Western academics are mired in a culture of critique. It has severe limitations.
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:55 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://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/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/ > -- Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. Center for Emergent Diplomacy emergentdiplomacy.org Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA mobile: (303) 859-5609
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . 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/
