Socially constructed (was: Derrida)
Raghu Seshadri
Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: : : Can you operationalize "really" and "fundamentally" for me?
:
: : I don't know what "operationalize" means.
:
: Look it up.
My dictionary doesn't have it. Do you have
any synonyms ?
: : : ps -- does anyone object vociferously against the claim that we cannot
: : : think or speak about stars in ways which aren't socially constructed?
:
: : You are right, we can't, but only in the trivial sense
: : that language is socially constructed. It is conceivable
: : that a mathematical genius can formulate his own
: : mathematical language, and then describe the processes
: : of the stars in his notation; then he can think and
: : speak about stars in ways that are NOT socially
: : constructed.
: You think? Where did your hypothetical genius learn how to do
: mathematics? In the forest, from his bear mommy?
You miss the whole point.
RS
Michael S. Morris
Tuesday, the 16th of June, 1998
Silke:
Ach. I was always fond of the music
of the spheres. Sorry it doesn't
amount to *interest* ...
Dante and Madeleine L'Engle are one thing,
astronomy and astrophysics another. Interesting
as the former may be they do not pertain to
the way astronomers and astrophysicists think
and speak about the stars (as astronomers
and astrophysicists), and it is, umm, doubtful
to say the least that any change in social
construction could lead to astronomers and
astrophysicists speaking and thinking about
the music of the spheres as valid astronomy or
astrophysics. You did suggest that we cannot
think or speak about stars in ways that are
not socially constructed? Which is a stronger
claim, is it not, than merely that we have many
wonderful socially constructed ways of thinking
and speaking about stars?
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
David Christopher Swanson
In article <3586F0...@netdirect.net>
"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> writes:
> if it were even possible---and I doubt it---
> it would be the long labour of multiple geniuses, and
> consequently, there doesn't seem to be any such animal.
Exactly what major cultural achievements are not the long labour of
multiple geniuses?
DCS
http://www.cstone.net/~dcswan
David Christopher Swanson
In article <6m6opr$i...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
> David Christopher Swanson (dcs...@cstone.net) wrote:
>
> : You will reply that our understanding of stars moves closer to the WAY
> : stars REALLY ARE, but that the latter does not change. The latter is
> : also not a meaningful concept unless you can show it to me, or at least
> : flesh out what "moving closer" is supposed to mean.
> : Our conception of stars will continue to change radically, I have
> : little doubt. How long we will use the term "star" I have no idea.
>
> This sort of thing is really, fundamentally
> a protest against the urge to seek knowledge.
> As long as this urge is there in man, he will
> seek to know more and more about the stars,
> and whenever that happens, Swanson can say
> "see ? your notion of a star has changed. This
> means the star has no objective reality. It is
> socialy constructed !" :-)
An odd thing for me to say after having spent a whole thread trying to
show that "socially constructed" is a silly thing to say. It's also
odd that I'm really fundamentally protesting the urge to seek knowledge
since I'm unaware of any such protesting - but I guess that's the way
with real fundamental actions.
>
> In a static society like say the middle ages,
> when knowledge didn't accumulate for a long time,
> this argument couldn't apply, therefore a middle
> ages Swanson would be forced to concede the
> objective reality of stars.
Not in exactly a post-Cartesian sense of objectively real or a 20th
century sense of stars.
>
> Oddly, this means the vastly increasing amount
> of knowledge today enables the Swansons of today
> to repudiate it ! Talk about irony !!
>
> RS
What's "it"? And how many Swansons are there out there?
DCS
http://www.cstone.net/~dcswan
David Christopher Swanson
In article <6m6rgg$56j$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>
wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
> Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
> : Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
> :
> : : Can you operationalize "really" and "fundamentally" for me?
>
> : I don't know what "operationalize" means.
>
> Look it up.
It's not in Random House.
DCS
http://www.cstone.net/~dcswan
David Christopher Swanson
In article <358732...@netdirect.net>
"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> writes:
> Silke:
> Ach. I was always fond of the music
> of the spheres. Sorry it doesn't
> amount to *interest* ...
>
> Dante and Madeleine L'Engle are one thing,
...which I didn't think Silke had mentioned. It must be nice to be as
blind to the past as to the future.
DCS
http://www.cstone.net/~dcswan
Richard Harter
dcs...@cstone.net (David Christopher Swanson) wrote:
>In article <3586F0...@netdirect.net>
>"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> writes:
>> if it were even possible---and I doubt it---
>> it would be the long labour of multiple geniuses, and
>> consequently, there doesn't seem to be any such animal.
>Exactly what major cultural achievements are not the long labour of
>multiple geniuses?
I was reading one just recently.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
The animal described in Job is like no other;
That's because it is a uniqueorn
Jonathan Stone
In article <6m7d3h$q3a$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
|> Michael S. Morris (msmo...@netdirect.net) wrote:
|> : Tuesday, the 16th of June, 1998
|> And that was always the case? The music of the spheres is an Ancient
|> Greek concept, if memory serves right (which it often doesn't).
The concept of the Spheres is an ancient one. we've been to see.
The spheres posited from the Ptolemaic system just ain't there.
Rather quaint to ask about whether the music made by nonexistent
crystal spheres is astronomy or not.
(perhaps the _spheres_ were socially constructed?)
|> and it is, umm, doubtful : to say the least that any change in social
|> : construction could lead to astronomers and
|> : astrophysicists speaking and thinking about
|> : the music of the spheres as valid astronomy or
|> : astrophysics.
|>
|> I know. And the reasons for that are socially constructed. Thanks for
|> helping out.
Please explain how those reasons are socially constructed?
|> No, not really. The language of science is socially constructed. It
|> wouldn't work otherwise. Raghu's example of the lonely genius is a case
|> in point. The whole enterprise seems rather based upon the
|> constructability of its terms.
I'm not familiar with Raghu, but why is Einstein not is a counter-example?
The ways Einstein _thought_ about things was radically new. I don't
see how that new, original insight was, as an insight, socially constructed.
That communication requires some shared context is hardly new, or even
particularly relevant. We seem to be quite good at coming up with new,
non-linguistic constructs for communicating the relevant phenomena.
|> Funny, to say that we cannot speak about anything without the mediation of
|> the social never struck me as a very controversial claim, and I never
|> cease to wonder that some people actually take it upon themselves to
|> contradict it. It's like contradicting the statement that most people who
|> fall out of a 21st story window will die.
But that is precisely the point: people are shmashed up as a result
result of such impacts, none of what _happens_ to them is socially
constructed in any way.
tejas
Mario Taboada wrote:
>
> Swanson:
>
> <<What's "it"? And how many Swansons are there out there?>>
>
>
> Mario Taboada
>
> ObSong: Cottonmouth Briquet's incomparable "Meano Snake Blues" in the
> turntable right now.
Buncha damn vegetarians tried to appropriate for an anti-flatulence
campaign, calling it "Beano Snake Blues", but Briquet's grandson,
Jamoka Allemande Briquet, a lawyer and breeder of prime blooded
fightin' cocks from Nutbush, TN quashed that ploy raight in the bud,
Yessireebobtail.
("J.A" also has a chain of bbq establishments in the Memphis area and
is looking to expand into West Helena, Arkansas and into Mississippi
to take advantage of the explosion of gaming parlours in that state.
He has also chosen not to enter the catfish industry.)
"Grand-daddy knew how to make them chickens mean (something)"
J.A. Briquet
ObTeeVeeShow: THE SOUL OF STAX (Froggish and currently in rotation on
BRAVO. Footage of Booker T and the MGs..)
--
TBSa...@richmond.infi.net (also te...@infi.net)
'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
Hank Snow THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
Gerry Quinn
In article <6m6kli$3p4$1...@Skuzzy.cstone.net>, dcs...@cstone.net (David Christopher Swanson)
<6m66s8$mbi$1...@thetimes.pixel.kodak.com> wrote:
>In article <6m66s8$mbi$1...@thetimes.pixel.kodak.com>
>tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin) writes:
>
>> Perhaps millenia from now humans, using
>> technology we can now only imagine, will change Sirius in some
>> substantive way, and then we may speak of it as partly a social
>> construction.
>
>Perhaps if we continue this discussion, you can bear in mind a certain
>distinction. When people scream "Race is a social construct!" what
>they mean is "I don't find that way of thinking useful." They do not
>mean "You people have genetically engineered races. There didn't used
>to be any."
