Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

F

 

One might say, One trusts the logic a hundred percent; it’s just that one never 
quite trusts the premises on which the logic is based.  That was one of 
Peirce’s points.  It’s all very well to say that deduction is infallible, just 
so long as you concede that deduction is always based on prior inductions and 
abductions, both of which ARE fallible. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 9:14 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

"I don't care what you think you have deduced from formal logic, if you jump 
when the empty gun is cocked, you believe that the gun is loaded." 

 

Or you believe the gun might be loaded.  I have three revolvers hidden away in 
a triply locked gun safe.  Two of them are cowboy style six-shooters.  One of 
them is a British 9 shot double action .22.

 

Do you see the problem?

 

Frank


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly 
<http://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly> 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:03 PM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

Glen, 

 

 

Frank and I have a long-running, somewhat facetious, argument about the meaning 
of probability statements.  We are friends, and we enjoy making each other 
squirm, a bit.  I talk to him in a way I would not talk to you.  My argument 
with Frank is light-hearted and you may justifiably be impatient with it. So, 
some caution, here, therefore. 

 

One of the things Frank and I argue about is, Who exactly gets to say what I 
believe.  He credits first person accounts, perhaps unconditionally;  I credit 
third person accounts, conditionally.  Something like that.  So that is a part 
of what is going on, here.  There is another thread lurking here that concerns 
what logic, in the ordinary sense, is good for.  Put them together, and you get 
something like, "I don't care what you think you have deduced from formal 
logic, if you jump when the empty gun is cocked, you believe that the gun is 
loaded."  I am looking forward to Frank’s disagreement with that notion.  It's 
a bit like the distinction between signs and symptoms in medicine.  

 

I certainly don’t want to be an idealist.  I am trying to be an 
experience-monist:  everything else, ideas, matter, is irreducibly just 
patterns in experience.  But given the doctrine above, you have a lot to say 
about whether I am, in fact, an idealist.  Evidence?  

 

I stipulate that I have not answered your longer email of a week ago on this 
thread.  Given your assertion that I don't read [carefully] what you write, I 
am taking time to answer it.   Relatives in house, so that process is slow.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 6:30 PM
To: FriAM mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

So, to be clear, are you also making fun of reasoning like this?  I ask because 
it's equal in idealism to the trolley problem.

 

On 07/11/2018 07:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Jones is in a gunfight

> Jones Knows that his opponent has only a six shooter Jones knows that 

> his opponent has just fired six shots Jones’s opponent aims his gun at 

> Jones Jones reasons that his opponent’s gun is empty Yet he is afraid 

> of being shot.

> Does Jones believe that the gun is empty?

> 

> By the way, given the facts stipulated, you, as a mathematician, would 

> say that the probability that the gun is empty is 1.0, right?

 

 

--

☣ uǝlƃ

 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe  
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> 
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Frank Wimberly]

"I don't care what you think you have deduced from formal logic, if you
jump when the empty gun is cocked, *you believe that the gun is loaded*."

Or you believe the gun might be loaded.  I have three revolvers hidden away
in a triply locked gun safe.  Two of them are cowboy style six-shooters.
One of them is a British 9 shot double action .22.

Do you see the problem?

Frank


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:03 PM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Glen,
>
>
>
>
>
> Frank and I have a long-running, somewhat facetious, argument about the
> meaning of probability statements.  We are friends, and we enjoy making
> each other squirm, a bit.  I talk to him in a way I would not talk to you.
> My argument with Frank is light-hearted and you may justifiably be
> impatient with it. So, some caution, here, therefore.
>
>
>
> One of the things Frank and I argue about is, Who exactly gets to say what
> I believe.  He credits first person accounts, perhaps unconditionally;  I
> credit third person accounts, conditionally.  Something like that.  So that
> is a part of what is going on, here.  There is another thread lurking here
> that concerns what logic, in the ordinary sense, is good for.  Put them
> together, and you get something like, "I don't care what you think you have
> deduced from formal logic, if you jump when the empty gun is cocked, *you
> believe that the gun is loaded*."  I am looking forward to Frank’s
> disagreement with that notion.  It's a bit like the distinction between
> signs and symptoms in medicine.
>
>
>
> I certainly don’t want to be an idealist.  I am trying to be an
> experience-monist:  everything else, ideas, matter, is irreducibly just
> patterns in experience.  But given the doctrine above, you have a lot to
> say about whether I am, in fact, an idealist.  Evidence?
>
>
>
> I stipulate that I have not answered your longer email of a week ago on
> this thread.  Given your assertion that I don't read [carefully] what you
> write, I am taking time to answer it.   Relatives in house, so that process
> is slow.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 6:30 PM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?
>
>
>
> So, to be clear, are you also making fun of reasoning like this?  I ask
> because it's equal in idealism to the trolley problem.
>
>
>
> On 07/11/2018 07:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> > Jones is in a gunfight
>
> > Jones Knows that his opponent has only a six shooter Jones knows that
>
> > his opponent has just fired six shots Jones’s opponent aims his gun at
>
> > Jones Jones reasons that his opponent’s gun is empty Yet he is afraid
>
> > of being shot.
>
> > Does Jones believe that the gun is empty?
>
> >
>
> > By the way, given the facts stipulated, you, as a mathematician, would
>
> > say that the probability that the gun is empty is 1.0, right?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
>
>
> 
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, 

 

 

Frank and I have a long-running, somewhat facetious, argument about the meaning 
of probability statements.  We are friends, and we enjoy making each other 
squirm, a bit.  I talk to him in a way I would not talk to you.  My argument 
with Frank is light-hearted and you may justifiably be impatient with it. So, 
some caution, here, therefore. 

 

One of the things Frank and I argue about is, Who exactly gets to say what I 
believe.  He credits first person accounts, perhaps unconditionally;  I credit 
third person accounts, conditionally.  Something like that.  So that is a part 
of what is going on, here.  There is another thread lurking here that concerns 
what logic, in the ordinary sense, is good for.  Put them together, and you get 
something like, "I don't care what you think you have deduced from formal 
logic, if you jump when the empty gun is cocked, you believe that the gun is 
loaded."  I am looking forward to Frank’s disagreement with that notion.  It's 
a bit like the distinction between signs and symptoms in medicine.  

 

I certainly don’t want to be an idealist.  I am trying to be an 
experience-monist:  everything else, ideas, matter, is irreducibly just 
patterns in experience.  But given the doctrine above, you have a lot to say 
about whether I am, in fact, an idealist.  Evidence?  

 

I stipulate that I have not answered your longer email of a week ago on this 
thread.  Given your assertion that I don't read [carefully] what you write, I 
am taking time to answer it.   Relatives in house, so that process is slow.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 6:30 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

So, to be clear, are you also making fun of reasoning like this?  I ask because 
it's equal in idealism to the trolley problem.

 

On 07/11/2018 07:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Jones is in a gunfight

> Jones Knows that his opponent has only a six shooter Jones knows that 

> his opponent has just fired six shots Jones’s opponent aims his gun at 

> Jones Jones reasons that his opponent’s gun is empty Yet he is afraid 

> of being shot.

> Does Jones believe that the gun is empty?

> 

> By the way, given the facts stipulated, you, as a mathematician, would 

> say that the probability that the gun is empty is 1.0, right?

 

 

--

☣ uǝlƃ

 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe  
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> 
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

So, to be clear, are you also making fun of reasoning like this?  I ask because 
it's equal in idealism to the trolley problem.

On 07/11/2018 07:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Jones is in a gunfight
> Jones Knows that his opponent has only a six shooter
> Jones knows that his opponent has just fired six shots
> Jones’s opponent aims his gun at Jones
> Jones reasons that his opponent’s gun is empty
> Yet he is afraid of being shot.
> Does Jones believe that the gun is empty? 
> 
> By the way, given the facts stipulated, you, as a mathematician, would say 
> that the probability that the gun is empty is 1.0, right? 


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Frank Wimberly]

In Plato space, yes.  In actual space, 1.0 - eps. Many people have been
killed by "empty" guns.


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 10:17 AM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> F.
>
>
>
> Hmm!
>
>
>
> Jones is in a gunfight
>
> Jones Knows that his opponent has only a six shooter
>
> Jones knows that his opponent has just fired six shots
>
> Jones’s opponent aims his gun at Jones
>
> Jones reasons that his opponent’s gun is empty
>
> Yet he is afraid of being shot.
>
> Does Jones believe that the gun is empty?
>
>
>
> By the way, given the facts stipulated, you, as a mathematician, would say
> that the probability that the gun is empty is 1.0, right?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
> Wimberly
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 11, 2018 10:31 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?
>
>
>
> De gustibus non est disputandum
>
> 
> Frank Wimberly
>
> www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
>
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 6:50 PM Nick Thompson 
> wrote:
>
> G
>
> I think it was Quine who said, if it's the kind of thing you have to
> reason about it's not a value.
>
> N
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 3:14 PM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?
>
> Aha!  That's good to know.  Like deeply parsing Liz Phair lyrics, you
> *cannot* rely on me to infer what you imply.  I'm just not smart enough.
>
> On 07/11/2018 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > I was making FUN of the trolley game.  I don't want to play it any more
> than you do!
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

F.

 

Hmm!

 

Jones is in a gunfight

Jones Knows that his opponent has only a six shooter

Jones knows that his opponent has just fired six shots

Jones’s opponent aims his gun at Jones

Jones reasons that his opponent’s gun is empty

Yet he is afraid of being shot.

Does Jones believe that the gun is empty?  

