Good have the metaknowledge of vagueness and seek to reduce it. Like learning to avoid mistakes..
https://www.wired.com/story/the-education-of-brett-the-robot/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:09 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia Glen - in stark juxtaposition, we have Freeman Dyson saying: "it is better to be wrong than vague" I think I know what he meant and generally support not getting frozen in inaction or muddying/qualifying a statement to the point of losing meaning. On the other hand, I find this quote (or at least idea) as an excuse for rash over thoughtful action. - Steve On 9/21/17 11:58 AM, gⅼеɳ ☣ wrote: > A better Feynman quote that targets this issue is this one, I think from a > BBC interview: > > "When you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe. I can live with > doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting > to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have > approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty > about different things. I'm not absolutely sure of anything. And there are > many things Ι don't know anything about. But Ι don't have to know an answer. > I don't ... Ι don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in > the unverse without having any purpose, which is the way it really is as far > as Ι can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." > > He was talking in the context of religion, but I think it applies to every > type of "knowledge", including the "thought manipulation" that is philosophy. > The point is not that "thought manipulation" can never be useful. But that > one can _justifiably_ take the position that philosophy should (moral > imperative) be done in the _service_ of something else. > > You cited Smullyan in the OP, which is relevant. Many of Smullyan's > publications are puzzles, games. Some of us simply enjoy puzzles. (I don't.) > But every puzzle is a math problem. It's up to the puzzle solver to settle > on why they're solving puzzles. Are they doing it because it FEELS good? Or > are they doing it because either the solutions or the exercises facilitate > some other objective? Some puzzle solvers (e.g. video gamers) find > themselves in a defensive position, trying to justify their fetish against > the world around them. The silly rancor many "practical" people aim at > philosophers can make some of them defensive. And it's a real shame that we > shame philosophers for doing it just because they enjoy it. > > But it moves from merely shameful to outright dangerous when a philosopher > can't distinguish their own _why_. Someone who does it because it's fun > shouldn't waste any time yapping about how useful it is. And someone who > does it because it's useful shouldn't waste any time yapping about how fun it > is. Get over it. Be confident. Engage your fetish and ignore the > nay-sayers. > > On 09/21/2017 09:53 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: >> Glen - >> >> I share your use of the term "Science" as in being an activity (roughly) >> defined by "the Scientific Method" just as I use the term "Art" as the >> process rather than the product (aka "Artifact"). >> >> When I do anything vaguely (or presumptively) artistic, I think of my role >> as that of an "Artifex" more than an "Artist" because I feel more emphasis >> on the conception/making than on being tuned into or tied into a larger, >> higher group/power which is how I read "Art and Artist". I have a similar >> ambivalence about "Scientist/Science". Despite degrees in Math and >> Physics, my practice has rarely involved actual Science (or more math than >> just really fancy arithmetic), though I have worked with "real Scientists" >> and close to "Scientific Progress" for most of my life. I don't even think >> of my work as having been that of an Engineer, but truly much closer to >> simply that of a "Technologist". And as everyone who has read my missives >> here can attest, my throwdown as a "Philosopher" is equally detuned... but >> suspect myself to oscillate wildly between the poles of "Philosopher" and >> "Philistine". All that rattled off, I truly value having enough >> understanding of all of these >> ideals to recognize the differences qualitatively, and to have mildly >> informed opinions about the better and worser examples of each >> quantitatively. > ============================================================ 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