I thought they usually meant "Race is a categorisation I want everyone
to stop using!".
Anyway, people may often use vague, misleading or rhetorical language,
but I hope those posting here will attempt to be precise in what they
say...
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
Francis Muir
David Christopher Swanson writes:
Silke-Maria Weineck writes:
Raghu Seshadri writes:
Silke-Maria Weineck writes:
Can you operationalize "really" and "fundamentally"
for me?
I don't know what "operationalize" means.
Look it up.
It's not in Random House.
But it is in OED with quotes from 1954 on. Its rather clear that they find
the word distasteful and I can see why. Its a word from Journals in the
Social Sciences with hints, as the wine connoisseurs say, of pre-Blair,
post-Gaitskill YesMinisterTalk. I would implore S-MW to place an
embargo on her own use of the word and others like.
Francis
Richard Harter
Francis Muir <fra...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>David Christopher Swanson writes:
> Silke-Maria Weineck writes:
> Raghu Seshadri writes:
> Silke-Maria Weineck writes:
> Look it up.
I don't believe that she can; if I apprehend matters correctly, its use
is a professional requirement.
David Christopher Swanson
In article <6m7io3$g...@news-central.tiac.net>
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
> dcs...@cstone.net (David Christopher Swanson) wrote:
>
> >In article <3586F0...@netdirect.net>
> >"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> writes:
>
> >> if it were even possible---and I doubt it---
> >> it would be the long labour of multiple geniuses, and
> >> consequently, there doesn't seem to be any such animal.
>
>
> >Exactly what major cultural achievements are not the long labour of
> >multiple geniuses?
>
> I was reading one just recently.
Why the suspense?
DCS
http://www.cstone.net/~dcswan
David Christopher Swanson
In article <6m7jrb$jlf$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
jona...@Kowhai.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) writes:
> The ways Einstein _thought_ about things was radically new. I don't
> see how that new, original insight was, as an insight, socially constructed.
"Socially constructed" is most often used as a stand-in for "made" or
"invented" or "humanly produced." If we could reduce it to
"constructed" we would avoid this further confusion of debating the
strengths of individual efforts. How much an individual contributes to
some creation may be an interesting question, but it is not the
question of whether stuff is "created" as opposed to "discovered."
DCS
http://www.cstone.net/~dcswan
David Christopher Swanson
In article <6m80lf$bnb$2...@news.indigo.ie>
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) writes:
> In article <6m6kli$3p4$1...@Skuzzy.cstone.net>, dcs...@cstone.net (David Christopher Swanson)
> <6m66s8$mbi$1...@thetimes.pixel.kodak.com> wrote:
> >In article <6m66s8$mbi$1...@thetimes.pixel.kodak.com>
> >tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin) writes:
> >
> >> Perhaps millenia from now humans, using
> >> technology we can now only imagine, will change Sirius in some
> >> substantive way, and then we may speak of it as partly a social
> >> construction.
> >
> >Perhaps if we continue this discussion, you can bear in mind a certain
> >distinction. When people scream "Race is a social construct!" what
> >they mean is "I don't find that way of thinking useful." They do not
> >mean "You people have genetically engineered races. There didn't used
> >to be any."
>
> I thought they usually meant "Race is a categorisation I want everyone
> to stop using!".
I'll accept that translation.
snip
Michael S. Morris
Wednesday, the 17th of June, 1998
Silke:
Ach. I was always fond of the music
of the spheres. Sorry it doesn't
amount to *interest* ...
I said:
Dante and Madeleine L'Engle are one thing,
astronomy and astrophysics another. Interesting
as the former may be they do not pertain to
the way astronomers and astrophysicists think
and speak about the stars
Silke:
And that was always the case?
No. We learned more. So?
Silke:
The music of the spheres is an Ancient
Greek concept, if memory serves right
(which it often doesn't).
It is correct I believe in this case, although
I confess it escapes me immediately where I should
go looking to find it---possibly somewhere in the
acid trip of _Timaeus_. It is considered part of
the Ptolemaic system, though I doubt to find it in
Ptolemy per se---Plotinus, perhaps?
I said:
and it is, umm, doubtful
to say the least that any change in social
construction could lead to astronomers and
astrophysicists speaking and thinking about
the music of the spheres as valid astronomy or
astrophysics.
Silke:
I know. And the reasons for that are socially
constructed. Thanks for helping out.
You mistake. If a changed social construction---a
deconstruction followd by a reconstruction?---cannot
lead to a different astronomy and astrophysics that
is still astronomy and astrophysics and not, say,
astrology in sheep's clothing, then it would seem
that the only thing that is in fact socially constructed
with respect to astronomy and astrophysics is the
lexicon. Raghu's point.
It's really very simple: To demonstrate the claim of
interesting social construction in science all you have to do is
come up with a differently constructed science, still
valid as science.
I said:
You did suggest that we cannot
think or speak about stars in ways that are
not socially constructed? Which is a stronger
claim, is it not, than merely that we have many
wonderful socially constructed ways of thinking
and speaking about stars?
Silke:
No, not really. The language of science is
socially constructed. It wouldn't work otherwise.
Raghu's example of the lonely genius is a case
in point. The whole enterprise seems rather based upon the
constructability of its terms.
I thought that Raghu had agreed that the lexicon
itself was in fact socially constructed. There remains
nevertheless that nagging distinction between the freedom
to construct lore about the music of the spheres, and the
constaints on modeling convective transport in Sirius-B.
Silke:
Funny, to say that we cannot speak about anything
without the mediation of the social never struck me
as a very controversial claim, and I never cease to
wonder that some people actually take it upon themselves
to contradict it.
I don't think Raghu or I have even attempted to contradict
it. What I think rather is that we have both tried to
distinguish in what sense "we cannot speak about anything
without the mediation of the social"---whether this is
a trivial and uninteresting claim, or whether you are
suggesting there is some sense in which "the music of the
spheres" is equally valid astrophysics, and that is just a
matter of arbitrary convention that we consider the one
to be lore and the other to be science.
Silke:
It's like contradicting the statement that most people who
fall out of a 21st story window will die.
Oh, so it was a trivial, uninteresting claim after all.
Why did you not just agree with Raghu in the first place
when he suggested, sure, the lexicon is socially constructed?
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Michael S. Morris
Wednesday, the 17th of June, 1998
Silke:
Ach. I was always fond of the music
of the spheres. Sorry it doesn't
amount to *interest* ...
I said:
Dante and Madeleine L'Engle are one thing,
David:
...which I didn't think
Silke had mentioned.
I happen to think that she did.
I also happen to have expected that
she would deny that she did, which
is why I did bring them up in the first
place.
David:
It must be nice to be as
blind to the past as to the future.
It must be lonely to have to attribute
every disagreement in substance to
ignorance of the other. Very Platonic
of you, by the way.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Daniel Hugh Nexon
Without caveats, I don't. The claim that race is a social construct does
not necessarially mean that it is not useful for explaning social
phenomenon. To tak an example a little less loaded: I would argue that
states are social constructs, but that they are essential to understanding
modern political phenomenon. Viewing them as social constructs opens up
certain modes of understanding of and causal stories about modern politics
which viewing them as 'objective' givens wouldn't.
Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science
"Surely here is an opportunity to get rid of that great stick of a
character _Homo economicus_ and to replace him with someone real, like
Madame Bovary." -D. McCloskey, _The Rhetoric of Economics_
Daniel Hugh Nexon
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Michael S. Morris wrote:
> It's really very simple: To demonstrate the claim of
> interesting social construction in science all you have to do is
> come up with a differently constructed science, still
> valid as science.
Whose/which understandings of "science" and "scientific proof" (e.g. how
truth claims are etablished) are we to use? Therein lies the rub.
Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2
Michael S. Morris
Wednesday, the 17th of June, 1998
Silke:
I have no clue what gave you the
idea that I think genres are
interchangeable.
I suppose it must have been when you suggested *everything*
is socially constructed. This means to me we could
in principle alter the whatever it is by coming to some
new social agreement. We might be able to do that with a
lot of things, true, but it seems to me also that there are
some things we can't alter in any but a sophistical way.
Silke:
I consider to marvel at the
amount of straw flying through this space...
Oh, knock it off. You yell "straw" every single
time you posit some seemingly outrageous statement
and I try to come to terms with you by going through
the possible meanings for purposes of excluding them.
