[FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme

[gⅼеɳ]

Well, just because all rule sets are faulty doesn't mean some rule sets aren't better than others.  (Need I repeat it?  Surely not.  ... All models ... yadda yadda.)  And so your intuition is right, all rule sets are faulty, including the rule set of all rule sets.  The lesson isn't to throw away rule sets or adopt the One Rule Set to Rule Them All and fuzzify it.  The lesson is that something other than rules is needed to complement rule sets.  And we already have that in our US justice system.

The rule of law is fantastic, but it has to be tempered with context-satisficing things like democracy and trial by jury, institutionalized, bureaucratic methodology for periodically falsifying the rules against the highly contingent reality.

Your "like to imagine that we can transcend all rules" is just more rule-following.  There is no Ultimate Reality.  There is no destination.  There is only journey.  But some journeys are more clearly self-defeating than others.

On 08/16/2017 12:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I am inclined to agree with you, but am left somewhat empty-handed with:
> 
>    "because ALL rule sets are faulty!  Damnit."
> 
> my instincts are with you on this, yet in some kind of Godelian (not Gordian) knot I find myself:
> 
>    A) questioning the "rule" you just stated.
> 
>         and
> 
>    B) finding myself conjuring (fuzzy?) rules to replace the crisp ones
>    I resent/resist!
> 
> Are Heuristics or Patterns also rules?   Can we suppress any desire/need to have formal rules and not just discover (or never notice) that we have an implicit rule set embedded in our intuition from our genetic and cultural origins, informed at best by personal experiences?
> 
> I'd like to imagine that we *can* transcend all rules (explicit/implicit, crisp/fuzzy, etc.) but am not quite sure what that would mean or why?

-- 
gⅼеɳ