Indignation / Break it....... Hate / Take it Indignation / Take it........Hate / Break it
Very Sorry... I made a MISTAKE above.. Correction, replace "Take it" for the actual "LEAVE IT" action opposition... Indignation / Break it....... Hate / LEAVE IT Indignation / LEAVE IT........Hate / Break it On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:53:09 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote: > > > I'm not sure how to value dung-beetle droppings Nom - but ... HAR. / > Archytas > > what do you refer to and mean by that.... Archytas?... don't swipe my > HAR... HAR > > About arguing.... I remember, back in the Sixties-Seventies, etc. (Vietnam > War era), The usual end-all "argument" made by Conservatives to protesters > was.... "America... Love it or Leave it"....now, personally, I was never > really of the "peacenik", hippie or yippie persuasion, .....so , even back > then I thought on it and concluded that "Love it or Leave it" was confusing > and really a wrongly constructed logical or "reasoned" FALSE > choice....First, I asked myself and said, well.... Love or Hate would > appear to be the actual conceptual or "emotive" contrapostition... and as > for the "action" side it would appear... Leave it would appear to be be > contraposed by Take it....That's the argument that the "Conservative" > slogan puts forth.... but as any "argument" it is, of course... loaded.... > which is to say... it doesn't actualy offer any "choice" at all.... either > way... the "Conservative" " wins.... > Now... even then I reasoned.... on the RES "action side" ... Take it or > Leave it... either way... "it" remains "it"....The true logical or > reasoning opposition is ... Take it or Change it... as one "action > opposition" and Leave it or Break it is the other "action opposition"....So > by arguing "deceptively" from the other side.... an (Anarchist , let's say) > opponent could say Change it or Break it... because ... either way... "it" > will be "altered" or "destroyed"..either way, it will no longer be it.... > > On the CONCEPTUS "Emotive" side... the opposition is Love against some > perhaps baser emotion such as Lust, on the one hand... a the baser Hate > can be opposed against a more "ethically grounded" (yet still "contrary") > sentiment such as Righteous Indignation.....So, by arguing again > "deceptively" from the other side... an (Anarchist) opponent might say, in > place of Love it or Hate it.... Lust after it or be Righteously Indignant > about it.... > > Love / Change it..... Lust / Take it > > > Love / Take it......... Lust / Change it > > > > > > Indignation / Break it....... Hate / Take it > > Indignation / Take it........Hate / Break it > > > > > Directed ( deceptive) Argument is very often about NOT setting forth the > actual... range of "choice" options.... > > > arbitration... well .. that's only as "good" as the competence and honesty > in brokerage of the "arbitrator".....I've learned to despise most lawyers > and judges.....for one reason or another.... mostly due to their lack of > competence and/or honesty..... > > > > On Monday, January 21, 2013 11:51:03 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote: >> >> I'm not sure how to value dung-beetle droppings Nom - but ... HAR. >> Much to agree with in Ornstein's papers - the one referenced at the >> end of the latest one is much to my own view. The problem I have is I >> don't believe most people enter into the lists of argument, clinging >> instead to a world-view more or less immutable and that most >> 'argument' is, in any case, a performance aimed at succor to ideology. >> 'Evidence- based decision-making' has been around a long time, as have >> assertions we should get our politicians and others in power to >> involve themselves and be capable of it. I see very little sign of >> any of it. Even most scientists are no good at it. In a western from >> years back Dean Martin says 'I never got much by arguing' - he's >> feeling his gun. Most people are so poor in argument they know it's >> not much use to them and they won't give up to its arbitration. So >> Ornstein is 90% right, and much as I agree, not much help in shifting >> education and politics to somewhere more sensible. Good to see the >> stuff though. >> >> On Jan 15, 7:33 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > PS... Archytas, et al... have you read the article? Apart from my >> picayune >> > "epistemological" points of disagreement....It is very, very good. I >> agree >> > with it... 90% I'd say......... for whatever my opinion is >> worth.....HAR. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:26:22 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote: >> > >> > > Mr. Ornstein, >> > > I read your abstract and liked it....agreed with it, largely, as to >> its >> > > content. >> > > You asked for comments and corrections, so I offer a possible >> grammatical >> > > correction (or maybe I misunderstood the structure of your sentence). >> On >> > > page 8 of your essay you wrote the following: >> > >> > > "Since it is only such formulations [that axiomatically define a word >> > > (all) in a way that logically conflicts with what can be observed] >> > > might insure the kind of falsification that Karl Popper >> > > proposed to be so important in science, his arguments about >> falsification >> > > are trivial and unhelpful." >> > >> > > As you should see (if the writing program represented it properly), I >> left >> > > a gap mid-sentence. This is where there may be a grammatical error. I >> > > wonder if a conjunctive pronoun such as "that" or "which" is lacking >> to >> > > make this sentence more clear? I point this out not to be a stickler >> but as >> > > a "proofing" of your essay that is intended for publication. >> > >> > > As to your content, again, I agreed "largely" with what your essay >> says. >> > > it was well written and very understandable, as well. I particularly >> agreed >> > > with your summation of the scientific method... the "model / >> empirical >> > > experiment" approach... I also liked your references to other >> current >> > > "philosophical (?)" approaches to these questions such as the >> distinction >> > > between Post Modernists and Positivists. I would say that you have >> much >> > > less to criticize about the Positivists than you have to criticize >> about >> > > the Post Modernists. As an aside, this would seem to favor more my >> view >> > > than the view of my friend Archytas (HAR)... which, of course tickles >> me >> > > pink... Also, I noted that you referred in your essay to Ockham's >> Razor.... >> > > I like Ockham, myself, but much more than for his "razor"... I like >> Ockham >> > > for his of VOX... separated and composite- composed of Conceptus >> (Concept) >> > > directed at Res(physical thing)... Ockham'c First Intention VOX are >> very >> > > much like the initial observational stage of the "scientific" >> method"... >> > > observing empirical physical things to arrive at a conceptual model >> ... >> > > subsequently verified by further physical experiments to establish >> > > recurring reliability.....Ockham also suggested Second Intention VOX >> which >> > > continue within the thinking mind "abstractly" and formulate all >> sorts of >> > > other "thought-up" relations within and among both the Conceptus side >> and >> > > the Res side of "things".... >> > >> > > Anyway, I think that "scientific method" has much in common with and >> > > relies a lot on the basic framework supplied by William Of Ockham >> (and >> > > others)... >> > >> > > Now, I have one question as to your terminology... would you define >> your >> > > terms "subjective" and "objective" as they are to be understood >> within your >> > > "thinking"? Let me put it this way....It appeared to me that around >> page >> > > five, mostly, you rendered the division (or separation) between: 1) >> the >> > > actual (out-of-mind) physical entity; 2) the sense experience >> > > (inside-mind) mental image and 3) the eventual (inside-mind) >> explanatory >> > > model. Now this "model" as you call it was then communicated as the >> "theory >> > > in progress of ongoing verification" that is communicated to others >> and >> > > understood as shared meaning....you conclude then by getting to the >> > > following statement: >> > > "The more precise the communication of meaning, the more objective in >> is >> > > usually perceived to be. The more ambiguous (the more interpretation >> may >> > > vary from person to person), the more subjective." >> > > Now here's my question.....what do the terms "objective and >> subjective" >> > > that you use here actually refer to?... is the1) the actual >> (out-of-mind) >> > > physical entity OBJECTIVE? Is the 2) the sense experience >> (inside-mind) >> > > mental image SUBJECTIVE? And is the 3) the eventual (inside-mind) >> > > explanatory model. SUBJECTIVE?... that is what I would propose. And >> that is >> > > not what your sentence quoted above actually says.... I propose that >> > > Objective should be defined as the ...1)actual out-of-mind Physical >> > > thing... and "differently" that anything which is.... 2) in the mind >> or 3)a >> > > product of the mind's workings..... should be termed subjective..... >> > >> > > If you have the time and inclination, Mr. Ornstein.....maybe you can >> > > clarify this (or your opinion of this) for me. >> > >> > > Essence, Mr Ornstein is another term that you make use of and which >> is not >> > > defined... this gets into the question of universals and is a related >> to >> > > the subjective-objective, empirical-abstractive differences. >> > >> > > Let me put it this way.....I have difficulty with the >> > > "Idealist-Platonists"... and the Phenomenologists calling some (out >> > > -of-mind ) things.... Subjective... when they have independent >> > > "physicality"... on the other hand I don't much care for the >> > > Materialist-Realists and the Phenomenologists calling some (in-mind) >> > > thought or thought products in particular Objective when thoughts or >> > > thought products are devoid of physicality... >> > >> > > My bugaboo.....I suppose.... just doesn't make "sense" to me... as a >> > > William of Ockham nominalist.... >> > >> > > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, >> lenor...