What does it mean that everything is socially constructed?
I still haven't a clue. "Socially constructed" ain't an
ordinary street usage. If I go downtown to the circle in
Indianapolis and ask passersby about it, they're not
going to know what I am talking about. Just how much
ideology do I buy into by agreeing with you that
"everything is socially constructed", which you claim
to be incontrovertible? Science plainly claims to have
something about it that is *not* socially constructed,
in the ordinary sense that it cannot be altered by
convention. There is something in science about
a dialogue with nature and where we scientists cannot
control or construct or create what it is that nature
says back to us. That is the way science is, the way we know
that most of what we try to reason out about nature
is wrong, and only a very little bit ever ends up being
right. So, to zeroth order there would seem to be this
whopping big thing---namely science---that is *not* "socially
constructed"---that does not seem to be capable of any different
"social construction". Well, maybe you just mean that
scientists use English or French or somesuch artificial
language to communicate to other scientists and that that
language itself is both necessarily "socially constructed"
and indispensible to science. If so, why not just be clear
in the first place what it is you mean? Why use a terminology
that makes it seem you recognize no substantive difference
between astrology and astronomy in terms of the arbitrariness
of the knowledge derived from either discipline? Is there
some agenda or isn't there? If you hand me some equation
I've never seen before in physics, I test it out in order
to try and understand it, I take the parameters to 0 to 1
and to infinity and see if the simplified equation still
seems to do the right thing in those limits. And yet every
single time one of these grand pronouncements comes along---
"everything is socially constructed"---and I try to take
the parameters to 0 and 1 and infinity to try and figure
out what you might mean, I get precisely nowhere, it is
all straw and I'm supposed to just eat my pablum and shut up
and don't question what apparently cannot be questioned.
For what little it is worth at the moment, the
original claim still sounds totally wrong to me.
No doubt most human knowledge has a socially
constructed component to it. How essential this
component may be to any body of knowledge remains
to be seen. There would seem to be science as an
obvious example of a place to find a body of knowledge
where the socially constructed part of that knowledge
seems utterly inessential to its content.
Silke:
It's like contradicting the statement that most people who
fall out of a 21st story window will die.
I said:
Oh, so it was a trivial, uninteresting claim after all.
Silke:
It was a simple claim. Neither trivial nor
uninteresting. Simple and rather obvious.
If you say so, but then I still don't know
what was being claimed, do I?
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Michael S. Morris
Wednesday, the 17th of June, 1998
I said:
It's really very simple: To demonstrate the claim
of interesting social construction in science all
you have to do is come up with a differently constructed
science, still valid as science.
Daniel Hugh Nexon says:
Whose/which understandings of "science" and
"scientific proof" (e.g. how truth claims are
established) are we to use? Therein lies the rub.
No. That is precisely where I am saying the rub does
*not* lie. To call some other methodology "scientific"
or some other body of lore "science" would be
lexicographical legerdemain---to demonstrate
the "social construction" of science only
in the most trivial and sophistical sense. Which
sense simply isn't interesting. What would be interesting
would be if there is such a thing as a "feminist science",
say, where by making a different social construction one
could be led to scientific knowledge not accessible
otherwise. Or a Native American science or a Ptolemaic
science or an alchemical science that were in some sense
different "social constructions" than modern science but
nevertheless led to scientific knowledge not accessible
to science as we know it.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
j...@ncgr.org
Michael S. Morris <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote:
> Silke wrote:
> > The music of the spheres is an Ancient
> > Greek concept, if memory serves right
> > (which it often doesn't).
>
> It is correct I believe in this case, although
> I confess it escapes me immediately where I should
> go looking to find it---possibly somewhere in the
> acid trip of _Timaeus_. It is considered part of
> the Ptolemaic system, though I doubt to find it in
> Ptolemy per se---Plotinus, perhaps?
It's right out there in the heavens, should one happen to look at
them that way. For example, the stations of Venus form a pentagon
(precessing only slowly). Once, this meant something, or was at
least part of a growing body of science about which, naturally, not
everything had yet been discovered. Kepler is one of the guys
to cite, though I haven't read him yet. (Looking forward to it,
though.)
The pentagon is reproducable, falsifiable ... "objective". The
relavance of the number five to "music" is uncontroversial, I guess.
Result: music out there. The project, of course, was a little more
ambitious, as one would like to understand relations between this
five and other numbers.
Mike:
> and it is, umm, doubtful
> to say the least that any change in social
> construction could lead to astronomers and
> astrophysicists speaking and thinking about
> the music of the spheres as valid astronomy or
> astrophysics.
I wonder about this. I know that I make equally confident propositions
about the likelihood of this or that, but, honestly, is there some
clear criterion that helps us know whether "music of the spheres" might
not be the cutting edge of some future astrophysical science?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Richard Harter
dcs...@cstone.net (David Christopher Swanson) wrote:
>In article <6m7io3$g...@news-central.tiac.net>
>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>> dcs...@cstone.net (David Christopher Swanson) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3586F0...@netdirect.net>
>> >"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> writes:
>>
>> >> if it were even possible---and I doubt it---
>> >> it would be the long labour of multiple geniuses, and
>> >> consequently, there doesn't seem to be any such animal.
>>
>>
>> >Exactly what major cultural achievements are not the long labour of
>> >multiple geniuses?
>>
>> I was reading one just recently.
>Why the suspense?
It's a little joke, David. Do not worry about it.
Mario Taboada
Hepta, not septua.
Regards,
Mario Taboada
Paul Ilechko
someone wrote:
> I don't know what "operationalize" means.
--
I only count six syllables ?
op-er-a-tion-al-ize
unless you have such a peculiar accent that you make "tion" into two
syllables ?
***************
Paul Ilechko
http://www.transarc.com/~pilechko/homepage.htm
David J. Loftus
Paul Ilechko (pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com) wrote:
: someone wrote:
: > I don't know what "operationalize" means.
: I only count six syllables ?
:
: op-er-a-tion-al-ize
: unless you have such a peculiar accent that you make "tion" into two
: syllables ?
Which reminds me of a line from Gwynne Evans, the editor of the _Riverside
Shakespeare_.
He was lecturing in a general intro to Shakespeare course and trying to
illustrate the point that Shakespeare's language loosened up considerably
over the course of his writing career. Evans had the students examine
two 20-line passages, one from an early history (_Julius Caesar_) and one
from a late romance (_A Winter's Tale_, perhaps?). He pointed out that a
number of the lines in the latter passage ended with unstressed syllables
-- what are known in literature circles as "feminine endings" -- which is
a clear violation of strict iambic pentameter.
Now look at the passage from _JC_, he said; can you find any similar
lines in that? Answer came there none. There is one possible one,
Evans said finally -- the one that ends with the word "cruel" -- but we
cannot know for certain whether Shakespeare intended it to be pronounced as
one syllable or two.
"But," he concluded, "when one is feverishly searching for feminine
endings, one takes what one can get."
Sadly, the room remained reverently, and therefore probably innocently,
silent.
David Loftus
Paul Ilechko
Mario Taboada wrote:
>
> Hepta, not septua.
--
Actually, hexa ...
Richard Harter
Daniel Hugh Nexon <dh...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science
>"Surely here is an opportunity to get rid of that great stick of a
>character _Homo economicus_ and to replace him with someone real, like
>Madame Bovary." -D. McCloskey, _The Rhetoric of Economics_
Snicker.
Richard Harter
wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>Michael S. Morris (msmo...@netdirect.net) wrote:
>: Tuesday, the 16th of June, 1998
>: Silke:
>: ps -- does anyone object vociferously
>: against the claim that we cannot think or
>: speak about stars in ways which aren't socially
>: constructed?
>: Raghu:
>: You are right, we can't, but only in the trivial sense
>: that language is socially constructed.
>: Exactly. There is no *interesting* sense in which
>: the social conventions involved matter to the way
>: astronomers and astrophysicists think and speak about
>: stars.
>Ach. I was always fond of the music of the spheres. Sorry it doesn't
>amount to *interest* ...
No angel ever wept in tears
To hear the music of the spheres
The lovely stones that course the skies
Were never made for human eyes
The stars are there if you but look
At them and not the poet's book
Their song is but a poet's phrase
Tis him and not the stars you praise
Mario Taboada
Silke:
Funny, to say that we cannot speak about anything
without the mediation of the social never struck me
as a very controversial claim, and I never cease to
wonder that some people actually take it upon themselves
to contradict it.
