[FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought

[Vladimyr]

Glen said a lot,

 

That sort of pestered my thoughts. I thought some rebuttal was call for at the time

he crossed into my personal fiefdom. But I was preoccupied and let it slip.

 

>From my peculiar POV the circular component so often discussed seems to suit certain minds

as a useful Swiss Army Knife. Or demonstrates the inability to achieve anything more complex.

 

I use surfaces very often, many containing some intricate circular components often quite many in 3D and higher order.

The results bear little resemblance to donuts or bagels but nevertheless the trig functions and circles were employed

for ease and simplicity. Now each circular bit  exists in a plane embedded into some higher dimension and should be addressable to that dimension 

making it simple to track as in the case of a torus , helix or even a Hopf Fibration S3/ Admittedly I do not talk to others when I putz about

and can work for years without using a proper term for some creation, thingy. So I use metaphors since that is the most troublesome part when 

speaking to a child or wife. Who then argue that they still do not comprehend my shoddy description. So then I might make up some performance description.

you know like the thing that keeps high voltage lines from grounding out on transmission lines. That may solve the need for a name when insulator is unavailable.

 

These metaphors are useful when we don’t take time for  proper nomenclature from a glossary.

If I use a metaphor improperly, then I try another and if that fails maybe a large axe will convince the customer to pay for

custom work. Generally I need only point at the axe since most know what that symbolic gesture implies.

I have only once gone to court to persuade a reluctant recreational boater to  pay up for a radar tower.

 

The circle seems a favorite symbol around the group , but any good circle requires a perfectly fixed perimeter and should be viewed from points normal

to the centre or it loses its appeal. Circuitous thinking serves to reinforce a fixed path. Tautologies appear related but give only a false impression that anything was

accomplished. I use closed Loops to prove continuity at various points on the way to a solution, When I used to run transect lines to make detailed maps I did not fixate on a point 

but multiple points to avoid curvature.

 

So this discussion may bend a few noses out of joint but seems destined to settle down when you examine how recklessly

we mangle words when we feel compelled

to shine as bright lights.

 

Complexity is in No hurry to yield to   mere mortals. 

 

In regards to beating a dead horse eventually the stench will drive us elsewhere.

So lets wrap this up before anyone utters “… moving forward…”

>From the old days,”…put a stake through its heart before we leave or it will rise again…”

Nail this devil to something firm.

vladimyr

 

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: June-22-17 9:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought

 

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..............

 

 

 









-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician

U.S. Marine Corps

 

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:16 PM, glen ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:


Given your extraordinary spam handling methods, I thought I'd notify you here, Nick, that I sent the rest of my notes on the rest of your introduction off-list.  For what it's worth, I think you've got a GREAT gist if you could find a way to free yourself from the obsession with circularity ... and stop using the word "levels" ... and stop using the word "metaphor". 8^)  But I dare to say that other than those few cosmetic issues, I agree with your gist.

On 06/18/2017 09:46 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> If anybody had comments to share, we, of course, would be deeply grateful.



--
☣ 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/20170623/80065c64/attachment.html>