<div dir="auto">Brief responses, Dave.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">When I first heard that song in 195? I wondered whether the eater or the people were purple. Maybe everyone did.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I like your fair-minded rhetoric. For example, "offers little" rather than "offers nothing".</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I prefer pure math but I don't disdain applied math. My dissertation was about finite element methods, a numerical analysis approach used in structural analysis, fluid mechanics, etc.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Is logical positivism a subfield of analytic philosophy? I used to know.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As an anthroplogist you might appreciate this book about ethnic identity in New Mexico:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Nación Genízara: Ethnogenesis, Place, and Identity in New Mexico (Querencias Series) </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0826361072/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_i_MpdnFbBG2K8TF" style="text-decoration-line:none;color:rgb(66,133,244);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">https://www.amazon.com/dp/0826361072/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_i_MpdnFbBG2K8TF</a></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Frank<br style=""><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">---<br>Frank C. Wimberly<br>140 Calle Ojo Feliz, <br>Santa Fe, NM 87505<br><br>505 670-9918<br>Santa Fe, NM</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:34 AM glen <<a href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com">gepropella@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Excellent! This is the kind of skepticism I was incapable of formulating by myself. Thanks! I hope to revisit the paper now.<br>
<br>
On August 12, 2020 12:55:02 PM PDT, Prof David West <<a href="mailto:profwest@fastmail.fm" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">profwest@fastmail.fm</a>> wrote:<br>
>I promised to read and comment, so here goes.<br>
><br>
>I really dislike (detest) this kind of analytic epistemology (analytic<br>
>philosophy in general) as it contributes nothing to my understanding of<br>
>how things are \u2014 how people think, why people have certain beliefs, how<br>
>people judge something to be "true."<br>
><br>
>Given Glen's commitment to Vico-ism, I am surprised he finds the<br>
>article compelling in some way.<br>
><br>
>Some questions:<br>
><br>
>1- Does Carter know anything? I.e. is there an example of a bit of<br>
>knowledge that came to be in his possession via the K-AB framework? He<br>
>certainly does not provide one, even as an illustrative example. <br>
><br>
>2- Assuming that the K=AB framework is useful. How many 'trials' are<br>
>required to constitute "aptness?" For a belief to transform to<br>
>knowledge must it be the case that all trials were apt, most of the<br>
>trials, a super majority of the trials?<br>
><br>
>3- Can the K=AB framework yield an integrated body of knowledge, or<br>
>merely the occasional isolated knowledge factoid?<br>
><br>
>4- Does a belief and or a bit of knowledge need to be expressed in<br>
>words? If so, exactly how does the K=AB framework resolve the inherent<br>
>ambiguity of language?<br>
><br>
>4b- For example: I believe I encountered and am having a discussion<br>
>with a One-eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater. I apply the<br>
>framework aptly and I now I know I am talking with one. What I do not<br>
>know, however apt my belief, is whether or not the creature is purple<br>
>or the people it eats are purple. At minimum the framework yields<br>
>incomplete and ambiguous knowledge. ("I like short shorts.")<br>
><br>
>5- Glen 'knows' Trump is an evil idiot. Can Glen lead me along the<br>
>apt-path that resulted in that knowledge? Could Carter?<br>
><br>
>6- Re: collective knowledge. Is a collective a 'Thing'? Can that Thing<br>
>embody/contain/possess knowledge? (or belief?)<br>
><br>
>7. Clearly, groups appear to share collective knowledge and belief - at<br>
>least at a statistical level. It is even possible to observe what<br>
>appears to be collective knowledge that does not exist, per se, in any<br>
>of the members of the group \u2014 the Delphi technique would be one<br>
>example. (Emergent knowledge from a complex system?)<br>
><br>
>As a cognitive anthropologist, I am constantly challenged by the<br>
>problem of explaining how culture \u2014 apparently shared collective<br>
>knowledge, behavior, and ability \u2014 comes into existence, maintains<br>
>itself, evolves, and adapts to changing contexts, including encounters<br>
>with other cultures.<br>
><br>
>Formalisms, like those espoused by Carter, are so far removed from<br>
>concrete reality they offer little in the way of guidance or<br>
>assistance. And advocates of those formalisms seldom have any interest<br>
>in applied work any more than advocates of "pure" mathematics tend to<br>
>denigrate applied math.<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
glen<br>
<br>
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <a href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
archives: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/<br>
FRIAM-COMIC</a> <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> <br>
</blockquote></div>