Re: [Fwd: Re: Egging that chip off the old underbelly.]

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks for posting this, Glen.  

I think it's to good to waste on a former english major.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]

> [Original Message]
> From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]>
> To: Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]>
> Date: 12/22/2009 11:02:17 AM
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: Egging that chip off the old underbelly.]
>
>
> Apparently, my e-mail has been on the fritz; so my attempt to post this
> yesterday failed.  I'll post it once my e-mail is working again.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Egging that chip off the old underbelly.
> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:45:36 -0800
> From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]>
> Organization: ABM@TDI
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> References: <[hidden email]>
>
>
> Nick sent me this privately, in the hopes of respecting the list
> members' time and attention, but upon my reply, he suggested I submit it
> to the list for your erudite ridicule:
>
> Quoting Nicholas Thompson circa 09-12-19 12:01 PM:
> > But I feel some sort of analogy lurking here, and with
> > your forebearance, i want to go one more round.
> >
> > Something like,
> >
> > (doing mathematics) : (formal proof) :: (doing computer science):
> > (programming) :: (doing philosophy) : (symbolic logic)
> >
> >  One thing is clear about the right hand term in every case (other than

the
> > fact that i can do none of them):  watching one another do the
right-hand
> > term is how practicioners of the field tell the difference between
> > themselves and the tourists (ahem).  But what can we say about the
> > differences and similarities among the left hand terms?  Or should we
pass

> > over this question in silence?
> >
> > Nick
>
> I responded thusly:
>
>
> I realize this isn't (particularly) what you wanted to talk about; but,
> it's not at all clear to me that practitioners establish that another
> person is in their clique or not by watching them do the right-hand
> terms.  I.e. mathematicians do NOT necessarily classify others as "in"
> or "out" based on those others' formal proofs.  Computer scientists do
> NOT necessarily classify others as "in" or "out" based on those others'
> programs or programming skills.  And philosophers do NOT necessarily
> classify others as "in" or "out" based on the way those others
> manipulate symbols.
>
> In fact, it seems to me that the first two (math and comp.sci.) don't
> work that way at all.  Since I know it best, I'll start by saying that
> most programmers are NOT computer scientists at all.  And it's not at
> all clear that all computer scientists even program, much less all
> program in the "same" way or produce similar product.  I don't know math
> and mathematicians anywhere near as well as I know comp.sci. and
> programming; but I still know it/them pretty well.  And there is at
> least one demographic of mathematicians who really don't do much formal
> proof, at all.  We could hedge on the definition of "mathematician", if
> you'd like.  But the type of person I'm thinking of does quite a bit of
> _derivation_, but very little proof.  And in such contexts, it can be
> the derivation _or_ the results that qualify that person as a competent
> mathematician.  Another demographic of mathematician is a kind of
> logician, a meta-mathematician.  And these people engage in the type of
> proofs that baffle many other types of mathematician.  So, even if a
> mathematician of type I determines "in" vs. "out" by formal proof in
> their own sub-domain, they don't determine "in" vs. "out" by formal
> proof just slightly outside their sub-domain.
>
> As an aside, along these same lines, the results in the paper "Unskilled
> and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" by Kruger and Dunning
> talk quite a bit about how (and how badly) people determine competence
> in their own and other disciplines.
>
> > But what can we say about the
> > differences and similarities among the left hand terms?
>
> Well, of course, take what I say merely as my opinion... no expertise
> implied.  But doing math, doing comp.sci., and doing philosophy all seem
>  very much like the exact same activity, to me.  Comp. Sci. is just a
> branch of math.  And math is just a branch of philosophy.  True, those
> who confine themselves to tiny subsets of activity within, say,
> comp.sci. may look like what they're doing is unlike 99.99% of math and
> what mathematicians do.  But if you look at those who do NOT confine
> themselves... who wander all over the comp.sci. map, they look a LOT
> like mathematicians.  Likewise with mathematicians.  True, those that
> confine themselves to some tiny subset of math look like what they do is
> unlike what 99.99% of philosophers do.  But if you look at
> mathematicians whose studies take them far and wide, they end up looking
> a lot like philosophers.
>
> So, what I end up with when trying to compare the 3 left-hand sides is
> that there's really no difference.  And this tells me that the
> classification is meaningless.  I.e. it is meaningless to classify
> people in terms of "mathematician" vs. "computer scientist" vs.
> "philosopher".  That classification is meaningless.
>
> A more meaningful classification would be "those who confine themselves
> very tightly to a sub-domain" vs. "those who range far and wide".  We
> could apply such a measure (perhaps even a metric) to the members of
> FRIAM.  For example, you apply yourself far and wide, regardless of the
> domain.  Others on the list apply themselves in a more confined
> way (or, at least, are only willing to talk about a few things that pass
> by on this mailing list), though I'd argue that most on this list still
> apply themselves much more widely than many.  Then there are some people
> who would never even consider participating on the FRIAM mailing list
> because it's just all over the place, is full of noise, and nothing ever
> seems to be achieved.  Those people are highly confined to their
> (myopic) subdomain.
>
> Now, if we adopt this classification, we can then compare, "those who
> confine themselves tightly in math" vs. "those who confine themselves
> tightly in comp.sci." vs. "those who confine themselves tightly in
> philosophy".  Perhaps then we can make some progress on that secondary
> classification?
>
> Salubrious Solstice!
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
>
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org