Thanks for the response. I think that if you allow for the evolution
of the mean and stick to the scientific method, then there are strong
parallels to Peirce's theory of truth in the "long run." There is a
convergence towards the "least total error." This may work for scientific
theories. (Although Peirce's theory has in general come under a lot
of criticism) But practical beliefs, and their supposed underlying
psychological laws, which we have been considering lately, are an example
where the distribution of behavioral patterns does not seem to have the "bite"
that predicting the position of the planets has.
If we suppose all men have real doubts and inquire at some time time or
another, what does the distribution of behavioral "outputs" show? It would
seem to show the preferred method of inquiry. We might then track which method
is winning out in some domain of inquiry. But suppose we want is to
assign a specific psychological law to a specific method of inquiry. We would
have to have a set of descriptions for isolating the data into four
groups. We could then take the "tenacious" individuals and try to
explain their behavior. But we already have the set of descriptions in place
for isolating the tenacious individuals. So, what we want to know is why some
people "cling spasmodically to the views they already take." Answers to
this question can be distributed with the "least total error" representing the
winning answer. But are descriptive laws with respect to behavior as
convincing as physical laws are with respect to the position of the planets? !
Are descriptive laws with respect to behavior just an illusion? Why do we take
an "intentional stance" towards some systems and not others, disparaging the
former as lacking theoretical "bite."
Dear Jim Willgoose,
Opps, I goofed. I think you are
right. In an earlier version of my post I had included the
possibility that in an open system new energy, information and possibilities
were being added (or taken away) that would change the mean of the system and
thus account for evolution of the mean (and why variation about the mean is so
important and included in nature's plan).
Otherwise, yes, the average represents the "least
total error" of a distribution and moreover is in some ways an abstract
"fiction" as for example the average family size of 2.3
people. Still, as long as we are dealing with
generalization about multiple observations that in reality vary
about a mean (and I can't think of any actual observations that don't)
then the mean remains the characterization of the group of observations
that produces the least total difference from all the other observation
comprising the data set. And what is our notion of truth if not the
example with the least error?
Along with Peirce, and statistical measurement
theory, I think of every observation as containing a combination some
universal truth and individual error. The average of a distribution of
observations contains the least percentage of individual error because that is
what the math of achieving the average produces. The "truth" of a whole
distribution is the distribution itself. The least erroneous
generalization about the distribution is its average. I don't think
truth lies outside the data. I take the view that every method,
observation or imaginable thing contains some truth but only a part of the
truth along with individual error. Each of the three methods for fixing
belief is valid in so far as it goes (and of course as examples of
themselves perfectly true). So I would describe them as producing
partial truths. All observation are individual matters.
But idividual observation! s are wrong in so far as they lack
the validity that only multiple individual POVs can provide.
The whole truth requires simultaneous observations from multiple POVs
which can only be achieved through the existence of others. And the
multiple observations must be combined rationally (as for example the simple
average) in order to cancel rather than multiply or add error. All of
this multiple POV business being required because the universe extends in
both space and time and there is no way any individual can achieve a POV from
which to grasp its totality.
As to the flat earth example -- I'd say "the
world is flat" was not so much a wrong conclusion as it was an only
partially true conclusion. For the purpose of most local everyday
walking distances (the main mode of transportation at the time the view was
popular, though never universally accepted) the idea that the earth was a
bumpy (hills and valleys) flat surface was effectively true. Granted,
as we expand our horizons and the distribution of observation to include
previously excepted outliers the mean shifts accordingly. An error
you have correctly noted in my account. I incorrectly spoke as if
my world were the whole world and we all lived in a locally closed and fixed
system. A common false assumption of the tenaciously
narrow minded such as myself.
BTW some empirical studies of cultural ideals of human
facial beauty point to the conclusion that the population average (based upon
actual measurements of facial features) is the most favored. This seems
to tie in with Peirce's suggestion (as it survives my personal filter)
that aesthetics is the basis for ethics and ethics for truth.
And yes -- in the final analysis all of what I've
proposed is not only old hat but so limited in its generality as to be little
more than a crank opinion. I realize this. Yet for
me individually pluralism has been a big part of
my small personal conception of how truth is
approached. So I appreciate your taking the time to comment, Jim.
Your helpful suggestions have, I believe, already brought me a bit closer
to courtroom ideal of "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth". I've been learning a little about the history of common law
recently . In a way the common law system with its constant honing
and development based upon reason and evidence has produced a quasi scientific
body of knowledge about human behavior that is in my view every bit the equal
or superior of that produced by other social
science approaches. A psychologist! who wants to understand
interpersonal relations and our society at large could do worse than
to study contract and property law.
Best wishes and thanks,
Jim Piat
Jim Wilgoose wrote:
Interesting. But if all the scientist did was "average" three defective
modes of inquiry, wouldn't we be stuck with the "least total error," yet an
error nevertheless? We would have all agreed that the earth is flat, Euclidean
geometry is the true physical geometry, a part can never be greater than the
whole and so forth. The other methods are experimentally defective. Even if
the average was taken just from within the scientific community, are there not
numerous examples of "leaps" in knowledge occurring by virtue of the beliefs
held out along the fringes of the distribution?
Jim W
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---