the role of metaphor in scientific thought
Locked
the role of metaphor in scientific thought
 
|
Dear Friammers, I understand that some members of the Mother Church are getting together soon for a discussion on the role of Metaphor in Scientific Thought. Hard for me to imagine a meeting that I would regret missing more than this one. I hope that some of you will post some of your deliberations under this thread so that those of us in the Friam diaspora can have some of the value of them. FWLIW, The attached PDF is from a book manuscript, pieces of which have been kicking around for more than 40 years, which Eric Charles has been trying unsuccessfully to get me to pull together into something publishable. If any of you is curious, the text will help you to understand the things I said in the recent complexity discussion and their relation to the “levels” discussion and the metaphor discussion that follows. The specific discussion on metaphor is late in the pdf, so that if that is what interests you, you can safely skip to the first section on models. For me, a model is just a scientific metaphor. Full stop. If anybody had comments to share, we, of course, would be deeply grateful. There are more chapters. Nick ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Introduction-nst-17-06-18b.pdf (755K)
Re: the role of metaphor in scientific thought
|
|
Nick, I will try to take notes and post them. I have sent you three emails (one was a resend of the first and the second was a note to check your spam filter for the other two). Re your group selection metaphor paper.
davew
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017, at 10:46 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Y'all say: In http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170619/f46244d3/attachment-0001.pdf: > > > If our analysis is correct, then the distinction between explanation and description takes > on an entirely new importance in science. > ... > The young man thinks, "This is not a unique problem, I am just a bachelor," and goes about his > business with a happier heart. > However, such relief is the philosophical equivalent of a placebo, and it may be short- > lived. Knowing that he is a bachelor tells the young man nothing about his predicament that he > did not already know. He knew that he was unmarried, and that is all that it means to say one is a > bachelor. Moreover, he has learned nothing that might help him find a solution to the problem. > > But, it seems to me that "This is not a unique problem" is THE fundamental scientific point. It may be the only thing about science that anyone should care about. You even lectured me way back to be careful about conflating idiographic vs. NOM-othetic information (emphasis is purposeful). Circularity (of description or explanation) is irrelevant. What matters is the reproducibility of experiments. It doesn't matter what you think happens between the laser and the film. What matters is that it does the same thing every time you run the experiment and which changes to the experiment cause which changes to the outcome. You may notice this is the same sort of criticism I applied to your paper about filter explanations. Even _if_ a particular bit of reasoning is circular, as long as it's not trivially circular ("flat", "thin", or "shallow"), there is information to be gained from examining that _circle_, that loop. So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has information in it, even if the only information is (as in your example), the guy learns that because the condition has another name, perhaps there are other ways of thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use. Now, if instead of the vagaries of psychology and natural language, you were talking in math or logic, even thick loops are more easily reduced to their thin ("normalized", "canonical") form. So, we can conclude, the more formal the language used to express the circle, the more obvious the circle. But you're not talking in or about math or logic. You're talking about psychology, human thought, etc. in this paper. And therefore my response to you is: Are YOU relying too heavily on the (silly) metaphor of computer to brain? Software to thought? >8^D I'm only on page 7. So, maybe you eventually address this point. Sorry if that's the case. On 06/18/2017 09:46 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > FWLIW, The attached PDF is from a book manuscript, pieces of which have been kicking around for more than 40 years, which Eric Charles has been trying unsuccessfully to get me to pull together into something publishable. If any of you is curious, the text will help you to understand the things I said in the recent complexity discussion and their relation to the “levels” discussion and the metaphor discussion that follows. The specific discussion on metaphor is late in the pdf, so that if that is what interests you, you can safely skip to the first section on models. For me, a model is just a scientific metaphor. Full stop. > > > > If anybody had comments to share, we, of course, would be deeply grateful. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Just in case it needs to be stated, explicitly, I'm also interested in your deliberations. At a minimum, it would be very cool to see a reading list, things your collective feel are important to being able to hold a conversation in the domain. On 06/18/2017 09:46 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I understand that some members of the Mother Church are getting together > soon for a discussion on the role of Metaphor in Scientific Thought. Hard > for me to imagine a meeting that I would regret missing more than this one. > I hope that some of you will post some of your deliberations under this > thread so that those of us in the Friam diaspora can have some of the value > of them. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the role of metaphor in scientific thought
