Re: J. Carter — collective virtue epistemology

Posted by gepr on Aug 13, 2020; 9:33am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/J-Carter-collective-virtue-epistemology-tp7598280p7598282.html

Excellent! This is the kind of skepticism I was incapable of formulating by myself. Thanks! I hope to revisit the paper now.

On August 12, 2020 12:55:02 PM PDT, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

>I promised to read and comment, so here goes.
>
>I really dislike (detest) this kind of analytic epistemology (analytic
>philosophy in general) as it contributes nothing to my understanding of
>how things are — how people think, why people have certain beliefs, how
>people judge something to be "true."
>
>Given Glen's commitment to Vico-ism, I am surprised he finds the
>article compelling in some way.
>
>Some questions:
>
>1- Does Carter know anything? I.e. is there an example of a bit of
>knowledge that came to be in his possession via the K-AB framework? He
>certainly does not provide one, even as an illustrative example.
>
>2- Assuming that the K=AB framework is useful. How many 'trials' are
>required to constitute "aptness?" For a belief to transform to
>knowledge must it be the case that all trials were apt, most of the
>trials, a super majority of the trials?
>
>3- Can the K=AB framework yield an integrated body of knowledge, or
>merely the occasional isolated knowledge factoid?
>
>4- Does a belief and or a bit of knowledge need to be expressed in
>words? If so, exactly how does the K=AB framework resolve the inherent
>ambiguity of language?
>
>4b- For example: I believe I encountered and am having a discussion
>with a One-eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater. I apply the
>framework aptly and I now I know I am talking with one. What I do not
>know, however apt my belief, is whether or not the creature is purple
>or the people it eats are purple. At minimum the framework yields
>incomplete and ambiguous knowledge. ("I like short shorts.")
>
>5- Glen 'knows' Trump is an evil idiot. Can Glen lead me along the
>apt-path that resulted in that knowledge? Could Carter?
>
>6- Re: collective knowledge. Is a collective a 'Thing'? Can that Thing
>embody/contain/possess knowledge? (or belief?)
>
>7. Clearly, groups appear to share collective knowledge and belief - at
>least at a statistical level. It is even possible to observe what
>appears to be collective knowledge that does not exist, per se, in any
>of the members of the group — the Delphi technique would be one
>example. (Emergent knowledge from a complex system?)
>
>As a cognitive anthropologist, I am constantly challenged by the
>problem of explaining how culture — apparently shared collective
>knowledge, behavior, and ability — comes into existence, maintains
>itself, evolves, and adapts to changing contexts, including encounters
>with other cultures.
>
>Formalisms, like those espoused by Carter, are so far removed from
>concrete reality they offer little in the way of guidance or
>assistance. And advocates of those formalisms seldom have any interest
>in applied work any more than advocates of "pure" mathematics tend to
>denigrate applied math.

--
glen

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/