Sabri wrote: > Dear Julio, > > I was not addressing you only, but thanks for the link.
Yes, I suspected you were addressing everybody here. But, to be frank, I find it a bit condescending the way you approach us, readers, here. (And I'll rush to pledge guilty of same sin.) So I was just making it clear that people on the list may not be completely misinformed. > One minor suggestion: you may want to use Scientific Word for presentation, > unless you did that already. Scientific Word is Latex on Windows. MS Word is > okay, but math is also about aesthetics, because when things are neat looking, > they are easier to understand, provided that you don't get obsessed with > aesthetics, and confuse the ends with the means. Of course I use LaTeX. Unless the publishing venue requires another format. The particular format of that paper was required by the Czech university that compiled the proceedings. > Kalman smoothing was just a tool I wanted to use to explain what I have in > mind. We associate uncertainty only with the future but even the present and > the past are uncertain also. It is just an observability/verifiability issue, > not to mention that interpretations are subjective. I agree. This is a point I made in reply to Shane a while ago, here on PEN-L. Historians know this well. I view the Bayes/Laplace (and Ramsey) doctrines of probability -- with human learning practice at the center -- as the view consistent (with minor interpretive tweaks here and there) with any attempt to change the world for good. For what is the production of knowledge (i.e. the determination of probabilities or functions thereof) if not the production of wealth (all knowledge is embedded in wealth, all wealth is the objectification of knowledge, in spite of all the nonsense about "digital," "symbolic," etc. goods that one reads here and there)? And what is wealth in the last analysis if not ourselves, as individuals in our interactions? Try and explain this to a Marxist, who thinks that math or probability theory is one thing and logic or dialectics something else! That's part of the crap of the existing society, that it splits everything into tiny fragments, seemingly disconnected, when they are not. And the Marxists joyfully contribute to the hairsplitting. That's why I don't think ideologies are just sets of subjective beliefs -- as you say. They are much more than that. They have deep roots, and -- yes -- they then reinforce the social garbage that feeds them. > What is ideology after all: it is just a system of subjective beliefs. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
