Lots of academic schemes are 4-sided - four sides to the page? I seem
to remember there are about 50 possible definitions in Kuhn's book and
that he was using 'disciplinary matricies' by the second edition. The
word finally lapsed to ridicule in management babble.
I'm pretty sure the paddle has been invented and is withheld.
Language is very complicated - and the idea of message is very
interesting. Imagine 4 pages of tortuous instructions that end with
'ignore all above and see me in the pub at noon'. Only 5 or 6 out of
a class of 100 will read to the end before starting. One can teach
vast swathes of personality psychology and then ask 'OK then, what is
personality, does it exist'? Economics could be taught for a lifetime
followed by the instruction 'Use economics to get the billion quid
from the guy with all the guns'.
Duping is also important and gets little attention. There is a
literature on lying.
Scientists lie - there's a long line from alchemy through Silent
Spring and various claims about nuclear power and the next big
breakthrough and on to forensic science (tests here have established
most practitioners interpret in favour of those they expect to be
paying them.
Writing a novel recently, part of my invented plot was a situation in
the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda - I've since read the real history and
discovered it much the same as my plot, only more devious. In
teaching economics one really teaches a lot of fairly neutral stuff
like sums - little attention is paid to whether any of the arse is
right. The last question one might put to those graduating is 'what
model of man have we been assuming'? Turns out this is arse -
rational, individual, economic man.
It's been obvious to me for a long time that we could have a machine
embodied system of global accounting we can't cheat. We have probably
reached an evolutionary state in which we could organise for personal
freedom rather than stick ourselves with various politburos run by
thieves.
On Jan 30, 5:12 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You have it wrong - but it's easy to see why someone outside the
> circle would. I am thoroughly bored with the science I see reported
> in the general media and even New Scientist rarely publishes much I
> will read. Doing social science research I always found the data I
> wanted hidden rather than available - the UK ONS is clearly written-up
> under bureaucrat rules designed to say nothing in vast quantity. But
> even interviewing witnesses is a minefield needing special techniques
> (cognitive interviewing and so on). Before long you realise people's
> opinions need a quadri-hermeneutic interpretation - and then that the
> whole process is quasi-religious bunk. The obvious fact that most of
> the world lives up shit creek and is waiting for the invention of the
> paddle is denied. / Archytas
>
> I agree with much that you wrote, above. But this last paragraph may be
> arguable... if I read it (understood your point) correctly.
>
> Your statement about "people's opinions need a quadri-hermeneutic
> interprretation -etc", is interesting....my own
> thematic logic is like that... four sided themes.....BTW.... there's more
> to it than I've let on.....the "appied sign" themes are logically four
> sided. but the contrapositional logic can either be concept-based or
> reference-based... eithir of the two sorts of internal logic give opposing
> resolutional outcomes accordingly....
>
> More complicated still, is when those base "applied signs" are turned into
> communicated "vox" signs ("language" and passed on as messages).... there
> instead of four sided logic contrapositions you get into a "three
> dimensional" "cube" sort of logic contraposition.... based on the Fact
> vs.Fancy / Manifest vs. Conceal..." language sign" as superimposed on the
> base two-part "applied sign".....more complicated, but doable... not bad
> once "one" gets used to it... pretty much common sensical if one knows what
> the proper "ontological" contraposition questions are....
>
> This gets into your truth (without the machine) questions.....how many
> ways are there to lie (be deceptive) and/or how many ways are there to be
> duped (be deceived)... either purposely or due to one's own
> misunderstanding.....like I said.... think "cubes" here.....for the "logic
> PARADIGM".... (HAR)... Paradigm....such a pompous word.... Careful... as I
> see it... there are some seemingly unaccountable paradoxes possible in the
> language area.....
>
> I don't know, Archytas... like you, I am much troubled by questions of
> mistake or error.... be they just through ignorance of the Physical truth
> of the matter or be they through purposeful deceptions perpetrated to gain
> advantage by some upon others.....especially the latter.. avoiding the
> latter requires both a knowledge of the actual "physical truth" of things
> but also an understanding of how such possible deceptions (can appear to)
> function.... Even a know it all genius can be duped, if he or she doesn't
> see through or follow the deception.....
>
> Living up shit's creek is navigable... the paddle is available.... it's the
> liars who withhold it (paddle) from the dupes.... What if that's the
> case?????
