Glen, What you said now looks very good to me.
--John ________________________________________ From: Friam [friam-boun...@redfish.com] on behalf of glen [geprope...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 3:20 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Weeds of pragmatism: Subjectivity and intimacy This implies what I tried to state explicitly with the idea of 0th, 1st, 2nd ... order science. It's only indirectly related to the concept of probability of truth[†]. 0th order would be an approachable, extant, limit ... aka a "fact". 1st order would be the inferences (by whatever inferential method you choose) you can make from facts. 2nd order would be inferences you can make from both 0th and 1st order sentences. Etc. This sort of structure handles both likelihood and cumulative consequences. But it depends fundamentally on the structures of the inferential methods at and between orders. [†] A probability some 0th order fact obtains is a kind of "flattening" or projection of all the other ith order sentences down to 0th order (perhaps a 0th order with a different structure than the 0th order used to establish the initial facts). On 02/24/2016 11:52 AM, John Kennison wrote: > The issue of whether Charlemagne ate eggs for breakfast is not the question I > am raising, it is only an illustration of my question. My actual question (as > I now understand it) is whether there is a reality to what did and what did > not happen in the past that is independent of what we can figure out > scientifically (which, I think, only addresses the issue of what probably > happened). This is a real question with real consequences, even though I > chose to illustrate with a question that is, admittedly, trivial. (But which > I thought was so simple it would make my meaning clear.) > > I liked the example of transubstantiation vs consubstantiation and agree that > it was pretty silly (even though lots of Christians killed other Christians > because they disagreed). > > Wait a second, does that mean it is a real issue because it clearly had > consequences? Perhaps I should say that people were killed because they said > they disagreed. -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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