 

By the way, given the facts stipulated, you, as a mathematician, would say that 
the probability that the gun is empty is 1.0, right?  

 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 10:31 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

De gustibus non est disputandum


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly 
<http://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly> 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 6:50 PM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

G

I think it was Quine who said, if it's the kind of thing you have to reason 
about it's not a value. 

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 3:14 PM
To: FriAM mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

Aha!  That's good to know.  Like deeply parsing Liz Phair lyrics, you *cannot* 
rely on me to infer what you imply.  I'm just not smart enough.

On 07/11/2018 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I was making FUN of the trolley game.  I don't want to play it any more than 
> you do!

--
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

F

 

It’s probably not a belief, either, come to think on it.  

 

n

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 10:31 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

De gustibus non est disputandum


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly 
<http://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly> 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 6:50 PM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

G

I think it was Quine who said, if it's the kind of thing you have to reason 
about it's not a value. 

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 3:14 PM
To: FriAM mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

Aha!  That's good to know.  Like deeply parsing Liz Phair lyrics, you *cannot* 
rely on me to infer what you imply.  I'm just not smart enough.

On 07/11/2018 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I was making FUN of the trolley game.  I don't want to play it any more than 
> you do!

--
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Frank Wimberly]

De gustibus non est disputandum


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 6:50 PM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> G
>
> I think it was Quine who said, if it's the kind of thing you have to
> reason about it's not a value.
>
> N
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 3:14 PM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?
>
> Aha!  That's good to know.  Like deeply parsing Liz Phair lyrics, you
> *cannot* rely on me to infer what you imply.  I'm just not smart enough.
>
> On 07/11/2018 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > I was making FUN of the trolley game.  I don't want to play it any more
> than you do!
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

G

I think it was Quine who said, if it's the kind of thing you have to reason 
about it's not a value. 

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 3:14 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

Aha!  That's good to know.  Like deeply parsing Liz Phair lyrics, you *cannot* 
rely on me to infer what you imply.  I'm just not smart enough.

On 07/11/2018 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I was making FUN of the trolley game.  I don't want to play it any more than 
> you do!

--
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Aha!  That's good to know.  Like deeply parsing Liz Phair lyrics, you *cannot* 
rely on me to infer what you imply.  I'm just not smart enough.

On 07/11/2018 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I was making FUN of the trolley game.  I don't want to play it any more than 
> you do!

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, GLEN,

I was making FUN of the trolley game.  I don't want to play it any more than 
you do!

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 11:50 AM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

This brings to mind the dimensionality of the space of possible actions.  I 
don't play the Trolley Game Nick wants to play because the space is absurdly, 
artificially small ... presented by sophists who care little about the real 
world.  The real world (usually) presents a very high dimensional space of 
possible actions.  And those actions are (usually) not atomic, but composite.  
So, when presented with a situation where computing the likely first-order 
consequences is too expensive, rather than wait it out, one can chop up the 
potential (composite) actions into their first-executed action-lets, then sense 
and go again.  Or, perhaps if you've done the pre-processing, you can take the 
action-lets that have been identified as "critical path".  If some action will 
be required *anyway*, common to a wide array of potential actions and 
consequences, then do that.

This sort of agility is more common than pure rationalists/analyists/idealists 
would have us believe.

On 07/11/2018 08:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> There’s another type of paralysis that does not involve doubt but computation 
> cost in resolving or characterizing doubt:
> 
> A soon as it takes more time to compute the likely first-order consequences 
> of various potential actions (even using coarse-graining or surrogate models 
> or whatever simplification) than just waiting for time to pass, action is 
> arbitrary.   One could have precise information about all the aspects of a 
> decision but putting it together into a recommendation for action could be 
> too hard.  One could probably even prove it is impossible in some cases.

--
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Steven A Smith]

Re: Decision Paralysis.  A sage friend of mine used to say "sometimes
the most you can do is nothing".  I'm also lead to think of "Symmetry
Breaking" in dynamical systems.

Re: Gil's question of whether this list is dead or not...  I certainly
have dialed back my participation in the psuedo philosophical banter,
roughly based on the above tactic.   I DO, however, continue to read
these threads and take away useful morsels of insight from all participants.

Re: Gil's question about whether another list should be formed:  I
believe WedTech provided a decent fork for two particular types of
threads:  1) announcements/discussions of the nitty gritty tech details
of programming languages (usually JS or a variant); 2) items primarily
(or exclusively) of interest to people living IN Santa Fe.



On 7/11/18 9:59 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Glen writes:
>
> "If some action will be required *anyway*, common to a wide array of 
> potential actions and consequences, then do that."
>
> Another form would be "I'm lost, so I'll follow another car."   
> These kinds of damage-limiting default actions (when actions are *required*) 
> need not be paralyzing and failing to take them when forced involves some 
> other explanation, like a malfunction or lack of awareness of the available 
> default actions, i.e. lack of awareness of the general properties of the 
> current environment.  
>
> Marcus
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Marcus Daniels]

Glen writes:

"If some action will be required *anyway*, common to a wide array of potential 
actions and consequences, then do that."

Another form would be "I'm lost, so I'll follow another car."   
These kinds of damage-limiting default actions (when actions are *required*) 
need not be paralyzing and failing to take them when forced involves some other 
explanation, like a malfunction or lack of awareness of the available default 
actions, i.e. lack of awareness of the general properties of the current 
environment.  

Marcus



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

This brings to mind the dimensionality of the space of possible actions.  I 
don't play the Trolley Game Nick wants to play because the space is absurdly, 
artificially small ... presented by sophists who care little about the real 
world.  The real world (usually) presents a very high dimensional space of 
possible actions.  And those actions are (usually) not atomic, but composite.  
So, when presented with a situation where computing the likely first-order 
consequences is too expensive, rather than wait it out, one can chop up the 
potential (composite) actions into their first-executed action-lets, then sense 
and go again.  Or, perhaps if you've done the pre-processing, you can take the 
action-lets that have been identified as "critical path".  If some action will 
be required *anyway*, common to a wide array of potential actions and 
consequences, then do that.

This sort of agility is more common than pure rationalists/analyists/idealists 
would have us believe.

On 07/11/2018 08:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> There’s another type of paralysis that does not involve doubt but computation 
> cost in resolving or characterizing doubt:
> 
> A soon as it takes more time to compute the likely first-order consequences 
> of various potential actions (even using coarse-graining or surrogate models 
> or whatever simplification) than just waiting for time to pass, action is 
> arbitrary.   One could have precise information about all the aspects of a 
> decision but putting it together into a recommendation for action could be 
> too hard.  One could probably even prove it is impossible in some cases.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Marcus Daniels]

There’s another type of paralysis that does not involve doubt but computation 
cost in resolving or characterizing doubt:
A soon as it takes more time to compute the likely first-order consequences of 
various potential actions (even using coarse-graining or surrogate models or 
whatever simplification) than just waiting for time to pass, action is 
arbitrary.   One could have precise information about all the aspects of a 
decision but putting it together into a recommendation for action could be too 
hard.  One could probably even prove it is impossible in some cases.

From: Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 9:21 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

Fascinating response, Marcus.

Does this mean you cannot imagine ==> rational<== paralyzing doubt?  So, 
imagine yourself in some situation of grave consequence, Truman’s decision to 
use the bomb or Comey’s decision to restart the investigation (or to announce 
its conclusion in the first place), or one of those “two track” hypotheticals 
that utilitarian’s are so fond of*,  can you imagine yourself, not anxious, not 
in need of therapy at all, but unable to act?

I suppose one could have a standard rule:  in situations of grave consequence, 
I do nothing, or I flip a coin.

In some dire situations animals “freeze”.  It’s rational for animals because 
many predators’ prey- catching systems work on motion.  Human decision 
paralysis might just be an evolutionary hold over.
Does that make it neurotic or just ill-suited to modern circumstances.

Nick

*You are the man in charge of a track switch beyond which tied to the tracks, 
on one side, four French Poodles and on the other side your beloved Aunt Susie. 
 Incidentally, you should also know that the passenger cars on the train are 
loaded with a thousand pregnant girl scouts.  (So don’t try to jam that switch 
in the middle, you wise guy!)

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 12:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?



“By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt.  I mean doubt sufficiently 
profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course of action.  REAL 
doubt.  Paralyzing doubt.”



That’s a different thing, anxiety and/or depression.  Treatable with exercise, 
medication, or therapy.



Marcus





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Marcus Daniels]

“*You are the man in charge of a track switch beyond which tied to the tracks, 
on one side, four French Poodles and on the other side your beloved Aunt Susie. 
 Incidentally, you should also know that the passenger cars on the train are 
loaded with a thousand pregnant girl scouts.  (So don’t try to jam that switch 
in the middle, you wise guy!)”
Stab the experimenter with his pen, untie the beloved agents, and then attach 
the experimenter to the rail prior to the switch.   Is this hard?
Marcus

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Marcus Daniels]

If one is ignorant and wants to learn if an action can change things, then flip 
the coin, take the action and take notes.
One should also look for a similar situation in which one does not take an 
action in order to compare and contrast.   And repeat both as many times as is 
feasible to collect statistics.

In the two cases you mention, it is not really feasible to do that.   So, one 
simulates:   What if Russia does not see a demonstration of U.S. might?   What 
if the Justice department or my [Comey’s] career takes a hit in credibility in 
order to save the country from a madman? The right answer is a function of 
the values of the person in that situation.   So, a second order question then 
is, “What if people find out my values?”

