Hello Archytas.... I've been reading your referenced article by Mr. Hjorsland....it is a bit disappointing and maybe does not do justice to the "realism" topic.... due to the fact that it is related to information science....As usual, I found the use of the terms "subjective" and "objective" to be.... well.....removed from reality.... Basically Mr. H spoke of the "real or objective" content of books (language information) depending upon the expertise or specialization of the source ... use of primary sources, etc....Personally, I have a "hands on" problem whenever anyone replaces the actual physical object with a language (word) product.....I call the word, per se, abstract and subjective.... communicating more than the actual "objective" res... but also the "would be" subjective albeit perhaps quite fitting explanatory "concept or thoughts" about that physical object furnished by an "author"...In short... I think that there's a lot more going on in this "realism"... that's ideas....I prefer my own approach.... Conceptus / Res (according to Ockham)... first intention and second intention.....Also, I don't get the whole criticism of "empiricism" that Mr. H engages in... calling "empiricism" idealism, as he does....I mean.... what does Mr H or this brand of "realists" propose to substitute for "empirical" experience.... some sort of "unthinking osmosis" with an outside physical object... os·mo·sis /äzˈmōsis/ Noun
1. The tendency of molecules of a solvent to pass through a semipermeable membrane from a less concentrated solution into a more concentrat... 2. The process of gradual or unconscious assimilation of ideas, knowledge, etc. whereby the physical Object passes it's physical components directly into the observing person?.....What's the alternative for the sensory -to-mind connection that empiricism entails? well.. that's for starters....But also please keep in mind that "modern-day materialists"... like Marx and the communists, generally... they got their "epistemology" from Hegel.... Idealist.....at a fundamental level.... these modern materialists never lost or rethought the "idealist" fundamentals.....I suggest you will find..... I like your work with "truth detectors"..... here in the U.S. (most likely in Britain, too) there are laws protecting against legal self-incrimination...It sure would make "things" easier (unless I happen to be the "criminal" I suppose)... I'm still having my troubles with the "official criminals".....There's a thought....have all people in law enforcement make it a part of their legal duty and professional responsibility to themselves undergo truth-machine testing for all testimony and facts that they present against their "defendants" in courts of law.... do the same for the lawyers and judges......I mean, it is part of their professional responsibility to always be fair and honest in their legal dealings, isn't it.... Push for that Archytas... (sure, like that would ever happen... especially with the judges.... Corrupt Bastards..... NO HAR....) On Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:31:21 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > Pay no heed to the dung beetle swipe Nom - I read you with interest. > I've been reading Eskimo humour. I can't really read Ornstein without > colour from old days with ethics committees and bars on my work on the > dark side of human nature by well-meaning humanities duffers who can't > tell an axiom from an ideology of politesse. Much elephant dung under > the bridge ... > My current thought experiment concerns real,-time machine discourse > analysis - the real part is lie detection using thermal imaging in > criminal interrogation - but I find myself pondering what would happen > if we could turn a more sophisticated machine on the politicians. > Watching Obama and our Eton-brat PM Cameron spouting on bringing > democracy to every country in the world (doesn't history say we > actually prevent this) and tax-dodging (Cameron's father deeply > implicated, London still the centre of off-shore looting) makes me > wonder what would happen to human language if a machine could read > political elephant dung and give us factual language including > behavioural cues and rhetorical dodges 'live'. > We have more or less the opposite of this in practice - society is > being run on Gresham's Law (SEP has an explanation of this). I can > get funding to point 'my' machine at crooks (with their permission) > but I'd never get ethics permission to point it at politicians on > banksters. Orn's point about 'scientifically aware' politicians is a > bit like the general thought of an educated populace making decisions > in democracy. An alternative to teaching the lawyers and other > mouthpieces of politics about science would be to replace them with > scientists and my imaginary alternative of 'educating the masses' is > machine intelligence. Quite whether we could cope with such a > transparent society I don't know - even science is not fully > transparent and practitioners use highly esoteric languages. I think > we are closer to this situation technically than we know and further > away in the reality of the present than we can imagine. > > Not sure yet we use the same HAR - we could exercise some very > expensive lawyers over the copyright! > > If we could do a survey I guess we'd find a lot of fear about my > 'machine truth-giver' - but personally I'm more scared of the lying > and cheating going on and the role a machines in this (like high > frequency trading and such matters as CCTV being more likely to end us > up with a parking ticket than protecting us from muggers. > > On Jan 25, 4:26 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> 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 > > > > Getting back to dung beetles... Is this what you had in mind? > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23110-dung-beetles-navigate-usi... > > > > I'll read your referenced "tropical fish realism" articles and "try" > (HAR) > > to comment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:07:04 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > This would be the key bit mate: > > > What requires explanation is why this [scientific realism] is a > > > philosophical > > > position rather than just a common sense one. Consider, for example, > > > tropical fish realism—the doctrine that there really are tropical > > > fish; > > > that the little books you buy about them at pet stores tend to get it > > > approximately right about their appearance, behavior, food and > > > temperature > > > requirements, etc.; and that the fish have these properties > > > largely independently of our theories about them. That’s a pretty > > > clear > > > doctrine, but it’s so commonsensical that it doesn’t seem to have any > > > particular philosophical import. Why is the analogous doctrine about > > > science a philosophical doctrine? > > > There's more in this > > >https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/1685/Hjorland48... > > > > > > Ornstein is broadly right in my view - yet under critical eye all our > > > argument turns out to be oversimplification etc. There's an earlier > > > Boyd article in the SEP somewhere with more focus on TFR. Not all > > > religionists are barking fundamentalists and Islam has stuff in it > > > about the way of life needing to change in the future - though the > > > holy texts don't survive detailed historical scrutiny etc. > > > > > I'm pretty sure we could form a database engine that would flag up > > > nearly all political spin as appealing to ignorance and ideological > > > rot and myth in real time - in a sense academic debate is supposed to > > > make the mobile army of metaphors it uses clear - but there is much we > > > still assume in silence and many tricks used to make the argument > > > coherent. We might say the dark matter and energy of this Unsaid are > > > heavier than what we manage to say. > > > > > To get at what Orn is on about in detail I'd probably look at a > > > science that fringes with non-science decision - as in forensics. > > > There is clear evidence here that cops, lawyers, judges, juries and > > > forensic practitioners skew towards prosecution and that daft notions > > > like 'credibility' and the reliability of eye witnesses remain in use > > > despite strong scientific evidence to the contrary. The Nico Bento > > > case is a classic - he was convicted of murder where there was no > > > murder and the CCTV evidence had would have saved him skewed by an > > > 'expert' so the jury was not to believe the evidence in front of its > > > eyes. 'Expert' was a dire crank with dire form for same before he > > > topped himself. What is the record of politicians deciding on > > > scientific matters? And the non-scientific community? And scientists > > > operating outside their specialisms (common assumption paradigms)? > > > What of 'Silent Spring' and many examples of scientists in the pay of > > > interests? > > > > > On 22 Jan, 18:42, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > but in my experience most scientists do Boyd's > > > > 'tropical fish realism'. / Archytas..... > > > > > > I'd like look into this Boyd "character".....what's his full name... > > > R.N. > > > > Boyd? > > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/ > > > > > > and is this, "roughly"..... your view of 'tropical fish realism'? > > > > > > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, > lenor...@pipeline.com > > > > > > Ornstein 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 post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
