[FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

[Frank Wimberly]

To me "metaknowledge" denotes knowledge about knowledge.  For example, "I
know 7,486 aphorisms".  That's a false statement.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Sep 21, 2017 2:25 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Hmm!
>
> I meant "meta knowledge" as knowledge of how to go about something gleaned
> from watching others succeed and fail at it.  Is that the same thing?
>
> n
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:39 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc: 'Mike Bybee' <mikebybee at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
>
> To clarify, I meant `meta-knowledge' in the sense of "Do I know what I
> know?" or "Do I know I don't know?"  as opposed to the idea of drawing
> conclusions by studying other studies.  Can one label their questions or
> propositions as vague or not vague..
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 1:32 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <
> friam at redfish.com>
> Cc: 'Mike Bybee' <mikebybee at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
>
> Glen,
>
> This baffled me as much as it interested me.  In the end, I wasn't sure
> whose side you were on.  My problem may be that, being a Peircean,
> philosophy is for me just an extension of the scientific method and
> philosophical knowledge is just "meta-knowledge" gleaned from the same
> sources as scientific knowledge.  Speaking as a sort-of ornithologist, I
> still think the metaphor stinks. It still strikes me as one of those
> unthinking philosophical platitudes trotted out by people without the
> knowledge of experience to think philosophically.  Remember that guy Donald
> Griffin who thought he knew about "mind" because he knew so much about bats
> and insects?
>
> Nick
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:28 PM
> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
>
> It's definitely sage.  But the sagacity doesn't hinge on the word
> "science", it hinges on the word _useful_.  Science is often thought to be
> a body of knowledge.  But there's a huge swath of people, me included, who
> think science is not knowledge, but a method/behavior for formulating and
> testing hypotheses.  It's not clear to me that Feynman actually said this.
> But Feynman is a good candidate because he cared far more about what you
> _do_ than what you claim to _know_.
>
> Philosophy (of anything) can be useful.  But to any working scientist, it
> is far less useful than, say, glass blowing, programming, or cell sorting.
> And if you think distinguishing between the usefulness of beakers from the
> usefulness of ... oh, let's say Popper's 3 worlds, then your expression
> says more about you than it does about them.
>
>
> On 09/20/2017 08:27 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > By the way, the Feynman quote is really dumb, and it’s annoying that
> people keep trotting it out as if it was sage.  The reason birds can’t make
> use of ornithology is they can’t read. Think how useful it would be for a
> cuckoo host to be able to spend a few hours reading a text on egg
> identification.   Is the reason physicists can’t make use of philosophy of
> science that they can’t think?  I doubt anyone who cites this “aphorism”
> would come to that conclusion.  Bad metaphor.
>
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>
> ============================================================
> 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
> ============================================================
> 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/20170921/e4b49f80/attachment.html>