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:32:16 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>
> > In practice scientists don't spend much time doing the stuff 'reported
> > for the intelligent layperson' Nom. Most of it is just media
> > pornography. Applications for the common good could be much more if
> > economics was less nonsensical. For that matter, long training as a
> > physicist, chemist or biologist seems wasted when the individuals take
> > jobs as quants in finance houses. It's much more likely that someone
> > footling about with rust as a potential solar power gatherer will do
> > something for the common good (this weeks New Scientist I think) than
> > someone writing equations for high frequency trading. Scientists as
> > social inadequates is probably a literature myth - though you could
> > count me and a few mates in. We have trouble giving a flying bout of
> > generate sexual intercourse about what most people talk about,
> > including multiple universe theories. If any of that was related to
> > how water bonds in concrete (say) or ears would prick up.
>
> > We can't even measure the radius on the proton - though when we get
> > near we find it smaller than models predict (we'll have replaced
> > hydrogen's electron with a muon to do this) - and from being able to
> > do this we might find a new way to tap energy that would turn the
> > social world upside down. As a body, scientists dislike politics,
> > especially right wing politics - and this may say something about what
> > working with facts does. This said, the old Soviet Block once had 25%
> > of the world's scientists.
>
> > You have it wrong - but it's easy to see why someone outside the
> > circle would. I am thoroughly bored with the science I see reported
> > in the general media and even New Scientist rarely publishes much I
> > will read. Doing social science research I always found the data I
> > wanted hidden rather than available - the UK ONS is clearly written-up
> > under bureaucrat rules designed to say nothing in vast quantity. But
> > even interviewing witnesses is a minefield needing special techniques
> > (cognitive interviewing and so on). Before long you realise people's
> > opinions need a quadri-hermeneutic interpretation - and then that the
> > whole process is quasi-religious bunk. The obvious fact that most of
> > the world lives up shit creek and is waiting for the invention of the
> > paddle is denied.
>
> > On 29 Jan, 19:21, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Most of my former science
> > > colleagues didn't do the philosophy Nom - but they did learn the
> > > language of the investigation paradigm. As Socratus points out in
> > > another thread this breaks down somewhere. Human genetics is
> > > influenced by the bacteria we carry and so we expand to the
> > > hologenome. Epigenetic transfer between generations appears in
> > > epidemiology but we thought methylation didn't survive - but now more
> > > accurate experiments show about 250 survivals in 25,000. The work is
> > > not do by philosophers or even part-timers in it like me (as a rule). ?
> > > Archytas
>
> > > Archytas.... I am far from being a "scientific" - minded person...I do
> > not
> > > have the expertise or the training. However, I do not see this as a
> > > one-sided lack or failing, on my part...I also find myself very often of
> > > the opinion the those "bright or trained" enough to be scientifically
> > > literate or competent... are themselves often quite lacking in "human
> > > interaction" knowledge even knowledge of the level of the mundane
> > physical
> > > or real affairs.....You say the "scientists" don't do philosophy...
> > maybe
> > > they should do it... a bit... My own bugaboo against them is their
> > > penchant or attraction for the "speculative" ponderings as to the
> > "unknown"
> > > or the "unknowable" in their theories.... I would prefer that they
> > > (scientists) tried to keep track of or investigate their "unknows" wioth
> > an
> > > eye to discovering what they are or resolving them.... instead of just
> > > spinning out ... deductive or hypothetical logical fantasies or what may
> > be
> > > "out there".....As to what is already "known".....maybe putting "that"
> > into
> > > practice or effect, for the common good or for the betterment of some or
> > > all would be an preferable alternative (IMO) for them to occupy at least
> > > some of their time.....
>
> > > On Sunday, January 27, 2013 3:53:13 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>
> > > > Much to agree with in terms of who truth machines get used on Nom. I
> > > > often found myself looking for the truth and then having to work out
> > > > what I was procedurally supposed to have done and what I was allowed
> > > > to say. Sometimes I had to point out the defendant to cops I worked
> > > > with because they couldn't remember faces after a few weeks and quite
> > > > a few of them had very different recollections of what did happen an
> > > > hour later - courts demand all sorts of certainty we don't find
> > > > amongst real witnesses. The real machine does seem fairly accurate -
> > > > but I'm more interested in the thought experiment of a real-time
> > > > bullshit detector.
> > > > Tend to agree on the H paper - but then I don't think this kind of
> > > > stuff resolves much - though may help teach us we talk at cross
> > > > purposes with unshared assumptions. Most of my former science
> > > > colleagues didn't do the philosophy Nom - but they did learn the
> > > > language of the investigation paradigm. As Socratus points out in
> > > > another thread this breaks down somewhere. Human genetics is
> > > > influenced by the bacteria we carry and so we expand to the
> > > > hologenome. Epigenetic transfer between generations appears in
> > > > epidemiology but we thought methylation didn't survive - but now more
> > > > accurate experiments show about 250 survivals in 25,000. The work is
> > > > not do by philosophers or even part-timers in it like me (as a rule).
>
> > > > On 26 Jan, 18:13, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > 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,
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@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.