There is inherent ambiguity in the information that inform most decisions and 
it is impossible to really foresee or quantify the consequences of action (e.g. 
chaos theory), so it is safe to say doubt ought to permeate every decision.   
It could be that all of these decisions are playing out in the multiverse or 
that there is precisely one path we are all on that is fully determined and 
that choice is just a ridiculous illusion anyway.

Marcus

From: Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 9:21 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

Fascinating response, Marcus.

Does this mean you cannot imagine ==> rational<== paralyzing doubt?  So, 
imagine yourself in some situation of grave consequence, Truman’s decision to 
use the bomb or Comey’s decision to restart the investigation (or to announce 
its conclusion in the first place), or one of those “two track” hypotheticals 
that utilitarian’s are so fond of*,  can you imagine yourself, not anxious, not 
in need of therapy at all, but unable to act?

I suppose one could have a standard rule:  in situations of grave consequence, 
I do nothing, or I flip a coin.

In some dire situations animals “freeze”.  It’s rational for animals because 
many predators’ prey- catching systems work on motion.  Human decision 
paralysis might just be an evolutionary hold over.
Does that make it neurotic or just ill-suited to modern circumstances.

Nick

*You are the man in charge of a track switch beyond which tied to the tracks, 
on one side, four French Poodles and on the other side your beloved Aunt Susie. 
 Incidentally, you should also know that the passenger cars on the train are 
loaded with a thousand pregnant girl scouts.  (So don’t try to jam that switch 
in the middle, you wise guy!)

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 12:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?



“By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt.  I mean doubt sufficiently 
profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course of action.  REAL 
doubt.  Paralyzing doubt.”



That’s a different thing, anxiety and/or depression.  Treatable with exercise, 
medication, or therapy.



Marcus





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

Yes but!  According to some Utilitarians you would deserve a pardon from Trump. 
 

 

Ok.  Remove Aunt Susie and put four nuns.  Now you go scot free, right.  But, 
as any Utilitarian would point out, this doesn’t make sense.  You intentionally 
killed two people you could have saved.  With premeditation, even.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 11:34 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

Of you kill Aunt Susie in order to save French poodles, you're going to prison.


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly 
<http://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly> 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:21 PM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

Fascinating response, Marcus.

 

Does this mean you cannot imagine ==> rational<== paralyzing doubt?  So, 
imagine yourself in some situation of grave consequence, Truman’s decision to 
use the bomb or Comey’s decision to restart the investigation (or to announce 
its conclusion in the first place), or one of those “two track” hypotheticals 
that utilitarian’s are so fond of*,  can you imagine yourself, not anxious, not 
in need of therapy at all, but unable to act?  

 

I suppose one could have a standard rule:  in situations of grave consequence, 
I do nothing, or I flip a coin.  

 

In some dire situations animals “freeze”.  It’s rational for animals because 
many predators’ prey- catching systems work on motion.  Human decision 
paralysis might just be an evolutionary hold over.  

Does that make it neurotic or just ill-suited to modern circumstances. 

 

Nick 

 

*You are the man in charge of a track switch beyond which tied to the tracks, 
on one side, four French Poodles and on the other side your beloved Aunt Susie. 
 Incidentally, you should also know that the passenger cars on the train are 
loaded with a thousand pregnant girl scouts.  (So don’t try to jam that switch 
in the middle, you wise guy!)   

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 12:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

 

“By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt.  I mean doubt sufficiently 
profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course of action.  REAL 
doubt.  Paralyzing doubt.”

 

That’s a different thing, anxiety and/or depression.  Treatable with exercise, 
medication, or therapy.

 

Marcus

 

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Frank Wimberly]

Of you kill Aunt Susie in order to save French poodles, you're going to
prison.


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:21 PM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Fascinating response, Marcus.
>
>
>
> Does this mean you cannot imagine è rationalç paralyzing doubt?  So,
> imagine yourself in some situation of grave consequence, Truman’s decision
> to use the bomb or Comey’s decision to restart the investigation (or to
> announce its conclusion in the first place), or one of those “two track”
> hypotheticals that utilitarian’s are so fond of*,  can you imagine
> yourself, not anxious, not in need of therapy at all, but unable to act?
>
>
>
> I suppose one could have a standard rule:  in situations of grave
> consequence, I do nothing, or I flip a coin.
>
>
>
> In some dire situations animals “freeze”.  It’s rational for animals
> because many predators’ prey- catching systems work on motion.  Human
> decision paralysis might just be an evolutionary hold over.
>
> Does that make it neurotic or just ill-suited to modern circumstances.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *You are the man in charge of a track switch beyond which tied to the
> tracks, on one side, four French Poodles and on the other side your beloved
> Aunt Susie.  Incidentally, you should also know that the passenger cars on
> the train are loaded with a thousand pregnant girl scouts.  (So don’t try
> to jam that switch in the middle, you wise guy!)
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus
> Daniels
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 07, 2018 12:10 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?
>
>
>
>
>
> “By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt.  I mean doubt
> sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course
> of action.  REAL doubt.  Paralyzing doubt.”
>
>
>
> That’s a different thing, anxiety and/or depression.  Treatable with
> exercise, medication, or therapy.
>
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

Fascinating response, Marcus.

 

Does this mean you cannot imagine ==> rational<== paralyzing doubt?  So, 
imagine yourself in some situation of grave consequence, Truman’s decision to 
use the bomb or Comey’s decision to restart the investigation (or to announce 
its conclusion in the first place), or one of those “two track” hypotheticals 
that utilitarian’s are so fond of*,  can you imagine yourself, not anxious, not 
in need of therapy at all, but unable to act?  

 

I suppose one could have a standard rule:  in situations of grave consequence, 
I do nothing, or I flip a coin.  

 

In some dire situations animals “freeze”.  It’s rational for animals because 
many predators’ prey- catching systems work on motion.  Human decision 
paralysis might just be an evolutionary hold over.  

Does that make it neurotic or just ill-suited to modern circumstances. 

 

Nick 

 

*You are the man in charge of a track switch beyond which tied to the tracks, 
on one side, four French Poodles and on the other side your beloved Aunt Susie. 
 Incidentally, you should also know that the passenger cars on the train are 
loaded with a thousand pregnant girl scouts.  (So don’t try to jam that switch 
in the middle, you wise guy!)   

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 12:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

 

“By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt.  I mean doubt sufficiently 
profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course of action.  REAL 
doubt.  Paralyzing doubt.”

 

That’s a different thing, anxiety and/or depression.  Treatable with exercise, 
medication, or therapy.

 

Marcus

 

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

Wow, Frank!  What you said is much clearer than what I probably said.  

(}:-().  

 

There’s a reason I do not speak this clearly.  (};-)).

 

Seriously, the pragmat[ic]ist warrant for induction is if there is anything 
constant in an essentially random world, organisms (and knowledge systems in 
general) should be designed to track it. So, for instance, as we keep flipping 
heads, the probability that the flips are coming from a biased coin steadily 
increases.   Of course, if the coin we are flipping is not, in any sense, the 
SAME coin, then all  bets are off.  Literally.   Peirce’s notion of reality is 
thus statistical.  And it is based on the assumption that only generals (eg, 
the coin) can be real; specifics (eg, the coin today, the coin tomorrow) cannot 
be real because there is no way to sample them.  

 

In short, it is no longer clear to me that Peirce’s account of induction 
answers the grue/green quandary.   Green is the property of being the color of 
grass.  Grue is the property of being the color of grass until one samples  it 
N times and the color of the sky thereafter.  We never know for sure which kind 
of entity we are dealing with, a green-like entity or a grue-like entity.   We 
can imagine a situation in which we are sample a chemical to see it is the 
d-form or the l-form.  Let’s imagine also that each time we sample it, the 
“spoon” we use introduces a contaminant that, when it reaches a critical 
concentration, flips the solution from one isomer to the other.   Peirce would 
say, well, I never said the world was uniform;  I only said, if there are 
uniformities in the world, statistical inferential systems would be the only 
way to discover them.  But I don’t still think this really solves the problem 
of induction.  Alas.   

 

Thus, if you tell me that the probability of the coin turning up heads on the 
next flip is 50 percent, the relative frequency of the flips has been fifty 
percent up till now AND you have no reason to believe that the coin has changed 
in the meantime because that, in fact, is the basis for your expectations about 
the coin.  (Well, I suppose you could, being a mathematician, simply say you 
have lots of reasons to believe that the coin is the sort of thing that fits 
the binomial model, and let it go at that.)  

I am still studying glen’s interesting comments on the relation between 
confidence and belief.  As you can imagine, given that he has given me one more 
chance, I shall be cautious in my response.  

 

All the best, 

 

Nick 

 

 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 2:54 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

p.s.  I also said that the probability of heads for a fair coin is 0.5.  Of 
course, that's a definition but since he was denying the reality of probability 
I think that cut some ice.


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly 
<http://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly> 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 12:50 PM Frank Wimberly mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Actually Nick is competitive with you for skepticism.  We were discussing 
probabilities and he said you can't know the probability of an event based on 
past observations.  He basically said just because the probability of an event 
has always been P, how do you know it still is?  Is that a fair 
characterization of what you said, Nick?


