Mission statements are "window dressing?" Really? You've not had any experience in strategic planning at the management level, have you... ie, you have no idea what you are talking about.
My reference to mission statements is intended as a metaphor to explain the purpose of an axiomatic framework. It's important. Try explaining to Isaac Newton, or CS Peirce, that they were wasting their time trying to frame things in terms of an axiomatic framework... Peirce may not have spelt it out, but he too was motivated by consistency and fundamental principles hanging together. Sometimes a good scientist, like a competent manager, doesn't need to formalize their plan in a mission statement, because it's all worked through in their heads... but that does not mean that they don't have a plan, a strategy, something that can be explicated in accordance with fundamental assumptions. Diversity is strength, huh? Like in France and Germany and Sweden and their migrant no-go zones? Good one, Whit! That trendy assumption is rapidly becoming stale. "It is well known..."; "everybody knows..."; "extensively observed...". These are predictable clichés. Bad science depends absolutely on them. Credentialism. The implication is that if you have the right credentials, you will understand, and if you don't have the right credentials you are not qualified to comment. >"You're lost in the metaphor. It's well known how DNA is subject to molecular >processes. DNA's not simply abstracted data; its part of the physical (and >partially quantum-mechanical) mechanism, whose workings have been extensively >observed." Terrific! If it is so clear in your mind, why don't you sum it up in a few lines, the principles that come together to make it all hang together... you know, like in a mission statement :) "Subject to molecular processes" does not explain anything... just sayin'. What molecular processes? If you are going to explain anything, then you need to provide either specifics, or principles. It seems to me that you cannot provide either. Cheers, sj -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Whit Blauvelt Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2016 8:13 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience? Hi Stephen, > 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... I don't know where you've worked. But I've worked in both long-standing corporations and startups. Smart ones of both sorts, none of them regarding mission statements as more than window dressing. > ... or, to be anticipated, western indulgent liberalism and our > anti-competitive, affirmative-action programs and the trashing of the > principles of the US consitution. You don't like affirmative action? Because the US Constitution referred to blacks as being worth 3/5ths of a man? Diversity is strength. Smart companies know that. > 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. Vision has an important place. The Third Reich was the triumph of a vision ... until it wasn't. But seriously, I'm all for visual thinking; the problem comes when the vision is static, hypnotic, overly-subscribed to. > 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. You're lost in the metaphor. It's well known how DNA is subject to molecular processes. DNA's not simply abstracted data; its part of the physical (and partially quantum-mechanical) mechanism, whose workings have been extensively observed. 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 .