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Thanks, Glen, Kind of you to respond. I will do a bit of larding below. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- Y'all say: In http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170619/f46244d3/attachment-0001.pdf: > > > If our analysis is correct, then the distinction between explanation > and description takes on an entirely new importance in science. > ... > The young man thinks, "This is not a unique problem, I am just a > bachelor," and goes about his business with a happier heart. > However, such relief is the philosophical equivalent of a placebo, and > it may be short- lived. Knowing that he is a bachelor tells the young > man nothing about his predicament that he did not already know. He > knew that he was unmarried, and that is all that it means to say one is a bachelor. Moreover, he has learned nothing that might help him find a solution to the problem. > > But, it seems to me that "This is not a unique problem" is THE fundamental scientific point. It may be the only thing about science that anyone should care about. You even lectured me way back to be careful about conflating idiographic vs. NOM-othetic information (emphasis is purposeful). Circularity (of description or explanation) is irrelevant. What matters is the reproducibility of experiments. It doesn't matter what you think happens between the laser and the film. What matters is that it does the same thing every time you run the experiment and which changes to the experiment cause which changes to the outcome. [NST==>Wow, Glen. You are the only person I ever met who successfully squeezed positive heuristic out of the bachelor case. Well done!<==nst] You may notice this is the same sort of criticism I applied to your paper about filter explanations. Even _if_ a particular bit of reasoning is circular, as long as it's not trivially circular ("flat", "thin", or "shallow"), there is information to be gained from examining that _circle_, that loop. So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has information in it, even if the only information is (as in your example), the guy learns that because the condition has another name, perhaps there are other ways of thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use. [NST==>I assume you would agree that “unmarried because unmarried” is perniciously circular. Right? Just checking. <==nst] Now, if instead of the vagaries of psychology and natural language, you were talking in math or logic, even thick loops are more easily reduced to their thin ("normalized", "canonical") form. So, we can conclude, the more formal the language used to express the circle, the more obvious the circle. But you're not talking in or about math or logic. You're talking about psychology, human thought, etc. in this paper. And therefore my response to you is: [NST==>I suppose that one could argue that any time one writes a sentence of the form, A is a B, one has launched into metaphor. <==nst] Are YOU relying too heavily on the (silly) metaphor of computer to brain? Software to thought? [NST==>I hope not. I HATE that metaphor. <==nst] >8^D I'm only on page 7. So, maybe you eventually address this point. [NST==>You are one of the few people on the planet to reach page 7. How could I cavil!<==nst] Sorry if that's the case. [NST==>I will be interested to see if the next few pages help in any way. Thanks again, glen<==nst] On 06/18/2017 09:46 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > FWLIW, The attached PDF is from a book manuscript, pieces of which have been kicking around for more than 40 years, which Eric Charles has been trying unsuccessfully to get me to pull together into something publishable. If any of you is curious, the text will help you to understand the things I said in the recent complexity discussion and their relation to the “levels” discussion and the metaphor discussion that follows. The specific discussion on metaphor is late in the pdf, so that if that is what interests you, you can safely skip to the first section on models. For me, a model is just a scientific metaphor. Full stop. > > > > If anybody had comments to share, we, of course, would be deeply grateful. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: the role of metaphor in scientific thought
|
|
Nick, [NST==>I suppose that one could argue that any time one writes a sentence of the form, A is a B, one has launched into metaphor. <==nst] What about, “every planet in the Solar System that is closer to the Sun than Jupiter is a minor planet.” Why didn’t you challenge Glen’s use of the phrase “human mind”? Haven’t you ever felt, “Wow, if there’s a word for what I am it must not be too bad”? Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson Thanks, Glen, Kind of you to respond. I will do a bit of larding below. