I recently read a paper: The Rationality of Science and the Rationality of Faith, Theodore J. Everett, Journal of Philosophy Vol. 98, No. 1. (Jan., 2001), pp. 19-42.
It made for interesting reading. The main points were:
1) That the prevailing orthodoxy that traditional 'non-scientific' beliefs derive from non rational causes is mistaken.
2)most scientists ought not to believe their own theories.
Everett draws a distinction between 'objective rationality' and 'subjective rationality'. He then argues that it is subjectively rational in most cases for people to believe in their local traditions since for a given individual, the probability that they know better than most other people around them is small. By a similar argument, scientists or intellectuals putting forward new theories ought to realise that the likelihood of them being correct in contradiction to what most of their peers think is also small.
There are some atheists that seem to me to have a simplified view of the nature of, and reasons for belief and faith which is counter productive and hampers dialogue. Some theists also evince a stereotyped view of atheists as being amoral and smug. people like Everett, Pascal Boyer (Religion Explained) and Michael Frayn (The Human Touch) are a few of the voices that might serve to counter this polarization.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
265 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 265 of 265Oops, "I suppose their might be a crow analogue of that." should have read: "I suppose there might be a crow analogue of that."
Where's that pearl handled revolver?
An illegitimate induction, and so unlike you.
Ah, perhaps it would be unlike me if it were such. It isn't though, rather it is pointing out my lack of ability to tell which 'obvious' things need to be stated because we don't agree on them, and which do not. That is because you sometimes don't agree with what I regard as unarguably obvious. Now, speaking of stating the obvious:
"Besides, what is obvious to you isn't necessarily the way of things." which means you win the stating the obvious game I think.
Yes, so the crow was a bit of an indulgence on my part, but I felt it made things a bit more interesting and touched on our prior discussions.
Fair enough. If you think there is an argument that you have put clearly that I have not addressed directly enough, I'm happy to try to correct that.
If a thing hasn't undergone a complete revolution then it hasn't undergone a revolution at all. Is half a wheel a wheel?
So if a thing hasn't done a complete revolution it hasn't revolved at all? Is half a turn an amount of turn?
Horror, perhaps.
I doubt it.
I wasn't going to say anything, but feel free to borrow my fountain pen, if you like. It's fairly sturdy and has a good texture to the barrel which won't slip if your hands sweat. Just close your eyes, hold it in position, with the blunt end at a slightly elevated angle, and hit the table with one, rapid clear movement. You won't feel much
Have we ever been over a page before?
Oh that reminds me:
Then why should you suppose that religious belief and scientific investigation are entirely different modes? Or have you changed that position?
I think they are different but I don't recall saying that religious belief is devoid of logic.
"Ah, perhaps it would be unlike me if it were such. It isn't though, rather it is pointing out my lack of ability to tell which 'obvious' things need to be stated because we don't agree on them, and which do not."
Haven't we passed this station already?
""Besides, what is obvious to you isn't necessarily the way of things." which means you win the stating the obvious game I think."
Wouldn't want to see you out on the field alone.
"Fair enough. If you think there is an argument that you have put clearly that I have not addressed directly enough, I'm happy to try to correct that."
I recognise this station, too. Ideas don't have to be literal things in order to merit the term revolutionary but they do have to change their meaning diametrically, not once but twice, if they are to be thought as having undergone a revolution.
"So if a thing hasn't done a complete revolution it hasn't revolved at all? Is half a turn an amount of turn?"
No. They've travelled in an arc relative to some fixed point but they have not made a revolution.
"Is half a turn an amount of turn?"
Only if a turn has been made. Is there likely to be any planet which has half an orbit?
Found this the other day, by the way. Thought you might find it pleasant wallpaper. The stories on quants are fairly interesting.
"I think they are different but I don't recall saying that religious belief is devoid of logic."
Then in what sense is it different from scientific enquiry?
"I doubt it."
There's a surprise.
Haven't we passed this station already?
Perhaps it needs a revisit.
I recognise this station, too.
It is giving me deja vu.
No. They've travelled in an arc relative to some fixed point but they have not made a revolution.
Revolution:
6. Mechanics. a. a turning round or rotating, as on an axis.
b. a moving in a circular or curving course, as about a central point.
c. a single cycle in such a course.
from Dictionary.com
Thanks for the links by the way, I'll have a look. What has Dawkins been up to this time?
Then in what sense is it different from scientific enquiry?
I think the fundamental difference is on the level of world view. As Daniel Harbour put it, religious belief flows from a Baroque monarchy whereas the scientific method stems from a Spartan meritocracy. The former has a non minimal set of non negotiable presuppositions, the latter has a minimal set of presuppositions which stand or fall on evidence.
Something here to support my judgement of Dawkins' aim in interview of others.
Something that supports your view of Dawkins versus Sheldrake. Ok, let me see what impartial well evidenced source this is....
Oh... it's Sheldrake!
"Revolution:
6. Mechanics. a. a turning round or rotating, as on an axis.
b. a moving in a circular or curving course, as about a central point.
c. a single cycle in such a course."
Perhaps you haven't noticed but all of the above concurs with my position.
"As Daniel Harbour put it, religious belief flows from a Baroque monarchy whereas the scientific method stems from a Spartan meritocracy."
Still working your way through your Christmass book tokens, then? So what are you bringing to our discussion? Looks like some bloke with an extended metaphor. For people who claim to have abandoned childish world views these media atheists certainly go in for florid, brutal, dualist ideologies in a big way.
"Ok, let me see what impartial well evidenced source this is....
Oh... it's Sheldrake!"
Of the two, to which would you feel more inclined to lend a tenner?
He needs every penny he can get to keep that website of his going. How else could he keep banging on about Mary Midgely.
Midgely, Gould, Sheldrake, McGrath; Dawkins does seem to have a knack for picking ill-advised fights with polite, principled and intelligent people.
I'm waiting for him to try it on with Simon Conway Morris.
Perhaps you haven't noticed but all of the above concurs with my position.
According to 6, the noun 'revolution' can refer to 'a turning round or rotating...or a complete cycle (as in 6c). I suggest that a rotation of pi giving diametric opposition is a more sensible way to interpret the metaphorical sense of 'revolution'. But even that is too literal for my liking, I don't think integer multiples of pi are necessary. So how exactly does the definition concur with your position?
So what are you bringing to our discussion? Looks like some bloke with an extended metaphor.
What are you bringing here? Looks like another florid unsubstantiated ad hominem to me.
Of the two, to which would you feel more inclined to lend a tenner?
I don't know either of them.
Midgely, Gould, Sheldrake, McGrath; Dawkins does seem to have a knack for picking ill-advised fights with polite, principled and intelligent people.
I have read and heard some of the spats you allude to. As far as I am concerned none of the protagonists are heroes nor villains. For one who supposedly eschews dualisms, you seem remarkably fond of the Dawkins in black hat, Sheldrake (and others it seems) in white hat view.
I'm waiting for him to try it on with Simon Conway Morris.
I wouldn't mind seeing that myself.
"According to 6, the noun 'revolution' can refer to 'a turning round or rotating...or a complete cycle (as in 6c)."
Well, if we are resorting to dictionaries then you'll note that 6 qualifies the meaning with the phrase "as on an axis", and the Dictionary.com entry for axis tells us that this is "the line about which a rotating body, such as the earth (sic), turns". Full turns, 2pi, are implicit. Rotating bodies do not rotate any less than 2pi. Look up rotate at the same site, if it pleases you.
"I suggest that a rotation of pi giving diametric opposition is a more sensible way to interpret the metaphorical sense of 'revolution'."
This is the understood meaning of revolution when used as metaphor yet this is not the meaning of revolution. Metaphors are not words in their own right but shadows of other words. There is no discrete word revolution which bears the meaning of revolution-as-metaphor. Revolution is a geometric term referring to a rotation through 2pi, about a point for a 2d object and about an axis for a 3d object.
"But even that is too literal for my liking"
Yet you accept it as necessary?
"What are you bringing here? Looks like another florid unsubstantiated ad hominem to me."
If so then it was in keeping with our friendly regard for one another and not at all intended as hostile. So anyway, what does this poetic conceit bring to our discussion? To be honest, I'm not even sure why these issues are considered important by people at large. Would you help me out on this point? Answer the 2nd question 1st.
"I don't know either of them."
You don't need to know either of them to answer the question, but you do know something of their characters. Public figures reveal a lot more than they wish to when they persist along particular lines of discourse. So go on then, which one?
"For one who supposedly eschews dualisms, you seem remarkably fond of the Dawkins in black hat, Sheldrake (and others it seems) in white hat view."
When have I said that I eschew dualism? I'm very fond of the number two. Where would we be without it?
"I wouldn't mind seeing that myself."
Morris would moidarise da bum.
Well, if we are resorting to dictionaries then you'll note that 6 qualifies the meaning with the phrase "as on an axis",
And the problem with that is?
and the Dictionary.com entry for axis tells us that this is "the line about which a rotating body, such as the earth (sic), turns". Full turns, 2pi, are implicit.
I don't think so. Just because the earth happens to have undergone many complete orbits does not warrant this interpretation. For example, in coordinate geometry you can have a transformation in the x-y plane of a quarter turn clockwise about the point (1,2) This tranformation is a rotation clockwise of pi/2. It never did a complete revolution just a partial one. It still has a centre of rotation, just as a three dimensional example will have an axis of rotation. It still revolves.
Revolution is a geometric term referring to a rotation through 2pi,
No it isn't. As you can see from the definitions of both revolution and rotation they can each mean a complete cycle of 2pi or not. The dictionaries say that the latin derivation of 'revolve' is from the past participle of revolvere, to turn over.
Yet you accept it as necessary?
Almost any amount of turn will do for me. Imagine turning an intricate filigree just a little bit and see what a radical difference you will see in its shadow.
