[FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought

[Frank Wimberly]

Has anybody mentioned that there are lot of unmarried men that you usually
wouldn't call bachelors?  There are widowers, priests, and nineteen
year-olds, for example.  I learned the word because my father's brother was
a thirty-five year old Major in the Air Force with no wife. He eventually
got married and had children. Late bloomer?

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 22, 2017 11:34 PM, "gepr ⛧" <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> But the difference isn't merely rhetorical. If we take the setup
> seriously, that the unmarried patient really doesn't know the other names
> by which his condition is known, then there are all sorts of different side
> effects that might obtain. E.g. if the doctor tells him he's a bachelor, he
> might google that and discover bachelor parties. But if the doctor tells
> him he is "single", he might discover single's night at the local pub.
>
> My point was not only the evocation of various ideas, but also the side
> effects of various (computational) paths.
>
>
> On June 22, 2017 7:00:55 PM PDT, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.
> com> wrote:
> >Glen said: "So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has information in
> >it,
> >even if the only information is (as in your example), the guy learns
> >that
> >because the condition has another name, perhaps there are other ways of
> >thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use."
> >
> >This reminds me that, in another context, Nick complained to me quite a
> >bit
> >about Peirce's asserting that that any concept was simply a collection
> >of
> >conceived "practical" consequences. He felt that the term "practical"
> >was
> >unnecessary, and lead to confusions. I think this is a good example of
> >why
> >Peirce used that term, and felt it necessary.
> >
> >Perice would point out that the practical consequences of being
> >"unmarried"
> >are identical to the practical consequences of being "a bachelor."
> >Thus,
> >though the spellings be different, there is only one idea at play there
> >(in
> >Peirce-land... if we are thinking clearly). This is the tautology that
> >Nick
> >is pointing at, and he isn't wrong.
> >
> >And yet, Glen is still clearly correct that using one term or the other
> >may
> >more readily invoke certain ideas in a listener. Those aren't practical
> >differences in Peirce's sense- they are not differences in practice
> >that
> >would achieve if one tested the unique implications of one label or the
> >other (as there are no contrasting unique implications). The value of
> >having the multiple terms is rhetorical, not logical.
> >
> >What to do with such differences..............
>
> --
> ⛧glen⛧
>
> ============================================================
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170623/8a54b2f9/attachment.html>