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- Y'all say: In http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170619/f46244d3/attachment-0001.pdf: > > > If our analysis is correct, then the distinction between explanation > and description takes on an entirely new importance in science. > ... > The young man thinks, "This is not a unique problem, I am just a > bachelor," and goes about his business with a happier heart. > However, such relief is the philosophical equivalent of a placebo, and > it may be short- lived. Knowing that he is a bachelor tells the young > man nothing about his predicament that he did not already know. He > knew that he was unmarried, and that is all that it means to say one is a bachelor. Moreover, he has learned nothing that might help him find a solution to the problem. > > But, it seems to me that "This is not a unique problem" is THE fundamental scientific point. It may be the only thing about science that anyone should care about. You even lectured me way back to be careful about conflating idiographic vs. NOM-othetic information (emphasis is purposeful). Circularity (of description or explanation) is irrelevant. What matters is the reproducibility of experiments. It doesn't matter what you think happens between the laser and the film. What matters is that it does the same thing every time you run the experiment and which changes to the experiment cause which changes to the outcome. [NST==>Wow, Glen. You are the only person I ever met who successfully squeezed positive heuristic out of the bachelor case. Well done!<==nst] You may notice this is the same sort of criticism I applied to your paper about filter explanations. Even _if_ a particular bit of reasoning is circular, as long as it's not trivially circular ("flat", "thin", or "shallow"), there is information to be gained from examining that _circle_, that loop. So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has information in it, even if the only information is (as in your example), the guy learns that because the condition has another name, perhaps there are other ways of thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use. [NST==>I assume you would agree that “unmarried because unmarried” is perniciously circular. Right? Just checking. <==nst] Now, if instead of the vagaries of psychology and natural language, you were talking in math or logic, even thick loops are more easily reduced to their thin ("normalized", "canonical") form. So, we can conclude, the more formal the language used to express the circle, the more obvious the circle. But you're not talking in or about math or logic. You're talking about psychology, human thought, etc. in this paper. And therefore my response to you is: [NST==>I suppose that one could argue that any time one writes a sentence of the form, A is a B, one has launched into metaphor. <==nst] Are YOU relying too heavily on the (silly) metaphor of computer to brain? Software to thought? [NST==>I hope not. I HATE that metaphor. <==nst] >8^D I'm only on page 7. So, maybe you eventually address this point. [NST==>You are one of the few people on the planet to reach page 7. How could I cavil!<==nst] Sorry if that's the case. [NST==>I will be interested to see if the next few pages help in any way. Thanks again, glen<==nst] On 06/18/2017 09:46 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > FWLIW, The attached PDF is from a book manuscript, pieces of which have been kicking around for more than 40 years, which Eric Charles has been trying unsuccessfully to get me to pull together into something publishable. If any of you is curious, the text will help you to understand the things I said in the recent complexity discussion and their relation to the “levels” discussion and the metaphor discussion that follows. The specific discussion on metaphor is late in the pdf, so that if that is what interests you, you can safely skip to the first section on models. For me, a model is just a scientific metaphor. Full stop. > > > > If anybody had comments to share, we, of course, would be deeply grateful. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: the role of metaphor in scientific thought
|
|
Frank, I think Glen would reply that minor has all sorts of association that provide some predictability. I can’t fight every battle in every email Yes. And immediately I have felt really stupid for feeling that. How on earth could another’s pain meliorate mine! What was Monday like? N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Nick, [NST==>I suppose that one could argue that any time one writes a sentence of the form, A is a B, one has launched into metaphor. <==nst] What about, “every planet in the Solar System that is closer to the Sun than Jupiter is a minor planet.” Why didn’t you challenge Glen’s use of the phrase “human mind”? Haven’t you ever felt, “Wow, if there’s a word for what I am it must not be too bad”? Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson Thanks, Glen, Kind of you to respond. I will do a bit of larding below. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- Y'all say: In http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170619/f46244d3/attachment-0001.pdf: > > > If our analysis is correct, then the distinction between explanation > and description takes on an entirely new importance in science. > ... > The young man thinks, "This is not a unique problem, I am just a > bachelor," and goes about his business with a happier heart. > However, such relief is the philosophical equivalent of a placebo, and > it may be short- lived. Knowing that he is a bachelor tells the young > man nothing about his predicament that he did not already know. He > knew that he was unmarried, and that is all that it means to say one is a bachelor. Moreover, he has learned nothing that might help him find a solution to the problem. > > But, it seems to me that "This is not a unique problem" is THE fundamental scientific point. It may be the only thing about science that anyone should care about. You even lectured me way back to be careful about conflating idiographic vs. NOM-othetic information (emphasis is purposeful). Circularity (of description or explanation) is irrelevant. What matters is the reproducibility of experiments. It doesn't matter what you think happens between the laser and the film. What matters is that it does the same thing every time you run the experiment and which changes to the experiment cause which changes to the outcome. [NST==>Wow, Glen. You are the only person I ever met who successfully squeezed positive heuristic out of the bachelor case. Well done!