier
post. Many of the things we may say about Mankind allude to emergent
properties of complex interactions between multitudinous individuals,
no one of which alone *neccessarily* exhibits the properties to which
we allude.
me> Harry has, IIRC, repeated several times his premises:
hp> I don't know what "IIRC" ...
If I recall correctly.
me> I don't see this as any less a religious dogma than "All have sinned
me> and come short of the glory of God." '
hp> You mean the two Assumptions are wrong. Well, you are a scientist.
hp> Show it. All you need is one exception. that shouldn't be hard to find.
hp>
zhp> A religious dogma is something that is proclaimed as true without proof.
hp>
hp> So, disprove it. Show everyone on Future Works that the two
hp> Assumptions are not true of human behavior.
No, I didn't *mean* they are wrong, although I think they're bogus --
generalities of the same quality as "Everybody loves a parade" or
"There's nothing like a good cigar" and constructed or chosen for
their propaganda value (ad hoc). I *meant* that they were offered as
zdogma and seemed to me to qualify as such.
No, I'm not a scientist, although I've studied a bit of science and
make some effort to continue in that avocation.
No, a religious dogma, at least as I construe the word, is proclaimed
authoritatively as subject neither to proof nor disproof. It is the
nature of good propaganda technique to construct slogans that repel
and evade critique. A subsequent invitation to disprove the slogan is
part of the propaganda. Prove to me that there *is* somthing like a
good cigar!
hp> Then start thinking again about your statement that: "Hard science
hp> is essentially statistical in nature."
Um, well, I've been thinking about it for close to 40 years, off an
on. I regret that my insights haven't been more brilliant.
hp> You should understand that there are two kinds of knowledge. The
hp> knowledge of truths and the knowledge of things.
I don't think there are *any* absolute truths except tautologies and
the mathematical truths derived from explicit axioms which are
themselves essentially tautological. Of the non-absolute truths, I'm
inclined to think there are far more than two varieties, the very
notion of a "non-absolute truth" being as ambiguous as it is. But
lets move on...
hp> The two Assumptions are truths.
Now that sounds pretty much like an authoritative proclamation, subject
neither to proof nor disproof. If they are truths, was it not ingenuous
of you to have invited me to disprove them? In his recent book, _On
Equilibrium_, John Ralston Saul refers to:
...the fear we all carry within us. It is there. If we give in to
it, we begin seeking not specific forces, but an all-encompassing
truth. An so we choose a single quality as our godhead, and then
gather all the rest of our existence beneath its umbrella. This is
ideology. (p. 13)
hp> These Assumptions apply to every person...
Another authoritative proclamation, the partial truth of which depends
on the ambiguity of "desire" and the domain within which "unlimited"
is to apply. Ray made that pretty clear in his post on Friday, q.v.
hp> The rest of what you wrote was interesting, but had nothing to do with
hp> our subject.
I hope that at least a few FW readers found it interesting. And
I guess it may have had too little to do with our subject. But I'm
reasonably sure that it had far too little to do with *your* subject,
too little to do with the propagation of the faith.
- Mike
---
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/
