J. Carter — collective virtue epistemology

[Prof David West]

I promised to read and comment, so here goes.

I really dislike (detest) this kind of analytic epistemology (analytic philosophy in general) as it contributes nothing to my understanding of how things are — how people think, why people have certain beliefs, how people judge something to be "true."

Given Glen's commitment to Vico-ism, I am surprised he finds the article compelling in some way.

Some questions:

1- Does Carter know anything? I.e. is there an example of a bit of knowledge that came to be in his possession via the K-AB framework? He certainly does not provide one, even as an illustrative example.

2- Assuming that the K=AB framework is useful. How many 'trials' are required to constitute "aptness?" For a belief to transform to knowledge must it be the case that all trials were apt, most of the trials, a super majority of the trials?

3- Can the K=AB framework yield an integrated body of knowledge, or merely the occasional isolated knowledge factoid?

4- Does a belief and or a bit of knowledge need to be expressed in words? If so, exactly how does the K=AB framework resolve the inherent ambiguity of language?

4b- For example: I believe I encountered and am having a discussion with a One-eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater. I apply the framework aptly and I now I know I am talking with one. What I do not know, however apt my belief, is whether or not the creature is purple or the people it eats are purple. At minimum the framework yields incomplete and ambiguous knowledge. ("I like short shorts.")

5- Glen 'knows' Trump is an evil idiot. Can Glen lead me along the apt-path that resulted in that knowledge? Could Carter?

6- Re: collective knowledge. Is a collective a 'Thing'? Can that Thing embody/contain/possess knowledge? (or belief?)

7. Clearly, groups appear to share collective knowledge and belief - at least at a statistical level. It is even possible to observe what appears to be collective knowledge that does not exist, per se, in any of the members of the group — the Delphi technique would be one example. (Emergent knowledge from a complex system?)

As a cognitive anthropologist, I am constantly challenged by the problem of explaining how culture — apparently shared collective knowledge, behavior, and ability — comes into existence, maintains itself, evolves, and adapts to changing contexts, including encounters with other cultures.

Formalisms, like those espoused by Carter, are so far removed from concrete reality they offer little in the way of guidance or assistance. And advocates of those formalisms seldom have any interest in applied work any more than advocates of "pure" mathematics tend to denigrate applied math.

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

Excellent! This is the kind of skepticism I was incapable of formulating by myself. Thanks! I hope to revisit the paper now.

On August 12, 2020 12:55:02 PM PDT, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

>I promised to read and comment, so here goes.
>
>I really dislike (detest) this kind of analytic epistemology (analytic
>philosophy in general) as it contributes nothing to my understanding of
>how things are — how people think, why people have certain beliefs, how
>people judge something to be "true."
>
>Given Glen's commitment to Vico-ism, I am surprised he finds the
>article compelling in some way.
>
>Some questions:
>
>1- Does Carter know anything? I.e. is there an example of a bit of
>knowledge that came to be in his possession via the K-AB framework? He
>certainly does not provide one, even as an illustrative example.
>
>2- Assuming that the K=AB framework is useful. How many 'trials' are
>required to constitute "aptness?" For a belief to transform to
>knowledge must it be the case that all trials were apt, most of the
>trials, a super majority of the trials?
>
>3- Can the K=AB framework yield an integrated body of knowledge, or
>merely the occasional isolated knowledge factoid?
>
>4- Does a belief and or a bit of knowledge need to be expressed in
>words? If so, exactly how does the K=AB framework resolve the inherent
>ambiguity of language?
>
>4b- For example: I believe I encountered and am having a discussion
>with a One-eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater. I apply the
>framework aptly and I now I know I am talking with one. What I do not
>know, however apt my belief, is whether or not the creature is purple
>or the people it eats are purple. At minimum the framework yields
>incomplete and ambiguous knowledge. ("I like short shorts.")
>
>5- Glen 'knows' Trump is an evil idiot. Can Glen lead me along the
>apt-path that resulted in that knowledge? Could Carter?
>
>6- Re: collective knowledge. Is a collective a 'Thing'? Can that Thing
>embody/contain/possess knowledge? (or belief?)
>
>7. Clearly, groups appear to share collective knowledge and belief - at
>least at a statistical level. It is even possible to observe what
>appears to be collective knowledge that does not exist, per se, in any
>of the members of the group — the Delphi technique would be one
>example. (Emergent knowledge from a complex system?)
>
>As a cognitive anthropologist, I am constantly challenged by the
>problem of explaining how culture — apparently shared collective
>knowledge, behavior, and ability — comes into existence, maintains
>itself, evolves, and adapts to changing contexts, including encounters
>with other cultures.
>
>Formalisms, like those espoused by Carter, are so far removed from
>concrete reality they offer little in the way of guidance or
>assistance. And advocates of those formalisms seldom have any interest
>in applied work any more than advocates of "pure" mathematics tend to
>denigrate applied math.