If so then it was in keeping with our friendly regard for one another and not at all intended as hostile.
Of course, though I was meaning Harbour was the target.
To be honest, I'm not even sure why these issues are considered important by people at large. Would you help me out on this point? Answer the 2nd question 1st.
Yes.
I think people consider them important for two main reasons:
1) They want to spin themselves a working narrative
2) they want to influence the narratives of others in recognition of the fact that they might thereby influence behaviour.
So go on then, which one?
To be honest I'd probably lend either of them a tenner. That isn't to say I'd expect it back. I don't share your feeling of knowing much of their private selves.
When have I said that I eschew dualism?
Ah so it is only the brutal florid ideological kind you don't like?
(For some reason that sentence made me imagine The Florists' Guild secretary getting on the phone to The Assassins' Guild to talk about taking out the people's princess.)
A single orbit is sufficient, and considering your appeal to a dictionary I think you accept that dictionary compilers do not include irrelevant nor misleading information, hence the entry for axis does not reference a pendulum.
"For example, in coordinate geometry you can have a transformation in the x-y plane of a quarter turn clockwise about the point (1,2) This tranformation is a rotation clockwise of pi/2. It never did a complete revolution just a partial one."
Here, look; "quarter", "pi/2", "partial". What do these imply? That there is a whole turn, 2pi and a complete revolution. The revolution is implicit.
"It still has a centre of rotation, just as a three dimensional example will have an axis of rotation. It still revolves."
There is no revolution unless there is a movement through 2pi. A quarter revolution is no more a revolution than a quarter mile is a mile.
"As you can see from the definitions of both revolution and rotation they can each mean a complete cycle of 2pi or not."
The definitions say nothing of the sort. They speak of "round", "circular", "curving course, as about a fixed point", and "cycle". Are you honestly saying that your dictionary definition of revolution does not refer to a movement through 2pi?
"Almost any amount of turn will do for me."
Evidently so yet I meant to ask do you not accept literal definitions as necessary?
"Imagine turning an intricate filigree just a little bit and see what a radical difference you will see in its shadow."
Sorry, I don't get the analogy, but I was transported back to the 1980s for a moment there.
"Of course, though I was meaning Harbour was the target."
So was I, but as I still don't have a clue what light he sheds for us I was actually hoping that you would not feel I was offending your judgement in speaking of him in what you took as ad hominem.
"They want to spin themselves a working narrative"
Do people want to possess such a thing or do they have other motivations?
"they want to influence the narratives of others in recognition of the fact that they might thereby influence behaviour."
I wonder why hermits practice religion, then.
What about the first question?
"That isn't to say I'd expect it back. I don't share your feeling of knowing much of their private selves."
Private selves? Whatever behaviour a person presents in public, whether they would prefer it remain private or not, represents their public self. I'm sure that in these cases you have made at least as many observations and judgements as I have except you do not see these as relevant to their agenda and so remain tight-lipped about them.
"Ah so it is only the brutal florid ideological kind you don't like?"
But of course.
You've really taken "florid" to heart since I used it. Can't say I blame you. It's a wonderfully evocative word.
"(For some reason that sentence made me imagine The Florists' Guild secretary getting on the phone to The Assassins' Guild to talk about taking out the people's princess.)"
I can see the Florists' Guild and the Assassins' Guild but I can't quite find the people's princess. Help me out here.
Very TSR, by the way. Are florists very useful on quests?
A single orbit is sufficient,
Half an orbit is sufficient for a rotation to have taken place. Or any amount of turn at all, as the definitions clearly tell us.
Here, look; "quarter", "pi/2", "partial". What do these imply?
It implies that rotation is cyclical. It does not imply some Zeno-like scenario whereby unless you have gone all the way round you haven't turned at all.
A quarter revolution is no more a revolution than a quarter mile is a mile.
You have spotted the dis-analogy no doubt. There is no verb 'to mile' it is a unit, like a radian or a degree. Now, if I have run a quarter mile I have still done a run, even if it is not a marathon. Similarly if I have rotated sixty degrees or pi/6, I have still undergone a rotation, or a revolution.
Evidently so yet I meant to ask do you not accept literal definitions as necessary?
I think they are necessary.
Sorry, I don't get the analogy, but I was transported back to the 1980s for a moment there.
Were such things a prominent feature of the '80's? I must have missed it.
So was I, but as I still don't have a clue what light he sheds for us I was actually hoping that you would not feel I was offending your judgement in speaking of him in what you took as ad hominem.
I am not one to take offense. Your judgements differ from mine. This one seemed to me to be an ad hominem because you didn't really criticise the position he put forward, you just dismissed it.
Do people want to possess such a thing or do they have other motivations?
I am sure they have other motivations as well but I think the story is important.
I wonder why hermits practice religion, then.
Perhaps because they fall into a tiny subset for whom only reason 1 applies.
What about the first question?
Do you mean 'what does this bring to our discussion'? I think the answer to that depends on whether you can temper your dismissive stance.
I'm sure that in these cases you have made at least as many observations and judgements as I have except you do not see these as relevant to their agenda and so remain tight-lipped about them.
Perhaps I am just less judgemental than you.
You've really taken "florid" to heart since I used it.
I rather have haven't I?
Can't say I blame you.
I'm glad, I hate being blamed.
I can't quite find the people's princess.
This is just a conspiracy theory that flashed into my head because of the form of words you used. What happened when Diana died? Yes, that's right, the florists had a bonanza.
What is 'TSR'?
"as the definitions clearly tell us."
The definitions say nothing of the sort.
"It implies that rotation is cyclical."
Hence closed.
"It does not imply some Zeno-like scenario whereby unless you have gone all the way round you haven't turned at all."
When you put it that way it does sound rather Red Queen, but it is possible to turn and yet not complete a revolution.
"You have spotted the dis-analogy no doubt. There is no verb 'to mile' it is a unit, like a radian or a degree. Now, if I have run a quarter mile I have still done a run, even if it is not a marathon."
I can fix that for you. If you have run a half-marathon you have not run a marathon. In the same way half a revolution is not a revolution.
"Similarly if I have rotated sixty degrees or pi/6, I have still undergone a rotation, or a revolution."
Your revolver is on the bookcase in your drawing room, behind the bust of Socrates.
"I think they are necessary."
Yet you feel bound by them?
"Were such things a prominent feature of the '80's? I must have missed it."
This Mortal Coil. I seem to recall a degree of magical thinking there.
"This one seemed to me to be an ad hominem because you didn't really criticise the position he put forward, you just dismissed it."
Dismissing a position is an ad hominem?
"I am sure they have other motivations as well but I think the story is important."
I doubt they seek a story at all. They seek order, I feel. A story is something that happens somewhere else, sometime else to someone else.
"Perhaps because they fall into a tiny subset for whom only reason 1 applies."
See my last comment. I think hermits wish to live rather than listen.
"Do you mean 'what does this bring to our discussion'? I think the answer to that depends on whether you can temper your dismissive stance."
You'll be asking me to dismiss my temper next, but let's have a look at this. PhD student of Noam Chomsky writes a book ripe with florid metaphor about which end of an egg is the better to bash with a spoon and within it puts forward a number of arguments, for example down the ages a lot of very nice people have but a jolly good deal of effort into rational enquiry therefore it should be regarded as superior to religious thought, not realising that even further down the ages a great many more nice people have put a jolly lot more effort into religious thought, that the two are not coterminous and that what is thought of as rational thought today is simply an iceberg that has calved from a great ice sheet. Rational thought today is seen as thought to no purpose. The entire thesis is immature and badly thought out. Although no smarter, Harbour is the person whom Sam Harris wishes he was, doubtless.
The metaphors are unfortunate, also, considering that those things which are baroque tend to enrich life while the Spartans as a society tended to kill their children for sundry reasons.
Let's all have rational thoughts, says Daniel, science is a good thing. Well, thanks for that Daniel. I never considered any of this before. Have you met NoBrainer?
I don't wish to live in Sparta. I would rather live in Rome.
"Perhaps I am just less judgemental than you."
I doubt this.
"I rather have haven't I?"
See, I am exerting an influence after all.
"This is just a conspiracy theory that flashed into my head because of the form of words you used. What happened when Diana died? Yes, that's right, the florists had a bonanza."
Ah, right. You may be less judgemental but you are clearly more cynical.
"What is 'TSR'?"
The company which produced the Dungeons and Dragons game.
The definitions say nothing of the sort.
Then why is part c of 6:
"a single cycle in such a course."
which is the one you are advocating only one of three alternatives?
Let's look at b again:
"a moving in a circular or curving course, as about a central point."
I don't think it could be clearer.
When you put it that way it does sound rather Red Queen, but it is possible to turn and yet not complete a revolution.
It is possible to revolve and yet not have fulfilled part c of the definition. You will still have fulfilled a or b and so we can still say you have undergone a rotation.
I can fix that for you. If you have run a half-marathon you have not run a marathon. In the same way half a revolution is not a revolution.
You have fallen for the same dis-analogy twice which is unlike you.
There is no verb 'to marathon'. The verb 'to run' has the associated noun 'run'. So if you run a half-marathon, you have done a run. If you have rotated you have undergone a rotation. I know you want to reserve the verb 'revolve' for rotations which are multiples of 2pi but neither the definitions nor the use support this.
Your revolver is on the bookcase in your drawing room, behind the bust of Socrates.
You want to borrow it? I'll get it for you.
Yet you feel bound by them?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Definitions are necessary. They are not necessarily binding.
This Mortal Coil. I seem to recall a degree of magical thinking there.
I did miss it. I just listened to a bit. I'm not sorry I missed it.
Dismissing a position is an ad hominem?
As far as I am concerned an ad hominem is where you attack the person rather than the argument. I think there is a grey area where the attacks on the arguments are of a character that is superficial and implies a lack of respect. What is the relevance to the argument of Harbour being a PHD student of Chomsky?
