A problem I have with accepting Dave’s view is that it allows the person making a claim to not be subject to scrutiny, Because, well, they feel that way so it must be true. That there is some point at which precision impedes accuracy. It is a recipe for the proliferation of cult leaders.
> On May 17, 2022, at 7:55 AM, glen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Right. This is why the wet monkey theory (along with many other false but > useful for manipulation heuristics) fails to capture anything important about > "groupthink". We can re-orient Dave's no-largest-model objection toward any > just-so manipulative rhetoric. Of course the choice of language biases the > description written in it! Sheesh. And, yes, it's important to make that > clear to any novice entering whatever domain. Pluralism (or parallax) of > languages is one mitigation tactic. But another common one is basic > error-checking, the social process of saying out loud your construction and > listening as others criticize, deconstruct, or outright ridicule it. Spend > too much time stewing in your own juices and your constructs become private. > Spend too much time socializing with those who agree and your constructs > become groupthink. Nick likes to say he's grateful for anyone who reads his > writing. But the actual good faith action is to criticize it. Reading it is > like nodding politely with the occasional "ah", "yes", "uh-huh" while someone > tells you their boring story. Engagement is the real objective. Reading is a > mere means to that end. And disagreement is demonstrative engagement. > > But [dis]agreement isn't well-covered by "contrarian", "oppositional", or > "adversarial". Dualism is just one form of foundationalism. Monism < dualism > < trialism < quadrialism < ?. 4 forces? 17 objects? 3 types of object? Who > cares? Those particular numbers are schematic in the larger discipline of > disagreement. The foundation is important. But getting hung up on the > particular number/value misses the forest for the trees. Arguing over the > number of things in the foundation is akin to arguing about the meanings of > words. In the spirit of "not even wrong", it's not even sophistry. > >> On 5/16/22 14:41, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> Glen writes: >> < Of course, we *could* be working our way into a fictitious corner. (E.g. >> the just-so story of the wet monkey thing >> <https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/08/wet-monkey-theory/>, >> where all the kids who believe in the ability of formalism(s) to capture >> the world are simply thinking inside the box.) But what's the likelihood of >> that? I claim vanishingly small. > >> Using the Standard Model, applied physicists and engineers build careers and >> do useful work. Are they thinking in a box? Perhaps. But there are also >> physicists who are obsessed with poking holes in it and generalizing it. > > -- > Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