--
glen

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Frank Wimberly-2]

Brief responses, Dave.

When I first heard that song in 195? I wondered whether the eater or the people were purple.  Maybe everyone did.

I like your fair-minded rhetoric.  For example, "offers little" rather than "offers nothing".

I prefer pure math but I don't disdain applied math.  My dissertation was about finite element methods, a numerical analysis approach used in structural analysis, fluid mechanics, etc.

Is logical positivism a subfield of analytic philosophy?  I used to know.

As an anthroplogist you might appreciate this book about ethnic identity in New Mexico:

Nación Genízara: Ethnogenesis, Place, and Identity in New Mexico (Querencias Series) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0826361072/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_i_MpdnFbBG2K8TF

Frank

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:34 AM glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Excellent! This is the kind of skepticism I was incapable of formulating by myself. Thanks! I hope to revisit the paper now.

On August 12, 2020 12:55:02 PM PDT, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
>I promised to read and comment, so here goes.
>
>I really dislike (detest) this kind of analytic epistemology (analytic
>philosophy in general) as it contributes nothing to my understanding of
>how things are — how people think, why people have certain beliefs, how
>people judge something to be "true."
>
>Given Glen's commitment to Vico-ism, I am surprised he finds the
>article compelling in some way.
>
>Some questions:
>
>1- Does Carter know anything? I.e. is there an example of a bit of
>knowledge that came to be in his possession via the K-AB framework? He
>certainly does not provide one, even as an illustrative example.
>
>2- Assuming that the K=AB framework is useful. How many 'trials' are
>required to constitute "aptness?" For a belief to transform to
>knowledge must it be the case that all trials were apt, most of the
>trials, a super majority of the trials?
>
>3- Can the K=AB framework yield an integrated body of knowledge, or
>merely the occasional isolated knowledge factoid?
>
>4- Does a belief and or a bit of knowledge need to be expressed in
>words? If so, exactly how does the K=AB framework resolve the inherent
>ambiguity of language?
>
>4b- For example: I believe I encountered and am having a discussion
>with a One-eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater. I apply the
>framework aptly and I now I know I am talking with one. What I do not
>know, however apt my belief, is whether or not the creature is purple
>or the people it eats are purple. At minimum the framework yields
>incomplete and ambiguous knowledge. ("I like short shorts.")
>
>5- Glen 'knows' Trump is an evil idiot. Can Glen lead me along the
>apt-path that resulted in that knowledge? Could Carter?
>
>6- Re: collective knowledge. Is a collective a 'Thing'? Can that Thing
>embody/contain/possess knowledge? (or belief?)
>
>7. Clearly, groups appear to share collective knowledge and belief - at
>least at a statistical level. It is even possible to observe what
>appears to be collective knowledge that does not exist, per se, in any
>of the members of the group — the Delphi technique would be one
>example. (Emergent knowledge from a complex system?)
>
>As a cognitive anthropologist, I am constantly challenged by the
>problem of explaining how culture — apparently shared collective
>knowledge, behavior, and ability — comes into existence, maintains
>itself, evolves, and adapts to changing contexts, including encounters
>with other cultures.
>
>Formalisms, like those espoused by Carter, are so far removed from
>concrete reality they offer little in the way of guidance or
>assistance. And advocates of those formalisms seldom have any interest
>in applied work any more than advocates of "pure" mathematics tend to
>denigrate applied math.


--
glen

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Prof David West]

There is a lyric - "Mr. Purple People Eater whats your line? Its eating purple people, and it sure is fine." Resolves the ambiguity.

davew

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020, at 6:09 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Brief responses, Dave.

When I first heard that song in 195? I wondered whether the eater or the people were purple.  Maybe everyone did.

I like your fair-minded rhetoric.  For example, "offers little" rather than "offers nothing".