@pipeline.comOrnstein wrote: >> > >> > >> *The Skeptical Scientific Mind-Set in the Spectrum of Belief: It’s >> about >> > >> models of ‘reality’ – and the unavoidable incompleteness of >> evidence, for – >> > >> or against – any model or fact. >> > >> * >> > >> Leonard Ornstein >> > >> > >> *Abstract * >> > >> > >> This essay examines topics that relate to the origins of beliefs, in >> > >> general – and particularly, to ‘belief-in’ the sciences – and how >> beliefs >> > >> impact our ability to cope with real-world problems: >> > >> > >> Introspection about personal experiences of the external world, >> using >> > >> the ‘images’ created by our sense organs (especially our vision) >> should >> > >> convince us that we are usually aware of a great more detail than >> our >> > >> finite vocabularies of words and symbols equip us to manage. So all >> models >> > >> (stories/speculations/hypotheses/theories/laws) that we construct to >> > >> communicate meaning about those experiences must be caricatures of a >> richer >> > >> and more complex private set of conscious and unconscious images and >> > >> impressions. As a result, at best, we can only build stripped-down, >> > >> verbal/symbolic sketches about the world. These can hardly be >> expected to >> > >> be complete models of absolute and (final?) ‘truth’. >> > >> > >> Communication between individuals and groups likely developed as a >> > >> means to, on average, increase the quality of life (the probability >> of >> > >> survival, safety, convenience and comfort) compared to ‘going it >> alone’. >> > >> For each of the communicating partners, the meanings of those >> > >> communications had to be believed to be the ‘same’ to try to >> maximize the >> > >> fulfillment of such intentions. Therefore, the >> voiced-words/symbols/codes, >> > >> and the fundamental rules for their use, needed to be arbitrarily >> agreed >> > >> upon to ‘assure’ identical intended meanings. This is exactly the >> function >> > >> of axiomatic definitions and rules at the roots of model building >> for >> > >> languages, for mathematics and for logic. The qualifications and >> > >> limitations that apply to languages, math and logic must be very >> similar to >> > >> those for building models for all systems of belief (ideologies, >> religions >> > >> and science). Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are the >> tools >> > >> used to examine the consequences of the axiomatics. How axiomatics >> and >> > >> reason might fail to lead us to ‘truth' and certainty about models >> > >> therefore also requires understanding of inherent limitations >> imposed on >> > >> both deductive and inductive reasoning. >> > >> > >> Sciences differ from ideologies, from most mathematics and from >> > >> religions. The latter require undiluted, absolute faith/belief in >> the >> > >> ‘truth’ of their axiomatics. However, science accepts (also >> axiomatically) >> > >> that the degree-of-belief/confidence-in its models can never be >> absolute. >> > >> The degree-of-belief is measured by how strongly pertinent, >> empirical >> > >> evidence – developed through repeated observation and ‘testing’, and >> always >> > >> limited by uncertainties of inductive reasoning, confirm the >> > >> predictions/projections of the models. >> > >> > >> Such degrees-of-belief are analogue (expressed quantitatively, as >> > >> ‘different shades of grey’) rather than digital [expressed as black >> and >> > >> white (false or true)]. Scientific models of observable phenomena >> (objects >> > >> and processes), provide simpler and more reliable explanations than >> those >> > >> of non-scientific disciplines and ideologies. Ockham’s Razor – the >> dictum >> > >> to choose the simplest explanation, all other things being equal – >> > >> therefore generally recommends placing scientific models ahead of >> ideologic >> > >> models of observable phenomena. >> > >> > >> These differences are sources of science’s great potential to >> > >> self-correct – and with ever increasing confidence – to >> incrementally >> > >> (though often sporadically) improve quality of life. >> > >> > >> In teaching, and in the general valuation of science, these >> topics, >> > >> and their contributions to improving the quality of life, are >> increasingly >> > >> neglected. They are explored to better clarify how >> > >> science fits into the wide spectrum of beliefs – (and perhaps help >> > >> reverse this disturbing trend ;-) >> > >> > >>http://www.pipeline.com/~lenornst/ScienceInTheSpectrumOfBelief.pdf >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/yO1ezx_1nbAJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