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly 
<http://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly> 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 12:05 PM uǝlƃ ☣ mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Sorry for the extra post.  But it occurred to me you might be asking whether 
*my* autonomous nervous system believes in the utility of these measurements.  
If so, I can give a full-throated "No."  My doubt comes from listening to my 
S.O. (Renee') talk about things like blood pressure and how they're used in 
clinical settings as well as my own experience as a patient.  "Assessing the 
patient" by an intuitive, signal fusing, machine (nurse, doctor, anesthetist) 
seems to have much more utility than any given particular (linearized) 
measurement of a subsystem.  The utility of, say, the heart rate, is wayyy 
below my threshold for belief.

On 07/09/2018 10:53 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Interesting insertion of "utility", a kind of meta-variable to be considered. 
>  To be clear, I'd say the organism believes in heartbeats, lung pumping, etc. 
>  B

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Nick were even more doubting than I am, 
similar to how ex-smokers become the most vehement anti-smoking zealots or how 
militant atheists seem to have been reared steeped in some religious tradition. 
 Most of us "live inside our own heads".  The tendency for us to prefer *ideas* 
over realities has become obvious in recent years (e.g. filter bubbles).  I 
suppose that's the trouble with interacting mostly via 
text/words/concepts/ideas, with very little or no meat-space-mediated 
interaction.  And truly disjoint categories can only exist in the world of 
ideas.  Out in meat space, there is no this or that, only a colloidal stew.


On 07/09/2018 11:53 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> p.s.  I also said that the probability of heads for a fair coin is 0.5.  Of 
> course, that's a definition but since he was denying the reality of 
> probability I think that cut some ice.
> 
> 
> Frank Wimberly
> 
> www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly 
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
> 
> Phone (505) 670-9918
> 
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 12:50 PM Frank Wimberly  > wrote:
> 
> Actually Nick is competitive with you for skepticism.  We were discussing 
> probabilities and he said you can't know the probability of an event based on 
> past observations.  He basically said just because the probability of an 
> event has always been P, how do you know it still is?  Is that a fair 
> characterization of what you said, Nick?


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Frank Wimberly]

p.s.  I also said that the probability of heads for a fair coin is 0.5.  Of
course, that's a definition but since he was denying the reality of
probability I think that cut some ice.


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 12:50 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> Actually Nick is competitive with you for skepticism.  We were discussing
> probabilities and he said you can't know the probability of an event based
> on past observations.  He basically said just because the probability of an
> event has always been P, how do you know it still is?  Is that a fair
> characterization of what you said, Nick?
>
> 
> Frank Wimberly
>
> www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
>
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 12:05 PM uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
>
>> Sorry for the extra post.  But it occurred to me you might be asking
>> whether *my* autonomous nervous system believes in the utility of these
>> measurements.  If so, I can give a full-throated "No."  My doubt comes from
>> listening to my S.O. (Renee') talk about things like blood pressure and how
>> they're used in clinical settings as well as my own experience as a
>> patient.  "Assessing the patient" by an intuitive, signal fusing, machine
>> (nurse, doctor, anesthetist) seems to have much more utility than any given
>> particular (linearized) measurement of a subsystem.  The utility of, say,
>> the heart rate, is wayyy below my threshold for belief.
>>
>> On 07/09/2018 10:53 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
>> > Interesting insertion of "utility", a kind of meta-variable to be
>> considered.  To be clear, I'd say the organism believes in heartbeats, lung
>> pumping, etc.  But to ask whether the organism believes in the
>> usability/utility of (subjective) measurements of such things smacks of a
>> hidden assumption.
>> >
>> > But to answer as authentically as I can in spite of that hidden
>> assumption, I'd answer that *after* the yogi did such a full cycle
>> manipulation successfully at least *once*, then that yogi might believe
>> that meta-variable. (By "full cycle manipulation", I mean taking conscious
>> control and reinstalling the new behavior into the autonomous part.)  After
>> such success, the yogi organism has some experience with whether, how, and
>> what impact any particular part may have had.  For example, perhaps
>> heartbeat plays no role in her ability to take conscious control and
>> reinstall the new program.  Hence, she might doubt the utility of
>> heartbeats but believe the utility of lung pumping regulation.
>> >
>> > Again, though, whether the yogi organism believes in this meta-layer
>> "utility of X" would depend on where they draw the threshold.  I can
>> imagine very process-based yogis who, like me, put little stock in belief
>> and more in the process of doing, staying "hands on".  And I can imagine
>> yogis who idealize the process (perhaps similar to chi?) and may even write
>> books about it.  I have no experience with how yogis actually are, of
>> course.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 07/09/2018 10:21 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> >> I think the answer may be in what you just wrote, but a bit of
>> assistance please. If we were to anthropomorphize your autonomous nervous
>> system would you say it 'believed' or 'doubted' the utility of heartbeats,
>> lungs pumping, etc.?
>> >>
>> >> My interest arises from studies of Yoga adepts who "take conscious
>> control of breathing" and upon achieving total conscious control, delegate
>> the control back to the autonomous system which maintains the regularized,
>> 'managed' breathing instead of the 'normal', somewhat chaotic/strange
>> attracter-ish breathing regimen prior to the application of Yoga technique.
>> >
>>
>> --
>> ☣ uǝlƃ
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Frank Wimberly]

Actually Nick is competitive with you for skepticism.  We were discussing
probabilities and he said you can't know the probability of an event based
on past observations.  He basically said just because the probability of an
event has always been P, how do you know it still is?  Is that a fair
characterization of what you said, Nick?


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 12:05 PM uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:

> Sorry for the extra post.  But it occurred to me you might be asking
> whether *my* autonomous nervous system believes in the utility of these
> measurements.  If so, I can give a full-throated "No."  My doubt comes from
> listening to my S.O. (Renee') talk about things like blood pressure and how
> they're used in clinical settings as well as my own experience as a
> patient.  "Assessing the patient" by an intuitive, signal fusing, machine
> (nurse, doctor, anesthetist) seems to have much more utility than any given
> particular (linearized) measurement of a subsystem.  The utility of, say,
> the heart rate, is wayyy below my threshold for belief.
>
> On 07/09/2018 10:53 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> > Interesting insertion of "utility", a kind of meta-variable to be
> considered.  To be clear, I'd say the organism believes in heartbeats, lung
> pumping, etc.  But to ask whether the organism believes in the
> usability/utility of (subjective) measurements of such things smacks of a
> hidden assumption.
> >
> > But to answer as authentically as I can in spite of that hidden
> assumption, I'd answer that *after* the yogi did such a full cycle
> manipulation successfully at least *once*, then that yogi might believe
> that meta-variable. (By "full cycle manipulation", I mean taking conscious
> control and reinstalling the new behavior into the autonomous part.)  After
> such success, the yogi organism has some experience with whether, how, and
> what impact any particular part may have had.  For example, perhaps
> heartbeat plays no role in her ability to take conscious control and
> reinstall the new program.  Hence, she might doubt the utility of
> heartbeats but believe the utility of lung pumping regulation.
> >
> > Again, though, whether the yogi organism believes in this meta-layer
> "utility of X" would depend on where they draw the threshold.  I can
> imagine very process-based yogis who, like me, put little stock in belief
> and more in the process of doing, staying "hands on".  And I can imagine
> yogis who idealize the process (perhaps similar to chi?) and may even write
> books about it.  I have no experience with how yogis actually are, of
> course.
> >
> >
> > On 07/09/2018 10:21 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> >> I think the answer may be in what you just wrote, but a bit of
> assistance please. If we were to anthropomorphize your autonomous nervous
> system would you say it 'believed' or 'doubted' the utility of heartbeats,
> lungs pumping, etc.?
> >>
> >> My interest arises from studies of Yoga adepts who "take conscious
> control of breathing" and upon achieving total conscious control, delegate
> the control back to the autonomous system which maintains the regularized,
> 'managed' breathing instead of the 'normal', somewhat chaotic/strange
> attracter-ish breathing regimen prior to the application of Yoga technique.
> >
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Sorry for the extra post.  But it occurred to me you might be asking whether 
*my* autonomous nervous system believes in the utility of these measurements.  
If so, I can give a full-throated "No."  My doubt comes from listening to my 
S.O. (Renee') talk about things like blood pressure and how they're used in 
clinical settings as well as my own experience as a patient.  "Assessing the 
patient" by an intuitive, signal fusing, machine (nurse, doctor, anesthetist) 
seems to have much more utility than any given particular (linearized) 
measurement of a subsystem.  The utility of, say, the heart rate, is wayyy 
below my threshold for belief.

On 07/09/2018 10:53 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Interesting insertion of "utility", a kind of meta-variable to be considered. 
>  To be clear, I'd say the organism believes in heartbeats, lung pumping, etc. 
>  But to ask whether the organism believes in the usability/utility of 
> (subjective) measurements of such things smacks of a hidden assumption.
> 
> But to answer as authentically as I can in spite of that hidden assumption, 
> I'd answer that *after* the yogi did such a full cycle manipulation 
> successfully at least *once*, then that yogi might believe that 
> meta-variable. (By "full cycle manipulation", I mean taking conscious control 
> and reinstalling the new behavior into the autonomous part.)  After such 
> success, the yogi organism has some experience with whether, how, and what 
> impact any particular part may have had.  For example, perhaps heartbeat 
> plays no role in her ability to take conscious control and reinstall the new 
> program.  Hence, she might doubt the utility of heartbeats but believe the 
> utility of lung pumping regulation.
> 
> Again, though, whether the yogi organism believes in this meta-layer "utility 
> of X" would depend on where they draw the threshold.  I can imagine very 
> process-based yogis who, like me, put little stock in belief and more in the 
> process of doing, staying "hands on".  And I can imagine yogis who idealize 
> the process (perhaps similar to chi?) and may even write books about it.  I 
> have no experience with how yogis actually are, of course.
> 
> 
> On 07/09/2018 10:21 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> I think the answer may be in what you just wrote, but a bit of assistance 
>> please. If we were to anthropomorphize your autonomous nervous system would 
>> you say it 'believed' or 'doubted' the utility of heartbeats, lungs pumping, 
>> etc.?
>>
>> My interest arises from studies of Yoga adepts who "take conscious control 
>> of breathing" and upon achieving total conscious control, delegate the 
>> control back to the autonomous system which maintains the regularized, 
>> 'managed' breathing instead of the 'normal', somewhat chaotic/strange 
>> attracter-ish breathing regimen prior to the application of Yoga technique.
> 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Interesting insertion of "utility", a kind of meta-variable to be considered.  
To be clear, I'd say the organism believes in heartbeats, lung pumping, etc.  
But to ask whether the organism believes in the usability/utility of 
(subjective) measurements of such things smacks of a hidden assumption.

