[FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought

[Stephen Guerin]

For catholics, a confirmed unmarried man might be different than a
confirmed bachelor .

_______________________________________________________________________
Stephen.Guerin at Simtable.com <stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
CEO, Simtable  http://www.simtable.com
1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505
office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828
twitter: @simtable

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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/bb4cfd49/attachment.html>