Glen -
Steve Smith wrote at 04/05/2013 10:54 AM:
1. How do we define/recognize valid measures of evidence?
2. Is the current "exponential" growth in tech divergent or convergent?
...
Well, the first thing to cover is that the definition won't necessarily
be pre-statable. In order for it to be an accurate measure, it will
have to evolve with the thing(s) being measured.
This is an important point that I'd like to hear more about... I have
my own views and ideas on it but get the feeling you may have a more
formal or specific idea about this?
Both these suggest skepticism toward the _unification_ of validity or
trustworthiness. Evidence boils down to a context-sensitive
aggregation, which is why Bayesian methods are so attractive. But I'm
sure they aren't the only way to install context sensitivity. Recently,
I've been trying to understand Feferman's "schematic axiom systems"
http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/godelnagel.pdf and how a
schema might be extracted from a formal system in such a way as to
provide provide reasoning structures that are sensitive to application.
(My complete and embarrassing ignorance slows my progress, of course.)
I've downloaded and will read the paper and if my own complete and
arrogant ignorance (thanks for the succinct description of this state
Doug!) doesn't bog me down even worse, I'll try to respond to that under
separate cover.
2. [...] What I'm equally interested in is if there is a
similar divergence in thinking. [...] I believe
that humans have a natural time constant around belief (and as a
consequence, understanding, knowledge, paradigms?) on the order of
years if not decades or a full lifetime. That time-constant may be
shrinking, but I rarely believe someone when they claim during or
after an arguement to have "changed their mind"... at best, they are
acknowledging that a seed has sprouted which in a few years or
decades might grow into a garden.
Obviously, I'm still not convinced that _thinking_ is all that
important. It strikes me that _doing_ is far more important. My
evidence for this lies mostly in the (apparent) decoupled relationship
between what people say and what they do. I can see fairly strong maps
between immediate, short-term thoughts like "Ice cream is good" and
actions like walking to the freezer, scooping some out, and eating it.
But I see fairly convoluted maps between, e.g., "Logging your data is
good" and what bench scientists actually end up writing in their logs.
I *do* appreciate the harping you have been doing about doing vs
thinking (or talking or posturing or gesturing) and take it painfully to
heart. My prolificness (prolificacy? wot?) here suggests that I prefer
to talk and think to do. That is not *completely* true, as a lot of my
"doing" happens at the same keyboard and screen as my "talking" and
"thinking".... on the other hand, the new heating element to my dryer
came in yesterday and I *still* haven't installed it. And Spring is
springing and I *still* haven't bled the brakes on my dumptruck to go
get my usual Springtime loads of manure and woodchips... and I am
*still* yammering away here as April 15 looms over the horizon and my
P&L records are still woefully under-attended... and ... well, you get
the picture. Talk *is* (relatively) cheap, though not without a price.
I also appreciate what you probably *really* intended to illuminate...
that what we *do* says more than what we *say*. But the two *are*
duals... even if some of us *say* one thing and *do* another, there is a
correlation. In fact, those of us who protest most loudly about this
or that might be the best suspects for acting differently. Anecdotally
it is a given that rabid homophobes are likely to be gay and it is easy
enough for me to believe that those who proselytize most grandly might
be compensating for their own lack of belief.
But the point I was trying to make, independent of the measure (I think)
is that human time scales, the time between beginning to
accept/understand/experience/act differently and a "full embrace" of it
can be quite long. This feels like a bit of a ceiling (more aptly
"floor") to constrain any runaway acceleration of thinking OR action?
I could be arguing for your point (even more than intended) as I know
that if I can encode an idea into an action and an action into a habit,
it often doesn't take long for me to shift from one mode to another...
there is a power of tactile/embodied habituation that mere
thinking/talking doesn't touch.
Thanks
- Steve
============================================================
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
