[FRIAM] quotes and questions

[Merle Lefkoff]

Western academics are mired in a culture of critique. It has severe
limitations.

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:55 AM glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> Right. This is why the wet monkey theory (along with many other false but
> useful for manipulation heuristics) fails to capture anything important
> about "groupthink". We can re-orient Dave's no-largest-model objection
> toward any just-so manipulative rhetoric. Of course the choice of language
> biases the description written in it! Sheesh. And, yes, it's important to
> make that clear to any novice entering whatever domain. Pluralism (or
> parallax) of languages is one mitigation tactic. But another common one is
> basic error-checking, the social process of saying out loud your
> construction and listening as others criticize, deconstruct, or outright
> ridicule it. Spend too much time stewing in your own juices and your
> constructs become private. Spend too much time socializing with those who
> agree and your constructs become groupthink. Nick likes to say he's
> grateful for anyone who reads his writing. But the actual good faith action
> is to criticize it. Reading it is like nodding politely with the occasional
> "ah", "yes", "uh-huh" while someone tells you their boring story.
> Engagement is the real objective. Reading is a mere means to that end. And
> disagreement is demonstrative engagement.
>
> But [dis]agreement isn't well-covered by "contrarian", "oppositional", or
> "adversarial". Dualism is just one form of foundationalism. Monism <
> dualism < trialism < quadrialism < ?. 4 forces? 17 objects? 3 types of
> object? Who cares? Those particular numbers are schematic in the larger
> discipline of disagreement. The foundation is important. But getting hung
> up on the particular number/value misses the forest for the trees. Arguing
> over the number of things in the foundation is akin to arguing about the
> meanings of words. In the spirit of "not even wrong", it's not even
> sophistry.
>
> On 5/16/22 14:41, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > Glen writes:
> >
> > < Of course, we *could* be working our way into a fictitious corner.
> (E.g. the just-so story of the wet monkey thing <
> https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/08/wet-monkey-theory/>,
> where all the kids who believe in the ability of formalism(s) to capture
> the world are simply thinking inside the box.) But what's the likelihood of
> that? I claim vanishingly small. >
> >
> > Using the Standard Model, applied physicists and engineers build careers
> and do useful work.   Are they thinking in a box?   Perhaps.  But there are
> also physicists who are obsessed with poking holes in it and generalizing
> it.
>
> --
> Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/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/
>


-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  (303) 859-5609
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220517/b17044fd/attachment.html>