What's so bad about Scientism?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
45 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

Frank Wimberly-2
In Plato space, yes.  In actual space, 1.0 - eps. Many people have been killed by "empty" guns.


On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 10:17 AM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

F.

 

Hmm!

 

Jones is in a gunfight

Jones Knows that his opponent has only a six shooter

Jones knows that his opponent has just fired six shots

Jones’s opponent aims his gun at Jones

Jones reasons that his opponent’s gun is empty

Yet he is afraid of being shot.

Does Jones believe that the gun is empty? 

 

By the way, given the facts stipulated, you, as a mathematician, would say that the probability that the gun is empty is 1.0, right? 

 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 10:31 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

De gustibus non est disputandum

 

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 6:50 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

G

I think it was Quine who said, if it's the kind of thing you have to reason about it's not a value.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 3:14 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

Aha!  That's good to know.  Like deeply parsing Liz Phair lyrics, you *cannot* rely on me to infer what you imply.  I'm just not smart enough.

On 07/11/2018 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I was making FUN of the trolley game.  I don't want to play it any more than you do!

--
uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

gepr
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
So, to be clear, are you also making fun of reasoning like this?  I ask because it's equal in idealism to the trolley problem.

On 07/11/2018 07:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Jones is in a gunfight
> Jones Knows that his opponent has only a six shooter
> Jones knows that his opponent has just fired six shots
> Jones’s opponent aims his gun at Jones
> Jones reasons that his opponent’s gun is empty
> Yet he is afraid of being shot.
> Does Jones believe that the gun is empty? 
>
> By the way, given the facts stipulated, you, as a mathematician, would say that the probability that the gun is empty is 1.0, right? 


--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

Nick Thompson

Glen,

 

 

Frank and I have a long-running, somewhat facetious, argument about the meaning of probability statements.  We are friends, and we enjoy making each other squirm, a bit.  I talk to him in a way I would not talk to you.  My argument with Frank is light-hearted and you may justifiably be impatient with it. So, some caution, here, therefore.

 

One of the things Frank and I argue about is, Who exactly gets to say what I believe.  He credits first person accounts, perhaps unconditionally;  I credit third person accounts, conditionally.  Something like that.  So that is a part of what is going on, here.  There is another thread lurking here that concerns what logic, in the ordinary sense, is good for.  Put them together, and you get something like, "I don't care what you think you have deduced from formal logic, if you jump when the empty gun is cocked, you believe that the gun is loaded."  I am looking forward to Frank’s disagreement with that notion.  It's a bit like the distinction between signs and symptoms in medicine. 

 

I certainly don’t want to be an idealist.  I am trying to be an experience-monist:  everything else, ideas, matter, is irreducibly just patterns in experience.  But given the doctrine above, you have a lot to say about whether I am, in fact, an idealist.  Evidence? 

 

I stipulate that I have not answered your longer email of a week ago on this thread.  Given your assertion that I don't read [carefully] what you write, I am taking time to answer it.   Relatives in house, so that process is slow. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 6:30 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

So, to be clear, are you also making fun of reasoning like this?  I ask because it's equal in idealism to the trolley problem.

 

On 07/11/2018 07:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Jones is in a gunfight

> Jones Knows that his opponent has only a six shooter Jones knows that

> his opponent has just fired six shots Jones’s opponent aims his gun at

> Jones Jones reasons that his opponent’s gun is empty Yet he is afraid

> of being shot.

> Does Jones believe that the gun is empty?

>

> By the way, given the facts stipulated, you, as a mathematician, would

> say that the probability that the gun is empty is 1.0, right?

 

 

--

uǝlƃ

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

Frank Wimberly-2
"I don't care what you think you have deduced from formal logic, if you jump when the empty gun is cocked, you believe that the gun is loaded." 

Or you believe the gun might be loaded.  I have three revolvers hidden away in a triply locked gun safe.  Two of them are cowboy style six-shooters.  One of them is a British 9 shot double action .22.

Do you see the problem?


On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:03 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Glen,

 

 

Frank and I have a long-running, somewhat facetious, argument about the meaning of probability statements.  We are friends, and we enjoy making each other squirm, a bit.  I talk to him in a way I would not talk to you.  My argument with Frank is light-hearted and you may justifiably be impatient with it. So, some caution, here, therefore.

