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" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Frank > Wimberly > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:45 PM > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] 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 > > > > [email protected] [email protected] > > Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Nick > Thompson > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2017 7:15 PM > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought > > > > 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----- > From: Friam [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > On Behalf Of glen ? > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 3:42 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought > > > > > > 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 >
============================================================ 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