I prefer pure math but I don't disdain applied math.  My dissertation was about finite element methods, a numerical analysis approach used in structural analysis, fluid mechanics, etc.

Is logical positivism a subfield of analytic philosophy?  I used to know.

As an anthroplogist you might appreciate this book about ethnic identity in New Mexico:

Nación Genízara: Ethnogenesis, Place, and Identity in New Mexico (Querencias Series) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0826361072/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_i_MpdnFbBG2K8TF

Frank

---

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz,

Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918

Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:34 AM glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Excellent! This is the kind of skepticism I was incapable of formulating by myself. Thanks! I hope to revisit the paper now.

On August 12, 2020 12:55:02 PM PDT, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

>I promised to read and comment, so here goes.

>

>I really dislike (detest) this kind of analytic epistemology (analytic

>philosophy in general) as it contributes nothing to my understanding of

>how things are — how people think, why people have certain beliefs, how

>people judge something to be "true."

>

>Given Glen's commitment to Vico-ism, I am surprised he finds the

>article compelling in some way.

>

>Some questions:

>

>1- Does Carter know anything? I.e. is there an example of a bit of

>knowledge that came to be in his possession via the K-AB framework? He

>certainly does not provide one, even as an illustrative example.

>

>2- Assuming that the K=AB framework is useful. How many 'trials' are

>required to constitute "aptness?" For a belief to transform to

>knowledge must it be the case that all trials were apt, most of the

>trials, a super majority of the trials?

>

>3- Can the K=AB framework yield an integrated body of knowledge, or

>merely the occasional isolated knowledge factoid?

>

>4- Does a belief and or a bit of knowledge need to be expressed in

>words? If so, exactly how does the K=AB framework resolve the inherent

>ambiguity of language?

>

>4b- For example: I believe I encountered and am having a discussion

>with a One-eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater. I apply the

>framework aptly and I now I know I am talking with one. What I do not

>know, however apt my belief, is whether or not the creature is purple

>or the people it eats are purple. At minimum the framework yields

>incomplete and ambiguous knowledge. ("I like short shorts.")

>

>5- Glen 'knows' Trump is an evil idiot. Can Glen lead me along the

>apt-path that resulted in that knowledge? Could Carter?

>

>6- Re: collective knowledge. Is a collective a 'Thing'? Can that Thing

>embody/contain/possess knowledge? (or belief?)

>

>7. Clearly, groups appear to share collective knowledge and belief - at

>least at a statistical level. It is even possible to observe what

>appears to be collective knowledge that does not exist, per se, in any

>of the members of the group — the Delphi technique would be one

>example. (Emergent knowledge from a complex system?)

>

>As a cognitive anthropologist, I am constantly challenged by the

>problem of explaining how culture — apparently shared collective

>knowledge, behavior, and ability — comes into existence, maintains

>itself, evolves, and adapts to changing contexts, including encounters

>with other cultures.

>

>Formalisms, like those espoused by Carter, are so far removed from

>concrete reality they offer little in the way of guidance or

>assistance. And advocates of those formalisms seldom have any interest

>in applied work any more than advocates of "pure" mathematics tend to

>denigrate applied math.

--

glen

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

I was ignorant of Vico before you mentioned him. So I'm going to ass/u/me what you have in mind is his emphasis on *making* and my argument that you can only tell if someone understands you by what they *do*, not any inferred meaning of the words they say/write. And in the context of Carter's idea, I agree he spends way too little time on the details of how one/some judges something *apt*. But, if you'll remember, Carter sometimes hangs out with our frequent bogey Chalmers in Extended Mind/Epistemology cliques. And that concept of extension *might* allow for a little Vico buried somewhere in there.

As for bristling for being called Vico-ist, obviously I don't care about that any more than I care about being called Hegelian. In fact, this is one of the reasons I could never be a scholar or academic. All my ideas are the creations of others, I just take them in, chew them up, and spit them out all mangled like a good "everything is text" GPT-3 or your common chat bot. For all you know, I am merely a Chinese Room. But talking *is* doing, talking is making. Science is just as much the strings of noises accompanying virus-laden spittle out of our mouths as it is the space station or the quantum computer.

The rest of my response to your welcome criticism requires more work on my part.

On 8/12/20 12:55 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> Given Glen's commitment to Vico-ism, I am surprised he finds the article compelling in some way.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/