desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (09/25/86)
In article <10223@cca.UUCP> g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >In article <15634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: >>In article <346@unc.unc.UUCP> gallmeis@unc.UUCP (Bill Gallmeister) writes: >>> >>>3. The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man, because >>> we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we >>> bring our own bias into the matter. >> >> There is no evidence to support your statement (that the universe is >>uncharacterizable), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary >>(every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). > >All too often people (and Rich Rosen) quote material from other people >and then comment on the quoted material in a way that does address what >was actually said. Our example for today is: > >Number 3 is quite blatant -- Gallmeister says "uncharacterizable in its >entirety by Man" and David renders it as "uncharacterizable". >Gallmeister asserts a certain type of limitation on knowledge and >David translates this into an assertion that no knowledge at all is >possible. When we quote material, the *purpose* of this quoting is to put our statements into context. Thus, it seems (or at least seemed) perfectly acceptable to repeat the arguments of the original poster in a more abbreviated form, since the original quotation is *right there*, if a more detailed statement of the original poster's views is desired. This seems *especially* clear in a parenthetical remark, which in ordinary usage serves only to specify the antecedent of the preceding noun; in this case the noun, "your [Gallmeister's] statement," seems sufficient in itself, given that one and only one statement of Gallmeister is quoted immediately above! It seems *obvious* to me that when I write "uncharacterizable," in the context of the above quotation, that I am using the word in the same way as in the original quotation. It seems, therefore, unnecessary to *repeat* the exact words of the original posting, in order to desig- nate the statement to which I am referring. Nevertheless, I seem to have been mistaken, since Mr. Harter was unable to discerm my meaning. I will, therefore, repeat my statement, in a sufficiently verbose form as to make its meaning perfectly evident to all readers: There is no evidence to support Mr. Gallmeister's statement (that the universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary (every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). Since this semantic clarification was of such importance to Mr. Harter that he thought it appropriate to post on the matter, I felt it was only proper for me to do the same. >>>2. Man has rules and the universe -- just kind of works. In reality, there >>> is no E, or M, or C, and certainly no "squaring". These are >>> labels man uses to define our universe. They are only true so >>> far as we can see today. >> >> There is a name for the opposite belief -- that the behavior of the >>universe can be understood. It is called 'science.' Understandably, >>therefore, those of us who consider ourselves 'scientists' don't go >>along with your opinion as expressed above. > >David's response in #2 is also unresponsive. Gallmeister makes >the legitimate observation that our descriptions of the universe >are different in character from the universe itself, and David reads >him as saying that it is impossible to understand the universe. It should be obvious (except perhaps to Mr. Harter) that I disagree with Gallmeister's "legitimate observation" (is this Mr. Harter's idea of an unbiased description of the statement in question?). Neither Gallmeister nor Mr. Harter has produced evidence that the behavior of the universe is substantially different in character from our descrip- tions of that behavior. It seems that from such a belief it must necessarily follow that it is impossible to understand the behavior of the universe; if the universe does indeed behave in a manner that does not correspond to any description that we can make, how can we expect to understand that behavior that cannot be described?? Further, if the behavior of the universe is in a manner which cannot be described, then what reason can we have to believe that the universe will in the future behave in one manner rather than in another? Scien- tific belief is inextricably based on belief in induction, that the universe will continue to behave in the manner that it has been observed to behave. This itself is a "rule"; if the universe does not behave according to such rules, then science itself is without justification or foundation. -- David desJardins P.S. I have regretfully refrained from defending myself in net.sf-lovers. I can only wonder why Mr. Harter thought it appropriate to attack me there.
marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (09/26/86)
Organization: In article <15807@ucbvax.... (David desJardins) defends himself: >In article <10223@cca.... (Richard Harter) writes: >>In article <15634@ucbvax... (David desJardins) defends science: >>>In article <346@unc.... (Bill Gallmeister) writes: [one-sided, bloody battle deleted] >P.S. I have regretfully refrained from defending myself in net.sf-lovers. >I can only wonder why Mr. Harter thought it appropriate to attack me there. This is not a war. Marty Smith
g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (09/27/86)
David desJardins writes at length (and peevishly too) in response to my critique of his critique of Bill Gallmeister. The following is the original parts of David's article that I quoted. (BG is Bill Gallmeister, DJ is David desJardins.) BG: 2. Man has rules and the universe -- just kind of works. In reality, there BG: is no E, or M, or C, and certainly no "squaring". These are BG: labels man uses to define our universe. They are only true so BG: far as we can see today. DJ: DJ: There is a name for the opposite belief -- that the behavior of the DJ: universe can be understood. It is called 'science.' Understandably, DJ: therefore, those of us who consider ourselves 'scientists' don't go DJ: along with your opinion as expressed above. BG: BG: 3. The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man, because BG: we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we BG: bring our own bias into the matter. DJ: DJ: There is no evidence to support your statement (that the universe is DJ: uncharacterizable), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary DJ: (every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). And my comments were (marked as RH:) were -- RH: RH: All too often people (and Rich Rosen) quote material from other people RH: and then comment on the quoted material in a way that does address what RH: was actually said. Our example for today is: RH: RH: Number 3 is quite blatant -- Gallmeister says "uncharacterizable in its RH: entirety by Man" and David renders it as "uncharacterizable". RH: Gallmeister asserts a certain type of limitation on knowledge and RH: David translates this into an assertion that no knowledge at all is RH: possible. RH: RH: David's response in #2 is also unresponsive. Gallmeister makes RH: the legitimate observation that our descriptions of the universe RH: are different in character from the universe itself, and David reads RH: him as saying that it is impossible to understand the universe. Now it may be the case that David is desperately offended at being compared to Rich Rosen. Now if that's the problem, I can't blame him. There are many that would be. What can I say? If that's your problem, David, I heartily apologize. But somehow, I don't think that's the whole story. Let us see: DJ: DJ: When we quote material, the *purpose* of this quoting is to put our DJ: statements into context. Thus, it seems (or at least seemed) perfectly DJ: acceptable to repeat the arguments of the original poster in a more DJ: abbreviated form, since the original quotation is *right there*, if a DJ: more detailed statement of the original poster's views is desired. This DJ: seems *especially* clear in a parenthetical remark, which in ordinary DJ: usage serves only to specify the antecedent of the preceding noun; in DJ: this case the noun, "your [Gallmeister's] statement," seems sufficient DJ: in itself, given that one and only one statement of Gallmeister is quoted DJ: immediately above! Er, yes, I would suppose that is the purpose of quotation. There are sundry misuses of quotation such as selective quotation out of context. Lord knows, there is enough of that floating around. However I am quite satisfied that your usage of quotation here is legitimate, correct, and to be commended. (OK?) DJ: It seems *obvious* to me that when I write "uncharacterizable," in DJ: the context of the above quotation, that I am using the word in the DJ: same way as in the original quotation. It seems, therefore, unnecessary DJ: to *repeat* the exact words of the original posting, in order to desig- DJ: nate the statement to which I am referring. DJ: Nevertheless, I seem to have been mistaken, since Mr. Harter was DJ: unable to discerm my meaning. I will, therefore, repeat my statement, DJ: in a sufficiently verbose form as to make its meaning perfectly evident DJ: to all readers: DJ: DJ: There is no evidence to support Mr. Gallmeister's statement DJ: (that the universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by DJ: Man), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary DJ: (every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). But David, this is a substantial modification. It changes your entire statement from being unresponsive to merely being false. Your equating of what you said with what you now say that you meant is supported by the chain of statements below. What we have here is that an entire line of reasoning by David was elided. DJ: Since this semantic clarification was of such importance to Mr. Harter DJ: that he thought it appropriate to post on the matter, I felt it was only DJ: proper for me to do the same. I hate to break it to you, but the whole matter is of no great importance to me, and your efforts at sarcasm are wasted. The next paragraph by David is the meat of the matter. I will go over it sentence by sentence. DJ: It should be obvious (except perhaps to Mr. Harter) that I disagree DJ: with Gallmeister's "legitimate observation" (is this Mr. Harter's idea DJ: of an unbiased description of the statement in question?). Yes. DJ: Neither DJ: Gallmeister nor Mr. Harter has produced evidence that the behavior of DJ: the universe is substantially different in character from our descrip- DJ: tions of that behavior. Now here David introduces a