I doubt they seek a story at all. They seek order, I feel. A story is something that happens somewhere else, sometime else to someone else.
What a person considers to be 'order' depends on what they think the world is like and what their role in it is. It depends on their story about themselves.
You'll be asking me to dismiss my temper next, but let's have a look at this.
I think we might have to agree to differ on Harbour.
I doubt this.
Perhaps you are right. I'm not sure.
See, I am exerting an influence after all.
I don't know why you would ever have doubted.
Ah, right. You may be less judgemental but you are clearly more cynical.
I'm shocked at the suggestion!
The company which produced the Dungeons and Dragons game.
Ah. Did one of those blokes die recently?
"I don't think it could be clearer."
Giving particular attention to "as about a central point", nor do I.
"It is possible to revolve and yet not have fulfilled part c of the definition. You will still have fulfilled a or b and so we can still say you have undergone a rotation."
It is possible to revolve in the act of completing a revolution in the same way that it is possible to run two half-marathons in the process of completing a marathon.
"There is no verb 'to marathon'. The verb 'to run' has the associated noun 'run'."
A marathon is an act.
"So if you run a half-marathon, you have done a run."
If you were aiming to complete a half-marathon then you have completed a half-marathon. If you were aiming to complete a marathon then you have not completed a marathon.
"If you have rotated you have undergone a rotation. I know you want to reserve the verb 'revolve' for rotations which are multiples of 2pi but neither the definitions nor the use support this."
If you have moved through 2pi you have undergone a revolution. If you have moved through pi you have not undergone a revolution. The definitions do not speak of part cycles.
"You want to borrow it? I'll get it for you."
Were you speaking of either an arc of 60 degrees or an arc of pi/6 or were you speaking of an arc of 60 degrees which is equivalent to an arc of pi/6?
"I'm not sure what you mean by this. Definitions are necessary. They are not necessarily binding."
You seem to resent your own earlier definition of revolution as too literal. Do you dislike limits?
"I did miss it. I just listened to a bit. I'm not sorry I missed it."
You have some taste.
"I think there is a grey area where the attacks on the arguments are of a character that is superficial and implies a lack of respect."
For the argument, yes.
"What is the relevance to the argument of Harbour being a PHD student of Chomsky?"
It's shorthand for "fond of bad ideas".
"What a person considers to be 'order' depends on what they think the world is like and what their role in it is. It depends on their story about themselves."
A person's story about themselves is their life and the only way to learn of that is to live it rather than to read religion. To read religion or history or mathematics is to seek the order in the world and not in ourselves.
"I think we might have to agree to differ on Harbour."
That's a little dismissive of you. Don't be a Philistine, Roman.
"I don't know why you would ever have doubted."
I made it a rule never to doubt while in possession of a pencil and a sheet of paper.
"I'm shocked at the suggestion!"
Sarcastic, also.
"Ah. Did one of those blokes die recently?"
Yes, very recently. Gygax, God rest his soul. He made a very funny appearance in an episode of Futurama, the excellent Anthology of Interest 1. Do you own any Futurama on DVD?
While on the subject of nerds and YouTube, isn't this Richard Ayoade who plays Moss in The IT Crowd, at 02:10?
Giving particular attention to "as about a central point", nor do I.
If I rotate pi/2 which equals 90 degrees then this fixes the centre of rotation. I have rotated even if I have not completed an orbit and even if I never will. So it is clear.
If you have moved through 2pi you have undergone a revolution. If you have moved through pi you have not undergone a revolution. The definitions do not speak of part cycles.
They don't need to. If I have rotated through pi I have revolved. I have completed a half cycle. Part c refers to complete cycles. This is one of the alternative meanings. The others apply to part cycles.
Were you speaking of either an arc of 60 degrees or an arc of pi/6 or were you speaking of an arc of 60 degrees which is equivalent to an arc of pi/6?
Since a radian is defined as a unit of rotation whereby the arc produced is equal to the radius of rotation and since a complete cycle of 360 degrees yields an arc which is a circumference of length 2pi x r it follows that 360 degrees=2pi radians which means 60 degrees is
2pi/6 = pi/3. I have known this for a long time.
You seem to resent your own earlier definition of revolution as too literal. Do you dislike limits?
I don't think it was my definition of 'revolution' so much as a possible justification for the metaphor. For example somebody might object to the term 'quantum leap' as used to describe an innovation of some kind. They might say that this is no way to describe innovation as quantum leaps are small and random. I might point out to them that the salient quality is no intermediate stages. A vacuum cleaner is not an enhanced broom. There is no continuum between the two. Similarly, if you weren't being over literal in thinking of a revolution as only meaning a complete cycle you might be more forgiving of the metaphorical basis of the definition of 'revolution' as in The French Revolution.
The reason I said it was too literal for my liking is that diametric opposition is not always necessary for radical change to occur.
It's shorthand for "fond of bad ideas".
Your peremptory statements that his ideas are bad do not constitute an argument.
That's a little dismissive of you. Don't be a Philistine, Roman.
I don't think it is dismissive at all. I'm happy to talk about why I think the metaphors he uses capture something useful even if they are too florid for you. I sensed we might disagree so radically on the role of rational thought that it might be better left for a new post though.
Do you own any Futurama on DVD?
I do, but sadly not much. I enjoyed the Tolkein/Peake program btw, thanks.
isn't this Richard Ayoade who plays Moss in The IT Crowd, at 02:10?
I have to confess that the resemblance is striking.
"If I rotate pi/2 which equals 90 degrees then this fixes the centre of rotation."
If there is a centre then there is a circle and if there is a circle then there is a revolution. You are assuming the existence of a full revolution in order that you may travel 25% of its distance. An open arc has no centre of rotation, it does not revolve.
"So it is clear."
We shall not agree, I fear.
"If I have rotated through pi I have revolved."
No, you have completed an arc.
"Part c refers to complete cycles. This is one of the alternative meanings. The others apply to part cycles."
Part c refers to a single cycle. Parts a and b refer to the onging process of cyclic movement.
I'm unsure whether I have been making myself clear to you so let me try a visual. Think of a black hoop marked with white letters at the compass points, N for North &c, and align it with the compass points. If you then move the hoop clockwise so that N is aligned with East, what has happened to the points E, S and W? They have also moved clockwise to align with the next compass point. The revolution is implicit because the course is fixed.
Now. Imagine the surface of a black circular table marked with the same letters and a white marble placed at N. If you move the marble from N to E then all that has happened is that the marble has been moved from one position to another position. There has been movement but no revolution.
Until an arc is closed it is not a revolution. Once an arc has been closed and a revolution established then any movement within that course is a process of revolution.
"I have known this for a long time."
I am glad to know. It was the sudden jump from one measure to another which threw me, as though you were restating the same distance in different terms, not an uncommon practice. This is why I asked whether you were presenting two different angles or an equivalence. It seems, then, that you were presenting two different angles in two different measures and you may safely discharge your revolver into the ground.
"Similarly, if you weren't being over literal in thinking of a revolution as only meaning a complete cycle you might be more forgiving of the metaphorical basis of the definition of 'revolution' as in The French Revolution."
I don't go around correcting people, you know. Unless they dispute against me.
"The reason I said it was too literal for my liking is that diametric opposition is not always necessary for radical change to occur."
Hence the French Hopscotch.
"Your peremptory statements that his ideas are bad do not constitute an argument."
Statement, please. I said a number of other things afterwards. Now you introduced the fellow so I think that you must wish to say something about his ideas which, hopefully, go beyond Gouldean metaphor. Please go ahead. I enjoy reading your ideas.
"I'm happy to talk about why I think the metaphors he uses capture something useful even if they are too florid for you."
In what way are these metaphors useful? Proofs are useful and technologies are useful. Metaphors? I do not see how they are useful. Metaphors aren't used in science, Harbour's fetish. Can the self-appointed rationalists not see the absurdity in their own arguments? How will you use the metaphors in this book? How may I use the metaphors in this book?
"I sensed we might disagree so radically on the role of rational thought that it might be better left for a new post though."
Rational thought has a single role?
"I do, but sadly not much."
I own the first 4 series, have watched them several times each and they have not got dull yet. You should invest in more and have yourself an immature weekend of irresponsible eating and drinking and laughing your face off.
"I enjoyed the Tolkein/Peake program btw, thanks."
You are welcome. I like Peake very much indeed. A man with great sympathy for the Devil.
"I have to confess that the resemblance is striking."
I'm sure it's him. He was very good in Armando Iannucci's Time Trumpet.
I think this is my favourite Time Trumpet segment; Tesco versus Denmark.
If there is a centre then there is a circle and if there is a circle then there is a revolution.
Yes!
You are assuming the existence of a full revolution in order that you may travel 25% of its distance.
But not that the body in question has necessarily got all the way round.
We shall not agree, I fear.
There is always hope.
No, you have completed an arc.
An arc is the unique specifier of a centre of rotation.
Part c refers to a single cycle. Parts a and b refer to the onging process of cyclic movement.
I wonder whether you have not taken on board the possibility that, say, a particle could undergo motion that is cyclical in nature even if it never managed to complete a cycle. The fact that it decayed before it got once round does not negate the fact that there was a centre of rotation, about which it was describing a circular arc. It was revolving.
I'm unsure whether I have been making myself clear to you so let me try a visual.
You have been a paragon of clarity.
The revolution is implicit because the course is fixed.
That's exactly my point. Even if you only get half way round, you have revolved because as soon as you start circular motion the centre of rotation and the complete circular locus is uniquely specified. You have not revolved in the sense of having completed a cycle but you have revolved in the sense that this is one label for having done that kind of motion.
Until an arc is closed it is not a revolution. Once an arc has been closed and a revolution established then any movement within that course is a process of revolution.