"Construction" suggest an artifact, one that has been created
purposefully. That word is a bad choice. Homosexuality, as far as we
know, has always existed. It's deceiving to call it a "construct". The
name sometimes makes (or is) the thing, but by no means always.
Now to show that Silke's statement is false:
I can speak about mathematics without appealing in any nontrivial way to
"social constructs". For example, I can state Fermat's theorem. The
statement will say exactly the same to every person cognizant of
elementary mathematics. There is no social construct at work.
Regards,
Mario Taboada
Jim Collier
Paul Ilechko wrote:
>
> someone wrote:
> > I don't know what "operationalize" means.
>
> I only count six syllables ?
>
> op-er-a-tion-al-ize
>
> unless you have such a peculiar accent that you make "tion" into two
> syllables ?
But the third person singular can be used to bump it up to seven,
operationswise that is.
Jim
Mario Taboada
Silke:
>Since I still claim that mathematics is itself a social construct (and >a fine one), this sentence makes no sense to me.
Why do you consier mathematics "social"?
Me:
: For example, I can state Fermat's theorem. The
: statement will say exactly the same to every person cognizant of
: elementary mathematics. There is no social construct at work.
Silke:
>"Fermat", "theorem," "cognizant of elemantary mathematics." No social
>constructs anywhere. Sure, darling. Suit yourself.
Cara: you are confusing "social constructs" with language. The
Textualist Fallacy is rearing its beaten-up head again. I forgive you
because you make a living at it - I always respect professionals.
Regards, and do read the statement of Fermat's theorem (or of any other
theorem in mathematics). Then show me how social conditions can affect a
competent person's understanding of it.
Regards,
Mario Taboada
William Grosso
Mario Taboada wrote:
>
> Regards, and do read the statement of Fermat's theorem (or of any other
> theorem in mathematics). Then show me how social conditions can affect a
> competent person's understanding of it.
>
How about regarding the question "Is it actually a theorem ? Should
we regard it as proved ?" Surely you would agree that, over the
centuries, and within different circles of mathematicians, there
have been different standards of proof ?
--A
G*rd*n
wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck):
| Well, I've been to a few parties with mathematics, and...
| I think mathematics is a discipline that has evolved historically, and is
| still evolving. So, saying "I can talk about mathematics without
| referring to any social constructs" just seems weird. Sounds like, "I can
| talk about trees without any reference to plants."
Mathematicians assure me that the language of mathematics
points to things which are definitely not language, just as
the language of physical things points to things which are
not language. Are these _things_ "mathematics", or only
something which mathematics points out, indicates, talks
about? If the former, then when you talk mathematics, you
may be referring to things which are not socially
constructed.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
Mario Taboada
>And your contention that everyone so
>cognizant will think of exactly the same thing when she hears 'Fermat's
>Theorem' strikes me as downright bizarre. And, well, easily
>falsifiable...
The meaning of the statement of Fermat's last theorem is unambiguous.
People may think of the rain outside or of King Canut, but that has
nothing to do with their understanding of the statement that "Under such
and such conditions, the following equation has no integer solutions,
etc."
: Regards, and do read the statement of Fermat's theorem (or of any
other
: theorem in mathematics). Then show me how social conditions can affect
a
: competent person's understanding of it.
>I see. There is no, and there never has been, any disagreement about
>Fermat's theorem amongst the cognizant. Again, suit yourself.
There was never any disagreement as to what the theorem (until recently,
a conjecture) says. There were many failed attempts at proving it - but
those failures had nothing to do with misunderstanding what was to be
proved.
To give a more elementary example: do you consider the statement:
"The three heights of a triangle pass through the same point"
a "socially constructed" statement?
If so, I would be interested in hearing why and how.
Regards,
Mario Taboada
William Grosso
Mario Taboada wrote:
>
> The meaning of the statement of Fermat's last theorem is unambiguous.
>
Sure it is. And nobody's understanding of the integers changed
as a result of Peano's axiomatization either.
Facts without context are like *meaningless*. You can wander
around claiming they're "unambiguous," but it's not at all
clear how a meaningless statement could be ambiguous.
>
> To give a more elementary example: do you consider the statement:
>
> "The three heights of a triangle pass through the same point"
>
> a "socially constructed" statement?
>
ObObsbcureAndOccludedStarTrekReference: "Point", "point", what is
this "point" ?
--A
redflag
Mario Taboada wrote:
> Cara: you are confusing "social constructs" with language. The
> Textualist Fallacy is rearing its beaten-up head again. I forgive you
> because you make a living at it - I always respect professionals.
>
> Regards, and do read the statement of Fermat's theorem (or of any other
> theorem in mathematics). Then show me how social conditions can affect a
> competent person's understanding of it.
I was begining to agree with you until it occured to me that becoming
a "competent person" involves some degree of social conditioning.
One is not born knowing how to count, associating numbers with their values
or knowing the multiplication table, Mario, these are learned abilities.
BTW, I am completely ignorant of Fermat's theorem, having fallen through
the arithmetic safety net as a child. Hit my head. Never recovered.
Robert Vienneau
In article <35889716...@smi.stanford.edu>, William Grosso
<gro...@smi.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Mario Taboada wrote:
> > The meaning of the statement of Fermat's last theorem is unambiguous.
> Sure it is. And nobody's understanding of the integers changed
> as a result of Peano's axiomatization either.
Anybody who understands this ever watch a child learn to count? The
child is simultaneously discovering the idea of a sequence;
one-to-one relationships; the concept of an isomorphism between
all sequences; and that the number of items in a finite
set is a property of the set, not how they are ordered.
I think it says something interesting about us that we find
counting useful.
How about a different question. Is science always better understood
by contextualizing it?
--
Robert Vienneau
r
v
i
e m
n o Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom,
@ c or virtue, are always found...in proportion to
d . the power or wealth of a man [is] a question
r e fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the
e p hearing of their masters, but highly unbecoming
a a to reasonable and free men in search of the
m c truth.
s -- Rousseau
Paul Ilechko
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> Make up your mind... is mathematics itself socially constructed or do
> you refer to the language used to describe the abstract concepts that
> mathematics deals with?
--
Question: did Mathematics exist before the language to describe it was
defined ?
Paul Ilechko
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> : > Make up your mind... is mathematics itself socially constructed or do
> : > you refer to the language used to describe the abstract concepts that
> : > mathematics deals with?
> : Question: did Mathematics exist before the language to describe it was
> : defined ?
> I'd like to hear Rajappa rap on zero wrt this.
--
Also negative numbers, real numbers, imaginary numbers, infinity ...
Francis Muir
Paul Ilechko writes:
Silke-Maria Weineck writes:
Mr. X writes:
Question: did Mathematics exist before the language to
describe it was defined ?
I'd like to hear Rajappa rap on zero wrt this.
Also negative numbers, real numbers, imaginary numbers, infinity ...
And, more importantly, NaN, Not any Number. It is remarkable how
long it took for those two anonymes from Intel to come up with a
useful closed arithmetic that also ameliorated the biassing problems
introduced by Big Blue, who were supposed to have access to the
math geniuses of the world. Now and then IEEE Committees lay down
the law and dear old Auntie Iso tags along.
Francis
David J. Loftus
Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: Why? Do you think that zero as a concept didn't exist until someone
: used the term zero?
Of course!
Zero STILL doesn't exist.
Can you show me any place that it does?
David Loftus
Daniel Hugh Nexon
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Michael S. Morris wrote:
> "scientific proof" (e.g. how truth claims are
> established) are we to use? Therein lies the rub.
>
> No. That is precisely where I am saying the rub does
> *not* lie. To call some other methodology "scientific"
> or some other body of lore "science" would be
> lexicographical legerdemain---to demonstrate
> the "social construction" of science only
> in the most trivial and sophistical sense. Which
> sense simply isn't interesting.....
> ..... Or a Native American science or a Ptolemaic
> science or an alchemical science that were in some sense
> different "social constructions" than modern science but
> nevertheless led to scientific knowledge not accessible
> to science as we know it.
What's "science" and "science as we know it"?
Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2
William Grosso
Robert Vienneau wrote:
>
> Anybody who understands this ever watch a child learn to count? The
> child is simultaneously discovering the idea of a sequence;
> one-to-one relationships; the concept of an isomorphism between
> all sequences; and that the number of items in a finite
> set is a property of the set, not how they are ordered.
>
Yeah, right. As someone who, every now and then, has to explain
modus ponens to grown ups, I really doubt they're discovering
these notions with great precision.
ObBook: _The Alphabet Effect_ by some guy. I briefly skimmed this
many years ago. The gist of the argument went something like:
Take a typical 10 year old in China or England. They have roughly
equivalent vocabularies and roughly equivalent "writing skills"
(e.g. know the spelling / pictograph of the same number of words
and have the same level of grammatical skills). So what did the
English child learn the Chinese chiild was learning all those
individual symbols ? Well, the notion of indexing and sequences.
It was a long time ago and I never bothered to find out whether
he had his facts right. But an interesting thesis.
--A
Paul Ilechko
Zero exists as a concept, not as a thing.
However, Rajappa ignored my original question as to whether Mathematics
could be said to have existed before the concepts were formalized by
defining a language to describe them.
Francis Muir
David J. Loftus writes:
Rajappa Iyer writes:
Why? Do you think that zero as a concept didn't exist until
someone used the term zero?
Of course!
Zero STILL doesn't exist.
Can you show me any place that it does?
It certainly did not exist for the very well-known Indian mathematicuan,
Dr. B. For it was "zedro", a nice indo-anglicization. His integrals inevitably
ran from zedro to infinighty. Perhaps he had been attacked by one
neutrino too many.
Francis
David J. Loftus
Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
: > Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: >
: > : Why? Do you think that zero as a concept didn't exist until someone
: > : used the term zero?
: >
: >
: > Of course!
: >
: > Zero STILL doesn't exist.
: >
: > Can you show me any place that it does?
: I said, the *concept* of zero. Subtle difference.
Subtle or not subtle, it is a difference without a significance in this
case. In whose mind did the concept of zero exist before a human being
concocted it ... God's?
David Loftus
William Denton
Paul Ilechko <pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com> wrote:
: Question: did Mathematics exist before the language to describe it
: was defined ?
Was 1 + 1 = 2? Was there a unique decomposition into prime factors of
any whole number? All that? Yes.
Bill
--
--
William Denton : Toronto, Ontario, Canada : bu...@interlog.com
http://www.vex.net/~buff/
David J. Loftus
Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: Paul Ilechko <pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com> writes:
: > However, Rajappa ignored my original question as to whether Mathematics
: > could be said to have existed before the concepts were formalized by
: > defining a language to describe them.
: Didn't ignore it... just didn't think there was any controversy about
: that. The concepts of mathematics that are described by a formal
: language could be said to have existed before the language itself was
: defined.
They "could be said to have existed," yes (nice use of the passive voice,
there). In fact, you're saying it over and over -- but on what basis?
That's what several of us are asking.
: This is why most mathematical results are *discovered* as
: opposed to being *invented*.
Are they discovered, or are they said to be discovered?
In other words, what is the substantive difference between being
discovered and being invented, in this instance?
David Loftus
Mario Taboada
: Question: did Mathematics exist before the language to describe it was
: defined ?
Of course. And, in the main, mathematics is not "described" but "done" -
an important distinction, especially for pomo-mushroomers and leafers
who subscribe to the Textualist Fallacy. A description of a theorem and
its proof is used to help people understand how it is situated within a
theory and in what ways it is significant, what motivates the proof (if
the presenter is generous with the audience), what other interesting
questions it opens up, and what applications it may have. But such a
description does not replace in any way the statement + proof. The
latter is the mathematics.
If someone wants to make a sociological or psychological study of how
mathematicians work, that's fine (even interesting); or how scientific
communities function and sanction, that's fine, even necessary. But the
mathematics itself is not subject to social forces.
I apologize for repeating the obvious, but it looks like
pomo-mushroomers and leafers need this sort of remedial instruction in
elementary science.
Regards,
Mario Taboada
David J. Loftus
Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: : Why? Do you think that zero as a concept didn't exist until someone
: : used the term zero?
: What real entity does 'zero' refer to? What real entity does -1 refer to?
: Since you seem to be sure that -1 could have existed as a concept before
: someone conceptualized it, how did it exist and how do you know?
In my view, what you are saying, Rajappa, is no different from asserting
that Sherlock Holmes, Little Red Riding Hood, Stephen Dedalus, and Betty
Boop existed as concepts or characters before some human being
happened to discover them.
David Loftus
Richard Harter
Paul Ilechko <pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com> wrote:
>Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>> Make up your mind... is mathematics itself socially constructed or do
>> you refer to the language used to describe the abstract concepts that
>> mathematics deals with?
>--
>Question: did Mathematics exist before the language to describe it was
>defined ?
Oh dear, oh dear. "Exist" is, like, just this word, you know. It sort
of slops over all over the place.
Paul Ilechko
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> In other words, while the
> language and symbols used to describe mathematical concepts may be
> social constructs, the concepts themselves are not.
--
I still fail to understand how a "concept" can exist without a language
to describe it. An unnamed "object" can exist - it can be seen, heard,
felt, tasted - but a concept is by its very nature a function of
language.
Raghu Seshadri
Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: Paul Ilechko <pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com> writes:
:
: > However, Rajappa ignored my original question as to whether Mathematics
: > could be said to have existed before the concepts were formalized by
: > defining a language to describe them.
:
: Didn't ignore it... just didn't think there was any controversy about
: that. The concepts of mathematics that are described by a formal
: language could be said to have existed before the language itself was
: opposed to being *invented*.
Rajappa, Mario and Mike,
I admire your eternal optimism, indefatigable
energy and persistence ( touched with a little bit
of naivete ) in your attempt to teach the
subtleties of mathematical concepts and
other highfalutin' stuff to people who haven't
noticed the objective existence of the SUN !!
These guys think the Sun, the star Sirius etc
are all "socially constructed". The only thing
to do, imo, is to say "sure, sure, whatever"
and slowly back off, making sure that there
are no sharp instruments with which they might
hurt you or themselves.
I like the elegant and lucid explanations
all of you have presented, but I doubt if
it will penetrate the solid wall with which
pomo surrounds its victims.
RS
Paul Ilechko
Richard Harter wrote:
> >Question: did Mathematics exist before the language to describe it was
> >defined ?
>
> Oh dear, oh dear. "Exist" is, like, just this word, you know. It sort
> of slops over all over the place.
--
Maybe Mathematics is really God. Or vice versa ..
Paul Ilechko
Raghu Seshadri wrote:
> These guys think the Sun, the star Sirius etc
> are all "socially constructed". The only thing
> to do, imo, is to say "sure, sure, whatever"
> and slowly back off, making sure that there
> are no sharp instruments with which they might
> hurt you or themselves.
>
> I like the elegant and lucid explanations
> all of you have presented, but I doubt if
> it will penetrate the solid wall with which
> pomo surrounds its victims.
--
I really hope you don't jump in front of traffic as easily as you jump
to conclusions. I, for one, have a degree in mathematics and strenuously
object to a 'pomo" tag. And I'm very surprised that someone so
apparently intelligent doesn't understand the difference between an
object and a concept.
Mario Taboada
Silke:
<<Also, your very own use of "Fermat's Theorem" isn't meant to point to
the theorem itself. It's meant, as far as I can determine, as "something
mathematical I know about and you probably don't." Or, "something
famous in mathematics." After all, there's no direct connection between
this thread and the theorem.>>
I mentioned Fermat's theorem (the famous one) because it is something
that *the public* knows about and because its statement is very easy to
understand to someone who knows high-school algebra. My point was and is
that the statement of this theorem is "saying something" that is not
socially constructed. The choice of theorem is inessential here.
My comment is directly relevant to the thread in that it shows your
assertion that "anything one can say is socially constructed" is false.
Regards,
Mario Taboada
Raghu Seshadri
Paul Ilechko (pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com) wrote:
: I really hope you don't jump in front of traffic as easily as you jump
: to conclusions. I, for one, have a degree in mathematics and strenuously
: object to a 'pomo" tag.
I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that.
: And I'm very surprised that someone so
: apparently intelligent doesn't understand the difference between an
: object and a concept.
