-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Patricia Dwyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: mardi 17 août 1999 22:21
Onderwerp: Ruiminations on information
>Bandler and Grinder of NLP fame had an aprohism: Effectiveness is the
>measure of truth.
They must have been utilitarians.
Which I have spend many delightful hours trying to
>unpack. Is the quality of information that has made it into our heads only
>to be evaluated by it's effectiveness? But that seems a little
>contradictory as much information has no reality test bed. For example,
>arguing historical "facts" or interpretations are difficult to ascribe to
>effectiveness in the here and now.
Maybe in the long run.
I think the main problem is we first decide there is something called
'truth', invest it with all sorts of virtues, and then find lots of
contradictions. It's like proclaiming there is something all-powerful and
all-good, and then trying to explain all the evil in the universe.
>
>In a recent discussion on economics, my antagonist made the statement:
>"This may not be true as I took my training 25 years ago." What an
>interesting statement. Was it true 25 years ago but as the world changes
>the "truth" of information changes? Was it false then but accepted as
true?
>How can we have discussions of value when "truth" is a moving target?
This depends very much on the kind of thing under consideration. Especially
in economics the changing realities of the world may very well change the
'truth' of some insights. Even value is a moving target.
>
>And then there is the question of memory. Of all the information that
>passes through the ol brain, how much of it is retrievable and of that
which
>is retrievable, how much of it is distorted?
Distorted? There is no way to establish the 'undistortedness' of any
information entering the brain. Let alone its retrieval.
Well, scholars, when they
>write, quote their sources, often other books or statements that have been
>recorded, as if by being recorded, they are in someway true-er than if
>someone just thought them up or made an unpremeditated statement. Does
>quoting sources actually improve the quality of information?
It certainly does if the information is to be criticaly analized.
What if the
>original guy was wrong?
That's exactly why a source should be quoted. How else could anyone ever
find out?
Or what if what he said is not what you thought he
>said.
It may never be, except perhaps in mathematics.
I have heard ( a piece of information) that authors are often
>perplexed at the way individuals paraphrase what they have said and what
>meaning they were trying to convey into something that the author himself
>was not aware of saying.
Being constantly misunderstood is something most of us learn to live with.
But it doesn't mean one shouldn't quote his sources.
>
>Of course, there is information, which we tend to think of as neutral and
>there is meaning which is subjective according to each individual. If this
>statement has some truth in it, then what value is information if meaning
is
>so variable?
Depends entirely on the kind of information.
<cut the Bertrand Russel bit, though I must say I also enjoyed reading some
of his books while studying philosophy.>
In
>fact, I would guess that if you were to examine some of your activities,
you
>would find that impulse is quite a big player in the type and quality of
>information you get and a very serious generator of experiences that you
>live through. Is this the "invisible hand" of human experience?
must be, why else would I have acted on the impulse of responding to this
particular post, or even more, selecting it for reading out of 218 unread
posts on this list only?
One of the reasons probably is I read some of Thomas Lundes posts and
decided I like the writer enough to sometimes devote time to his
ruminations.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Thomas Lunde
>--
Cheers to you too,
Jan Matthieu