Let us consider precisely how the marble got from N to E. If I move it in a precise circular arc to get it there then the centre, direction and angle of rotation are all uniquely determined even if I discover that the marble is in fact a mint and proceed to put it in my mouth. It never did get all the way round. At all. Ever. But it did rotate.
It was the sudden jump from one measure to another which threw me, as though you were restating the same distance in different terms, not an uncommon practice.
I deserve at least a rap on the temple with the pearl handle for my, as the AoC put it, unclarity. Perhaps you should get somebody to give you a Chinese burn for 'onging'.
I don't go around correcting people, you know. Unless they dispute against me.
I'm glad to hear it, besides I think 'correcting' is not the right term in this case.
Hence the French Hopscotch.
I still think that has a ring to it.
Statement, please. I said a number of other things afterwards.
All of which reduce to the same thing. You don't think my citing his metaphorical labels for the epistemological differences between science and religion add to our discussion. I have accepted that. It is not a book I would recommend somebody like you to read. It is too basic and superficial. I enjoyed reading it and took from it a few things I thought I could use, such as those labels.
In what way are these metaphors useful? Proofs are useful and technologies are useful. Metaphors? I do not see how they are useful.
What? You mean you have gone to the trouble of making a real black hoop?
Metaphors aren't used in science, Harbour's fetish.
I think science might call them 'models'.
Rational thought has a single role?
That depends of the level of description. A single role can encompass many different purposes and applications.
I think this is my favourite Time Trumpet segment;
Very good that. I have seen some Time Trumpet and have liked Armando Iannucci's writing for a while but I hadn't seen that one.
"Yes!"
No circle, no revolution.
"But not that the body in question has necessarily got all the way round."
See above.
"An arc is the unique specifier of a centre of rotation."
Within a circular course.
"I wonder whether you have not taken on board the possibility that, say, a particle could undergo motion that is cyclical in nature even if it never managed to complete a cycle."
All must have prizes, eh? I haven't taken that on board, no, and I won't.
"You have been a paragon of clarity."
I think you understand the sense, you simply do not give your agreement.
"That's exactly my point. Even if you only get half way round, you have revolved because as soon as you start circular motion the centre of rotation and the complete circular locus is uniquely specified."
A line is a series of points. A circle is a set of points equidistant from a single point. A revolution is that set as a series. A revolution is a line. No line, no circle. No circle, no revolution.
"You have not revolved in the sense of having completed a cycle but you have revolved in the sense that this is one label for having done that kind of motion."
If at least a single revolution has already been made.
"It never did get all the way round. At all. Ever. But it did rotate."
I disagree, for the reasons given above.
"Perhaps you should get somebody to give you a Chinese burn for 'onging'."
You don't ong?
"I think 'correcting' is not the right term in this case."
A contingent error.
"You don't think my citing his metaphorical labels for the epistemological differences between science and religion add to our discussion."
They don't. Metaphors are reasonably useful at giving a particular sense but that sense is not necessarily the case of things. Metaphor occults facts. Ultimately people will adopt arguments about the attributes of those objects in the metaphor which stand in place for the subjects of the metaphor. In many cases it's a shield for the ignorance or laziness of the author. It's a straw man presented in a respectable outfit. Where they become popular in discourse metaphors such as this delude their users that they have some expertise on a subject. Metaphor belongs in rhetoric, not in argument.
"I enjoyed reading it and took from it a few things I thought I could use, such as those labels."
Under what circumstances would you use those labels?
"What? You mean you have gone to the trouble of making a real black hoop?"
No, but I used an isometry.
"I think science might call them 'models'."
I don't think you believe that.
"That depends of the level of description. A single role can encompass many different purposes and applications."
You mean to say no. I look forward to your post on this topic.
No circle, no revolution.
But there is a circle.
See above.
See above.
Within a circular course.
I agree, I said this too.
All must have prizes, eh? I haven't taken that on board, no, and I won't.
A pity, since it is the case.
I think you understand the sense, you simply do not give your agreement.
That's correct.
A line is a series of points. A circle is a set of points equidistant from a single point. A revolution is that set as a series. A revolution is a line. No line, no circle. No circle, no revolution.
As soon as a body starts to rotate, the circle is uniquely specified. Your insistance that the body must go all the way round for the circle to be manifest is an error in my view. Your narrow focus on only one aspect of the definition of 'revolution' compounds this error.
If at least a single revolution has already been made.
So all those questions in elementary coordinate geometry which ask you to specify completely the single transformation undergone by a shape and for which the answer is of the form: 'a clockwise rotation of theta (theta < Pi) about the point (x,y) are just ill defined I suppose?
I disagree, for the reasons given above.
You are wrong, for the reasons given above.
You don't ong?
That would be telling.
A contingent error.
How so?
They don't.
Ok, sorry about that.
Metaphors are reasonably useful at giving a particular sense but that sense is not necessarily the case of things.
Not necessarily, no. On the other hand the sense people attempt to make without metaphor isn't necessarily the case either.
Metaphor occults facts.
Not necessarily.
Ultimately people will adopt arguments about the attributes of those objects in the metaphor which stand in place for the subjects of the metaphor.
If it is a good metaphor then there will be an isomorphism which allows the deployment of the insight gained from the metaphor in the domain of facts.
In many cases it's a shield for the ignorance or laziness of the author. It's a straw man presented in a respectable outfit. Where they become popular in discourse metaphors such as this delude their users that they have some expertise on a subject.
So some people use metaphors badly. That doesn't invalidate metaphors as an explanatory tool.
Under what circumstances would you use those labels?
In a dialogue where I wanted to talk about the differences between a world view that leads to a religious outlook and one which leads to atheism.
No, but I used an isometry.
Sounds like the domain-mapping theoretical description of how metaphor works to me.
I don't think you believe that.
What I do believe is that it is not true to say that science does not use metaphor. You might have a very focused definition of 'metaphor' in mind though.
You mean to say no. I look forward to your post on this topic.
You could say that the role of rational thought is to deliver valid inferences. Can you think of another role?
"But there is a circle."
Only if you are one of those Near Platter Nits.
"As soon as a body starts to rotate, the circle is uniquely specified."
If that body is a hoop, yes. If that body is a marble, no.
"Your insistance that the body must go all the way round for the circle to be manifest is an error in my view."
Then you are one of those Near Platter Nits. Perhaps that television show was right after all.
"Your narrow focus on only one aspect of the definition of 'revolution' compounds this error."
I do not regard a map as the territory it represents, nor architectural plans to be the buildings they anticipate.
"So all those questions in elementary coordinate geometry which ask you to specify completely the single transformation undergone by a shape and for which the answer is of the form: 'a clockwise rotation of theta (theta < Pi) about the point (x,y) are just ill defined I suppose?"
That depends upon the desired answer.
"How so?"
Because you think that my position is incorrect.
"Ok, sorry about that."
Not a problem. I tire of books which are nothing more than miscellanies of philosophy and history pasted together with grandiose metaphor.
"On the other hand the sense people attempt to make without metaphor isn't necessarily the case either."
Although it has a better chance of being the case.
"Not necessarily."
Give me an example.
"If it is a good metaphor then there will be an isomorphism which allows the deployment of the insight gained from the metaphor in the domain of facts."
For example, "In Winter the pavement is an ice rink". Which is to say that in Winter the pavement is cold, hard and slippy. Beautiful, it works. Religious thought is a baroque monarchy? I don't think so.
"So some people use metaphors badly. That doesn't invalidate metaphors as an explanatory tool."
It does invalidate their use as an educative tool. There is no grammar for metaphor, no method of metaphor. Any fool with a dictionary may attempt to come up with an insightful metaphor, fail and then publish books around them anyway.
"In a dialogue where I wanted to talk about the differences between a world view that leads to a religious outlook and one which leads to atheism."
I think any such dialogue would be better served by dealing with facts rather than fancies. It may be a useful gambit against some, this metaphor, miring them in discussion of things other than the facts, but there's no point trying to have a philosophical discussion while chasing around playing paintball in the rain and sleet when the interests of all parties are best served by a civilised meeting in a library with a bottle of port and a slab of madeira cake.
"Sounds like the domain-mapping theoretical description of how metaphor works to me."
Metaphors of this scale don't map. They smear.
"What I do believe is that it is not true to say that science does not use metaphor."
Give me an example.
"You might have a very focused definition of 'metaphor' in mind though."
Of science, perhaps.
"You could say that the role of rational thought is to deliver valid inferences. Can you think of another role?"
I think the effect of rational thought is to deliver useful inferences. It's role is up to the individual but often it is abused, especially by those who claim it as a standard, like a fascist wrapping themselves in a flag.
Near Platter Nits.
What are they?
If that body is a hoop, yes. If that body is a marble, no.
If it is a marble (or a mint) then if it described an arc such that it remained at a constant distance from a given point O (say, the same point that the letters N,S,E and W are equidistant from) then the motion is circular, the circle is specific, it has centre O. I don't know why you deny this.
Then you are one of those Near Platter Nits. Perhaps that television show was right after all.
Please remind me of the reference.
I do not regard a map as the territory it represents, nor architectural plans to be the buildings they anticipate.
Neither do I. But what about the marble that does complete a circular orbit? There is still no physical circle, no analogue of your building. Except, in one way, from a perdurantist perspective perhaps. But that is neither here nor there (more here/there/then.)
That depends upon the desired answer.
And if part d) asks for the equation of the circle?
Because you think that my position is incorrect.
Then you have used another incorrect term.
Although it has a better chance of being the case.
In my view metaphor has an important role in human cognition and language. Metaphor can be a useful tool to get to a position of being able to make descriptions of, or predictions about what is or is likely to be the case.
Give me an example.
Kekulé's dream of an ouroboros.
Religious thought is a baroque monarchy? I don't think so.