<==nst] You may notice this is the same sort of criticism I applied to your paper about filter explanations. Even _if_ a particular bit of reasoning is circular, as long as it's not trivially circular ("flat", "thin", or "shallow"), there is information to be gained from examining that _circle_, that loop. So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has information in it, even if the only information is (as in your example), the guy learns that because the condition has another name, perhaps there are other ways of thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use. [NST==>I assume you would agree that “unmarried because unmarried” is perniciously circular. Right? Just checking. <==nst] Now, if instead of the vagaries of psychology and natural language, you were talking in math or logic, even thick loops are more easily reduced to their thin ("normalized", "canonical") form. So, we can conclude, the more formal the language used to express the circle, the more obvious the circle. But you're not talking in or about math or logic. You're talking about psychology, human thought, etc. in this paper. And therefore my response to you is: [NST==>I suppose that one could argue that any time one writes a sentence of the form, A is a B, one has launched into metaphor. <==nst] Are YOU relying too heavily on the (silly) metaphor of computer to brain? Software to thought? [NST==>I hope not. I HATE that metaphor. <==nst] >8^D I'm only on page 7. So, maybe you eventually address this point. [NST==>You are one of the few people on the planet to reach page 7. How could I cavil!<==nst] Sorry if that's the case. [NST==>I will be interested to see if the next few pages help in any way. Thanks again, glen<==nst] On 06/18/2017 09:46 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > FWLIW, The attached PDF is from a book manuscript, pieces of which have been kicking around for more than 40 years, which Eric Charles has been trying unsuccessfully to get me to pull together into something publishable. If any of you is curious, the text will help you to understand the things I said in the recent complexity discussion and their relation to the “levels” discussion and the metaphor discussion that follows. The specific discussion on metaphor is late in the pdf, so that if that is what interests you, you can safely skip to the first section on models. For me, a model is just a scientific metaphor. Full stop. > > > > If anybody had comments to share, we, of course, would be deeply grateful. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: the role of metaphor in scientific thought
|
|
Part of the pain comes from feeling unique in one's defect. What happened Monday? Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jun 20, 2017 8:01 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: the role of metaphor in scientific thought
|
|
Frank, The Metaphor group. I thought you were going to go along? To you point about uniqueness. It’s odd. Misery does love company, I suppose. But, I mean, really? The only reason not to be bummed by not being unique, is if the banality of one’s pain suggests a solution. But that was ruled out by Glen’s example, wasn’t it? I dunno. I never quite know what Glen is on about. But I tended to read his response in terms of his cancer. He is saying, “I am comforted by knowing that I am not the only man with cancer.” If I were dying of cancer, would I be comforted to know that a million other people are dying of cancer? I am just not sure. nIck Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Part of the pain comes from feeling unique in one's defect. What happened Monday? Frank Frank Wimberly On Jun 20, 2017 8:01 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: the role of metaphor in scientific thought
|
|
No one notified me about a time/place. Maybe they knew I wouldn't yield on the ineffability of consciousness. Maybe knowing everyone dies strengthens the oceanic feeling. Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jun 20, 2017 9:17 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: the role of metaphor in scientific thought
|
|
p.s. Did you see the article on the possibility that the Universe is conscious? Pretty distinguished supporters. Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jun 20, 2017 9:21 PM, "Frank Wimberly" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
On June 20, 2017 6:14:49 PM PDT, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > >[NST==>I assume you would agree that “unmarried because unmarried” is >perniciously circular. Right? Just checking. <==nst] Vapid, yes. Shallow, yes. Perhaps even vicious. But it's a little too empty, too obviously tautological to be pernicious. >[NST==>I suppose that one could argue that any time one writes a >sentence of the form, A is a B, one has launched into metaphor. <==nst] I disagree, obviously. There are plenty of nonmetaphorical is-a relationships. E.g. a dog is a mammal. E is a letter in the alphabet. Etc. -- ⛧glen⛧ ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
