<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>convergence to the one true mutual understanding!</p>
<blockquote>
<p>time to (re)diverge into pluralism<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>...to be continued</p>
<p>ad infinitum <grin></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/31/25 5:33 PM, glen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:cad244d9-6178-4b3f-818c-cba91a1874a8@gmail.com">Yes, the
EC is schematic. The markings on the edge are tightly coupled. But
the contents of the panel vary widely. And yes if you change the
miter saw example to "cut to complementary angles" regardless of
whether "90°" = 90°, then that would be a scheme as well. The
complementarity is tight. The actual angle(s) are allowed to vary.
<br>
<br>
Complicatedness is contrasted with parsimonious. Both can be
monist in the sense that they can be the One True Model.
Biologists come in this package. They can realize that biology is
super complicated, but still believe there's a One True (very
complicated) way of understanding biology.
<br>
<br>
By contrast things like the cosmic underdetermination theorem
suggest that there's no way to well-model or get One True
perspective of the universe. Pluralism is required. The contrast
isn't monism vs. dualism. It's monism vs. pluralism. Dualism has
much the same problem monism has except rather than being
prejudiced to 1 thing (method, model, understanding, etc.), you're
prejudiced to 2 things.
<br>
<br>
And finally, yes, I think you're at least a methodological
pluralist already.
<br>
<br>
On 1/31/25 2:33 PM, steve smith wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
On 1/31/25 1:20 PM, glen wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">So even though you understand my basic
point of [ab]use and the tolerance of error or tolerance of
ambiguity, I'm not hearing any recognition of schematic
systems in your responses. It's fine, of course. It would be
reasonable to take the absence of my language in your
responses as an implicit rejection of the game I'm trying to
define. In fact, I kinda hope that's the case because I enjoy
that kind of subtle game play. But just in case it's not ...
<br>
<br>
The in general, observation bias, and in specific, schematic
bias, I'm pointing to cf. multiverse analysis (pluralism)
versus either parsimony or complicatedness (monism) won't be
understood without understanding what it means to be schematic
in one's "calibration". In perhaps obsolete terminology, it
amounts to requirements analysis with predicates like "must
have" versus "nice to have" versus "don't care", etc. </blockquote>
<br>
The easy answer is that I'm probably just entirely over my head
in this conversation.
<br>
<br>
I was focused (perhaps) mostly on your original opening line
about parsimony being a red herring. If I doubled down on the
miter saw calibrationexample, it was because I thought you were
willfully misunderstanding or ignoring the specifics of the
example. If I can recast it into "the schematic" (scare quotes
to acknowledge I may be misunderstanding the concept in some
fundamental way) then the issue might be to reframe the problem
from "cutting at a specific angle" to "cutting two pieces at
complementary angles which sum to the orthogonal to support a
specific type of joinery within a specific range of
constructions where orthogonality has specific value"?
<br>
<br>
Attempting to understand you more better, I will focus here on
what you call the "schematic". If I understand you correctly,
my EC registration example *was* schematic? I'm lost when you
equate (relate?) "complicatedness" to monism? In this case
monism as a single unified theory with plurality being it's
complement or opposite. I am used to this list arguing monism
vs dualism (without my own dog in the fight) so probably didn't
appreciate the nuance there. In fact I think my lack of a dog
in the monist/dualist fight is that (I think) I'm pretty
pluralist at my core. But maybe my words or behaviour say
otherwise.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>