Neither Harbour nor I said that. The Baroque monarchy refers to the epistemological basis of a world view with which theism is compatible. In fact I think it works just as well as your 'ice rink' example. I'll explain it point by point if you wish.
It does invalidate their use as an educative tool. There is no grammar for metaphor, no method of metaphor.
Perhaps it is time for you to look into some of the theories of metaphor. A surprising amount of work has been done it seems although I have only read a tiny fraction of it.
Any fool with a dictionary may attempt to come up with an insightful metaphor, fail and then publish books around them anyway.
Or indeed coherent prose of any kind. Don't pick on metaphor.
I think any such dialogue would be better served by dealing with facts rather than fancies.
What, like Near Platter Nits, or imaginary hoops? Or are those part of a different sort of dialogue? Can I have a cigar with the cake?
Metaphors of this scale don't map. They smear.
Ewww....
Give me an example.
Another? Alright, how about Einstein:
"I realized that if I was riding on a beam of light, time for me would stop."
Of science, perhaps.
Your responses to the above might reveal whether you have a focused view of metaphor, or science, or both.
I think the effect of rational thought is to deliver useful inferences.
Then that is its role.
It's role is up to the individual but often it is abused,
perhaps we are just using different terminology. The application is up to the individual but within the constraints of the role-that of delivering valid inferences.
"What are they?"
Those people who believe in ideal crockery.
"I don't know why you deny this."
Well, I've explained why I do not agree with your position. There is no circular motion without a circle. There are no ideal circles.
"Please remind me of the reference."
Somewhere on this blog you glibly remarked that you had seen a television programme which advised you that most mathematicians were Platonists. I think most of them are engineers, personally.
"But what about the marble that does complete a circular orbit? There is still no physical circle, no analogue of your building. Except, in one way, from a perdurantist perspective perhaps."
Then there is no circle. We've discussed the existence of such a circle previously. It seems our conversation is revolving, at least.
"But that is neither here nor there (more here/there/then.)"
Here, now.
"And if part d) asks for the equation of the circle?"
Give it. The question then imposes the circle.
"Then you have used another incorrect term."
Mistaken rather than incorrect, at worst.
"In my view metaphor has an important role in human cognition and language."
Yes, and that is why its uglification by authors without a clue never mind a premise should be considered as a crime against language.
"Kekulé's dream of an ouroboros."
A nice anecdote about a post hoc rationalisation of an accident but it does not serve as a counter example. Kekulé had been working for years and doubtless had many day dreams about all manner of things. People day dream al the time but that isn't how we investigate the world.
"Neither Harbour nor I said that."
I beg to differ:
"As Daniel Harbour put it, religious belief flows from a Baroque monarchy whereas the scientific method stems from a Spartan meritocracy. The former has a non minimal set of non negotiable presuppositions, the latter has a minimal set of presuppositions which stand or fall on evidence."
Are you seriously expecting me to believe that both you and harbour assert the existence of an entity from which "religious belief flows"? If so then where is it, this "baroque monarchy" and when? Are we getting into Graeme Hancock territory? Has Clive Cussler sent Dirk Pit out in search for this place? Or will MacGyver beat him to it?
"Perhaps it is time for you to look into some of the theories of metaphor."
If any of this can explain to me how metaphor may be used to expand upon our knowledge in a measurable and methodical way then I shall be happy to give them a look. I am not against the use of metaphor. I am fond of imagery, as you may know from previous posts, but metaphor can only act as a marker for knowledge and data and not as an instrument for obtaining these.
"Or indeed coherent prose of any kind. Don't pick on metaphor."
Books such as this, built around metaphor, scream folly. Where a metaphor is set up in place of a theory no insights are to be found, only day dreams.
"What, like Near Platter Nits, or imaginary hoops?"
Like neither.
"Another? Alright, how about Einstein:
"I realized that if I was riding on a beam of light, time for me would stop.""
I see no metaphor there. For what thing is "a beam of light" metaphorical here?
"Then that is its role."
I disagree. The role of a thing is the purpose to which it is set.
"The application is up to the individual but within the constraints of the role-that of delivering valid inferences."
Application and role are the same thing.
Those people who believe in ideal crockery.
Ah, that television programme.
Well, I've explained why I do not agree with your position. There is no circular motion without a circle. There are no ideal circles.
You have explained yes. Your explanations have simply denied what is manifest. This latest ploy of equating my position with neoplatonism seems desperate. And contradictory. So are you saying there is no circular motion or no 'ideal' circular motion? If the former then you have shot yourself in the foot, if the latter then I'm interested in why a complete non ideal cycle qualifies whereas a non ideal arc does not. They are both circular motion if either is.
I think most of them are engineers, personally.
I think they were mathematicians in the programme but I could be confabulating from what that taxi driver told me.
Then there is no circle. We've discussed the existence of such a circle previously. It seems our conversation is revolving, at least.
I suppose it would be more like a helix anyway. Another attempt to have things both ways from you here though. A circle is an abstraction. That it models the features of some kinds of motion well enough is one useful feature. Its application in metaphor is another.
Give it. The question then imposes the circle.
Only because the transformation was a turn through a part of a circle.
Mistaken rather than incorrect, at worst.
You're not from around these parts are you? I didn't mean morally incorrect.
Yes, and that is why its uglification by authors without a clue never mind a premise should be considered as a crime against language.
C'mon now, admit that you are more judgemental than I am.
A nice anecdote about a post hoc rationalisation of an accident but it does not serve as a counter example.
You might consider it this way. It might be so. Kekulé does not describe it this way though. Having read some of the literature it seems metaphor is important in scientific thinking. You seem to focus more on the bread and butter phase. Sometimes people have to think of new stuff. They report that metaphor helps.
I beg to differ:
No need, your right to be wrong is sacrosanct. Even if you do quote something that contradicts your position in the very next paragraph.
Are you seriously expecting me to believe that both you and harbour assert the existence of an entity from which "religious belief flows"?
Entity? I have said what I meant already. It is 'world view'. (Don't worry, it isn't at all like 'zeitgeist'.)
but metaphor can only act as a marker for knowledge and data and not as an instrument for obtaining these.
People think of new stuff and sometimes they do this first in metaphorical terms. They then refine their ideas to the hypothesis stage and can gather data. You seem to be focusing only on the latter stages so perhaps that answers that dangling question. Your narrow focus is at the science rather than the metaphor end. But wait...
I see no metaphor there. For what thing is "a beam of light" metaphorical here?
Actually it is both.
Application and role are the same thing.
Given our track record, I suspect that we have argued about words enough for now. What do you reckon? I'll take your definition of role if that helps.
"If the former then you have shot yourself in the foot"
I'm saying that there is no circular motion without a circle. Arcs do not necessarily belong to circles. Arcs do not invoke an ideal circle.
"Another attempt to have things both ways from you here though."
I don't think so. It's not possible for me to make arguments from perdurantism on this issue as I have no economic method of composing these. Where I have previously asserted the existence of a circle through perdurantism there have indeed been closed circles.
"A circle is an abstraction. That it models the features of some kinds of motion well enough is one useful feature."
Only motion? All that we perceive is an abstraction and we accept a great many of these as real. Are there no circles in the world?
"Only because the transformation was a turn through a part of a circle."
There you are.
"You're not from around these parts are you? I didn't mean morally incorrect."
I beg your pardon?
"C'mon now, admit that you are more judgemental than I am."
Define judgemental.
"Having read some of the literature it seems metaphor is important in scientific thinking. You seem to focus more on the bread and butter phase. Sometimes people have to think of new stuff. They report that metaphor helps."
Bread and butter is most of it. A few giants here and there have had insights which have been carried through history by everyone else beavering away with pencils and paper but how often does one of these claim an ourobouros? People are gripped by imagery and the inclusion of such in an account makes it more memorable and seem inspired, in a very real sense, yet we cannot be certain that these things happened. Newton's apple is emblematic of some of his work but of itself did not move his understanding forward.
"Even if you do quote something that contradicts your position in the very next paragraph."
In no part.
"Entity? I have said what I meant already."
Either the baroque monarchy and its flow stand for religious thought or the flow only stands for religious thought. If the second then in place of what does the baroque monarchy stand?
"It is 'world view'."
World-view and thoughts about the world are two different things? How so?
"People think of new stuff and sometimes they do this first in metaphorical terms."
You'll need to be more particular.
"Actually it is both."
You cannot answer the question, then.
"Given our track record, I suspect that we have argued about words enough for now. What do you reckon? I'll take your definition of role if that helps."
About what else could we argue? Yes, accept role. It may positively inform your future post on the issue.
I'm saying that there is no circular motion without a circle. Arcs do not necessarily belong to circles. Arcs do not invoke an ideal circle.
You have not taken on board what is a simple mathematical fact. Whereas I agree that you might usefully describe a section of other curves, a parabola for example, as an 'arc', it does not follow from this that no arc is circle specific.
Imagine the Cartesian plane and a circle centre the origin of radius 1 unit. Now suppose only the arc in the first quadrant is drawn. That arc uniquely specifies the circle even though the full circle is not explicit.
You are also conflating two issues, the idea of 'ideal' circles and whether a part of a circle specifies the whole. The answer to the latter is that it does and the former is not relevant since we are talking about the metaphorical justification for the figurative use of 'revolution'. So even if there are no perfect circles it doesn't matter. The term 'revolution' can still be used to mean the kind of motion we model using circles.
When I said you were trying to have things both ways it wasn't that I expect you to make a perdurantist case. It is that you seem incosistent in what you are already saying. On the one hand you concede that there is 'a revolution' after on cycle because there is a complete circle, on the other you seem to say there is no such animal when you say "Then there is no circle." Well, which is it? Are you saying there are no circles when we have one particle orbiting? That particles or single bodies that orbit are not revolving (unless they are spinning on their axes)?
Only motion?
No. I didn't imply that it is only motion to which circles are applicable.