But to answer as authentically as I can in spite of that hidden assumption, I'd 
answer that *after* the yogi did such a full cycle manipulation successfully at 
least *once*, then that yogi might believe that meta-variable. (By "full cycle 
manipulation", I mean taking conscious control and reinstalling the new 
behavior into the autonomous part.)  After such success, the yogi organism has 
some experience with whether, how, and what impact any particular part may have 
had.  For example, perhaps heartbeat plays no role in her ability to take 
conscious control and reinstall the new program.  Hence, she might doubt the 
utility of heartbeats but believe the utility of lung pumping regulation.

Again, though, whether the yogi organism believes in this meta-layer "utility 
of X" would depend on where they draw the threshold.  I can imagine very 
process-based yogis who, like me, put little stock in belief and more in the 
process of doing, staying "hands on".  And I can imagine yogis who idealize the 
process (perhaps similar to chi?) and may even write books about it.  I have no 
experience with how yogis actually are, of course.


On 07/09/2018 10:21 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> I think the answer may be in what you just wrote, but a bit of assistance 
> please. If we were to anthropomorphize your autonomous nervous system would 
> you say it 'believed' or 'doubted' the utility of heartbeats, lungs pumping, 
> etc.?
> 
> My interest arises from studies of Yoga adepts who "take conscious control of 
> breathing" and upon achieving total conscious control, delegate the control 
> back to the autonomous system which maintains the regularized, 'managed' 
> breathing instead of the 'normal', somewhat chaotic/strange attracter-ish 
> breathing regimen prior to the application of Yoga technique.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Prof David West]

Hi Glen,

I think the answer may be in what you just wrote, but a bit of assistance 
please. If we were to anthropomorphize your autonomous nervous system would you 
say it 'believed' or 'doubted' the utility of heartbeats, lungs pumping, etc.?

My interest arises from studies of Yoga adepts who "take conscious control of 
breathing" and upon achieving total conscious control, delegate the control 
back to the autonomous system which maintains the regularized, 'managed' 
breathing instead of the 'normal', somewhat chaotic/strange attracter-ish 
breathing regimen prior to the application of Yoga technique.

dave west


On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, at 9:32 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote:
> Heh.  No, I've been more than fair, explaining my "different 
> understanding of belief" over and over again.  8^)  You simply ignore 
> what I write.
> 
> I'll try once more, I suppose.  Belief is a thresholded amount of 
> confidence in one's ability to control an interaction with the 
> environment.  Doubt is a thresholded amount of *lack* of confidence in 
> one's ability to control an interaction with the environment.  Because 
> these are differences in *degree* not *kind*, it is completely 
> reasonable to say you doubt everything and/or you believe everything, 
> merely to greater or smaller extents.
> 
> Some people have very high/low thresholds (for belief/doubt, 
> respectively).  Others, like me, have a very high threshold for belief 
> and also a very *high* threshold for doubt.  E.g. let's say both you and 
> I are ~90% confident the floor is there in the morning.  You draw your 
> threshold for belief at 80%.  The you believe the floor is there.  I, 
> however, draw my threshold for belief above 99%.  Hence, I do not 
> believe the floor is there.  Similarly, let's say you and I both have 
> ~25% confidence in the existence of unicorns, let's say you draw your 
> doubt threshold near 10%.  Then you do not doubt the existence of 
> unicorns.  If I draw my threshold near 30%, then I do doubt the 
> existence of unicorns.  (It should be clear that I draw my doubt 
> threshold much higher than 30%, though.  I not only doubt the existence 
> of unicorns, but horses and rhinos, too.  To be clear, I think 
> confidence is *more* ontological than the doubt/belief thresholding. In 
> "hands-on" people, confidence will be correlated with the variation in 
> the particular system.  And the extent to which the thresholds differ 
> from one person to the next, or from one moment to the next, is 
> questionable. And both probably vary between people, cultures, etc.  
> Many men tend to feel the need to *pretend* to believe things they don't 
> actually believe.  I'm sure the same is true for many women.  Teenagers 
> seem to believe more things, like their ability to drive and text at the 
> same time, than octogenarians. Etc.)
> 
> In other words, for me, if there's any conscious effort AT ALL involved 
> in some control process, e.g. sprinting 100 meters or arguing about 
> cosmology, then I *doubt* my handle on that process.  And that means I 
> doubt everything I'm *aware* of.  Granted, there are some things I could 
> be said to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt.  For example, during my 
> chemo, I forgot my master password for one of my databases.  Prior to 
> that episode, I'd never forgotten such things.  In fact, the way I 
> "remembered" it, finally, was that I simply kept trying to type it.  I 
> probably tried 100 times or more, hoping the finger movement would 
> remind my mind of what it was.  It eventually worked.  So, prior to the 
> episode, I *believed* that password and believed in my ability to type 
> it.  I now doubt it ... one more thing to doubt along with everything 
> else.
> 
> My test for whether *you* believe something would depend fundamentally 
> on where you've drawn those thresholds.  If you're like my neighbor, who 
> is a Christian, and claim to believe outlandish things, I'd have no 
> choice but to analyze and (Socratically) question you to see if I could 
> locate your thresholds on the real spectrum we all face: uncertainty/
> variation in our control systems.  I know people who seem to take for 
> granted their ability to, say, flip a coin over their fingers or stand 
> up without sharp pains searing through their lower back.  My guess would 
> be they believe in their dexterity and properly fused sacral vertebrae.  
> I do not.
> 
> [sigh]  I look forward to a response in which you actually discuss some 
> of the ideas I've written, rather than simply restating your position 
> yet again.
> 
> On 07/08/2018 09:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > I think you are being a little unfair: 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I merely laid out the understandings that lead ME to think that one cannot 
> > doubt and act at the same time: ie, it is entailed by my definition of 
> > belief.  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >> We are a having a definitional problem.  To a pragmatist (which I seem 
> > 
> >> to be) there can be no doubt in the pr

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[∄ uǝʃƃ]

Heh.  No, I've been more than fair, explaining my "different understanding of 
belief" over and over again.  8^)  You simply ignore what I write.

I'll try once more, I suppose.  Belief is a thresholded amount of confidence in 
one's ability to control an interaction with the environment.  Doubt is a 
thresholded amount of *lack* of confidence in one's ability to control an 
interaction with the environment.  Because these are differences in *degree* 
not *kind*, it is completely reasonable to say you doubt everything and/or you 
believe everything, merely to greater or smaller extents.

Some people have very high/low thresholds (for belief/doubt, respectively).  
Others, like me, have a very high threshold for belief and also a very *high* 
threshold for doubt.  E.g. let's say both you and I are ~90% confident the 
floor is there in the morning.  You draw your threshold for belief at 80%.  The 
you believe the floor is there.  I, however, draw my threshold for belief above 
99%.  Hence, I do not believe the floor is there.  Similarly, let's say you and 
I both have ~25% confidence in the existence of unicorns, let's say you draw 
your doubt threshold near 10%.  Then you do not doubt the existence of 
unicorns.  If I draw my threshold near 30%, then I do doubt the existence of 
unicorns.  (It should be clear that I draw my doubt threshold much higher than 
30%, though.  I not only doubt the existence of unicorns, but horses and 
rhinos, too.  To be clear, I think confidence is *more* ontological than the 
doubt/belief thresholding. In "hands-on" people, confidence will be correlated 
with the variation in the particular system.  And the extent to which the 
thresholds differ from one person to the next, or from one moment to the next, 
is questionable. And both probably vary between people, cultures, etc.  Many 
men tend to feel the need to *pretend* to believe things they don't actually 
believe.  I'm sure the same is true for many women.  Teenagers seem to believe 
more things, like their ability to drive and text at the same time, than 
octogenarians. Etc.)

In other words, for me, if there's any conscious effort AT ALL involved in some 
control process, e.g. sprinting 100 meters or arguing about cosmology, then I 
*doubt* my handle on that process.  And that means I doubt everything I'm 
*aware* of.  Granted, there are some things I could be said to believe beyond a 
shadow of a doubt.  For example, during my chemo, I forgot my master password 
for one of my databases.  Prior to that episode, I'd never forgotten such 
things.  In fact, the way I "remembered" it, finally, was that I simply kept 
trying to type it.  I probably tried 100 times or more, hoping the finger 
movement would remind my mind of what it was.  It eventually worked.  So, prior 
to the episode, I *believed* that password and believed in my ability to type 
it.  I now doubt it ... one more thing to doubt along with everything else.

