convergence to the one true mutual understanding!
time to (re)diverge into pluralism
...to be continued
ad infinitum <grin>
On 1/31/25 5:33 PM, glen wrote:
Yes, the EC is schematic. The markings on the edge are tightly
coupled. But the contents of the panel vary widely. And yes if you
change the miter saw example to "cut to complementary angles"
regardless of whether "90°" = 90°, then that would be a scheme as
well. The complementarity is tight. The actual angle(s) are allowed to
vary.
Complicatedness is contrasted with parsimonious. Both can be monist in
the sense that they can be the One True Model. Biologists come in this
package. They can realize that biology is super complicated, but still
believe there's a One True (very complicated) way of understanding
biology.
By contrast things like the cosmic underdetermination theorem suggest
that there's no way to well-model or get One True perspective of the
universe. Pluralism is required. The contrast isn't monism vs.
dualism. It's monism vs. pluralism. Dualism has much the same problem
monism has except rather than being prejudiced to 1 thing (method,
model, understanding, etc.), you're prejudiced to 2 things.
And finally, yes, I think you're at least a methodological pluralist
already.
On 1/31/25 2:33 PM, steve smith wrote:
On 1/31/25 1:20 PM, glen wrote:
So even though you understand my basic point of [ab]use and the
tolerance of error or tolerance of ambiguity, I'm not hearing any
recognition of schematic systems in your responses. It's fine, of
course. It would be reasonable to take the absence of my language in
your responses as an implicit rejection of the game I'm trying to
define. In fact, I kinda hope that's the case because I enjoy that
kind of subtle game play. But just in case it's not ...
The in general, observation bias, and in specific, schematic bias,
I'm pointing to cf. multiverse analysis (pluralism) versus either
parsimony or complicatedness (monism) won't be understood without
understanding what it means to be schematic in one's "calibration".
In perhaps obsolete terminology, it amounts to requirements analysis
with predicates like "must have" versus "nice to have" versus "don't
care", etc.
The easy answer is that I'm probably just entirely over my head in
this conversation.
I was focused (perhaps) mostly on your original opening line about
parsimony being a red herring. If I doubled down on the miter saw
calibrationexample, it was because I thought you were willfully
misunderstanding or ignoring the specifics of the example. If I can
recast it into "the schematic" (scare quotes to acknowledge I may be
misunderstanding the concept in some fundamental way) then the issue
might be to reframe the problem from "cutting at a specific angle" to
"cutting two pieces at complementary angles which sum to the
orthogonal to support a specific type of joinery within a specific
range of constructions where orthogonality has specific value"?
Attempting to understand you more better, I will focus here on what
you call the "schematic". If I understand you correctly, my EC
registration example *was* schematic? I'm lost when you equate
(relate?) "complicatedness" to monism? In this case monism as a
single unified theory with plurality being it's complement or
opposite. I am used to this list arguing monism vs dualism (without
my own dog in the fight) so probably didn't appreciate the nuance
there. In fact I think my lack of a dog in the monist/dualist fight
is that (I think) I'm pretty pluralist at my core. But maybe my
words or behaviour say otherwise.
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ...
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/
