Posted by
Sarbajit Roy (testing) on
Apr 06, 2012; 2:30am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/So-Are-We-Alone-tp7425235p7441891.html
Dear Nick
I'm rather surprised to learn from you that "the notion of settled
legal opinion" is an American Institution brought about by induction.
By this reasoning almost everything that are "uniquely" American
useful things - apple pie, Thanksgiving turkey etc can be ascribed to
induction in addition to bridges, cheap food etc,
The apple falling on Newton's head could equally have been induced by
him to formulate a recipe for Apple Pie for the masses instead of the
Law of Gravitation.
Could you be a little more specific on what you consider "induction"
to be as I think you and Doug or Bruce understand induction to be
different things. I am an engineer (aka. intelligent designer) , while
designing bridges or machines etc I have neither the time nor
inclination to consider the philosophical implications of whether my
creation has feelings or free will. I just need to focus on my "grand
design" and its purpose.
Sarbajit
On 4/6/12, Nicholas Thompson <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> Dear Bruce,
> You wrote
> Uh, does there have to be a reason? I'm interested just because I am
>
> -- a portion of trying to understand as much about the Universe we inhabit
> as is possible.
> Are you obligated to? Probably not since your oral exam on your
> dissertation! However, when your PhD examiners asked you why the problem
> you chose was "interesting", I am sure you didn't reply, "Well, it just
> caught my fancy" So, was that a fair question at the time, or just a power
> trip to which you had to submit to get your degree?
>
> But my point is not really about whether you have to or don't have to. My
> point would be that in point of fact, you did [have a reason]. Your
> explanation for your choices is way too powerful to be useful, or even
> plausible. There was reasoning behind your choice of research topic, and
> spelling out that reasoning will be, I assert, illuminating to you and to
> the rest of us.
>
> You also wrote
>
> I found that discussion massively uninteresting and irrelevant to the
> actual practice of science. There are many variants of philistinism, and of
> engagement.
>
> This position would seem to contradict the idea that interests are all the
> same and not subject to explanation. Doug challenged me in the same way,
> and I tried to meet that challenge as follows.
>
> AS to Doug's question, I guess I owe him an explanation of why I found the
> discussion of induction so interesting. You will recall it began with
> question of faith. I was interested in the paradox that those who are hard
> on faith, often offer induction as an alternative. But induction requires
> faith. And it also require us to join in a community of faith that shares
> our belief in induction. Such communities resemble formal religions in some
> uncomfortable ways. However, is that pragmatic faith in induction, which
> helped us build bridges and fly at faster than the speed of sound, and go to
> the moon, and provide cheap food for millions of people and, brought us so
> many important American institutions, such as the marketplace of ideas and
> the notion of settled legal opinion. All of this now under attack, by,
> apparently, people to whom its benefits are not self-evident. I think we
> either have to be prepared to say why our faith is better than theirs, or be
> prepared to be beaten all the way back into the Dark Ages. Hence my
> interest in the problem of induction.
>
> I would be interested in your response.
>
> Nick
============================================================
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