My test for whether *you* believe something would depend fundamentally on where 
you've drawn those thresholds.  If you're like my neighbor, who is a Christian, 
and claim to believe outlandish things, I'd have no choice but to analyze and 
(Socratically) question you to see if I could locate your thresholds on the 
real spectrum we all face: uncertainty/variation in our control systems.  I 
know people who seem to take for granted their ability to, say, flip a coin 
over their fingers or stand up without sharp pains searing through their lower 
back.  My guess would be they believe in their dexterity and properly fused 
sacral vertebrae.  I do not.

[sigh]  I look forward to a response in which you actually discuss some of the 
ideas I've written, rather than simply restating your position yet again.

On 07/08/2018 09:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I think you are being a little unfair: 
> 
>  
> 
> I merely laid out the understandings that lead ME to think that one cannot 
> doubt and act at the same time: ie, it is entailed by my definition of 
> belief.  
> 
>  
> 
>> We are a having a definitional problem.  To a pragmatist (which I seem 
> 
>> to be) there can be no doubt in the presence of action (and no belief 
> 
>> in its absence).  So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to 
> 
>> me that you do nothing.
> 
>  
> 
> If you have a different understanding of belief, that conclusion would not 
> follow, presumably.  How would you decide whether I truly believed something. 

-- 
∄ uǝʃƃ

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Glen,  

 

I think you are being a little unfair: 

 

I merely laid out the understandings that lead ME to think that one cannot 
doubt and act at the same time: ie, it is entailed by my definition of belief.  

 

>We are a having a definitional problem.  To a pragmatist (which I seem 

>to be) there can be no doubt in the presence of action (and no belief 

>in its absence).  So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to 

>me that you do nothing.

 

If you have a different understanding of belief, that conclusion would not 
follow, presumably.  How would you decide whether I truly believed something. 

 

Nick  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2018 6:09 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

I've answered your question so manu times, it doesn't seem worth it to answer 
again. But such is life, eh? Doubt is uncertainty. Our bodies (including our 
minds) deal with uncertainty by maintaining feedback with the environment. Such 
doubting feedback is present even during actions of which you are as confident 
as you can be (e.g. stirring coffee or breathing). For actions of which you are 
minimally confident, such feedback will be largely conscious.

 

Mindfulness is an attempt to keep some of your feedback conscious even if it's 
a deeply ingrained habit. To be mindful is to doubt everything.

 

When you experience vertigo, it's because your feedback mechanism is biased or 
different. As Marcus points out, you then intervene consciously to modify or 
retrain yourself to use the new mechanism. The uncertainty never completely 
disappears, just increases and decreases as you and your environment change.

 

In cases where you have zero feedback, you won't even be aware of any 
uncertainty because YOU HAVE NO FEEDBACK.

 

Now, I will concede that cases exist where you may have enough feedback to 
estimate the uncertainty, but not enough feedback for a confident prediction of 
the outcome of an action. In such cases, I posit the TWITCH ... a (quite 
ordinary) sampling process of tiny actions that serve to establish more 
feedback. An actual example I've cited before is the saccade in vision.

 

Even actual paralytics like suxamethonium chloride don't halt ALL feedback 
loops. Feedback stops only when you die. And I suspect some feedback persists 
for a short time after you die. So I have to reject your metaphorical 
'paralyzing doubt' on all fronts.

 

And if "I doubt everything" means to you that I do nothing, then you are 
obviously not reading any of my answers to your questions ... which is OK of 
course. 8^)

 

 

On July 7, 2018 5:35:56 PM PDT, Nick Thompson < 
<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>We are a having a definitional problem.  To a pragmatist (which I seem 

>to be) there can be no doubt in the presence of action (and no belief 

>in its absence).  So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to 

>me that you do nothing.

> 

>So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night, 

>do you doubt that the floor is there? Do you doubt when you open the 

>door the bathroom that the bathroom is there?  You can entertain doubts 

>on such matters, and such entertainment is fun and sometimes 

>instructive, but in pragmatist terms, you do not doubt them.

> 

>So.  How are we to adjust terminology.  

> 

>Here’s an example.  Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have 

>moments of doubting that the world around is stable.  Under those 

>conditions, I cannot walk.  REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty 

>business.

 

--

glen

 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe  
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> 
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[glen]

Very interesting! My neighbor had a similar problem after having his hip 
replaced. Neither he nor his Dr understand the relationship between getting 
used to his new hip and breathing anxiety. But he has been a Tae Kwon Do master 
for decades. So it would make some sense to hypothesize an increase in 
self-doubt was to blame.

All the popular psychedelics also operate on the 5-HT pathways, with large 
doses throwing them out of whack, seemingly encouraging their users to retrain 
themselves on how they interact with the world. But the trend these days is 
microdosing just enough to enhance one's performance at everyday tasks. 

But I think the more interesting, so-called, nootropics aren't psych drugs at 
all and focus on metabolic functions. I think the (mild) euphoria experienced 
through a 3 or more day fast would provide a great platform for testing 
competing propositions about doubt and certainty of beliefs.

On July 8, 2018 6:21:30 AM PDT, Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>About 18 months ago I had an experience which is perhaps not relevant
>but
>it came to mind as I read what you wrote, Glen.  As a result of a dream
>I
>was in a state of anxiety which persisted for days.  One of the
>symptoms
>was an irrational fear that I would stop breathing if I didn't
>consciously
>supervise the process.  My PCP prescribed a tiny dose of Citalopram (10
>mg/day).  That cured the anxiety and it has not returned.
-- 
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Frank Wimberly]

About 18 months ago I had an experience which is perhaps not relevant but
it came to mind as I read what you wrote, Glen.  As a result of a dream I
was in a state of anxiety which persisted for days.  One of the symptoms
was an irrational fear that I would stop breathing if I didn't consciously
supervise the process.  My PCP prescribed a tiny dose of Citalopram (10
mg/day).  That cured the anxiety and it has not returned.


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Sun, Jul 8, 2018, 4:09 AM glen  wrote:

> I've answered your question so manu times, it doesn't seem worth it to
> answer again. But such is life, eh? Doubt is uncertainty. Our bodies
> (including our minds) deal with uncertainty by maintaining feedback with
> the environment. Such doubting feedback is present even during actions of
> which you are as confident as you can be (e.g. stirring coffee or
> breathing). For actions of which you are minimally confident, such feedback
> will be largely conscious.
>
> Mindfulness is an attempt to keep some of your feedback conscious even if
> it's a deeply ingrained habit. To be mindful is to doubt everything.
>
> When you experience vertigo, it's because your feedback mechanism is
> biased or different. As Marcus points out, you then intervene consciously
> to modify or retrain yourself to use the new mechanism. The uncertainty
> never completely disappears, just increases and decreases as you and your
> environment change.
>
> In cases where you have zero feedback, you won't even be aware of any
> uncertainty because YOU HAVE NO FEEDBACK.
>
> Now, I will concede that cases exist where you may have enough feedback to
> estimate the uncertainty, but not enough feedback for a confident
> prediction of the outcome of an action. In such cases, I posit the TWITCH
> ... a (quite ordinary) sampling process of tiny actions that serve to
> establish more feedback. An actual example I've cited before is the saccade
> in vision.
>
> Even actual paralytics like suxamethonium chloride don't halt ALL feedback
> loops. Feedback stops only when you die. And I suspect some feedback
> persists for a short time after you die. So I have to reject your
> metaphorical 'paralyzing doubt' on all fronts.
>
> And if "I doubt everything" means to you that I do nothing, then you are
> obviously not reading any of my answers to your questions ... which is OK
> of course. 8^)
>
>
> On July 7, 2018 5:35:56 PM PDT, Nick Thompson 
> wrote:
> >We are a having a definitional problem.  To a pragmatist (which I seem
> >to be) there can be no doubt in the presence of action (and no belief
> >in its absence).  So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to
> >me that you do nothing.
> >
> >So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night,
> >do you doubt that the floor is there? Do you doubt when you open the
> >door the bathroom that the bathroom is there?  You can entertain doubts
> >on such matters, and such entertainment is fun and sometimes
> >instructive, but in pragmatist terms, you do not doubt them.
> >
> >So.  How are we to adjust terminology.
> >
> >Here’s an example.  Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have
> >moments of doubting that the world around is stable.  Under those
> >conditions, I cannot walk.  REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty
> >business.
>
> --
> glen
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[glen]

I've answered your question so manu times, it doesn't seem worth it to answer 
again. But such is life, eh? Doubt is uncertainty. Our bodies (including our 
minds) deal with uncertainty by maintaining feedback with the environment. Such 
doubting feedback is present even during actions of which you are as confident 
as you can be (e.g. stirring coffee or breathing). For actions of which you are 
minimally confident, such feedback will be largely conscious.

Mindfulness is an attempt to keep some of your feedback conscious even if it's 
a deeply ingrained habit. To be mindful is to doubt everything.

When you experience vertigo, it's because your feedback mechanism is biased or 
different. As Marcus points out, you then intervene consciously to modify or 
retrain yourself to use the new mechanism. The uncertainty never completely 
disappears, just increases and decreases as you and your environment change.

In cases where you have zero feedback, you won't even be aware of any 
uncertainty because YOU HAVE NO FEEDBACK.

Now, I will concede that cases exist where you may have enough feedback to 
estimate the uncertainty, but not enough feedback for a confident prediction of 
the outcome of an action. In such cases, I posit the TWITCH ... a (quite 
ordinary) sampling process of tiny actions that serve to establish more 
feedback. An actual example I've cited before is the saccade in vision.

