Glen, I missed this question the first time.
Mostly, we didn't discuss the "knowing" relation at all. There was (to me, anyway) a very interesting conversation about the importance of "stories" in scientific thought. It started when I got quite testy about the over-use of "story" or "narrative" to refer to "models" or "pictures of the world". Now I absolutely agree that "stories" can be models, but I don't think that all models are complete stories. A story has a beginning, a middle and an end, a tension that is set up, developed, and released. (In that regard, a story is a little like hunger, or fear, or sex.) Aesop's fables are examples of stories that are models. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference: It's hard to separate Archimedes insight that his own body in the bathtub could be a model for the king's crown in a bucket of water (charity of classicists requested here) from the story, "Is this crown real or fake gold? If I dunk the crown in a bucket of water and measure the displaced water, I will discover the answer and find favor with the king." They are deeply entangled. And all experimental write-ups are, if well written, highly constrained stories. But by itself, "A crown in a bucket is the same thing as me in a bathtub" is just a model, with a story yet to be told about it. The basic scientific story is to me a story about the resolution of doubt: "I learned some stuff that didn't square with what I knew, I did some stuff, and now that doubt is resolved." I think the scientific story is different from the religious story which I take to be, "I learned some stuff that didn't square with what I knew, I went to a guru, the guru set me straight, and now my doubt is resolved." (I hate it when people tell me stories of having gone to pray at the Temple of Feynman and returned with Wisdom.) Now the Congregation was INSTANTLY critical of this distinction, pointing out that the Guru might say, "I had the same doubt yesterday, and so I did some stuff, and my doubt was resolved: let me show you how to do it." Also, somebody pointed out that doubt in all matters is just impossible and science cannot be done without a reverential attitude with respect to SOME authorities. I take the point, but I don't like it. It pisses me off. I also argued that there was a version of the scientific story that particularly captivated all of us around the table. The Emperor's New Clothes. I can imagine a FRIAM seal, with an image of the little boy, pointing at a naked king, before a crowd aghast. Others will dispute that any of this happened. Wish you had been there to validate my perception. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 3:38 PM To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow What was the result of this morning's conversation? On 4/25/19 10:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > What does a Turing Machine know? -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