On June 20, 2017 8:16:57 PM PDT, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > >I dunno. I never quite know what Glen is on about. But I tended to >read his response in terms of his cancer. He is saying, “I am >comforted by knowing that I am not the only man with cancer.” If I >were dying of cancer, would I be comforted to know that a million other >people are dying of cancer? Yes, you would. But regardless of your nasty remark, the point is that only through large N clinical trials is effective therapy developed. So, if you have a conscience, you volunteer your life and body to experimentation so that even as you die those that follow have a better chance to live. -- ⛧glen⛧ ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Given your extraordinary spam handling methods, I thought I'd notify you here, Nick, that I sent the rest of my notes on the rest of your introduction off-list. For what it's worth, I think you've got a GREAT gist if you could find a way to free yourself from the obsession with circularity ... and stop using the word "levels" ... and stop using the word "metaphor". 8^) But I dare to say that other than those few cosmetic issues, I agree with your gist. On 06/18/2017 09:46 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > If anybody had comments to share, we, of course, would be deeply grateful. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the role of metaphor in scientific thought
|
|
Glen said: "So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has information in it, even
if the only information is (as in your example), the guy learns that
because the condition has another name, perhaps there are other ways of
thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use." This reminds me that, in another context, Nick complained to me quite a bit about Peirce's asserting that that any concept was simply a collection of conceived "practical" consequences. He felt that the term "practical" was unnecessary, and lead to confusions. I think this is a good example of why Peirce used that term, and felt it necessary. Perice would point out that the practical consequences of being "unmarried" are identical to the practical consequences of being "a bachelor." Thus, though the spellings be different, there is only one idea at play there (in Peirce-land... if we are thinking clearly). This is the tautology that Nick is pointing at, and he isn't wrong. What to do with such differences.............. On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:16 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
But the difference isn't merely rhetorical. If we take the setup seriously, that the unmarried patient really doesn't know the other names by which his condition is known, then there are all sorts of different side effects that might obtain. E.g. if the doctor tells him he's a bachelor, he might google that and discover bachelor parties. But if the doctor tells him he is "single", he might discover single's night at the local pub.
My point was not only the evocation of various ideas, but also the side effects of various (computational) paths. On June 22, 2017 7:00:55 PM PDT, Eric Charles <[hidden email]> wrote: >Glen said: "So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has information in >it, >even if the only information is (as in your example), the guy learns >that >because the condition has another name, perhaps there are other ways of >thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use." > >This reminds me that, in another context, Nick complained to me quite a >bit >about Peirce's asserting that that any concept was simply a collection >of >conceived "practical" consequences. He felt that the term "practical" >was >unnecessary, and lead to confusions. I think this is a good example of >why >Peirce used that term, and felt it necessary. > >Perice would point out that the practical consequences of being >"unmarried" >are identical to the practical consequences of being "a bachelor." >Thus, >though the spellings be different, there is only one idea at play there >(in >Peirce-land... if we are thinking clearly). This is the tautology that >Nick >is pointing at, and he isn't wrong. > >And yet, Glen is still clearly correct that using one term or the other >may >more readily invoke certain ideas in a listener. Those aren't practical >differences in Peirce's sense- they are not differences in practice >that >would achieve if one tested the unique implications of one label or the >other (as there are no contrasting unique implications). The value of >having the multiple terms is rhetorical, not logical. > >What to do with such differences.............. -- ⛧glen⛧ ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the role of metaphor in scientific thought
|
|
Has anybody mentioned that there are lot of unmarried men that you usually wouldn't call bachelors? There are widowers, priests, and nineteen year-olds, for example. I learned the word because my father's brother was a thirty-five year old Major in the Air Force with no wife. He eventually got married and had children. Late bloomer? Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jun 22, 2017 11:34 PM, "gepr ⛧" <[hidden email]> wrote: But the difference isn't merely rhetorical. If we take the setup seriously, that the unmarried patient really doesn't know the other names by which his condition is known, then there are all sorts of different side effects that might obtain. E.g. if the doctor tells him he's a bachelor, he might google that and discover bachelor parties. But if the doctor tells him he is "single", he might discover single's night at the local pub. ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Ha! I struggled to come up with "single" as an alternative name and you had 4 waiting in the wings.