All that we perceive is an abstraction and we accept a great many of these as real. Are there no circles in the world?
I think there are. Just like there are cubes and spheres and so on. They are not necessarily mathematically perfect on close inspection, but I won't complain about that if you don't.
There you are.
I am here yes, in the position of arguing that an arc can specifiy a circle and that if something describes an arc then its motion is circular. Not linear, not parabolic, circular.
"You're not from around these parts are you? I didn't mean morally incorrect."
Ok, you explain the distinction you are drawing between 'mistaken' and 'incorrect'.
Define judgemental.
Nah, you'll just say my definition is rubbish.
Bread and butter is most of it.
True but irrelevant.
A few giants here and there have had insights which have been carried through history by everyone else beavering away with pencils and paper but how often does one of these claim an ourobouros?
Often enough for my case.
People are gripped by imagery and the inclusion of such in an account makes it more memorable and seem inspired, in a very real sense, yet we cannot be certain that these things happened.
Look, on the one hand we have example after example of people reporting that metaphor has helped them to new ways of thinking that subsequently became robust testable hypotheses. On the other we have you, convinced that such things are merely post rationalisations included as embellishments to popularise accounts of events. You cite no evidence that this was the case for Kekulé and in the Einstein case you seem to think that somebody could literally ride on a beam of light. So we might have to agree to differ here. I don't doubt that Newton's Apple cases also occur but I do not see why you think it must always be like that, apart from the fact that it suits your argument.
You'll need to be more particular.
I have already been particular enough but you merely reject the evidence.
You cannot answer the question, then.
It wasn't a XOR question. The answer is 'both'.
About what else could we argue?
Football.
Yes, accept role. It may positively inform your future post on the issue.
You never know.
On the issue of 'worldview', Harbour draws the following distinction:
"Worldviews are not explanations in themselves; they are not theories. They are foundations on which explanations are built".
"On the issue of 'worldview', Harbour draws the following distinction:
"Worldviews are not explanations in themselves; they are not theories. They are foundations on which explanations are built"."
The man should be beaten sensible with the Tractatus.
The man should be beaten sensible with the Tractatus.
I found Harbour's book to be a diverting read even if it is not a profound work of philosophy (which it isn't).
"it does not follow from this that no arc is circle specific."
I can agree with that.
"Imagine the Cartesian plane and a circle centre the origin of radius 1 unit. Now suppose only the arc in the first quadrant is drawn. That arc uniquely specifies the circle even though the full circle is not explicit."
You are specifying a circle so I can agree with that.
"whether a part of a circle specifies the whole. The answer to the latter is that it does"
I agree as you specified a circle.
"the idea of 'ideal' circles... is not relevant since we are talking about the metaphorical justification for the figurative use of 'revolution'."
An arc is not the shadow of a circle.
"The term 'revolution' can still be used to mean the kind of motion we model using circles."
Motion through 2pi.
"On the one hand you concede that there is 'a revolution' after on cycle because there is a complete circle, on the other you seem to say there is no such animal when you say "Then there is no circle.""
Where did I say that after one cycle there is no circle?
"No. I didn't imply that it is only motion to which circles are applicable."
Then circles are not simply an abstraction.
"I am here yes, in the position of arguing that an arc can specifiy a circle and that if something describes an arc then its motion is circular. Not linear, not parabolic, circular."
It sounds as though you are confused over whether an arc is something which can specify something other than a circle or that an arc must specify a circle. Which is it?
"Ok, you explain the distinction you are drawing between 'mistaken' and 'incorrect'."
I would be incorrect in your terms if we were both starting from the same position, otherwise mistaken. You seem to assume that every arc is a segment of some circle while I do not. I say that where an arc is part of a circle it may be used to specify that circle, otherwise not.
"Nah, you'll just say my definition is rubbish."
Now who's being judgemental?
"True but irrelevant."
True and relevant. You still have not shown that metaphor is a part of scientific method.
"Often enough for my case."
It really is a very weak case. Remember this? Replace the word miracle with the word metaphor and you'll get some idea of how weak.
"Look, on the one hand we have example after example of people reporting that metaphor has helped them to new ways of thinking that subsequently became robust testable hypotheses."
You may but we don't. Please share. Any studies?
"On the other we have you, convinced that such things are merely post rationalisations included as embellishments to popularise accounts of events."
Yes, we have that. Want to see it again?
"You cite no evidence that this was the case for Kekulé"
No need. There is no evidence that this day dream was an integral part of his discovery but it is quite interesting that he first mentions it at a roast thrown in his honour. It may be the case that, after years of studying these problems, a muse suddenly blew into his ear, or it may be the case that he just wanted to tell a story. I can hear Dawkins telling his little tale of an aged professor admitting his years of error even as I write this.
"in the Einstein case you seem to think that somebody could literally ride on a beam of light."
No. Was Einstein speaking of what would actually happen if he were riding on a beam of light or what would metaphorically happen? The metaphor is "riding on a beam of light" but this is not an indispensible part of the sentence and could easily be replaced by "was travelling at the same speed as light". So, were is the significance of the metaphor here?
"I do not see why you think it must always be like that, apart from the fact that it suits your argument."
It may be the way you say it for some people but I have yet to learn how that would work or even if it has worked.
"I have already been particular enough but you merely reject the evidence."
"People", "stuff" and "sometimes" are particular? I reject what you present as evidence that metaphor plays a significant role in science because there are good grounds for rejection.
"It wasn't a XOR question. The answer is 'both'.
Both implies two possible responses. That implies XOR.
"Football."
Now you are just being silly.
"You never know."
I know a great deal of the time but I'm interested to learn what you have to say here.
"I found Harbour's book to be a diverting read even if it is not a profound work of philosophy (which it isn't)."
I know precisely what you mean. I bought a David Icke book once.
Perhaps you'll find something in The Museum of Curiosity which will help you.
So three agreements to start with, that might be progress.
Then we have:
An arc is not the shadow of a circle.
No it is part of one.*
*For the purposes of this discussion, when I say 'arc' I mean part of a circle rather than any other kind of curve unless otherwise specified. I hope this avoids further confusion.
Motion through 2pi.
Or part thereof.
Where did I say that after one cycle there is no circle?
I was referring to this exchange, I said:
"But what about the marble that does complete a circular orbit? There is still no physical circle, no analogue of your building. Except, in one way, from a perdurantist perspective perhaps."
You replied:
"Then there is no circle. We've discussed the existence of such a circle previously. It seems our conversation is revolving, at least."
So which is it?
Then circles are not simply an abstraction.
Where did I say they were 'simply' an abstraction?
It sounds as though you are confused over whether an arc is something which can specify something other than a circle or that an arc must specify a circle. Which is it?
I am not at all confused. Do you have a superhero costume with Literal Man emblazoned on the chest? I had just specified a circular arc. I then say 'arc' and you assume I might mean a parabolic one? To clarify, if a body describes a circular arc then its motion is circular, not linear, not parabolic, circular, even if it does not get all the way round. Persist in your denial of this if you must.
I would be incorrect in your terms if we were both starting from the same position, otherwise mistaken.
Fine distinction.
You seem to assume that every arc is a segment of some circle while I do not. I say that where an arc is part of a circle it may be used to specify that circle, otherwise not.
Yeah, so do I. Perhaps you bumped your head on the phone booth door and forgot I said:
"Whereas I agree that you might usefully describe a section of other curves, a parabola for example, as an 'arc', it does not follow from this that no arc is circle specific."
Now, remember if a body describes a (circular) arc then the circle is uniquely specified. The motion of the body can then properly be termed 'circular'.
"Or part thereof."
As part of a series summing to 2pi.
"You replied:
"...We've discussed the existence of such a circle previously. It seems our conversation is revolving, at least.""
I should have composed that better. The circle the existence of which we have previously discussed was in a perdurantist context and I should have seperated this remark from "then there is no circle".
"Where did I say they were 'simply' an abstraction?"
"A circle is an abstraction" sounds pretty general to me.
"Do you have a superhero costume with Literal Man emblazoned on the chest?"
You may be my sidekick if you wish. How does "Kid Pedant" sound to you?
"I had just specified a circular arc. I then say 'arc' and you assume I might mean a parabolic one?"
I see what you intended. The inclusion of the word such would have averted this confusion.
"if a body describes a circular arc then its motion is circular, not linear, not parabolic, circular, even if it does not get all the way round."
Such an arc is a segment of a circle therefore its motion may be described as circular.
"Fine distinction."
Tune in next time, Literal-fans, for another exciting episode of Literal Man! Same Literal-time, same Literal-channel!
"if a body describes a (circular) arc then the circle is uniquely specified."
An arc which is circular is a segment of a circle.
"The motion of the body can then properly be termed 'circular'."
Assuming a complete cycle.
Now who's being judgemental?
It was a joke.
True and relevant. You still have not shown that metaphor is a part of scientific method.
Every time I begin I find you with your fingers in your ears singing 'La la la la...'.
By the way, don't try to tweak your position on the fly. We are talking about whether science uses metaphor. 'Scientific method' has a more narrow definition than 'science'.
Replace the word miracle with the word metaphor and you'll get some idea of how weak.
Good cartoon. Perhaps this reveals the nature of your misunderstanding. Metaphor does not have that kind of application in science-they don't tend to appear in the middle of equations, or in the bread and butter stages evoked by this cartoon. The equations are a later phase of development than accessing the wellspring of novel ideas.
You may but we don't. Please share. Any studies?
The things I am referring to are in the public domain. You won't even need your jstor access. So 'we' do. There are many examples of such reports. I'd be interested in the methodology you would propose for a 'study' though.
Yes, we have that. Want to see it again?
Not if you are going to advance no evidence again. Oh oh, too late:
No need [unevidenced speculation snipped].
I am not talking of 'muses'. Just different ways of thinking using metaphor and imagery. People report this, yet you must deny it regardless of the evidence because it torpedoes your argument.
