You are partially right, Whit. It is indeed true that how corporations are managed these days is itself a joke, often relying more on groupthink, politics and collaborations of convenience than strategy, but they tend not to last long... and neither do their cultures. Dumb cultures deserve their dumb destinies, eg, Stalinist centralized communism... or, to be anticipated, western indulgent liberalism and our anti-competitive, affirmative-action programs and the trashing of the principles of the US consitution.
No-one can deny, in a healthy, free and competent market, the importance of vision. A vision/direction is important, irrespective of whether or not it is expressed in a mission statement. Good managers do have to know what they're doing to be competitive. If you disagree with that, then you don't understand strategy or the purpose of competent management. That we are being led by clowns in a clown economy is a different subject entirely. As for axiomatic framework as a creed of faith, again, there is much truth in what you say. As I have said many times before in these forums and elsewhere, an axiomatic framework can only ever be a best guess. But you've got to commit to that best guess in order to decide what direction you want to take it. Your principles have to come together to hang together. As for modern scientism masquerading as science... there is no better expression of blind faith than the absurd idea of genetic “data” (software), but no account of the “computer” that might “process” it. How dependent on blind faith is that? Blind faith in a “computer” that does not exist is no different to blind faith in a god who will deliver a people to the Promised Land. Or how about blind faith in dumb luck (natural selection by mutation) without having to account for entropy? That's not science. That's high-octane, unmitigated hogwash. Cheers, sj -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Whit Blauvelt Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2016 2:09 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience? On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:37:12AM +0200, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > On the matter of anti-science and anti-rational, you raise an > important point, Harold. Any theoretical edifice that does not have a > compelling axiomatic framework to guide it is just scientism > masquerading as science. An axiomatic framework is essential… like a > corporation’s mission statement, it relates to strategy, and properly > accounting for cause and effect. Hi Stephen, An axiomatic framework is the creed of a faith. Science is not a faith. A corporation's mission statement is generally viewed as a joke within the corporation, as something for public relations, a rationalization which cannot but roughly approximate the complex reality of a firm's inner ecology and its fit with the broader economy. Many companies do fine without one. It's a fad foisted by consultants in the last few decades, prior to which corporations, on average, performed better than they have since -- although no doubt that difference is largely due to other factors. Best, Whit -- ----------------------------
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