We can have a nice discussion on these
matters, and rational people can differ
on what the various terms mean; my only
point is that these discussions are futile,
when one of the parties hasn't noticed the
independent existence of the Sun and the
star Sirius, and imagines that human society
is needed for their existence :-)
What is your position on this ? Do you
think the sun didn't exist before humans
"conceptualized" about it ? If you think
that is absurd, then we can discuss the
difference between an object and a concept
and other higher stuff. If not, further
discussion is not likely to be useful.
RS
Raghu Seshadri
Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: : We can have a nice discussion on these
: : matters, and rational people can differ
: : on what the various terms mean; my only
: : point is that these discussions are futile,
: : when one of the parties hasn't noticed the
: : independent existence of the Sun and the
: : star Sirius, and imagines that human society
: : is needed for their existence :-)
: And you are entirely certain that you are paraphrasing the various
: positions that have come up correctly?
There is a simple test which will reveal
if I am right or not, about my paraphrase.
Do you agree with the following statement ?
" The sun, the star Sirius etc existed before human
society evolved, and their internal processes,
their orbits and the principles that govern them
are entirely independent of what humans think
about them. Humans can be right about them,
or wrong about them, but human thoughts cannot
negate their objective existence."
If you disagree, then my claim is proved.
If you agree, then I admit I was wrong about
my formulation of your views.
: : What is your position on this ? Do you
: : think the sun didn't exist before humans
: : "conceptualized" about it ? If you think
: : that is absurd, then we can discuss the
: : difference between an object and a concept
: : and other higher stuff. If not, further
: : discussion is not likely to be useful.
:
: How is the existence of the sun relevant to my claim that representations
: of the sun are socially mediated?
First things first. I will answer this question
after getting your reply, because that will determine
if further "discussion" will be useful.
RS
David J. Loftus
Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: > Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: > : Why? Do you think that zero as a concept didn't exist until someone :
: > used the term zero? : -- :
: >
: > What real entity does 'zero' refer to?
: A concept doesn't really need to refer to a physical entity in order
: for the concept to exist.
No, but it has to have a meaning to someone to exist; without humans to
conceive of it -- or evidence that someone other than humans is
conceiving or has conceived of it -- it does not exist.
: For example, zero could refer to the number of times you've provided
: a satisfactory answer to my query `What is deconstruction?' :-)
It might ... but you're the one who interprets silke's behavior and
applies to concept of zero to it. In other words, you care. Without
humans to care, zero does not exist, let alone have any consequence.
: > Since you seem to be sure that -1 could have existed as a concept before
: > someone conceptualized it, how did it exist and how do you know?
: I'll answer that when you conclusively demonstrate that the concept
: did not exist until someone coined a formal term for it. Hint: why do
: we say `discover' when talking about mathematical results?
Because we are a vain and self-centered species.
According to Occam's Razor, it is more logical to assume non-existence,
which creates nothing from nothing, than existence, which creates
something from what may perhaps have been nothing.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: A concept doesn't really need to refer to a physical entity in order
: for the concept to exist.
Another way to say this is that the concepts of God, heaven, the Devil and
UFOs don't really need to refer to physical entities in order to exist.
Therefore, they exist as concepts quite apart from what humans might
think or say about them ... and perhaps even as physical entities.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
: > Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: >
: > : I said, the *concept* of zero. Subtle difference.
: >
: > Subtle or not subtle, it is a difference without a significance in this
: > case. In whose mind did the concept of zero exist before a human being
: > concocted it ... God's?
: Why was Fermat considered to have *discovered* many properties about
: numbers and not have *invented* them? Until he formally stated those
: properties, whose mind did those properties exist in?
He was "considered to have *discovered*" them because other human beings
observed and labeled his activities as such, because they cared about it,
not because there was anything necessarily inherent, transcendent, or
objective about what he was doing -- just like the properties he was
inventing.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
: > In my view, what you are saying, Rajappa, is no different from
: > asserting that Sherlock Holmes, Little Red Riding Hood, Stephen
: > Dedalus, and Betty Boop existed as concepts or characters before
: > some human being happened to discover them.
: It is possible, although I've not seen any reason to believe so. Look
: at it this way... there are numerous instances in history where the
: same mathematical results were arrived at by two or more individuals
: who had never heard of each other's work. Does that tell you
: something about the existence of mathematical concepts before its
: formal discovery (i.e. the process of formally describing it)?
Not necessarily. It might tell me a lot about human perceptions and
values -- and their largely shared but possibly limited nature.
Look at it this way: A lot of people at various locations around the
globe have described superior beings in the same way, and reported the
content of their nightmares in the same manner? Do you therefore
conclude there is something inherent, objective, or transcendent about the
contents of their descriptions?
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: Rajappa, Mario and Mike,
: I admire your eternal optimism, indefatigable
: energy and persistence ( touched with a little bit
: of naivete ) in your attempt to teach the
: subtleties of mathematical concepts and
: other highfalutin' stuff to people who haven't
: noticed the objective existence of the SUN !!
: These guys think the Sun, the star Sirius etc
: are all "socially constructed". The only thing
: to do, imo, is to say "sure, sure, whatever"
: and slowly back off, making sure that there
: are no sharp instruments with which they might
: hurt you or themselves.
: I like the elegant and lucid explanations
: all of you have presented, but I doubt if
: it will penetrate the solid wall with which
: pomo surrounds its victims.
Your inability to grasp the distinction between whatever objective
physical reality is out there and our descriptions of it is stunning, as
well, Raghu. Your elegant but nevertheless snide contempt is less so.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: Paul Ilechko (pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com) wrote:
:
: : I really hope you don't jump in front of traffic as easily as you jump
: : to conclusions. I, for one, have a degree in mathematics and strenuously
: : object to a 'pomo" tag.
: I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that.
: : And I'm very surprised that someone so
: : apparently intelligent doesn't understand the difference between an
: : object and a concept.
: We can have a nice discussion on these
: matters, and rational people can differ
: on what the various terms mean; my only
: point is that these discussions are futile,
: when one of the parties hasn't noticed the
: independent existence of the Sun and the
: star Sirius, and imagines that human society
: is needed for their existence :-)
Who ever said it was?
Has it ever occurred to you that you might, at times, be just as
responsible for the lack of progress in mutual understanding in the course
of disagreements like these, as the other side may be?
David Loftus
Richard Harter
Paul Ilechko <pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com> wrote:
>Richard Harter wrote:
>> >Question: did Mathematics exist before the language to describe it was
>> >defined ?
>>
>> Oh dear, oh dear. "Exist" is, like, just this word, you know. It sort
>> of slops over all over the place.
>--
>Maybe Mathematics is really God. Or vice versa ..
Maybe, maybe not. My money is on not.
My point was that people are using the word "exist" in different
unacknowledged senses. Perhaps it would be better to say that they are
using it in reiterated nonsenses.
The nifty thing about the argument is that all sides recognize that
everyone else is babbling.
Raghu Seshadri
Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: : There is a simple test which will reveal
: : if I am right or not, about my paraphrase.
:
: : Do you agree with the following statement ?
:
: : " The sun, the star Sirius etc existed before human
: : society evolved, and their internal processes,
: : their orbits and the principles that govern them
: : are entirely independent of what humans think
: : about them. Humans can be right about them,
: : or wrong about them, but human thoughts cannot
: : negate their objective existence."
: I agree with it up to a point (pesky things, these neither/nors, eh?) --
: in terms of the discussion we're having, it's a rather sloppy way of
: talking. You might want to qualify it a bit to bring to the fore what you
: mean -- "Aspects of what we call the sun..." I don't think "the sun"
: existed before society evolved if you think of "the sun" as a signifier
: that signifies a great deal more than what you mention above. Certainly,
: "the concept of the sun" didn't exist before there was a mind to
: conceptualize it. I'm not sure there is such a thing as "a principle" that
: exists independently from the mind, either.
Your last sentence precludes any reasonable
dialog with you, Silke. The logical conclusion of
what you wrote there is that if we humans
didn't exist, the principles that govern the
existence of the sun today wouldn't exist
either, so the sun wouldn't exist but for
humans.
Mr Loftus, do you agree with Silke here ?
If yes, any further discussion with either
of you is impossible. If not, I agree with your
point that there is a legitimate argument
that may be made about objects and concepts,
and we can continue with that.