No. Was Einstein speaking of what would actually happen if he were riding on a beam of light or what would metaphorically happen?
Clearly the latter since it is an impossible scenario. The fact that this tells us something about actuality is the point of using metaphor in this way.
The metaphor is "riding on a beam of light" but this is not an indispensible part of the sentence and could easily be replaced by "was travelling at the same speed as light". So, were is the significance of the metaphor here?
Firstly I'd be interested in what case you would make for it being up to you to decide what is or is not an indispensable part of a world class scientist's thought process. Secondly, since Einstein had mass, he couldn't travel at the speed of light. So he cannot literally mean that. So the significance of the metaphor is that Einstein reported that he thought of the problem in this metaphorical way. He went on to develop the idea rather well. Science uses metaphor.
It may be the way you say it for some people but I have yet to learn how that would work or even if it has worked.
Would you rule out thinking in imagery as a way to make an inspired leap? I don't see why you would. Sometimes step-by-step thinking is not adequate to the task. Imagery is no good on its own. But sometimes we need to do things in such a way that we are not consciously aware in real time of the individual steps we take. I don't know why you are resistant to this idea.
"People", "stuff" and "sometimes" are particular?
The Kekulé and Einstein cases were particular.
I reject what you present as evidence that metaphor plays a significant role in science because there are good grounds for rejection.
Then present them.
Both implies two possible responses. That implies XOR.
No, not at all. That is why we have OR and XOR. In ordinary language it is sometimes ambiguous as to which is meant but usually the context can settle it. I'll give you two examples:
1) "You have the choice of execution by firing squad or hanging." (XOR)
2) "For this job you need a degree or experience of work in this area." (OR)
Now you are just being silly.
Well, ask a silly question and...
I know a great deal of the time but I'm interested to learn what you have to say here.
Before I do, just to be sure, do you mean what I have to say about the applications of rational thought?
As part of a series summing to 2pi.
Exactly so. It is circular motion. The physical body might only ever rotate by Pi and then remain stubbornly in the new position diametrically opposite to its old one. It has still undergone circular motion since the arc can be extrapolated to the full circle.
See, I knew we could agree.
I should have composed that better.
Well I could have said such so let us agree to be tolerant of these minor glitches.
"A circle is an abstraction" sounds pretty general to me.
Generality is not simplicity.
You may be my sidekick if you wish. How does "Kid Pedant" sound to you?
Good one.
Such an arc is a segment of a circle therefore its motion may be described as circular.
More agreement! Is euphoria premature?
Assuming a complete cycle.
And then you go and spoil it all...
Perhaps you'll find something in The Museum of Curiosity which will help you.
Thanks for this, I have been meaning to listen to this episode.
"It was a joke."
I know.
"Every time I begin I find you with your fingers in your ears singing 'La la la la...'."
Don't be like that. I'm giving you perfectly reasonable objections while inviting further evidence.
"'Scientific method' has a more narrow definition than 'science'."
We must deliniate our subject. What is science without method? But go on then. Science is..?
"Metaphor does not have that kind of application in science-they don't tend to appear in the middle of equations, or in the bread and butter stages evoked by this cartoon. The equations are a later phase of development than accessing the wellspring of novel ideas."
So, we are talking about method or we aren't talking about method? Which is it?
"The things I am referring to are in the public domain. You won't even need your jstor access."
I would prefer that to some miscellany of pop science. We are looking for evidence, not anecdote.
"There are many examples of such reports. I'd be interested in the methodology you would propose for a 'study' though."
You cite the use of metaphor in science as an integral component therefore I think you should conduct the study, that is, if you cannot find one.
"Not if you are going to advance no evidence again."
That you cannot bear the absence of evidence for your case does not make that absence irrelevant.
"I am not talking of 'muses'. Just different ways of thinking using metaphor and imagery. People report this, yet you must deny it regardless of the evidence because it torpedoes your argument."
I'm interested and eager to learn more as I use imagery to organise. If imagery can be used to process then I wish to know how this is done. Now, where people report a phenomenon with significant frequency there is often a study or two which collates these reports while offering an interpretation. Where are these?
"Clearly the latter since it is an impossible scenario."
So Einstein was wrong and time would not stop, then, is what you say.
"The fact that this tells us something about actuality is the point of using metaphor in this way."
What actuality? You just said that the whole thing was metaphor.
"Firstly I'd be interested in what case you would make for it being up to you to decide what is or is not an indispensable part of a world class scientist's thought process."
I've suggested a paraphrase which preserves the sense of an utterance. I haven't attempted to simplify his equations.
"Secondly, since Einstein had mass, he couldn't travel at the speed of light. So he cannot literally mean that."
As I said, metaphorical, but the consequence was literal.
"Science uses metaphor."
Susan Greenfield wears lingerie. Science wears lingerie.
"Would you rule out thinking in imagery as a way to make an inspired leap? I don't see why you would."
I wouldn't but all the same I wish to see why you consider it anymore significant to the conduct of science anymore than lingerie.
"Sometimes step-by-step thinking is not adequate to the task. Imagery is no good on its own."
Aha. Sometimes. Imagery is unnecessary.
"But sometimes we need to do things in such a way that we are not consciously aware in real time of the individual steps we take."
If there is no conscious awareness of imagery then how do you know there is any imagery? Are you conscious of that basque you're wearing?
"I don't know why you are resistant to this idea."
Call me old fashioned but I like an argument to have some kind of visible means of support. Unlike some items of lingerie.
"The Kekulé and Einstein cases were particular."
Jane Goodall wore lingerie too. Science uses lingerie.
"Then present them."
(i) The absence of any evidence that metaphor is in any way a component of scientific method or that scientific method could be improved by the inclusion of metaophor.
(ii) See (i)
"No, not at all. That is why we have OR and XOR."
Now you just sit there for a moment and explain what you meant in the first place by "both".
"Before I do, just to be sure, do you mean what I have to say about the applications of rational thought?"
Yes, you were going to begin a new discussion, as I remember, but don't let that distract you from the issue of metaphor in science.
"And then you go and spoil it all..."
...By saying something sensible like assuming a complete circle.
Don't be like that. I'm giving you perfectly reasonable objections while inviting further evidence.
In what way is flat denial of the evidence I have presented 'reasonable'? This evidence is in the form of testimony from those best placed to know what part metaphor played in their own thought processes.
We must deliniate our subject. What is science without method?
What is a car without wheels? Does that mean a car is just the wheels?
So, we are talking about method or we aren't talking about method? Which is it?
Come now, that really won't do. You know full well that 'scientific method' has a specific meaning pertaining to the methodology of conducting scientific enquiry. Metaphor as an integral part of randomised double blind controlled trial protocol? I don't think so.
You cite the use of metaphor in science as an integral component therefore I think you should conduct the study, that is, if you cannot find one.
Now, now, don't duck the question. I'm interested in whether you can think of a credible study design that doesn't rely on testimony. If not, the search for studies is futile since you will just do again as you have done, which is simply dismiss what scientists say about their own thought processes out of hand because it doesn't suit your case. I don't see the point of getting you to do that twenty times in a row because some study relates that twenty scientists report this phenomenon and this might represent x% of scientific breakthrough.
That you cannot bear the absence of evidence for your case does not make that absence irrelevant.
Yet unlike you, I have advanced evidence in the form of testimony. You have advanced your own self serving speculation.
Where are these?
Go seek, I'm not stopping you. Perhaps you should stop ducking that methodology question first though.
So Einstein was wrong and time would not stop, then, is what you say.
No.
What actuality? You just said that the whole thing was metaphor.
The idea occurred to Einstein in the form of a metaphorical (and impossible) scenario. He then developed this into a testable theory with equations and everything. The latter tells us something about actuality. I hope that clarifies.
I've suggested a paraphrase which preserves the sense of an utterance. I haven't attempted to simplify his equations.
Yes, what a pity you weren't there at the time to give Einstein a good shake and make the point that his daydreams could have been conducted more efficiently.
As I said, metaphorical, but the consequence was literal.
Aha! So we agree. Thankyou for using the term 'consequence' since that concedes the causal importance of metaphor in giving rise to ideas which are subsequently developed using mathematics into a viable scientific theory.
Susan Greenfield wears lingerie. Science wears lingerie.
That's a good example of a bad metaphor, thanks.
I wouldn't but all the same I wish to see why you consider it anymore significant to the conduct of science anymore than lingerie.
So you want me to spell out why it is a bad metaphor? Ok. You have no evidence or reason to suppose that SG's lingerie is causally related to the ideas she has about the brain. In the case of Kekulé and Einstein there is a direct path from the metaphor to a testable scientific theory. You can always argue that they would have had their big ideas anyway but not only is that just speculation it is unfalsifiable.
Aha. Sometimes. Imagery is unnecessary.
You failed to parse the sentence perhaps. "Sometimes step-by-step thinking is not adequate to the task." So I can argue from this that imagery is sometimes necessary.
If there is no conscious awareness of imagery then how do you know there is any imagery?
I didn't say there was no conscious awareness of imagery, rather, there is no conscious awareness of individual steps. Like being aware of the journey rather than the behaviour of ones leg muscles.
Call me old fashioned but I like an argument to have some kind of visible means of support. Unlike some items of lingerie.
Are you in danger of focusing on lingerie rather than the argument here?
Jane Goodall wore lingerie too. Science uses lingerie.
It is said that Einstein didn't often wear socks, but guess what? He came up with General Relativity anyway!
(i) The absence of any evidence that metaphor is in any way a component of scientific method or that scientific method could be improved by the inclusion of metaophor.
I'm talking about science and I gave some evidence.
ii) See (i)
(i) is false.
Now you just sit there for a moment and explain what you meant in the first place by "both".
