me: > Strange and seemingly irrelevant analogies don't fit in clear > thinking. For example, a "clear standard" is NOT a "production > process." It refers to a _standard_, something that one wants. A > "production process," on the other hand, refers to inputs of whatever > sort being transformed into outputs (usually some wanted and some > not).
Doyle: > I beg to differ. Protocols for making web pages and the assorted other > rules or standards of the WWW are a control on production so that web pages > work. protocols are different from actual production, just as recipes differ from actual cooking. me: > It's likely that pen-l can't achieve clear thinking, since it involves > more than one person. It's hard enough for one person to pull off. But > issues can at clarified: if nothing else, we can move toward having > clearer differences of opinions. We don't have to appeal to emotion, > preexisting biases, style, etc. In other words, even though purely > clear thinking may be impossible, we can try. Doyle: > Then I will try to be clear here about what I mean. We are producing > knowledge, writing text. And a simple exchange back and forth does not > address like you say clarity opinion. I am unclear what in heck this last sentence means. Are you saying that a simple exchange back and forth does not clarify opinion?? I'll assume that that's what you're saying and respond to that: An exchange of opinions can clarify opinion if people avoid simply appealing to emotion, established opinion, biases, etc. and instead try to be logical, empirical, etc. > We could use the traditional > standards of editorial control of journals to up things a notch by passing a > document past a panel of 'experts' but why bother? It's the process of discussion itself that can clarify opinions; it may not attain total clarity, but we can try to move in that direction. The purpose of pen-l, as far as I can tell, is not to produce a scholarly journal. Part of pen-l is simply a matter of venting emotions. But it's mostly a matter of people (alas, mostly men) who have similar interests and values talking about issues that interest them in order to defend their positions, clarify their thinking, etc. > Let's take data mining > as an example of trying to use a lot of data to specific needs. Say Google > finding text from the vast library for you when you want it. That > represents the work of hundreds of thousands or authors taken together in an > anonymous way. > Or a bigger interest of mine like face recognition in iPhones where the > phone can identify faces in your archive as being the same person. Or the > EU initiative to take a cell phone picture and identify information about > that location directly to that place. Those automations really render a > discussion as we have here as under achieving real clarity of meaning. Doyle, I haven't the slightest idea of how this is relevant to the idea that people on pen-l should try to attain clarity rather than appealing to preexisting biases, etc. > Here's why, the EU project can claim 80% accuracy in identifying say a > building on a street anywhere in Europe. That is real clearness in the > sense you mean I think. But it represents a vast increase in information > data that individuals can't do well by themselves. Doyle, I haven't the slightest idea of how this is relevant to the idea that people on pen-l should try to attain clarity of opinions rather than appealing to preexisting biases, etc. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