RS
Paul Ilechko
Raghu Seshadri wrote:
> What is your position on this ? Do you
> think the sun didn't exist before humans
> "conceptualized" about it ? If you think
> that is absurd, then we can discuss the
> difference between an object and a concept
> and other higher stuff. If not, further
> discussion is not likely to be useful.
I haven't followed that part of the discussion, and I'm not sure what
the specific differences of opinion are; however, I will answer your
question specifically. I DO think that the sun existed before humans
"conceptualized it". I doubt that anyone specifically disagree with that
question, and there are probably some subtle semantic issues here that
aren't clear from what you are saying.
I am less clear that saying that mathematical concepts existed before
there was a language to describe them (and yes, Richard Harter is right
and "exist" is a real fuzzy word here) makes sense.
Paul Ilechko
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> The expression of a concept is a function of the language not the
> concept itself. Are you telling me that you've never had an idea that
> you could not put into words (at least, not without expending a
> non-trivial amount of thought)?
--
I'm not clear that the amount of complexity required to express a
concept is relevant to the discussion at hand.
Raghu Seshadri
David J. Loftus (dl...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : when one of the parties hasn't noticed the
: : independent existence of the Sun and the
: : star Sirius, and imagines that human society
: : is needed for their existence :-)
:
: Who ever said it was?
:
: Has it ever occurred to you that you might, at times, be just as
: responsible for the lack of progress in mutual understanding in the course
: of disagreements like these, as the other side may be?
I designed a simple test to verify your point
above, please read Silke's response.
I'd like to know your reaction.
RS
William Denton
Silke-Maria Weineck <wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
: I cannot prove a negative, as you well know.
Why can't you? Happens all the time in math.
Raghu Seshadri
Paul Ilechko (pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com) wrote:
: > think the sun didn't exist before humans
: > "conceptualized" about it ? If you think
: > that is absurd, then we can discuss the
: > difference between an object and a concept
: > and other higher stuff. If not, further
: > discussion is not likely to be useful.
:
: I haven't followed that part of the discussion, and I'm not sure what
: the specific differences of opinion are; however, I will answer your
: question specifically. I DO think that the sun existed before humans
: "conceptualized it". I doubt that anyone specifically disagree with that
: question, and there are probably some subtle semantic issues here that
: aren't clear from what you are saying.
If you think the Sun existed before humans did,
then the Sun could not have been socially
constructed. This silly claim was repeatedly
made by others, and that was what invited my
derision.
Silke has confirmed that she thinks the principles
by which the Sun exists depend upon human thought.
Ergo, if humans didn't exist, the sun couldn't,
because it depends upon human thoughts !
: I am less clear that saying that mathematical concepts existed before
: there was a language to describe them (and yes, Richard Harter is right
: and "exist" is a real fuzzy word here) makes sense.
There are several philosophies that are
current on these matters. It is interesting
that while philosophers differ, the overwhelming
number of practicing mathematicians think
and act as if Platonism is true - that mathematical
objects exist in nature, waiting to be discovered,
so to speak. (Result of a University of Chicago survey)
Think of the example Mario cited - Fermat's Last
Theorem. Do you think that it was true before Fermat
was born ? If yes, you have agreed that mathematical
concept existed before it was discovered.
If no, please give me your reasons.
RS
:
: ***************
:
: Paul Ilechko
: http://www.transarc.com/~pilechko/homepage.htm
Raghu Seshadri
Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: : : conceptualize it. I'm not sure there is such a thing as "a principle" that
: : : exists independently from the mind, either.
:
: : Your last sentence precludes any reasonable
: : dialog with you, Silke.
: Gee, that's surprising, Raghu. You wouldn't say that because you owe me a
: few answers, hm?
?
: : The logical conclusion of
: : what you wrote there is that if we humans
: : didn't exist, the principles that govern the
: : existence of the sun today wouldn't exist
: : either, so the sun wouldn't exist but for
: : humans.
:
: No. "Principle" is a concept. I don't see how "principle" has an existence
: outside of being a concept. If you are suggesting that things acted before
: the formulation of the principles governing that action just as they did
: after that formulation, sure, I don't doubt it.
So (in the context of the Sun, before the evolution
of humans) how do those things act ?
According to some principle, or no principle ?
: : Mr Loftus, do you agree with Silke here ?
: : If yes, any further discussion with either
: : of you is impossible. If not, I agree with your
: : point that there is a legitimate argument
: : that may be made about objects and concepts,
: : and we can continue with that.
:
: Is missing the point a hobby, or are you planning to make a career of it?
"Have you stopped beating your husband ?"
is not the type of question you should be expected
to answer.
: P.S. Can you do something about the formatting of your posts? There's a
: Usenet principle involved...
But did it exist before you thought of it ? :-)
RS
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Raghu Seshadri
Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: : If you think the Sun existed before humans did,
: : then the Sun could not have been socially
: : constructed. This silly claim was repeatedly
: : made by others, and that was what invited my
: : derision.
: concepts. All concepts are human. The claim was not that the real doesn't
: exist. If you want to proclaim that you get sunburnt for a reason, find
: someone to argue with. We ain't it.
You make several claims, some of them
contradicting others. Here you say you
are not denying the existence of the Sun.
Good.
But elsewhere you denied the independent
existence of the principles which allow
the Sun to exist. This is the same as
denying the existence of the Sun.
: : Silke has confirmed that she thinks the principles
: : by which the Sun exists depend upon human thought.
:
: No, she hasn't. I said that "principle" is a human concept.
Let me reiterate the implication of
your belief. If principle is a human concept,
before the existence of humans, no principles
existed. As a subset, no principles which
allow the Sun to exist existed. Therefore
the Sun didn't exist before humans.
You shrink from the logical conclusion of
your premise, yet you cling to your silly
premises !
This is irrational.
: : Ergo, if humans didn't exist, the sun couldn't,
: : because it depends upon human thoughts !
: You really believe that? Man, you're far gone...
How old are you ? This is way too childish
even for a 10 year old.
RS
:
: smw
:
:
Paul Ilechko
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> The claim that was made was that "the Sun" signifies many different
> concepts. All concepts are human. The claim was not that the real doesn't
> exist. If you want to proclaim that you get sunburnt for a reason, find
> someone to argue with. We ain't it.
--
I find it pretty scary that I'm on the same side of an argument as Silke
- I don't think it ever happened before !
Paul Ilechko
Raghu Seshadri wrote:
> If you think the Sun existed before humans did,
> then the Sun could not have been socially
> constructed. This silly claim was repeatedly
> made by others, and that was what invited my
> derision.
I think you are misrepresenting their claims. I don't think anyone is
saying that the sun did not exist. I think perhaps they are saying that
"the sun" as a signifier of an object can be seperated from the object
itself, but as I said, I haven't followed it that closely.
The Sun is a star - why do we give it a special name ? Because there is
a tremendous mythology attached to it which is socially constructed. The
Sun appears to rotate around the earth, and its disappearance brings on
nightfall. This has been an incredible source of myths, stories and
religions over time. I think discussion of the Sun certainly has
resonances beyond it being a ball of burning gas.
I said:
> : I am less clear that saying that mathematical concepts existed before
> : there was a language to describe them (and yes, Richard Harter is right
> : and "exist" is a real fuzzy word here) makes sense.
You replied:
> There are several philosophies that are
> current on these matters. It is interesting
> that while philosophers differ, the overwhelming
> number of practicing mathematicians think
> and act as if Platonism is true - that mathematical
> objects exist in nature, waiting to be discovered,
> so to speak. (Result of a University of Chicago survey)
I always thought mathematics was an art, but it appears that most
mathematicians are engineers ;-)
> Think of the example Mario cited - Fermat's Last
> Theorem. Do you think that it was true before Fermat
> was born ? If yes, you have agreed that mathematical
> concept existed before it was discovered.
To my mind it was neither true or false, as it did not exist as a
theorem before Fermat proposed it. Did imaginary numbers exist in
nature before humanity found a need for them ?
Paul Ilechko
> >
> > > The expression of a concept is a function of the language not the
> > > concept itself. Are you telling me that you've never had an idea that
> > > you could not put into words (at least, not without expending a
> > > non-trivial amount of thought)?
> >
> > concept is relevant to the discussion at hand.
>
> complexity. I'm trying to point out that one can have ideas
> independent of whether or not one can express it in language.
