Stephen, list:
You said, “Try explaining to Isaac Newton, or CS Peirce, that they were wasting their time trying to frame things in terms of an axiomatic framework... *Peirce may not have spelt it out*….” _____ Given the situation: "I do not understand you," is the phrase of an angry man”, in which there is “no *lanterna pedibus*, no light to guide their researches” and, …even if this be the normative form of abduction, the form to which abduction *ought* to conform… Please consider: A terrible storm came into a town and local officials sent out an emergency warning that the riverbanks would soon overflow and flood the nearby homes. They ordered everyone in the town to evacuate immediately. A faithful Christian man heard the warning and decided to stay, saying to himself, “I will trust God and if I am in danger, then God will send a divine miracle to save me.” The neighbors came by his house and said to him, “We’re leaving and there is room for you in our car, please come with us!” But the man declined. “I have faith that God will save me.” As the man stood on his porch watching the water rise up the steps, a man in a canoe paddled by and called to him, “Hurry and come into my canoe, the waters are rising quickly!” But the man again said, “No thanks, God will save me.” The floodwaters rose higher pouring water into his living room and the man had to retreat to the second floor. A police motorboat came by and saw him at the window. “We will come up and rescue you!” they shouted. But the man refused, waving them off saying, “Use your time to save someone else! I have faith that God will save me!” The flood waters rose higher and higher and the man had to climb up to his rooftop. A helicopter spotted him and dropped a rope ladder. A rescue officer came down the ladder and pleaded with the man, "Grab my hand and I will pull you up!" But the man STILL refused, folding his arms tightly to his body. “No thank you! God will save me!” Shortly after, the house broke up and the floodwaters swept the man away and he drowned. When in Heaven, the man stood before God and asked, “I put all of my faith in You. Why didn’t You come and save me?” And God said, “Son, I sent you a warning. I sent you a car. I sent you a canoe. I sent you a motorboat. I sent you a helicopter. What more were you looking for? http://epistle.us/inspiration/godwillsaveme.html The surprising fact C is observed. But if A were true... Hth, Jerry R On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > Mission statements are "window dressing?" Really? You've not had any > experience in strategic planning at the management level, have you... ie, > you have no idea what you are talking about. > > My reference to mission statements is intended as a metaphor to explain > the purpose of an axiomatic framework. It's important. Try explaining to > Isaac Newton, or CS Peirce, that they were wasting their time trying to > frame things in terms of an axiomatic framework... Peirce may not have > spelt it out, but he too was motivated by consistency and fundamental > principles hanging together. Sometimes a good scientist, like a competent > manager, doesn't need to formalize their plan in a mission statement, > because it's all worked through in their heads... but that does not mean > that they don't have a plan, a strategy, something that can be explicated > in accordance with fundamental assumptions. > > Diversity is strength, huh? Like in France and Germany and Sweden and > their migrant no-go zones? Good one, Whit! That trendy assumption is > rapidly becoming stale. > > "It is well known..."; "everybody knows..."; "extensively observed...". > These are predictable clichés. Bad science depends absolutely on them. > Credentialism. The implication is that if you have the right credentials, > you will understand, and if you don't have the right credentials you are > not qualified to comment. > > >"You're lost in the metaphor. It's well known how DNA is subject to > molecular processes. DNA's not simply abstracted data; its part of the > physical (and partially quantum-mechanical) mechanism, whose workings have > been extensively observed." > > Terrific! If it is so clear in your mind, why don't you sum it up in a few > lines, the principles that come together to make it all hang together... > you know, like in a mission statement :) > > "Subject to molecular processes" does not explain anything... just sayin'. > What molecular processes? If you are going to explain anything, then you > need to provide either specifics, or principles. It seems to me that you > cannot provide either. > > Cheers, sj > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto: > online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Whit Blauvelt > Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2016 8:13 PM > To: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com > Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is > pseudoscience? > > Hi Stephen, > > > You are partially right, Whit. It is indeed true that how corporations > > are managed these days is itself a joke, often relying more on > > groupthink, politics and collaborations of convenience than strategy, > > but they tend not to last long... > > I don't know where you've worked. But I've worked in both long-standing > corporations and startups. Smart ones of both sorts, none of them regarding > mission statements as more than window dressing. > > > ... or, to be anticipated, western indulgent liberalism and our > > anti-competitive, affirmative-action programs and the trashing of the > > principles of the US consitution. > > You don't like affirmative action? Because the US Constitution referred to > blacks as being worth 3/5ths of a man? Diversity is strength. Smart > companies know that. > > > No-one can deny, in a healthy, free and competent market, the > > importance of vision. A vision/direction is important, irrespective of > > whether or not it is expressed in a mission statement. > > Vision has an important place. The Third Reich was the triumph of a vision > ... until it wasn't. But seriously, I'm all for visual thinking; the > problem comes when the vision is static, hypnotic, overly-subscribed to. > > > As for modern scientism masquerading as science... there is no better > > expression of blind faith than the absurd idea of genetic “data” > > (software), but no account of the “computer” that might “process” it. > > You're lost in the metaphor. It's well known how DNA is subject to > molecular processes. DNA's not simply abstracted data; its part of the > physical (and partially quantum-mechanical) mechanism, whose workings have > been extensively observed. > > Best, > Whit > > -- > ---------------------------- > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