Even actual paralytics like suxamethonium chloride don't halt ALL feedback 
loops. Feedback stops only when you die. And I suspect some feedback persists 
for a short time after you die. So I have to reject your metaphorical 
'paralyzing doubt' on all fronts.

And if "I doubt everything" means to you that I do nothing, then you are 
obviously not reading any of my answers to your questions ... which is OK of 
course. 8^)


On July 7, 2018 5:35:56 PM PDT, Nick Thompson  
wrote:
>We are a having a definitional problem.  To a pragmatist (which I seem
>to be) there can be no doubt in the presence of action (and no belief
>in its absence).  So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to
>me that you do nothing.  
>
>So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night,
>do you doubt that the floor is there? Do you doubt when you open the
>door the bathroom that the bathroom is there?  You can entertain doubts
>on such matters, and such entertainment is fun and sometimes
>instructive, but in pragmatist terms, you do not doubt them. 
>
>So.  How are we to adjust terminology.  
>
>Here’s an example.  Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have
>moments of doubting that the world around is stable.  Under those
>conditions, I cannot walk.  REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty
>business. 

-- 
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, 

 

 

We are a having a definitional problem.  To a pragmatist (which I seem to be) 
there can be no doubt in the presence of action (and no belief in its absence). 
 So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to me that you do nothing.  

 

So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night, do you 
doubt that the floor is there? Do you doubt when you open the door the bathroom 
that the bathroom is there?  You can entertain doubts on such matters, and such 
entertainment is fun and sometimes instructive, but in pragmatist terms, you do 
not doubt them. 

 

So.  How are we to adjust terminology.  

 

Here’s an example.  Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have moments of 
doubting that the world around is stable.  Under those conditions, I cannot 
walk.  REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty business. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Marcus Daniels [mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 6:45 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group ; 
Nick Thompson 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

OCD <https://psychcentral.com/lib/doubt-ocd-how-do-you-make-a-decision/>  is 
another condition that might explain a fixation on doubt.   Perhaps individuals 
in very narrow specialties are especially concerned with reputation and will go 
to great lengths to minimize regret or embarrassment, but I don’t think even 
careful people act like theorem provers.The world keeps turning and there 
is no time for that.

 

On 7/7/18, 4:06 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen" mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com%20on%20behalf%20of%20geprope...@gmail.com> > 
wrote:

 

Well, of course you know where I stand on this. That description of 'doubt' 
is useless to me because I doubt everything. There is no such thing as 
'paralyzing doubt'. I'd lean more towards Marcus answer on that.



Similarly, I don't place 'good thought' in opposition to doubt. To me, 
doubt IS good thought. The absence of doubt would be the worst kind of thought. 
And I suppose that implies that science includes the active maintenance of 
methods by which we doubt/question various assertions.



On July 6, 2018 8:37:38 PM PDT, Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

>There is another solution to suicidal skepticism which Is to embrace

>scientism but broaden the definition of science.  This, I think, is

>CSPeirce's way.  We define good thought as any thought that will, in

>the fullness of time ... the very, very fullness of time .. be agreed

>upon.  Good thought is thought that, once and for all, assuages doubt. 

>By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt.  I mean doubt

>sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any

>course of action.  REAL doubt.  Paralyzing doubt.

>

>Now, science is defined as that method, that will be agreed, in the

>very long run to produce good thinking.  

>

>Notice that this way out of the scientism debate concedes that a value

>lies at the bottom of scientismicists’  affection for science ... the

>assuaging of REAL doubt.  

>

>Therefore, I stipulate that anybody who embraces REAL doubt as a way of

>life is NOT going to be happy with this solution.  





-- 

glen





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

And I thought the life in MY house was complicated.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 9:57 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

Very funny image.


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly 
<http://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly> 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018, 7:56 PM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote:

In the thunderstorm scenario, he’d likely take his 100 lbs to the high ground 
in his own bedroom.He wouldn’t want to have his sister, who insists on 
sleeping on me, thunderstorm or not, raining down on him in some hysterical 
frenzy.

 

From: Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Date: Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 7:34 PM
To: Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> >
Cc: Friam mailto:Friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

Marcus, 

 

The doubts you cite are REAL because we will see you act upon them.  We will 
see you test the floor for something furry.  Lorenzo allows you to deny him 
your bed during a thunderstorm!  You are a stern master.   

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Marcus Daniels [mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> 
] 
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 9:01 PM
To: Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity 
Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 



 

It just means that memory and perception are provisional or even probabilistic. 


 

So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night, do you 
doubt that the floor is there?

 

I do doubt that it is safe for me to put my feet down, because I know the floor 
can be obscured by my big dog Lorenzo who likes to sleep there, but not all of 
the time.   If there was a huge thunderstorm and hours of rain before I went to 
sleep if I might not be hugely surprised to find water on the floor.   If I 
recently cleaned the room, I might move the bed a few centimeters and that 
would be enough to invalidate my motor memory and I might bang my head on the 
bedpost.  (I’ve done this.)

 

< Here’s an example.  Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have moments of 
doubting that the world around is stable.  Under those conditions, I cannot 
walk.  REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty business. >

 

I sometimes have very low blood pressure if I wake-up at an unusual time.   I 
may find on the way to get a glass of water I’m in the process of passing out.  
 The first time that happened it was a surprise, but now I start getting my 
head down realizing that there are just seconds of consciousness left if I do 
not.   At no point do I think the lighting in the room is changing because I am 
experiencing tunnel vision or that I’m on a roller-coaster because I feel my 
stomach drop.   

 

If the relationship between signals and their consequences become low-quality, 
one can adapt to be more model-based.  Not because the models are true, but 
just because the alternative is worse.  If you are saying that in the situation 
that perceptions and thoughts are both doubted, then then it is not skepticism, 
it is madness. 

 

Marcus


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Frank Wimberly]

Very funny image.


Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018, 7:56 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> In the thunderstorm scenario, he’d likely take his 100 lbs to the high
> ground in his own bedroom.He wouldn’t want to have his sister, who
> insists on sleeping on me, thunderstorm or not, raining down on him in some
> hysterical frenzy.
>
>
>
> *From: *Nick Thompson 
> *Date: *Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 7:34 PM
> *To: *Marcus Daniels 
> *Cc: *Friam 
> *Subject: *RE: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?
>
>
>
> Marcus,
>
>
>
> The doubts you cite are REAL because we will see you act upon them.  We
> will see you test the floor for something furry.  Lorenzo allows you to
> deny him your bed during a thunderstorm!  You are a stern master.
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Marcus Daniels [mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 07, 2018 9:01 PM
> *To:* Nick Thompson ; 'The Friday Morning
> Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?
>
>
>
> *<*So when you say, “I doubt everything” that MEANS to me that you do
> nothing.>
>
>
>
> It just means that memory and perception are provisional or even
> probabilistic.
>
>
>
> So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night, do
> you doubt that the floor is there?
>
>
>
> I do doubt that it is safe for me to put my feet down, because I know the
> floor can be obscured by my big dog Lorenzo who likes to sleep there, but
> not all of the time.   If there was a huge thunderstorm and hours of rain
> before I went to sleep if I might not be hugely surprised to find water on
> the floor.   If I recently cleaned the room, I might move the bed a few
> centimeters and that would be enough to invalidate my motor memory and I
> might bang my head on the bedpost.  (I’ve done this.)
>
>
>
> < Here’s an example.  Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have
> moments of doubting that the world around is stable.  Under those
> conditions, I cannot walk.  REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty
> business. >
>
>
>
> I sometimes have very low blood pressure if I wake-up at an unusual
> time.   I may find on the way to get a glass of water I’m in the process of
> passing out.   The first time that happened it was a surprise, but now I
> start getting my head down realizing that there are just seconds of
> consciousness left if I do not.   At no point do I think the lighting in
> the room is changing because I am experiencing tunnel vision or that I’m on
> a roller-coaster because I feel my stomach drop.
>
>
>
> If the relationship between signals and their consequences become
> low-quality, one can adapt to be more model-based.  Not because the models
> are true, but just because the alternative is worse.  If you are saying
> that in the situation that perceptions and thoughts are both doubted, then
> then it is not skepticism, it is madness.
>
>
>
> Marcus
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Marcus Daniels]

In the thunderstorm scenario, he’d likely take his 100 lbs to the high ground 
in his own bedroom.He wouldn’t want to have his sister, who insists on 
sleeping on me, thunderstorm or not, raining down on him in some hysterical 
frenzy.

From: Nick Thompson 
Date: Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 7:34 PM
To: Marcus Daniels 
Cc: Friam 
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

Marcus,

The doubts you cite are REAL because we will see you act upon them.  We will 
see you test the floor for something furry.  Lorenzo allows you to deny him 
your bed during a thunderstorm!  You are a stern master.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Marcus Daniels [mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 9:01 PM
To: Nick Thompson ; 'The Friday Morning Applied 
Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?



It just means that memory and perception are provisional or even probabilistic.

So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night, do you 
doubt that the floor is there?

I do doubt that it is safe for me to put my feet down, because I know the floor 
can be obscured by my big dog Lorenzo who likes to sleep there, but not all of 
the time.   If there was a huge thunderstorm and hours of rain before I went to 
sleep if I might not be hugely surprised to find water on the floor.   If I 
recently cleaned the room, I might move the bed a few centimeters and that 
would be enough to invalidate my motor memory and I might bang my head on the 
bedpost.  (I’ve done this.)