major shift from "not entirely characterizable" to "substantially different in character". Let me go with the original for the moment. Is the universe "not entirely characterizable" by man. Current theory says that it cannot be. The problem is that the universe is more detailed and more varied than any possible description of it. (There are sundry theorems of this kind, e.g. there is a theorem that no computer can provide a complete simulation of the universe in real time.) It should be obvious without appealing to metatheory that we are finite beings and that the universe is much bigger than we are and that our descriptions of the universe are necessarily going to fall short of completeness, no matter how much work we put into it. Nor will it do to say that we can prescribe universal laws that completely characterize the universe in principle. (I.e. laws such that we could work out what will happen in detail in any particular instance.) First of all, we are (within current theory) restrained by Quantum indeterminancy -- complete prediction is impossible in principle. Secondly, we have no assurance that we can ever determine a complete set of universal laws -- what we have seen is a series of incomplete approximations. Thirdly it seems to be the case that complex aggregates have system properties that are not deducible from the laws governing the individual elements of the system. We should also pay some attention to Gallmeister's original claim of bias. I will paraphrase this as saying "there may be characteristics of the universe that would be signicant to us if we knew what they were, but which we cannot discover because of our inherent biases." This may or may not be true; however this is in the nature of an unprovable claim. The fact that history is replete with examples of things being overlooked because of bias suggests that it is probably true. The answer can only be "So what". Let us turn to David's rendition. My problem with this, fussy semanticist that I am, is that I rather suspect that David has something in mind other than what I see his words as saying. As we all know (or do we?), the map is not the territory. Symbols are not the same thing as the things that they are symbols of. Now I did not read Gallmeister (as quoted) as saying much more than that; however David seems to have put a stronger and less obvious interpretation upon it. My guess is (and this is rank speculation, subject to correction) that David was interpreting what was quoted as asserting that, so to speak, the map is radically and inherently deficient. Now there may be some justice in this. I do have Gallmeister's original article at hand, but I recall it as being a little breezy. If David were objecting to a line of reasoning that said "we don't know everything; therefore such and such is possible", then he and I are at one. In a larger context of the entire Gallmeister article, his objections may be well taken; the problem is then simply that he picked the wrong things to quote and objected to unquoted lines of reasoning. DJ: It seems that from such a belief it must DJ: necessarily follow that it is impossible to understand the behavior DJ: of the universe; if the universe does indeed behave in a manner that DJ: does not correspond to any description that we can make, how can we DJ: expect to understand that behavior that cannot be described?? Ah so, little grasshopper. And if you can't have everything that you want then does it follow that no wish of yours will ever be satisfied? If there are unanswered questions, does it follow that no questions have answers. As an experiment consider the effect on this sentence of placing the word "completely" before the word "understand" and the word "fully" before the word "correspond". DJ: Further, if the behavior of the universe is in a manner which cannot DJ: be described, then what reason can we have to believe that the universe DJ: will in the future behave in one manner rather than in another? To quote Haldane, "Not only is the universe queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine". The sentence above is such a disaster [Sorry, David] that it is hard to comment on. The problem is that at no time has anyone (in the material quoted here) asserted that the universe cannot be described at all, but merely that the universe cannot be fully described. Given incomplete knowledge we can make incomplete predictions; we expect to be wrong some of the time. DJ: Scientific belief is inextricably based on belief in induction, that the DJ: universe will continue to behave in the manner that it has been observed DJ: to behave. This itself is a "rule"; if the universe does not behave DJ: according to such rules, then science itself is without justification DJ: or foundation. As in, "I observe that I always wake up after sleeping, therefore I shall always wake up after sleeping."? [Sorry, couldn't resist.] I can't argue with this; it obviously needs to be qualified, but it is true in essence. However scientific belief recognizes that our knowledge is only an approximation that improves with time. DJ: P.S. I have regretfully refrained from defending myself in net.sf-lovers. DJ: I can only wonder why Mr. Harter thought it appropriate to attack me there. Pooh! Since I did not edit the distribution line, I merely posted to the same places that you posted to. Is it perhaps your contention that it is alright for you to "attack" anyone you choose wherever you choose, but that others do not have the right to comment in reply in the same places? [Your comments to Gallmeister were very much in the line of a personal attack, you know.] Incidentally, you needn't be so formal. You don't have to address me as "Mr. Harter" -- "Sir" will do quite nicely. "Respected Intellectual Superior" is also acceptable. -- Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.] For Cheryl :-)