I'm going to skip ahead a bit and state that my entire line of rhetoric about circularity goes back to the complexity jargon discussion we were having and whether or not, as Nick put it, a system has a say in its own boundary. It's all about _closure_. This particular tangent targets closure from the functional programming perspective (or maybe from the procedural one, depending on how you look at it). When you execute a loop in a "systems" language like C, you have a good chance that whatever you do in there could have side effects. But when you do something like that in a purely functional language, you're very unlikely (never) going to leave side effects laying around. If the unmarried person in the just-so story were somehow "closed", then there would be no side effects left lying around as a result of walking _any_ path from the name "unmarried" to/from any other name like "widow". But people aren't ever "closed" in any vernacular sense (never mind Rosen's or Kauffman's parsing of agency for a while). That's why I asserted that the existence of _any_ other name (bachelor, single, widow, whatever) opens up an entirely new world of side effects (including what Peirce should call practical) to the unmarried patient. The fact that the condition even has _names_ opens it up to nomothetic generality. An entirely unique condition, showing up nowhere else in space or time will not have a name and is not generalizable, by definition. FWIW, in his introduction, Nick does distinguish 3 types of implication important to analogical reasoning: "basic", "surplus-intentional", and "surplus-unintentional". And the latter 2 types are, I think, directly related to computational side effects, where type 3 would be a bug, type 2 might be considered sloppy, and type 1 is the ideal. This is a fantastic way to talk about this sort of thing. But it would be easier to discuss if we either avoided discussion of circularity _or_ gave it the full analytic context it needs (starting from a relatively complete definition of closure). You may be asking: If Nick's talking about analogs and implications, how does that relate to a computational procedure? Well, simulation has several meanings, the 2 main ones being: mimicry vs. implementation. I'd say 90% of simulation is about implementation. E.g. an ODE solver numerically implements (simulates) an ideal/platonic mathematical declaration. So, when you write a program, the computer that executes it (only during the execution) is an analog to whatever other (physical or platonic) construct might also be described by such a mathematical declaration. Either of these two analogs can leave (surplus) side effects lying about as they reify their analogous (basic) behaviors. I hope that's not tl;dr. 8^) On 06/23/2017 06:52 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > Has anybody mentioned that there are lot of unmarried men that you usually > wouldn't call bachelors? There are widowers, priests, and nineteen > year-olds, for example. I learned the word because my father's brother was > a thirty-five year old Major in the Air Force with no wife. He eventually > got married and had children. Late bloomer? -- ␦glen? ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the role of metaphor in scientific thought
|
|
< I'm going to skip ahead a bit and state that my entire line of rhetoric about circularity goes back to the complexity jargon discussion we were having and whether or not, as Nick put it, a system has a say in its own boundary. It's all about _closure_. This particular tangent targets closure from the functional programming perspective (or maybe from the procedural one, depending on how you look at it). When you execute a loop in a "systems" language like C, you have a good chance that whatever you do in there could have side effects. But when you do something like that in a purely functional language, you're very unlikely (never) going to leave side effects laying around. >
Incidentally, in GNU C one can have dirty closures. Note how foo is assigned the value 2. It changes the operation of the closure f . While GNU C has function attributes for purity, they aren't enforced, they are only exploited for code generation. Fortran has purity for more than just compiler guidance; a conforming compiler can enforce it. And of course languages like Haskell tolerate none of this nonsense. In languages like C and Fortran they aren't real closures, the lexical scope is only good for duration of the caller (here, main). In functional languages, the context will remain entangled. Characteristically, C++ gives the user the option to blow their head off and decide whether a closure (lambda) will copy its arguments. $ ./a.out 11 22 32 42 52 foo: 2 #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> int *map (int len, const int *a, int (*f)(int c)) { int i; int *ret = malloc (sizeof(a)); for (i = 0; i < len; i++) { ret[i] = f(a[i]); } return ret; } int main() { const int len = 5; const int a[] = { 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 }; int foo = 1; int f(int c) { int val = c + foo; foo = 2; return val; } int *ret = map(len, a, f); int i; for (i = 0; i < len; i++) { printf(" %d", ret[i]); } printf("\n"); printf ("foo: %d\n", foo); return 0; } ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: the role of metaphor in scientific thought
