Friam

Why Model?

Classic

List

Threaded

17 messages Options

Owen Densmore

Why Model?

Administrator

As Robert mentioned, JASSS is out. Here's one likely to be of general
interest:
Why Model? http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/4/12.html

Nick: a reasonable discussion of prediction lies therein.

-- Owen

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

Russ Abbott

Re: Why Model?

Is Epstein really praising modeling, or is he really praising (clear/scientific) thinking, which he seems to identify with modeling. He cites scientific theories (Maxwell's equations, the Lotka-Volterra ecosystem model, Hooke's Law, the Kermack-McKendrick epidemic equations) as successful models. But why call them models rather than theories?

He concludes, for example, as follows.

The most important contribution of the modeling enterprise is that it enforces a scientific habit of mind ... One does not base beliefs on authority, but ultimately on evidence. ... Education, in its truest sense, is not about "a saleable skill set." It's about freedom, from inherited prejudice and argument by authority. This is the deepest contribution of the modeling enterprise. It enforces habits of mind essential to freedom.

Does this really answer the question "Why model?" Or does it answer the question "Why think?"

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

As Robert mentioned, JASSS is out. Here's one likely to be of general interest:
Why Model? http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/4/12.html

Nick: a reasonable discussion of prediction lies therein.

-- Owen

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

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

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Why Model?

[...] Or does it answer the question "Why think?"

-- Russ Abbott

Which sort of brings us back on point to one of the other threads that has been volleyed back and forth on this list since last Friday...

Why think, when there is dogma to save you the bother?

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

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

Russ Abbott

Re: Why Model?

I looked up the Feynman reference and extracted the following paragraphs in praise of doubt. They don't have much to do with modeling, but they make a good point for both science--and especially politics.

We scientists … take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure — that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether everyone realizes that this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle. Permit us to question — to doubt, that's all — not to be sure. And I think it is important that we do not forget the importance of this struggle. …

This is not a new idea; this is the idea of the age of reason. This is the philosophy that guided the men who made the democracy that we live under. The idea that no one really knew how to run a government led to the idea that we should arrange a system by which new ideas could be developed, tried out, tossed out, more new ideas brought in; a trial and error system. This method was a result of the fact that science was already showing itself to be a successful venture at the end of the 18th century. Even then it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of the possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown. If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar. …

It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress and great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress that is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom, to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed, and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.

-- Russ

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

[...] Or does it answer the question "Why think?"

-- Russ Abbott

Which sort of brings us back on point to one of the other threads that has been volleyed back and forth on this list since last Friday...

Why think, when there is dogma to save you the bother?

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Why Model?

Good detective work, Russ.

I rather think that we scientists have fallen down on the job of embracing and promoting doubt, at least with regards to religion's place in politics and science. May I remind you: our Republican Vice Presidential candidate is a Creationist who believes that the earth was created (by God, of course) 6,000 years ago.

Where has the outcry of outrage from the scientific community been? Nary a whimper that I've heard. Are all of our flaunted scientists afraid to take a stand against the "Christian Right"?

--Doug

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I looked up the Feynman reference and extracted the following paragraphs in praise of doubt. They don't have much to do with modeling, but they make a good point for both science--and especially politics.

We scientists … take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure — that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether everyone realizes that this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle. Permit us to question — to doubt, that's all — not to be sure. And I think it is important that we do not forget the importance of this struggle. …

This is not a new idea; this is the idea of the age of reason. This is the philosophy that guided the men who made the democracy that we live under. The idea that no one really knew how to run a government led to the idea that we should arrange a system by which new ideas could be developed, tried out, tossed out, more new ideas brought in; a trial and error system. This method was a result of the fact that science was already showing itself to be a successful venture at the end of the 18th century. Even then it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of the possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown. If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar. …

It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress and great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress that is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom, to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed, and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.

-- Russ

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

[...] Or does it answer the question "Why think?"

-- Russ Abbott

Which sort of brings us back on point to one of the other threads that has been volleyed back and forth on this list since last Friday...

