I wonder if Russ's question relates to a point that was raised in another
thread –one that I tried to follow --unsuccessfully because it was mostly over
my head. Nick wrote that:
Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert that
science is the only procedure capable
That's a _great_ counterfactual suggestion, to imagine science without
language. The way I see it, science consists of transpersonal behaviors.
I know this definition is (almost) peculiar to me. Sorry about that.
But science is unrelated to thought at all. It's all about methods and
getting
Glen, John,
A really interesting exchange. It feeds into my conversation with my Peirce
Mentor about science being at its root experimentation and experimentation
being, at its root, poking the world with a stick. (It walks like a duck,
it quacks like a duck. Does it squawk like a duck?
Ha! Nick, you DO understand computer science: Duck Typing has been popular
as a way of describing loosely typed dynamic languages. I guess to be fair
I'll start calling it Peirce Typing.
-- Owen
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Nicholas Thompson
nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote:
Glen,
I agree that the closure of the feedback loop between peeking and poking
(experimentation) is the root of science. Of course, perhaps that's not
much of a statement _if_ that's the root of everything, as maybe the
autopoiesis guys might claim.
An interesting question is what would the _medium_
This also is very interesting. Peirce typing, as you put it, equals
abduction. Is Duck Typing a term of art, somewhere? Or is that your
neologism. I like it.
Actually, from Peirce's point of view, I perhaps made a mistake with
It's a duck! (Some might say I was guilty of a canard.
How would you say E = MC^2 without language?
*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
*** Professor, Computer Science*
* California State University, Los Angeles*
* My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
* Google voice: 747-*999-5105
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:21 AM:
How would you say E = MC^2 without language?
I don't think a scientist would say such a thing. But I also don't
think E = MC^2 is science.
Yes, I know. After saying that, you will (again) think to yourself that
it's not worth talking to me. ;-) But
It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that
theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that?
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote:
If I manipulate machine X with buttons Y and Z, then A,
B, and C obtain.
*--
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:59 AM:
It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that
theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that?
To be as stark as possible, Yes. It's metaphysics, which is how we make
sense of, give meaning to,
There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to manipulate
the world. Much of it provides the foundation for devices that other people
build through which I manipulate the world. How does all that fit in?
Are you saying that only engineering is science? There is a nice definition
The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out
what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that
knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would
you say it differently?
*-- Russ Abbott*
I would say that the product of the scientific enterprise is knowledge. If
that's the case, then the question becomes how one expresses that
knowledge. Is it possible to express knowledge without language? Doesn't
any expression of knowledge imply a language?
*-- Russ Abbott*
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:19 AM:
The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out
what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that
knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would
you say it differently?
Yes.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Nicholas Thompson
nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote:
This also is very interesting. Peirce typing, as you put it, equals
“abduction”. Is “Duck Typing” a term of art, somewhere? Or is that your
neologism. I like it.
** **
Actually, from Peirce’s
What is Language?
What is Science?
What is Engineering?
What is Metaphysics?
It seems that Glen is confronting us to sort these out a bit
more/differently than usual. I find your (Glen) presentation of these
concepts idiosyncratic but generally to good effect. I almost always
flinch and
Given the other discussion of the usability or testability of some
scientific theories, I thought these might be interesting links:
Build A Fusion Reactor
http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
Bringing particle physics to life: build your own cloud chamber
Yes, I think how knowledge is recorded includes the machines that do the
recording and the playback. For example, knowledge recorded on a
magnetic tape is _not_ really knowledge if we don't have a tape player.
Only when the tape is played can we call it knowledge.
Russ Abbott wrote at
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-emergence-complex-behaviors-causal-entropic.html
It is with much anticipation that we await the detailed discussions that
are sure to follow which will cover the meanings of emergence, complex,
behaviors, through, causal entropic, and forces.
--Doug
--
*Doug
Popcorn is popped and buttered; knees are crossed in my Adirondack chair. Carry
on.
P.
On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net wrote:
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-emergence-complex-behaviors-causal-entropic.html
It is with much anticipation that we await the
+1
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Pamela McCorduck pam...@well.com wrote:
Popcorn is popped and buttered; knees are crossed in my Adirondack chair.
Carry on.
P.
On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net wrote:
Russ: I you aware that these words might have been quoted, word for word,
from Peirce?
Yes. Science is the set of behaviors we use to refine our behaviors for
future behaving. Engineering is the set of behaviors we use to
(semi)permanently modify our surroundings.
Science is a process
Glen -
Right. I tried to say that the root of language is the ability to
point at, but that what we call language is built on top of that root.
But I subsequently admitted that, if _everything_ we do as living
organisms is built atop that root, then saying it's also the root of
language is
I don't know about you, Pamela, but I've run clean out of popcorn, and I've
already re-crossed my knees twice. Truth be known, I'm particularly keen
to follow the exposition on the meaning of the word through.
Although forces is a close second, followed of course by causal.
--Doug
On Mon, Apr
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:37:09PM -0600, Owen Densmore wrote:
In duck typing, one is concerned with just those aspects of an object that
are used, rather than with the type of the object itself. For example, in a
non-duck-typed language, one can create a function that takes an object of
Owen,
This really quite splendid. And timely. Just as I would was thinking that
the two kinds of conversations that have dominated FRIAM over the last few
weeks were going to permanently bifurcate, you bring them together with
Abducktion and duck-typing. Your exposition was pretty
Ok Troll-Boy, I'll bite.
Here's the paper referenced in the phys.org post:
http://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf
Are these concepts so foreign that you hope to watch a thread thrash on the
semantics and meanings of this theoretical worldview? Is there something in
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Stephen Guerin
stephen.gue...@redfish.comwrote:
Ok Troll-Boy, I'll bite.
[...]
Doug, where do you think intelligent behavior (ie life) comes from? Do you
have a view? a pet theory? too busy?
Never too busy to respond to you, G-man. A slight time delay
28 matches
Mail list logo