Seriously? I meant that you seem to have a narrow focus in terms of what science involves AND a narrow focus of how metaphors work.
Yes, you were going to begin a new discussion, as I remember, but don't let that distract you from the issue of metaphor in science.
I will. I'll make it themed to begin with.
...By saying something sensible like assuming a complete circle.
It was a queasy feeling having the song pop into my head but with your line being sung. Especially the mad scramble at the end.
We agree on the complete circle. It is just that , when in costume, you seem to insist that the physical body has to traverse all of it, which is just wrong.
In the end I decided against my theme which was to be suicide.
"In what way is flat denial of the evidence I have presented 'reasonable'?"
You have accused me of LaLaism and simble objection before. Now, as then, I do not understand why you resort to this. It looks increasingly as though an accusation of LaLaism is in itself an expression of LaLaism.
"This evidence is in the form of testimony from those best placed to know what part metaphor played in their own thought processes."
Neither testimony shows precisely what you would like it to show, which is that metaphor is a part of science, an idea which you have so far failed to explain. Also, introspection is unreliable, therefore personal 2 personal testimonies for your premise, as you imagine them, are unreliable.
"What is a car without wheels? Does that mean a car is just the wheels?"
Then follow it through and tell me what science there is without method or, rather than wasting our time, accept the evidence of everything you have learned on this issue, that method is a part of science, and then tell of what part metaphor plays within it.
"Metaphor as an integral part of randomised double blind controlled trial protocol? I don't think so."
Good for you. If metaphor isn't a part of the method then it isn't a part of science.
"Now, now, don't duck the question. I'm interested in whether you can think of a credible study design that doesn't rely on testimony."
I think you'll find that there isn't a lot of metaphor in scientific papers.
"If not, the search for studies is futile since you will just do again as you have done, which is simply dismiss what scientists say about their own thought processes out of hand because it doesn't suit your case."
I'm sure this works on some people but not me.
"I don't see the point of getting you to do that twenty times in a row because some study relates that twenty scientists report this phenomenon and this might represent x% of scientific breakthrough."
Well, it's either a real phenomenon and a part of science or it's not. At the moment, due to your difficulty at formulating even a conjecture on this, it's looking increasingly not.
"Yet unlike you, I have advanced evidence in the form of testimony. You have advanced your own self serving speculation."
Here's a metaphor foryou; 2 swallows do not make a Summer.
"Go seek, I'm not stopping you. Perhaps you should stop ducking that methodology question first though."
Please. Are we on E&F? You make the claim, you present the evidence.
"No."
Yet you claimed that the whole thing was metaphor.
"The idea occurred to Einstein in the form of a metaphorical (and impossible) scenario."
If the whole thing is a metaphor then for what do "light" and "time" stand in place?
"Yes, what a pity you weren't there at the time to give Einstein a good shake and make the point that his daydreams could have been conducted more efficiently."
Einstein was a teenager when he first had this thought but did not do the math until much later. Not typical science, is it. Bit of an extraordinary example of science, wouldn't you agree? Was I expected to fall before Einstein?
"That's a good example of a bad metaphor, thanks."
It's at least as good as your car-without-wheels.
"So you want me to spell out why it is a bad metaphor? Ok. You have no evidence or reason to suppose that SG's lingerie is causally related to the ideas she has about the brain. In the case of Kekulé and Einstein there is a direct path from the metaphor to a testable scientific theory."
Yet both your birds chirped your testimonies many years after the event. If you truly believe that their testimonies support your position then they did so even before they were made and indeed their very fact would have done so even without testimony. That we have no reports of lingerie as an integral part of the scientific method does not, then, mean that it is not an integral part of the scientific method. If it works for you then it works for me.
"You can always argue that they would have had their big ideas anyway but not only is that just speculation it is unfalsifiable."
If your non-conjecture is unfalsifiable then why should you or I take it seriously? Does the metaphor get added to the test tube before the miracle or after the miracle?
"You failed to parse the sentence perhaps. "Sometimes step-by-step thinking is not adequate to the task." So I can argue from this that imagery is sometimes necessary."
No failure there, but I do not dispute that imagery may be sometimes necessary yet your argument goes beyond the accidental.
"rather, there is no conscious awareness of individual steps."
Then in what way is this science? Even the philology of science is against you.
"Are you in danger of focusing on lingerie rather than the argument here?"
Well, there you stand, in all your glory; Psiomniac's New Argument.
"It is said that Einstein didn't often wear socks, but guess what? He came up with General Relativity anyway!"
Ah, but from this I can argue that socks are sometimes necessary.
"I'm talking about science and I gave some evidence."
You aren't talking about science. You're talking about unconcious thought. In what way is this scientific?
"Seriously?"
Yes. I suspect that of you had a good argument you would have made it instead of asking if I was serious.
"which is just wrong."
This from the champion of unconscious science.
You have accused me of LaLaism and simble objection before. Now, as then, I do not understand why you resort to this. It looks increasingly as though an accusation of LaLaism is in itself an expression of LaLaism.
It certainly is not Lalaism on my part. I have set out the case clearly yet you keep wrongly accusing me of not having done so. I have given evidence and you have simply dismissed it without credible counter argument. The notion that testimony cannot count as evidence is absurd so I doubt you hold that view, but your specific reasons for doubting this testimonial evidence is very weak. In addition to that you refuse to give any indication of what you think might constitute better evidence.
Neither testimony shows precisely what you would like it to show, which is that metaphor is a part of science, an idea which you have so far failed to explain.
Both testimonies show precisely what I would like, namely that science has a creative phase. During this phase scientists speculate and think of novel ideas. They report that sometimes metaphor helps with this process. Therefore, metaphor is part of science. Not in the 'scientific method' phase of double blind trials. Now, if you want to go ahead and exclude this phase (scientists thinking of new ideas via metaphor) from science proper, then fine we can agree to differ on that. It is of no consequence, scientists will just carry on using metaphor as part of their work anyway. This must be the third clear statement of my point. I shall refer you to it next time you wrongly say that I have not set out my view.
Also, introspection is unreliable, therefore personal 2 personal testimonies for your premise, as you imagine them, are unreliable.
Introspection is unreliable to an extent but to contend that it is always unreliable is self defeating. You have advanced no good evidence that these examples are unreliable.
Then follow it through and tell me what science there is without method or, rather than wasting our time, accept the evidence of everything you have learned on this issue, that method is a part of science, and then tell of what part metaphor plays within it.
Let us say that the scientific method is represented by the wheels. The car represents science. So Science without the scientific method is like a car without wheels, which means it wouldn't get anywhere and so would not function as a car. If there were no wheels there would be no cars. If there were no scientific method there would be no science.
I don't think metaphor plays a role in the scientific method if we understand that term in its technical sense. The scientific method is not science any more than the wheels are the car.
Good for you. If metaphor isn't a part of the method then it isn't a part of science.
If the headlamp isn't part of the wheels then it isn't part of the car.
I think you'll find that there isn't a lot of metaphor in scientific papers.
What evidence have you for that claim?
I'm sure this works on some people but not me.
Rational argument you mean?
Well, it's either a real phenomenon and a part of science or it's not. At the moment, due to your difficulty at formulating even a conjecture on this, it's looking increasingly not.
I think the difficulty is all yours.
Please. Are we on E&F? You make the claim, you present the evidence.
Sorry, no switchback manouvres allowed. The original claim is yours, you were the one who said science does not use metaphor and you have wriggled in the face of the contrary evidence ever since.
Yet you claimed that the whole thing was metaphor.
Just point to where I used the crude term 'whole thing', there's a good chap.
If the whole thing is a metaphor then for what do "light" and "time" stand in place?
I'll ignore the 'whole thing' nonsense for now, but are you really suggesting that metaphor can use no literal elements?
Bit of an extraordinary example of science, wouldn't you agree? Was I expected to fall before Einstein?
There are plenty more examples, not just Einstein. But one counter example is sufficient to refute your unevidenced claim that science does not use metaphor.
It's at least as good as your car-without-wheels.
This claim further demonstrates your difficulty with metaphor perhaps.
Yet both your birds chirped your testimonies many years after the event.
Hmm, I wonder why that might be. Perhaps because it wasn't until many years after the event that they had cause to give testimony? Given that it wasn't until then they were world famous and so were asked about it? It will always have to be some time after the event. It does not follow from this that it is necessarily unreliable.
If you truly believe that their testimonies support your position then they did so even before they were made and indeed their very fact would have done so even without testimony.
Except we wouldn't know about it.
That we have no reports of lingerie as an integral part of the scientific method does not, then, mean that it is not an integral part of the scientific method. If it works for you then it works for me.
Except even in this narrow respect, the cases are different. Many scientists have come up with novel ideas. Some have become famous. Some have said metaphor helped, none to my knowledge have said lingerie helped.
No failure there, but I do not dispute that imagery may be sometimes necessary yet your argument goes beyond the accidental.
That imagery is sometimes necessary is all I need. Time for you to concede this one I think.
Then in what way is this science? Even the philology of science is against you.
I can have an image without being conscious at the time of what steps in a problem it might be solving. That doesn't mean I don't know about the image or that it does not contribute to explicit knowledge in the end.
Ah, but from this I can argue that socks are sometimes necessary.
If you can give a credible account of the causal link between socks and scientific progress as I have between metaphor and scientific progress then feel free to so argue.
You aren't talking about science. You're talking about unconcious thought. In what way is this scientific?
I'm talking about conscious thought too though. Conscious awareness of images and metaphors that can be consciously used to formulate testable hypotheses.
Yes. I suspect that of you had a good argument you would have made it instead of asking if I was serious.
I expect that if you had a good counter to my explanation of 'both' you would have made it instead of coming out with this flannel. I trust you understand 'both' now.
This from the champion of unconscious science.
This from somebody whose foundation for an argument is '2 swallows do not make a Summer.'
Post a Comment