Why think, when there is dogma to save you the bother?

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Why Model?

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Douglas Roberts wrote:
> Why think, when there is dogma to save you the bother?
A quick check of Wikipedia might suggest an explanation..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes,
cognitive strategies or a professional methodology."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education
"Education encompasses both the teaching and learning of knowledge,
proper conduct, and technical competency."

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

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Why Model?

I prefer the dictionary definition:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This in·doc·tri·nate

[in-dok-truh-neyt] <a class="pronlink" onclick="pk = window.open('/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html', 'PronunciationKey','height=700,width=560,left=0,top=0,resizable,scrollbars');if(pk){pk.focus();}" onmouseout="status='';return true;" onmouseover="status='Click for pronunciation key';return true;" title="Click for pronunciation key">Pronunciation Key - <a class="pronlink" onclick="javascript:show_ip()" onmouseout="status='';return true;" onmouseover="status='Click to toggle pronunciation';return true;" title="Click to show IPA pronunciation">Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.

1.	to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Douglas Roberts wrote:

Why think, when there is dogma to save you the bother?

A quick check of Wikipedia might suggest an explanation..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology."

Robert Holmes

Re: Why Model?

Hmmm.... anyone else troubled by the fact that both definitions of indoctrination seem to be wholly applicable to the Epstein piece?

Robert

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

I prefer the dictionary definition:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This in·doc·tri·nate /ɪnˈdɒktrəˌneɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-dok-truh-neyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.

1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Douglas Roberts wrote:

Why think, when there is dogma to save you the bother?

A quick check of Wikipedia might suggest an explanation..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology."

Steve Smith

In Praise of Doubt, and ...

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Good find Russ...

Freeman Dyson is quoted as saying
    It is better to be wrong than vague

When Juxtaposed with Feynman's
    It is perfectly consistent to be unsure

I think we are reaching the heart of the problem with human nature. We want to be correct and we want to be precise and we want to be sure.

Human nature, on the other hand, doesn't care and would generally rather have simple, easy, clear answers, even if they are dead wrong.

On Modeling and Human Nature:

In my own work with scientists and engineers and decision makers I constantly find them wanting me to help them find simple, clear, absolute answers and only the best of them are delighted when the find I can only help them with the simplest answer of all - "it depends" and then clarify (somewhat) with "and this is what it depends on and how".

I too feel Doug's pain (or chronic irritation) but mine extends beyond the bounds of fundamentalist religion to wide swaths of our population who are not religious and if they are to be called fundamentalist, their fundamentalism is in their unerring belief in things like their own privelige, their own entitlement, the rightness of the systems they participate in or perhaps the rightness in the ones they would replace the ones they are trying to tear down. It is easy to be a critic, an armchair quarterback.

As a youth, I was attracted to Science for the open-minded inquiry it represented. I was attracted to technology for the miracles it could wring out of Science. I was attracted to Democracy for the implied social fairness and egalitarianism. I was attracted to free-markets for the opportunity afforded hard, smart work. I was attracted to capitalism for the seeming rightness (in an industrial economy at least) that capital resources facilitate productivity and those who create and maintain such resources should also be rewarded along with those who provide labor/talent/etc.

On Liberal vs Conservative:

There is an old saying which I cannot attribute:
    If you are not liberal when you are young, there is something wrong with you.
    If you are not conservative when you are old, there is something wrong with you.

I think this is well motivated and intended but I find otherwise. At 51 many of you will find me still "young" but I only remember being "younger" and now feel quite "old", and at least by today's terminology, find I am going the "other way" toward a more "Liberal" viewpoint.

The point, however, is that in you youth I was quick to adopt idealisms which were happy and bright and promising which is where the Democrats/Liberals might tend to err, while over time and the enduring of hard-knocks, I have learned that the world is often somewhat less than cooperative with such idealism and pragmatism calls for a certain kind of pessimism or at least very careful optimism.   This might in fact, be the basis of the prescribed swing from liberal to conservative with age, but in our current mapping of liberal (to Dems) and conservative (to Repubs), I have not been able to maintain this track so well.   There is something amiss (or aright) here.