< Here’s an example.  Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have moments of 
doubting that the world around is stable.  Under those conditions, I cannot 
walk.  REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty business. >

I sometimes have very low blood pressure if I wake-up at an unusual time.   I 
may find on the way to get a glass of water I’m in the process of passing out.  
 The first time that happened it was a surprise, but now I start getting my 
head down realizing that there are just seconds of consciousness left if I do 
not.   At no point do I think the lighting in the room is changing because I am 
experiencing tunnel vision or that I’m on a roller-coaster because I feel my 
stomach drop.

If the relationship between signals and their consequences become low-quality, 
one can adapt to be more model-based.  Not because the models are true, but 
just because the alternative is worse.  If you are saying that in the situation 
that perceptions and thoughts are both doubted, then then it is not skepticism, 
it is madness.

Marcus

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

Marcus, 

 

The doubts you cite are REAL because we will see you act upon them.  We will 
see you test the floor for something furry.  Lorenzo allows you to deny him 
your bed during a thunderstorm!  You are a stern master.   

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Marcus Daniels [mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 9:01 PM
To: Nick Thompson ; 'The Friday Morning Applied 
Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 



 

It just means that memory and perception are provisional or even probabilistic. 


 

So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night, do you 
doubt that the floor is there?

 

I do doubt that it is safe for me to put my feet down, because I know the floor 
can be obscured by my big dog Lorenzo who likes to sleep there, but not all of 
the time.   If there was a huge thunderstorm and hours of rain before I went to 
sleep if I might not be hugely surprised to find water on the floor.   If I 
recently cleaned the room, I might move the bed a few centimeters and that 
would be enough to invalidate my motor memory and I might bang my head on the 
bedpost.  (I’ve done this.)

 

< Here’s an example.  Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have moments of 
doubting that the world around is stable.  Under those conditions, I cannot 
walk.  REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty business. >

 

I sometimes have very low blood pressure if I wake-up at an unusual time.   I 
may find on the way to get a glass of water I’m in the process of passing out.  
 The first time that happened it was a surprise, but now I start getting my 
head down realizing that there are just seconds of consciousness left if I do 
not.   At no point do I think the lighting in the room is changing because I am 
experiencing tunnel vision or that I’m on a roller-coaster because I feel my 
stomach drop.   

 

If the relationship between signals and their consequences become low-quality, 
one can adapt to be more model-based.  Not because the models are true, but 
just because the alternative is worse.  If you are saying that in the situation 
that perceptions and thoughts are both doubted, then then it is not skepticism, 
it is madness. 

 

Marcus


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Marcus Daniels]

It just means that memory and perception are provisional or even probabilistic.

So, when you put your feet out to the floor in the middle of the night, do you 
doubt that the floor is there?

I do doubt that it is safe for me to put my feet down, because I know the floor 
can be obscured by my big dog Lorenzo who likes to sleep there, but not all of 
the time.   If there was a huge thunderstorm and hours of rain before I went to 
sleep if I might not be hugely surprised to find water on the floor.   If I 
recently cleaned the room, I might move the bed a few centimeters and that 
would be enough to invalidate my motor memory and I might bang my head on the 
bedpost.  (I’ve done this.)

< Here’s an example.  Because of my recent bout of vertigo, I have moments of 
doubting that the world around is stable.  Under those conditions, I cannot 
walk.  REAL doubt (sensu pragmatico) is a nasty business. >

I sometimes have very low blood pressure if I wake-up at an unusual time.   I 
may find on the way to get a glass of water I’m in the process of passing out.  
 The first time that happened it was a surprise, but now I start getting my 
head down realizing that there are just seconds of consciousness left if I do 
not.   At no point do I think the lighting in the room is changing because I am 
experiencing tunnel vision or that I’m on a roller-coaster because I feel my 
stomach drop.

If the relationship between signals and their consequences become low-quality, 
one can adapt to be more model-based.  Not because the models are true, but 
just because the alternative is worse.  If you are saying that in the situation 
that perceptions and thoughts are both doubted, then then it is not skepticism, 
it is madness.

Marcus

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Marcus Daniels]

OCD is 
another condition that might explain a fixation on doubt.   Perhaps individuals 
in very narrow specialties are especially concerned with reputation and will go 
to great lengths to minimize regret or embarrassment, but I don’t think even 
careful people act like theorem provers.The world keeps turning and there 
is no time for that.



On 7/7/18, 4:06 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen"  wrote:



Well, of course you know where I stand on this. That description of 'doubt' 
is useless to me because I doubt everything. There is no such thing as 
'paralyzing doubt'. I'd lean more towards Marcus answer on that.



Similarly, I don't place 'good thought' in opposition to doubt. To me, 
doubt IS good thought. The absence of doubt would be the worst kind of thought. 
And I suppose that implies that science includes the active maintenance of 
methods by which we doubt/question various assertions.



On July 6, 2018 8:37:38 PM PDT, Nick Thompson  
wrote:

>There is another solution to suicidal skepticism which Is to embrace

>scientism but broaden the definition of science.  This, I think, is

>CSPeirce's way.  We define good thought as any thought that will, in

>the fullness of time ... the very, very fullness of time .. be agreed

>upon.  Good thought is thought that, once and for all, assuages doubt.

>By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt.  I mean doubt

>sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any

>course of action.  REAL doubt.  Paralyzing doubt.

>

>Now, science is defined as that method, that will be agreed, in the

>very long run to produce good thinking.

>

>Notice that this way out of the scientism debate concedes that a value

>lies at the bottom of scientismicists’  affection for science ... the

>assuaging of REAL doubt.

>

>Therefore, I stipulate that anybody who embraces REAL doubt as a way of

>life is NOT going to be happy with this solution.





--

glen





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[glen]

Well, of course you know where I stand on this. That description of 'doubt' is 
useless to me because I doubt everything. There is no such thing as 'paralyzing 
doubt'. I'd lean more towards Marcus answer on that.

Similarly, I don't place 'good thought' in opposition to doubt. To me, doubt IS 
good thought. The absence of doubt would be the worst kind of thought. And I 
suppose that implies that science includes the active maintenance of methods by 
which we doubt/question various assertions.

On July 6, 2018 8:37:38 PM PDT, Nick Thompson  
wrote:
>There is another solution to suicidal skepticism which Is to embrace
>scientism but broaden the definition of science.  This, I think, is
>CSPeirce's way.  We define good thought as any thought that will, in
>the fullness of time ... the very, very fullness of time .. be agreed
>upon.  Good thought is thought that, once and for all, assuages doubt. 
>By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt.  I mean doubt
>sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any
>course of action.  REAL doubt.  Paralyzing doubt.
>
>Now, science is defined as that method, that will be agreed, in the
>very long run to produce good thinking.  
>
>Notice that this way out of the scientism debate concedes that a value
>lies at the bottom of scientismicists’  affection for science ... the
>assuaging of REAL doubt.  
>
>Therefore, I stipulate that anybody who embraces REAL doubt as a way of
>life is NOT going to be happy with this solution.  


-- 
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Marcus Daniels]

“By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt.  I mean doubt sufficiently 
profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course of action.  REAL 
doubt.  Paralyzing doubt.”



That’s a different thing, anxiety and/or depression.  Treatable with exercise, 
medication, or therapy.



Marcus





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, 

 

There is another solution to suicidal skepticism which Is to embrace scientism 
but broaden the definition of science.  This, I think, is CSPeirce's way.  We 
define good thought as any thought that will, in the fullness of time ... the 
very, very fullness of time .. be agreed upon.  Good thought is thought that, 
once and for all, assuages doubt.  By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained 
doubt.  I mean doubt sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, 
pursue any course of action.  REAL doubt.  Paralyzing doubt.

 

Now, science is defined as that method, that will be agreed, in the very long 
run to produce good thinking.  

 

Notice that this way out of the scientism debate concedes that a value lies at 
the bottom of scientismicists’  affection for science ... the assuaging of REAL 
doubt.  

 

Therefore, I stipulate that anybody who embraces REAL doubt as a way of life is 
NOT going to be happy with this solution.  

 

Nick 

 

PS to Glen:  The seas seem to have stopped pitching for a bit.  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2018 2:35 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

by Moti Mizrahi

  
https://philpapers.org/archive/MIZWSB.pdf

 

Given that many of my disagreements with the local atheists hinge on their 
cultish and non-skeptical acceptance of scientific results and me, therefore, 
accusing them of "scientism", I found this article helpful.  In this forum, we 
talk a lot about how science journalism reports results (hyped or not even 
wrong).  But even *if* a "Science News fanboi" does a good job parsing the 
difference between the journalism and the actual content of a journal article, 
there are still plenty of caveats to any lab, research project, or entire 
domain that can color its produce.  So, I tend toward cynicism when reading any 
science whatsoever.

 

That said, I think I *am* guilty of something like this _Weak Scientism_, for 
better or worse.

 

--

☣ uǝlƃ

 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe  
 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC   
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Yes, exactly! Those damn scientismists are *exactly* like Trumpians. 8^) You 
have to throw your drink in their face to get their attention.

On 07/06/2018 01:30 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> “Given that many of my disagreements with the local atheists hinge on their 
> cultish and non-skeptical acceptance of scientific results [..]”
> 
> I am imagining it went down something like this 
> .


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

[Marcus Daniels]

Glen writes:



“Given that many of my disagreements with the local atheists hinge on their 
cultish and non-skeptical acceptance of scientific results [..]”



I am imagining it went down something like 
this.



Marcus

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove