Re: Objects and Relations

JOG wrote:

> On Feb 7, 9:37 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 

> 
> Indeed. I am also guilty of particpating in the sort of sloppy debate
> that this thread has seen, to help organize my own thoughts ready for
> when I need to express them formally - I often don't find it as easy
> as many to get ideas and instincts directly into written word straight
> off the bat. I think this may be due to  too many years with my head
> buried in c++ code.

I understand what you are saying: you seek to improve your rhetoric, pedagogy and clarity of thought. Those are all worthy goals. However, I suggest (based on first-hand experience) more effective methods exist.

With regard to rhetoric, how will you know what persuades without feedback from a sincere open-minded participant? The self-aggrandizing ignorants will pretend to agree or to concede merely as a pretext--their only goal to look good while doing so. Similarly for pedagogy.

Granted, one can improve one's clarity of thought through self-debate. However, a sincere participant will accelerate this too. Even a sincere novice can bring fresh perspective while your peers and others who have advanced further along the road can often point directly to important insights. In fact, ardent pursuit of a wrong position, with a peer who eventually pursuades one, can teach one more than anything else.

If you want to use the self-aggrandizing ignorants as a resource for self-improvement, I suggest you take a different approach: Make an earnest effort to analyze what they write objectively without trying to make sense of it. Consider all the ways it is nonsense.

Probably the single most valuable resource I found for clarifying my thought is the collection of nonsense quotes at Fabian's dbdebunk.com site. When one lacks the discipline to analyze objectively, one sometimes wonders at first why a quote was included. As one improves, one begins to see the nonsense for what it is more readily. Practice recognizing and articulating why nonsense is nonsense.

> Well, its either that or the fact I live within a stone's throw of a > pub with a range of over a hundred scotch and irish whiskeys.

Do you live in a jurisdiction that bans smoking in such places?

>>Try this experiment: Open a dictionary to a random word and write it
>>down. Open the dictionary to a completely different random word and
>>consider the ways the two words are related.
>>
>>Your mind will find a connection because it is wired to do so. When
>>David posts nonsense, your mind refuses to accept that it has no sense
>>and forces some sensible meaning onto it. But that meaning comes from
>>your own mind.
>>
>>It takes discipline to stick to the meaning of what is actually written.
>>I also highly recommend Gilovich's _How We Know What Isn't So_.
>
> There is sadly a lot of truth in this.

Don't be sad. Knowledge is power. For paleolithic man, the reproductive benefit of making insightful connections of connected events far outweighed the reproductive cost of making spurious connections from random events. ie. The benefit of not getting eaten, starving or otherwise dying of misadventure outweighed the cost of cargo cult religions. As a result, we evolved very powerful brains that naturally jump to conclusions and naturally make sense of nonsense.

We also have very trainable brains. Knowing the above about ourselves and having a little discipline, many of us can train ourselves to overcome our natural tendency. I know you can.

Instead of sorrow, think gratitude. You have an opportunity for a quantum leap in your clarity of thought. All it takes is a little discipline.

>>>>I note as well that Godel's theorems should not be interpreted as
>>>>favoring formalism over realism. On the contrary I see it as
>>>>revealing a limitation of formalism. In fact Godel himself was a
>>>>Platonist.
>>
>>>You have invoked Godel's law. This is the cdt equivalent of Godwin's
>>>Law which states that as a usenet thread approaches infinity, the
>>>chance of that thread mentioning Hitler becomes 1 (i.e. a certainty).
>>
>>And you have given him the Godwin.
>>
>>
>>>It's generally agreed upon that when this happens, the thread is over,
>>>and the person mentioning Nazis losing the discussion.
>>
>>>Here it seems to be Godel ;)
>>
>>Hey, that's unfair. I generally mention Goedel up front whenever I
>>mention formalism just to acknowledge the limits of any formalism.
>>
>>[remaining nonsense snipped]

> 
> Aye, but Godwins law only applies when the thread isn't actually about
> national socialism! I'm not sure david's "Godel was a platonist" was
> en-tirely covered by that analogy.

Are you suggesting this thread was about national socialism? Received on Sat Feb 10 2007 - 00:24:34 CET