Hi Steve,
When our "Sustainable Happiness Week" is over (starts Saturday on
Jefferson's birthday--OF COURSE!--ends on Earth day) I'd love to have a
deeper conversation with you guys about all of this.
We're actually doing two surveys, the one presently on-line based on the
Bhutanese domains of ha
Here be a more or less recent paper about measuring happiness, from the
famous Sabine Hossenfelder. Bears on the philosopher of science
conversation too.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1754423
(just open what gets downloaded as a .pdf, even if doesn't look like
one)
"Explanation …does not imply prediction."
Got it. In between beers I'm positive this will come up in the
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Doug, Steve,
>
> ** **
>
> I am a little confused about which of you is beering with Epstein, bu
"Explanation …does not imply prediction."
Got it. In between beers I'm positive this will come up in the conversation.
--Doug
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Doug, Steve,
>
> ** **
>
> I am a little confused about which of you is be
Doug, Steve,
I am a little confused about which of you is beering with Epstein, but
whichever one of you it is, please take along a copy of
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/1/9.html and ask him what the hell he was
drinking when he wrote, "Explanation .does not imply prediction." If you do
dow
"Equilibrium", and "Josh Epstein" are not two terms that normally correlate
with each other.
-Doug
On Apr 11, 2013 8:39 PM, "Steve Smith" wrote:
> Doug -
>
>>
>> I'll be eating ribs with Josh next month in Austin, I'll try to remember
>> to ask him his opinion on this.
>> Upon consideration: no
Doug -
I'll be eating ribs with Josh next month in Austin, I'll try to
remember to ask him his opinion on this.
Upon consideration: no I won't. We'll be eating ribs and drinking beer
and having fun. Scientific philosophical discussion will not even emerge.
Get it? Emerge.
In my experience p
Doug,
Right! And that is what is creepy about Peirce's metaphysics. But anybody
who does metaphysics ends up with a black eye. And if you remember where he
got his faith in science it was watching chemists figure out the periodic
table. Eventually they converged. And while we never can be
Jah, now that you mention it, it *does* look like the Smokey Bear sign.
The intent on the front end is just to provide some bells and whistles to
encourage participation, and the happiness level isn't controlled for
influences, i.e. isn't blind. It probably will become a Facebook app,
though the
Because everybody follows the recommendations of the ornithologists to the
letter.
I'm fun at parties too.
-Douug
On Apr 11, 2013 7:49 PM, "Gary Schiltz" wrote:
> Ooh, ooh, a comment about birds, step aside, let me through please :-)
>
>
> Actually, ornithologists provide a lot of value t
Ooh, ooh, a comment about birds, step aside, let me through please :-)
Actually, ornithologists provide a lot of value to birds, in that they help
understand their behavior, life history, requirements, etc, thus helping with
their conservation.
;; Gary
On Apr 11, 2013, at 8:27 PM, Russell St
When you're simulating all 370 million residents of the US in a pandemic
influenza model, all of the parameters listed below are, well,
represented parametrically. The idea is to get a gross measure of trends,
and relative assessments of the effectiveness of various intervention
strategies. Not to
Ron/Merle -
When I went to the WHM, the three things that struck me were: 1) This
is not a blind measure... it seems like you should have to state your
level of happiness before you find out what the current "average" level
is; 2) It looks a lot like the "Current Fire Danger" meter in our
fo
Now *that* is a good answer.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:30:44PM -0600, Douglas Roberts wrote:
> > This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but
> humor
> > me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do the
REC -
The scientist says my method is the correct method! Fund me!
The popular science journalist writes it up as a horse race or prize
fight or political campaign.
Bravo!
- SAS
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Frid
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:30:44PM -0600, Douglas Roberts wrote:
> This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor
> me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide?
> Serious question.
>
About as much value as ornithologists provide to birds, I exp
Well, Nick, as long as you are talking along evolutionary time scales,
eventually we will all be able to tell right from wrong as well.
My recommendation is to not hold your breath on this, though.