I find myself more aligned *against* the Republicans than ever and more aligned *with* the Democrats than ever. On introspection, I think that education through experience helped me a lot.   I think that I learned a lot about what *really* happens when you apply the ideals of either side to the real world.   I still find all (most) politicians suspect of hypocrisy and Dems erring on the Pollyanna side but the neoCons at least seem to be nothing but a big ugly wad of hypocrisy and short-sighted selfish stupidity.

I don't like the implied axis of Left/Right or Liberal/Conservative.   I think that these can be applied roughly to social and economic issues ( I'm liberal socially, but conservative economically is a common statement in my circles ).   The term "Progressive" has been used often in place of "Liberal" and in many ways it fits better. Progressives seem to be interested in looking for ways to change our society to improve the human condition while non-Progressives (Conservatives) can be seen to be trying to preserve the aspects of society which maintain the current better qualities of the human condition while trying to avoid the (un)intended consequences of progress.

I am very sympathetic with both points of view however, I find a good deal of what we call "progress" blind faith that "change is good" with opportunists stirring change for changes' sake so they can "take advantage".   Similarly I find that resistance to change is often motivated by those holding power not wanting to risk trying to keep it in a shifting landscape.

On Power:
So the central theme turns out to be "opportunism" or "power".
    Power Corrupts....
A friend of mine insists Power is Corruption.

I tend to agree, recognizing that it is not only a consequence of having power that one becomes "corrupt", taking advantage (because advantage is there to be taken, in the same sense that nature abhors a vacuum), but also that to *obtain power* corruption is involved.   What is "power" anyway? In this diatribe, I use it to mean influence over others and in particular, non-commutative but transitive influence.   It could be based in economics, physical threat, persuasion, social acceptance...

Barter societies roughly operate in commutative exchanges... it is hard to hoard and it is hard to take advantage when material goods must be exchanged in-person between people who live near each other. Usury and hoarding become obvious and adjust the relative value of goods or services. The power of physical threat and violence is also fairly limited in small groups. Hunter Gatherers who followed herds adopted the way of herd animals, often with a single chief who kept power by being more physically capable/threatening than any other male in the group. As a good chief aged, he became more experienced and wise which made him both (potentially) better at winning any challenge-fights but also more valued by the group as a leader. While one or more young men might have a significant chance of bringing him down in a direct confrontation, many might defer this until later when he might be yet weaker (with age) and they more prepared to truly be a good leader in his place.   This simple kind of hierarchy was the beginning of transitive power... if the group grew larger or engaged with other related groups, it is not surprising that a deeper hierarchy of power might emerge.   The big chief might maintain power over sub-chiefs by the same mechanism while the sub-chiefs did the same with their own groups...   to get to be big chief, you had to fight your way past his lieutenants, who didn't get there themselves by being slackers.   The women and feminists in the group will notice that women are missing from this discussion except implicitly as those subjugated (and protected) by a male. I don't applaud or glorify this, but do think it is a natural consequence of the main mode of power expression being physical violence in such societies.

This is a raw form of "meritocracy" I suppose. But the salient feature is the transitivity of power and the aggregation it implies.   A single human, capable of dominating any other in his group might hold power by this "merit" and presumably must maintain a level of fairness to avoid having two or more others gang up on him. But once this goes recursive, an arbitrarily large power base can be created through the transitive application of power.   We didn't rise up and pull Dubya out of office (partly) because he had a whole gang of lieutenants who had their leiutenants who ... right down to the cop on the street or the FBI or secret service man who would have used his own personal power (his personal will and ability) and his inherited power (his equipment, his peers, the specialized SWAT teams and snipers standing by, etc.) to stop us.

Under what other circumstances would the village have tolerated the idiot they had raised to power?   As soon as we defer any power to another, we start this heaping/piling of power game.   We have been trained to think this is the only way to live, that we must always give our power to another.   This Tuesday, I believe many of us will be giving our power to a member of the electoral college to pass that power on up to Obiden (or McPalin in many cases) who will in turn use that power in our interest (or not) as he/she sees fit.   The whole campaign process is about arguing over how the power we pass up to them is going to be used. Come April 15 when you send in your taxes, we will be doing the same thing.

Many of us on this list are entrepreneurs, at least in spirit.   I would hazard that most of us are in some sense self-employed, even if that is through the mechanism of semi-retirement.   This indicates (to me) that many of us prefer not to give up too much of our power to an individual or organization. We might have only one client or customer, but in principle, we are free agents many of us. And those who do work at companies or institutions likely have an inordinate amount of freedom derived from our ability or natures. We understand that we do not want to freely give up all of our (economic/intellectual) power for others to (ab)use.

I am obviously an Anarchist in my ideals.   The pragmatist in me is willing to play in a Democracy, since it seems a much more common and workable approach for reasons I don't completely understand.   But I'm not surprised so much when I pass my power off to others and it comes back and bites me (like the last 8 years).   I don't believe that Democracy works in principle, even though it sometimes kinda works in practice. Perhaps "oppression of the minority by the majority" is a significant lesser of evils.

Governments are simply ways of aggregating power, the better ones have relatively good mechanisms for doing the aggregation and fairly good mechanisms for checking and balancing power to avoid runaway abuses.   Ours has (nearly) broken down, I hope that this election turns that around, and those who are elected have the *enlightened* self interest to reinforce the checks and balances wisely and carefully.

- Steve
PS. Yes, I clearly must be avoiding something important if I'm going to continue to write these missives.   Thanks to anyone reading this far... I know it gets dense and tedious.

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

Peter-2-2

Re: Why Model? Exactly so and vote for the best model or image of 1 of all time

In reply to this post by Robert Holmes

I cannot help thinking that there is a huge oxymoron when a defense of modeling is made with TEXT

When modeling can demonstrate its causality and need ( TOTALLY explain itself ) using its functions ( Right Brain ) " Demonstrate your technology with your technology " then we are moving along the right track until then we are pontificating or a possible delusion.

Still pondering the implications of Marty Golubitsky who quoted Rene Thom statement " When you build a model its really just a theory and may have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world except in the opinion of the modelers "

As for phenomenal models and I will include images of potential models that SPEAK for themselves with awesome potential http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters Minards 1812 poster and go to Tufte's seminar it will blow your mind ( Figuratively speaking or not depending on who you are with )

Next challenge for Steve and Owen " How do we use cloud technology illustrate and investigate model technology in its full multi dimensional glory

Heck Monty Python did in more ways than wun.

( : ( : pete

Peter Baston

IDEAS

www.ideapete.com

Robert Holmes wrote:

Hmmm.... anyone else troubled by the fact that both definitions of indoctrination seem to be wholly applicable to the Epstein piece?

Robert

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

I prefer the dictionary definition:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This in·doc·tri·nate /ɪnˈdɒktrəˌneɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-dok-truh-neyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.

1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Douglas Roberts wrote:

Why think, when there is dogma to save you the bother?

A quick check of Wikipedia might suggest an explanation..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology."

Phil Henshaw-2

Re: In Praise of Doubt, and ...

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Yea, sort of like teaching creationism for science is teaching determinism for life….

Phil Henshaw

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] In Praise of Doubt, and ...

Parks, Raymond

Re: In Praise of Doubt, and ...

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve Smith wrote:

Good find Russ...

Freeman Dyson is quoted as saying
It is better to be wrong than vague

When Juxtaposed with Feynman's
It is perfectly consistent to be unsure

I think we are reaching the heart of the problem with human nature. We want to be correct and we want to be precise and we want to be sure.

Human nature, on the other hand, doesn't care and would generally rather have simple, easy, clear answers, even if they are dead wrong.

Predictably Irrational, http://www.predictablyirrational.com/

-- 
Ray Parks                   [hidden email]
Consilient Heuristician     Voice:505-844-4024
ATA Department              Mobile:505-238-9359
http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641
http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288

David Eric Smith

Re: In Praise of Doubt, and ...

Well, I shouldn't even poke my head above the weeds in this one, because this thread has way too much energy for me, but I just couldn't resist. Think of this as a prosodic rather than a semantic reply...

I think we are reaching the heart of the problem with human nature. We want to be correct and we want to be precise and we want to be sure.

We are all aware of the branch of statistical learning theory known as PAC-learning, or Probably Approximately Correct -learning (?).

One of the few ideas with which I can be completely comfortable.

Eric

Phil Henshaw-2

Re: In Praise of Doubt, and ...

And the usual flaw being sure about how things would seem to have worked in the past, and possibly not notice them diverge over time…?

Phil Henshaw

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 4:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] In Praise of Doubt, and ...

I think we are reaching the heart of the problem with human nature. We want to be correct and we want to be precise and we want to be sure.

We are all aware of the branch of statistical learning theory known as PAC-learning, or Probably Approximately Correct -learning (?).

One of the few ideas with which I can be completely comfortable.

Eric

Robert Holmes

Re: In Praise of Doubt, and ...

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

It's Francois Guizot (1787-1874):

N'être pas républicain à vingt ans est preuve d'un manque de cœur ; l'être après trente ans est preuve d'un manque de tête.
Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.

It's been modified by several authors (Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, Clemenceau, Disraeli, Bismarck and others) usually talking about socialism/communism/liberalism etc. Personally I like Clemenceau's version:

My son is 22 years old. If he had not become a Communist at 22, I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at 30, I will do it then.

Robert

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

<snip>
There is an old saying which I cannot attribute:
If you are not liberal when you are young, there is something wrong with you.
If you are not conservative when you are old, there is something wrong with you.
- Steve

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

scaganoff

Re: In Praise of Doubt, and ...

The vernacular in my student days was:

If you're not a Communist at 20 then you have no heart.
If you're still a Communist at 30 then you have no brain.

I agree with you that there is more of a mellowing with age, but that may be just personal. I think there are a couple of drivers in play:

A personal journey from youthful idealism through cynical middle-age (when you find that the world is not simple enough to support an idealistic outlook) then into a more mellow senescence (

) which may be a result of increased experience and wisdom? Different people take different time periods to work through each of these stages and obviously some never make it all the way.

Combine this with a societal oscillation between liberal and conservative. The pendulum swinging between the liberal lefty views that dominated the 70's for example, through the conservative 80s,90s,00s...I think the swing back is well underway. The definitions of left and right are constantly changing (in absolute terms).

I heared the other day that one of the architects of Thatcherism has latterly seen the errors of his ways. There is an interesting discussion on post-modern conservatism on an ABC (Australia) radio program here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2008/2384582.htm

Cheers,
Saul

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Robert Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:

It's Francois Guizot (1787-1874):
N'être pas républicain à vingt ans est preuve d'un manque de cœur ; l'être après trente ans est preuve d'un manque de tête.
Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
It's been modified by several authors (Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, Clemenceau, Disraeli, Bismarck and others) usually talking about socialism/communism/liberalism etc. Personally I like Clemenceau's version:

My son is 22 years old. If he had not become a Communist at 22, I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at 30, I will do it then.

Robert

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

<snip>

There is an old saying which I cannot attribute:
If you are not liberal when you are young, there is something wrong with you.
If you are not conservative when you are old, there is something wrong with you.

- Steve

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

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

--
Saul Caganoff
Enterprise IT Architect
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scaganoff

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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: In Praise of Doubt, and ...

Saul Caganoff wrote:
> If you're not a Communist at 20 then you have no heart.
> If you're still a Communist at 30 then you have no brain.
Idealism has to be sustainable. One needs resources to bring to bear on
ideas and a means to attach and detach within a reasonable range of
risk. These things are missing for many people in younger years.
A constructive approach is thus Nihilism -> Opportunism -> Idealism.

Marcus

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