Posted by
glen e. p. ropella-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Game-theorists-hope-to-solve-world-s-crises-tp4100321p4102670.html
Quoting Russ Abbott circa 09-12-02 01:18 PM:
> Glen, do you distinguish between perceptions/[perspectives, models and
> scientific theories?
Yes. I laid out many of the differences recently in the thread about
models vs. rhetoric.
> Do you think of people who believe enough in quantum
> theory, general relativity, biological evolution, even Newtonian dynamics to
> act on it as certifiably WACKO?
You're playing a shell game. I did not say "believe ENOUGH", thereby
implying that they do NOT believe somewhat. If someone leaves room for
reasonable doubt, then they're not a wacko, no.
And, since you list scientific theories, I can say that no scientist can
be called a scientist if they don't doubt the theories they act upon.
Doubt is necessary. If you never doubt the truth of your pet belief,
then yes, you are a wacko.
> That's not to say that these theories won't
> ever be revised, overturned, etc. But to call people who act on what those
> theories predict WACKO seems extreme.
I didn't say that. I even used a long-winded phrase to make it clear.
I said: "... to the extent that they are convicted, committed, and
unwaveringly confident in their own rhetoric ..."
You don't need to be a wacko to act on your beliefs. But if you are
absolutely CERTAIN, with no doubt at all, that your beliefs are true and
nothing anyone around you says will ever shake your unwavering
confidence, then yes, you are a wacko.
> What about the model you have in your head as you cross the street? That
> model included cars coming at you. Not acting on that model seems more WACKO
> than acting on it?
Again, because I don't want you to miss my point, I'll say that I'm not
talking about reasonable people who doubt their beliefs from time to
time. If you unwaveringly believe and are totally convinced of your
model of how cars, streets, and street crossings work, then yes you are
a wacko. Even if you're model happens to BE true, you're still a wacko
because all sane people doubt themselves periodically.
But if you act on a belief that it's a very very very good idea to look
both ways before crossing because you MIGHT get hit, then no, that's not
the beliefs of a wacko. It's very easy to doubt that you might get hit
by a car. So, if you doubt yourself, you're not a wacko.
> I think it would be useful to refine your statement a bit. Waiting for the
> light to change at a busy intersection (because of your model of how traffic
> lights, traffic, etc. work--which is not always the way it is but which
> works often enough and which may include drunk drivers and cases in which
> cars run red lights) seems more sane than following Jim Jones to Guyana.
Again, you're playing a rhetorical shell game. I didn't say anything
about crossing the street or acting on a reasonable belief in your
models. I explicitly (and took great pains to be explicit) that if you
are convinced and unwaveringly confident in your model, then you're a wacko.
I won't take advice from anyone who is so utterly convinced of their own
beliefs that no amount of data or rhetoric could ever change those
beliefs. Such people ARE the equivalent of Jim Jones and Marshall
Applewhite.
--
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