 

One of the things Frank and I argue about is, Who exactly gets to say what I believe.  He credits first person accounts, perhaps unconditionally;  I credit third person accounts, conditionally.  Something like that.  So that is a part of what is going on, here.  There is another thread lurking here that concerns what logic, in the ordinary sense, is good for.  Put them together, and you get something like, "I don't care what you think you have deduced from formal logic, if you jump when the empty gun is cocked, you believe that the gun is loaded."  I am looking forward to Frank’s disagreement with that notion.  It's a bit like the distinction between signs and symptoms in medicine. 

 

I certainly don’t want to be an idealist.  I am trying to be an experience-monist:  everything else, ideas, matter, is irreducibly just patterns in experience.  But given the doctrine above, you have a lot to say about whether I am, in fact, an idealist.  Evidence? 

 

I stipulate that I have not answered your longer email of a week ago on this thread.  Given your assertion that I don't read [carefully] what you write, I am taking time to answer it.   Relatives in house, so that process is slow. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 6:30 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

So, to be clear, are you also making fun of reasoning like this?  I ask because it's equal in idealism to the trolley problem.

 

On 07/11/2018 07:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Jones is in a gunfight

> Jones Knows that his opponent has only a six shooter Jones knows that

> his opponent has just fired six shots Jones’s opponent aims his gun at

> Jones Jones reasons that his opponent’s gun is empty Yet he is afraid

> of being shot.

> Does Jones believe that the gun is empty?

>

> By the way, given the facts stipulated, you, as a mathematician, would

> say that the probability that the gun is empty is 1.0, right?

 

 

--

uǝlƃ

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

Nick Thompson

F

 

One might say, One trusts the logic a hundred percent; it’s just that one never quite trusts the premises on which the logic is based.  That was one of Peirce’s points.  It’s all very well to say that deduction is infallible, just so long as you concede that deduction is always based on prior inductions and abductions, both of which ARE fallible.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 9:14 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

"I don't care what you think you have deduced from formal logic, if you jump when the empty gun is cocked, you believe that the gun is loaded." 

 

Or you believe the gun might be loaded.  I have three revolvers hidden away in a triply locked gun safe.  Two of them are cowboy style six-shooters.  One of them is a British 9 shot double action .22.

 

Do you see the problem?

 

 

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:03 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Glen,

 

 

Frank and I have a long-running, somewhat facetious, argument about the meaning of probability statements.  We are friends, and we enjoy making each other squirm, a bit.  I talk to him in a way I would not talk to you.  My argument with Frank is light-hearted and you may justifiably be impatient with it. So, some caution, here, therefore.

 

One of the things Frank and I argue about is, Who exactly gets to say what I believe.  He credits first person accounts, perhaps unconditionally;  I credit third person accounts, conditionally.  Something like that.  So that is a part of what is going on, here.  There is another thread lurking here that concerns what logic, in the ordinary sense, is good for.  Put them together, and you get something like, "I don't care what you think you have deduced from formal logic, if you jump when the empty gun is cocked, you believe that the gun is loaded."  I am looking forward to Frank’s disagreement with that notion.  It's a bit like the distinction between signs and symptoms in medicine. 

 

I certainly don’t want to be an idealist.  I am trying to be an experience-monist:  everything else, ideas, matter, is irreducibly just patterns in experience.  But given the doctrine above, you have a lot to say about whether I am, in fact, an idealist.  Evidence? 

 

I stipulate that I have not answered your longer email of a week ago on this thread.  Given your assertion that I don't read [carefully] what you write, I am taking time to answer it.   Relatives in house, so that process is slow. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 6:30 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

 

So, to be clear, are you also making fun of reasoning like this?  I ask because it's equal in idealism to the trolley problem.

 

On 07/11/2018 07:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Jones is in a gunfight

> Jones Knows that his opponent has only a six shooter Jones knows that

> his opponent has just fired six shots Jones’s opponent aims his gun at

> Jones Jones reasons that his opponent’s gun is empty Yet he is afraid

> of being shot.

> Does Jones believe that the gun is empty?

>

> By the way, given the facts stipulated, you, as a mathematician, would

> say that the probability that the gun is empty is 1.0, right?

 

 

--

uǝlƃ

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
123