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles-2
Glen said a lot, That sort of pestered my thoughts. I thought some rebuttal was call for at the time he crossed into my personal fiefdom. But I was preoccupied and let it slip. From my peculiar POV the circular component so often discussed seems to suit certain minds as a useful Swiss Army Knife. Or demonstrates the inability to achieve anything more complex. I use surfaces very often, many containing some intricate circular components often quite many in 3D and higher order. The results bear little resemblance to donuts or bagels but nevertheless the trig functions and circles were employed for ease and simplicity. Now each circular bit exists in a plane embedded into some higher dimension and should be addressable to that dimension making it simple to track as in the case of a torus , helix or even a Hopf Fibration S3/ Admittedly I do not talk to others when I putz about and can work for years without using a proper term for some creation, thingy. So I use metaphors since that is the most troublesome part when speaking to a child or wife. Who then argue that they still do not comprehend my shoddy description. So then I might make up some performance description. you know like the thing that keeps high voltage lines from grounding out on transmission lines. That may solve the need for a name when insulator is unavailable. These metaphors are useful when we don’t take time for proper nomenclature from a glossary. If I use a metaphor improperly, then I try another and if that fails maybe a large axe will convince the customer to pay for custom work. Generally I need only point at the axe since most know what that symbolic gesture implies. I have only once gone to court to persuade a reluctant recreational boater to pay up for a radar tower. The circle seems a favorite symbol around the group , but any good circle requires a perfectly fixed perimeter and should be viewed from points normal to the centre or it loses its appeal. Circuitous thinking serves to reinforce a fixed path. Tautologies appear related but give only a false impression that anything was accomplished. I use closed Loops to prove continuity at various points on the way to a solution, When I used to run transect lines to make detailed maps I did not fixate on a point but multiple points to avoid curvature. So this discussion may bend a few noses out of joint but seems destined to settle down when you examine how recklessly we mangle words when we feel compelled to shine as bright lights. Complexity is in No hurry to yield to mere mortals. In regards to beating a dead horse eventually the stench will drive us elsewhere. So lets wrap this up before anyone utters “… moving forward…” From the old days,”…put a stake through its heart before we leave or it will rise again…” Nail this devil to something firm. vladimyr From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Eric Charles Glen said: "So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has information in it, even if the only information is (as in your example), the guy learns that because the condition has another name, perhaps there are other ways of thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use." This reminds me that, in another context, Nick complained to me quite a bit about Peirce's asserting that that any concept was simply a collection of conceived "practical" consequences. He felt that the term "practical" was unnecessary, and lead to confusions. I think this is a good example of why Peirce used that term, and felt it necessary. And yet, Glen is still clearly correct that using one term or the other may more readily invoke certain ideas in a listener. Those aren't practical differences in Peirce's sense- they are not differences in practice that would achieve if one tested the unique implications of one label or the other (as there are no contrasting unique implications). The value of having the multiple terms is rhetorical, not logical. What to do with such differences..............
U.S. Marine Corps On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:16 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |