gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) (05/16/88)
In article <1666@pt.cs.cmu.edu> acha@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu (Anurag Acharya) writes: >Come on, does anyone really believe that if he and his pals reach a consensus >on some aspect of the world - the world would change to suit them ? That is the >conclusion I keep getting out of all these nebulous and hazy stuff about >'reality' being a function of 'social processes'. The idea that there is ONE world, ONE physical reality is flawed, and pace Kant, this 'noumenal' world in unknowable anyway, if it does exist. Thus, to ask if the world would change, this depends on whether you see it as a single immutable physical entity, or an ideology, a set of ideas held by a social group (e.g. Physicists whose ideas are often different to engineers). When a new consensus about the world is reached (scientific discovery to give it ONE ritual title), the world does change, as more often than not it changes the way that groups party to the knowledge interact with the world. We are in this world, not apart from it. Yes it is all nebulous and hazy, but it's an intellectual handicap to only be able to handle things which are clear cut and 'scientific'. There's something desparately insecure about scientists who need everything tied down before the think interaction with the socio-physical world is possible. Virtuall everything we do, outside of technical production, is nebulous and hazy.
bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (05/27/88)
In article <1157@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: > In article <1666@pt.cs.cmu.edu> acha@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu (Anurag Acharya) writes: > >Come on, does anyone really believe that if he and his pals reach a consensus > >on some aspect of the world - the world would change to suit them ? That is the > >conclusion I keep getting out of all these nebulous and hazy stuff about > >'reality' being a function of 'social processes'. No, they do not really believe it, but they would like you to believe it. > The idea that there is ONE world, ONE physical reality is flawed, and > pace Kant, this 'noumenal' world in unknowable anyway, if it does exist. > Thus, to ask if the world would change, this depends on whether you > see it as a single immutable physical entity, or an ideology, a set of > ideas held by a social group (e.g. Physicists whose ideas are often > different to engineers). Oh, yeah. First, Kant is a dead horse. Second, you are only able to get away with this multiple reality nonsense by twisting words all out of relationship to any real meaning. > When a new consensus about the world is reached (scientific discovery > to give it ONE ritual title), the world does change, as more often > than not it changes the way that groups party to the knowledge > interact with the world. We are in this world, not apart from it. OK, answer me this: how in the world do they reach a consensus without some underlying reality which they communicate through. And this: logic depends on the idea of noncontradiction. If you abandon that, you abandon logic. You assert that consensus determines reality (whatever that means). Now, among those with whom I hold a consensus, we agree that there is only one reality. Yours agree that there are multiple realities. Either logic is valid in which case the contradiction is not allowed or logic is not valid in which case your proposition has no evidence to validate itself with. (And do not bother with "non-standard" logics. I can construct the same paradox in any one which presumes to assert anything about anything.) > Yes it is all nebulous and hazy, but it's an intellectual handicap to > only be able to handle things which are clear cut and 'scientific'. It is the desire to abdicate the requirement to "handle things which are clear cut" which motivates sickos who propose consensus reality schemes. > There's something desparately insecure about scientists who need > everything tied down before the think interaction with the socio-physical > world is possible. There is something desperately insecure about pseudo-philosophers who need everything nebulous and hazy. > Virtuall everything we do, outside of technical production, is nebulous > and hazy. And that ("outside of technical production") contradicts everything else you have said. *** DO NOT BOTHER TO REPLY TO ME IF YOU WANT TO DEFEND CONSENSUS REALITY. The idea is so sick that I am not even willing to reply to those who believe in it. As you have noticed, this is not intended as a counter argument to consensus reality. Instead, it is intended as a red-hot flame. My indended audience is not the consensus reality perverts but those of you who have been mislead by this kind of s**t into wondering whether there is something to consensus reality. If you have any questions about the game the consensus reality freaks are playing, you can send me e-mail. I have no intention of further polluting the net by speaking about them. (At least until next year when I will probably have to repost something like this message again. Sigh.)
gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) (05/30/88)
In article <218@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >If you have any questions about the game the consensus reality >freaks are playing, you can send me e-mail. Caught out at last! Mail this CIA address for details of the Marxist attempt to undermine the All-American AI net. Digest no relativist epistemologies without clearance from this mailbox. All is revealed by Nancy Reagan's astrologer, a secondhand version of BACON (St. Francis to the scientists) Come on T. Willy, you just don't like social constructs that's all. :-) Of course there's a resistance in the physical world to any old social construct. But blow me, aren't people different? Take Kant, a German while alive but a horse when dead. Guilty under the Laws of Physics. Why, even digestability seems to be a social construct, just look at all that anti-americanism over the good old US hamburger. And as for language, well, that's just got no respect at all for the laws of physics. Now wonder those damned commies get to twist the true All-American meaning out of words. Remember. Don't go out at night without positivism in your pocket. Report all subcultural tendencies to the appropriate authority. -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert The proper object of the study of humanity is humans, not machines
jdg@hplsdar.HP.COM (Jason Goldman) (05/30/88)
Ad Hominem
gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) (06/07/88)
In article <450001@hplsdar.HP.COM> jdg@hplsdar.HP.COM (Jason Goldman) writes: >Ad Hominem Et alia sunt? When people adopt a controversial position for which there is no convincing proof, the only scientific explanation is the individual's ideology. The dislike of ad hominem arguments among scientists is a sign of their self-imposed dualism: personality and the environment stop outside the cranium of scientists, but penetrate the crania of everyone else. Odi profanum vulgum, et arceo ... -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert The proper object of the study of humanity is humans, not machines
maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) (06/11/88)
In article <514@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk> simon@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Simon Brooke) writes [. . .]: >Wells, like fanatical adherents of other ideologies before him, first >hurls abuse at his opponents, and finally, defeated, closes his ears. I >note that he is in industry and not an academic; nevertheless he is >posting into the ai news group, and must therefore be considered part of >the American AI community. I haven't visited the States; I wonder if >someone could tell me whether this extraordinary combination of ignorance >and arrogance is frequently encountered in American intellectual life? I would say that any combination of ignorance and arrogance is no more frequently encountered in American life than in British. Consider, for instance, your own posting--ending as it does in a gratuitous insult to American intellectual life in toto--as well as the umpteen postings of Cockton's--virtually all charcterized by arrogant dismissal of AI--that provoked Mr. Wells. Rude conjecture: "Gilbert Cockton"'s postings are in fact output from a rather silly AI program (probably out of MIT) called DREYFUS; it is a logical successor to ELIZA and also its own best critique. It remains to be seen whether "Simon Brooke" is one of its sub-programs.
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (06/15/88)
In article <514@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk> simon@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Simon Brooke) writes [. . .]:
.Wells, like fanatical adherents of other ideologies before him, first
.hurls abuse at his opponents, and finally, defeated, closes his ears. I
.note that he is in industry and not an academic; nevertheless he is
.posting into the ai news group, and must therefore be considered part of
.the American AI community. I haven't visited the States; I wonder if
.someone could tell me whether this extraordinary combination of ignorance
.and arrogance is frequently encountered in American intellectual life?
Yes it is extremely common, and not just within the AI community.
--
Dave Caswell
Greenwich Capital Markets uunet!philabs!gcm!dc
If it could mean something, I wouldn't have posted about it! -- Brian Casejeff@aiva.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (07/06/88)
In article <1332@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: >The dislike of ad hominem arguments among scientists is a sign of their >self-imposed dualism: personality and the environment stop outside the >cranium of scientists, but penetrate the crania of everyone else. No, it is a sign that they recognize that someone can be right despite having qualities that might make their objectivity suspect. They also can remember relativity being attacked as "Jewish science" and other ad hominem arguments of historical note. >When people adopt a controversial position for which there is no convincing >proof, the only scientific explanation is the individual's ideology. Perhaps the person is simply mistaken and thinks there is convincing proof. (Suppose they misread a conclusion that said something was "not insignificant", say.) Or perhaps they are don't really hold the position in question but are simply using it because others find it hard to refute. -- Jeff