Posted by
glen ropella on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/DIY-science-tp7582911p7582952.html
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/23/2013 09:45 AM:
> I still don't get it. If person x tests e=mc^2 and person y doesn't,
> then is e=mc^2 science to person x but not to person y? Is that the
> case even if person x tells person y about his test (or shows person
> y a video of his test)?
It can still be science to person Y if X explains the test well enough
to Y so that Y can perform it, herself. If Y _cannot_ perform the test,
then it is not science, to person Y or X. Science must be repeatable.
> I'm not sure what the point of this is any more.
Well, I'm not sure what you're point was. My point was to explore the
idea of science without language. My claim is that there can be science
without language because science is about _action_, actions executed by
human bodies.
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/23/2013 10:28 AM:
> Doesn't the need for self-control encourage that one acquire knowledge
> about how the world works? That knowledge is useful (and reassuring)
> even if it's never used. Are you (or Glen) deprecating knowledge that's
> never used?
I am claiming that knowledge that is never used, is not knowledge at
all. It's fantasy, imaginings, musings, whatever. It would be
interesting for you to make the case for the existence of knowledge that
is never used, by _never_, I mean never. It would be more interesting
if you could provide an example of it.
It would be easier and more interesting to make the case for knowledge
that is rarely used, or used by one person but not another, etc. In the
end, the conclusion would be usage = existence and nonusage = nonexistence.
> A fundamental confusion seems to me to involve distinguishing
> knowledge that one uses from knowledge that one doesn't (happen to)
> use. That seems like a very arbitrary distinction, and I don't
> understand the reason for wanting to make it. In both cases one is
> talking about stuff in one's mind. Whether an opportunity happens to
> arise in which to operate in the world on the basis of that
> information doesn't seem to me to have much bearing on how we think
> about that information in our minds. For example, I've never applied
> CPR to anyone (and hope I won't ever get the chance), but I'm glad I > have some understanding of how to do
it and how it works.
I posit that you use every bit of knowledge in your head at some point,
for some thing. I feel safe positing this because I don't believe in
the mind/body duality. Your mind is your brain. Your brain controls
your body and your body controls your brain. You may think that your
knowledge of CPR doesn't change your behavior in any way. But I can
claim that if you are _actually_ glad, then your body is already
different due to the knowledge. Hence, that knowledge is used, in some
way. Less trivially, when you learned CPR in the first place, your body
changed in some way. The very act of learning changed your body.
Hence, from the very start, that knowledge was used, by you, to change
your body.
The point being that usage is the important thing, not knowledge, used
or (hypothetically) unused. If you have knowledge and it has zero
impact on the world, then it is a no-op. It may as well not exist.
Perhaps it really doesn't exist ... like those people who "learn" to do
something by reading a book, but who can't actually do the thing they
think they can do.
--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I said children of the atom let's get together and die
============================================================
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