Robert,
Thanks for offering me that escape route, but I cannot take it, because I probably believe the IF-conditions. You are right to sense that I need rescuing, because if I am abandoned by Eric, I am truly abandoned. I have to admit that what I laid out (below) are probably VALUES. In other words, I am more prepared to argue from them than I am to argue for them. The basic idea is, though, that there aren’t kinds of truth; there is JUST truth. So if somebody asserts that literature is source of truth, then there MUST (on my values) be a way for science to get at it. But now I have to go dandle. Thanks Robert; thanks Eric. Nick From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:14 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Art is a Lie It's hypothetical reasoning. Re-read the IF statements. Robert C On 10/18/10 7:54 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: Nick, This is bizarre! "Fiction is a potential method in scientific psychology." I cannot, for the life of me parse it. Is it equivalent to saying: "Fiction is a potential method in scientific physics."? Granted that science fiction has broadly anticipated many things that are now part of scientific physics, but it also anticipated many things that were not, and I hope you are not arguing that cutting edge sci-fi writers should get endowed chairs in physics on the basis of their scientific accomplishments! When I recall you making criticisms along these lines, it was mostly to frustrate doe-eyed grad students who wanted to save the world. You argued, at those times, that if they wanted to help survivors of genocide, they would be better off writing a gripping novel that helped increase international attention to their plight; if they wanted to help survivors get along better with genocide bystanders, you would write a heart wrenching novel with a message of reconciliation; etc. The last thing you should think in either of these situations, you argued, is that everything is failing for the lack of one more scientific study in social/personality psychology. This arguement I completely agreed with. It does seem to argue for some sort of deep relationship between fictional literature and "truth." However, I have no idea what you are getting at now. Certainly one could study fiction as an empirical psychologist, but that wouldn't make fiction a "method". Are you trying to say that a valid way to do scientific psychology is to make stuff up? No chance you are doing that. What are you trying to get at?!? Eric On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 12:42 AM, "Nicholas Thompson" <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: I would like, if only as a matter of principle, to rise to the defense of all those techno-barbarians on the list who cannot find voice to defend themselves, but I can only say that … IF there is something valuable in fiction, if it indeed fosters or transmits knowledge, Then fiction is a potential method in scientific psychology. To twist Stephen J. Gould’s words a bit: They are Overlapping Magisteria. There is no knowledge that is not potentially scientific knowledge. Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