--Doug
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
The Village Pragmatist believes that in time, perhaps an extremely long
time, that scientists will converge on the right method, just as they will
converge on the final opinion and that, by definition, will be the Truth.
(Glen - that would be a tautology)
But I think, also, that the Village
N.
I agree, in all cases except for Doug's. (example of "for every rule
there is an exception, including this rule").
For example... he always brings his lovely wife, good booze and good
stories when he comes do dinner... and I'm holding him to all three.
Though I appreciate your holding ou
The issue here is that we have a variety of ways of studying human behavior
each of which claims to be good science done by good scientists.
One philosopher of science (Kuhn) says the study of human behavior is
immature, when it's really good science it will settle on the correct
method.
Another
S. I don't think it makes sense to seal a person into prior positions. N
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science
Nick -
Doug,
I guess I think that Wikipedia has failed you in this particular case.
Notice that the definition is .. Tautological .. . It merely repeats the
definiendum in the definiens. See the current conversation between Glen and
I about tautologies.
Basically, I think it's fair to say,
Nick -
Steve,
Why presuppose that the question is anything but a question?
Is this a rhetorical question? (begin recursion)
We *are* talking about Doug here, aren't we? .
Doug who attributes the clever use of "Big Bold Naivete" to yourself
uses it himself in his own special version of t
Roger,
I guess my hackles went up a bit at the notion that something gets to be
scientific based on the judgment of a philosopher of science. Most of the
philosci I have read has been based on trying to get at the essence of what
scientists do when they are successful.
Every scientist g
Doug -
> what benefits does a Philosopher *of Science* provide.
My simple answer would be "context" ?
Fish don't need to have a formal understanding of water, nor birds a
formal understanding of air, and one might say that scientific
practitioners needn't have a formal understanding of theori
I've made him gun-shy, Nick.
--Doug
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> ** **
>
> Why presuppose that the question is anything but a question?
>
> ** **
>
> Nick
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfi
Steve,
Why presuppose that the question is anything but a question?
Nick
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science
A philosopher of science is somebody who studies the logic of science, in
the broadest sense of logic. Like anything else in philosophy, it can
either be normative or descriptive: i.e., an attempt to discover what
scientists should do, or what in fact they do. Nick
From: Friam [mailto:fria
Merle,
I'm the developer of www.WorldHappinessMeter.com (WHM). How can I be
involved in the Happiness Santa Fe launch on Saturday? I notice from your
site that an in-depth survey is part of the festivities. One planned
addition to WHM is a survey in order to gather data worldwide to save the
ne
Roger,
Righto! We launch "Happiness Santa Fe" on Saturday ( go to our website,
the Center for Emergent Diplomacy, or just go to Happiness Santa Fe for a
calendar of events). We've had many recent conversations about how to
encourage conditions for a shift in our mental models from consumerism an
Relying to Steve & Roger:
No, for once I was not being argumentative, it was the "of science" part I
was questioning. As compared, say, to a philosopher of religion, or
morality, or human psychology. Continuing to use our favorite reference
source, Wikipedia gives this definition for "Philosophe
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>> So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of
organization,
>> but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to
different disciplines of study
>> which may all be judged "scientific" by a philo
Doug -
This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but
humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they
provide? Serious question.
Straight out of Wikipedia (for convenience, not because it is
necessarily an infallible authority):
The *philosophy of s
This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor
me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide?
Serious question.
--Doug
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> There's an intriguing book review in Science this week:
>
> *Study
There's an intriguing book review in Science this week:
*Studying Human Behavior* How Scientists Investigate Aggression and
Sexuality *by Helen E. Longino* University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2013.
261 pp. S75. ISBN 9780226492872. Paper, $25, £16. ISBN 9780226492889.
http://www.sciencemag.org/c
Glen -
Cherry picking here...
I actually distrust consensus and convergence, equally, I think. This
is for the same reason I think the "singularity" concept is suspicious.
It implies a closedness that I don't believe in. The universe seems
open to me, which implies that any process (includin
36 matches
Mail list logo