--
It's right there in your previous post, where you mention "a non-trivial
amount of thought". That would appear to me to be a statement about the
compexity of language required to express an idea. The inability to
express an idea in words is a function of the complexity of the idea and
the available language of the expressor, not an innate function of
non-expressability of the concept itself. So yes, you did bring in
complexity.
Richard Harter
dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) wrote:
[snip snip snip]
>Has it ever occurred to you that you might, at times, be just as
>responsible for the lack of progress in mutual understanding in the course
>of disagreements like these, as the other side may be?
Progress in mutual understanding! Mutual understanding???? Where did
that come from? We can't have any of that sort of thing here. It just
isn't done.
David J. Loftus
Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: > If it is a concept, it cannot have existed before
: > the mind existed.
: Which still does not imply that a concept cannot exist before a
: language is invented to describe it.
Technically, no, it does not.
But it does call into question your or my or anyone else's ability to
establish whether or not it did. Therefore, you are expressing a tenet
of faith when you say it did.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
: > Rajappa Iyer (r...@lucent.com) wrote:
: > : For example, zero could refer to the number of times you've provided
: > : a satisfactory answer to my query `What is deconstruction?' :-)
: >
: > It might ... but you're the one who interprets silke's behavior and
: > applies to concept of zero to it. In other words, you care. Without
: > humans to care, zero does not exist, let alone have any consequence.
: That's where we disagree. I can agree about the consequences part,
: but not about the existence part. The fact that a concept can be
: `discovered' and then described is a strong indication of the fact
: that the concept existed prior to its discovery, Heisenberg
: notwithstanding.
Yes, but the concept of "discovery" is laden with human value as
well.
Does the infinite exist? Not such that you or I could prove it. Does
the concept of the infinite exist? Certainly, to the extent that humans
conceive of it and agree upon its meaning.
The same goes for zero and the concept of zero. It cannot have meaning
or consequence -- and thereby existence -- without a conception and
valuation assigned to it by humans ... or perhaps by other sentient
beings to whose existence I have not seen you refer up to this point.
Physical reality -- the universe -- "lacks" for nothing, and therefore
has no need of the concept of zero. The best you could say is that we
cannot know whether zero exists outside of our conception.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: : : There is a simple test which will reveal
: : : if I am right or not, about my paraphrase.
: :
: : : Do you agree with the following statement ?
: :
: : : " The sun, the star Sirius etc existed before human
: : : society evolved, and their internal processes,
: : : their orbits and the principles that govern them
: : : are entirely independent of what humans think
: : : about them. Humans can be right about them,
: : : or wrong about them, but human thoughts cannot
: : : negate their objective existence."
: :
: : I agree with it up to a point (pesky things, these neither/nors, eh?) --
: : in terms of the discussion we're having, it's a rather sloppy way of
: : talking. You might want to qualify it a bit to bring to the fore
: : what you mean -- "Aspects of what we call the sun..." I don't think
: : "the sun" existed before society evolved if you think of "the sun"
: : as a signifier that signifies a great deal more than what you
: : mention above. Certainly, "the concept of the sun" didn't exist
: : before there was a mind to conceptualize it. I'm not sure there is
: : such a thing as "a principle" that exists independently from the
: : mind, either.
: Your last sentence precludes any reasonable
: dialog with you, Silke.
No it doesn't. Your misunderstanding of it suggests that you don't want
to discuss the matter reasonably.
: The logical conclusion of
: what you wrote there is that if we humans
: didn't exist, the principles that govern the
: existence of the sun today wouldn't exist
: either, so the sun wouldn't exist but for
: humans.
No, that's not the logical conclusion. What silke was saying is that
"principles" are mental constructs, labels that we place upon reality in
order to comprehend some part of it in terms that are suitable to us.
They don't CREATE physical reality or govern it, which is the erroneous
leap you are making and attributing to silke.
: Mr Loftus, do you agree with Silke here ?
I think I do, yes. I do NOT agree with your misreading of silke's post,
however, and I find your mounting of a high horse based on it to rather
amusing.
: If yes, any further discussion with either
: of you is impossible. If not, I agree with your
: point that there is a legitimate argument
: that may be made about objects and concepts,
: and we can continue with that.
The problem is that your argument consistently confuses the two.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: David J. Loftus (dl...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : : when one of the parties hasn't noticed the
: : : independent existence of the Sun and the
: : : star Sirius, and imagines that human society
: : : is needed for their existence :-)
: :
: : Who ever said it was?
: :
: : Has it ever occurred to you that you might, at times, be just as
: : responsible for the lack of progress in mutual understanding in the
: : course of disagreements like these, as the other side may be?
: I designed a simple test to verify your point
: above, please read Silke's response.
The test may have been simple, but so was your reaction to the response.
: I'd like to know your reaction.
I just posted it, though if your newsreader acts anything like mine, this
post may well precede it.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: Paul Ilechko (pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com) wrote:
: : I haven't followed that part of the discussion, and I'm not sure what
: : the specific differences of opinion are; however, I will answer your
: : question specifically. I DO think that the sun existed before humans
: : "conceptualized it". I doubt that anyone specifically disagree with that
: : question, and there are probably some subtle semantic issues here that
: : aren't clear from what you are saying.
: If you think the Sun existed before humans did,
: then the Sun could not have been socially
: constructed. This silly claim was repeatedly
: made by others, and that was what invited my
: derision.
Nobody said this.
: Silke has confirmed that she thinks the principles
: by which the Sun exists depend upon human thought.
: Ergo, if humans didn't exist, the sun couldn't,
: because it depends upon human thoughts !
And Silke never said that.
It is clear you are not listening very closely.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: There are several philosophies that are
: current on these matters. It is interesting
: that while philosophers differ, the overwhelming
: number of practicing mathematicians think
: and act as if Platonism is true - that mathematical
: objects exist in nature, waiting to be discovered,
: so to speak. (Result of a University of Chicago survey)
Well, there's always the possibility that they have a vested interest ...
not just as mathematicians but as human beings, which is part of my
point.
: Think of the example Mario cited - Fermat's Last
: Theorem. Do you think that it was true before Fermat
: was born ? If yes, you have agreed that mathematical
: concept existed before it was discovered.
I would have to say no.
: If no, please give me your reasons.
Physical phenomena that conform to the contours of Fermat's Last Theorem
probably existed and/or transpired before Fermat was born, yes, and even
before the human species came into existence, but that is hardly the same
thing as saying "Fermat's Last Theorem" existed as a concept before it
was concocted.
Think of Fermat's Last Theorem as "the color red." Does the color red
exist in the land of the colorblind? Yes and no ... in just the same
manner.
David Loftus
Andy Lowry
On 18 Jun 1998, Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) writes:
>
> >
> > In my view, what you are saying, Rajappa, is no different from asserting
> > that Sherlock Holmes, Little Red Riding Hood, Stephen Dedalus, and Betty
> > Boop existed as concepts or characters before some human being
> > happened to discover them.
>
> It is possible, although I've not seen any reason to believe so. Look
> at it this way... there are numerous instances in history where the
> same mathematical results were arrived at by two or more individuals
> who had never heard of each other's work. Does that tell you
> something about the existence of mathematical concepts before its
> formal discovery (i.e. the process of formally describing it)?
The NY TIMES reports that a playwright claims his play about a boy adopted
by a network and unwittingly made the star of a soap about his life was
plagiarized by the Truman Show people. They would do well to argue that
they merely discovered the character and setting, citing Newton & Leibniz.
And I keep waiting for the definition of "concept" to appear, since I'm
really fuzzy on how there can be a concept without a mind to hold it.
--Andy Lowry
=============================================================
It is only the intellectually lost who ever argue. --Wilde
=============================================================
David J. Loftus
Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
:
: : The claim that was made was that "the Sun" signifies many different
: : concepts. All concepts are human. The claim was not that the real doesn't
: : exist. If you want to proclaim that you get sunburnt for a reason, find
: : someone to argue with. We ain't it.
: You make several claims, some of them
: contradicting others. Here you say you
: are not denying the existence of the Sun.
: Good.
: But elsewhere you denied the independent
: existence of the principles which allow
: the Sun to exist. This is the same as
: denying the existence of the Sun.
Oh, for crying out loud. Silke did not deny the independent existence of
principles "which allow the Sun to exist"! She merely denied the
independent existence of principles by which we apprehend and appreciate
the sun, and try to predict its future behavior. You're trying to act as
if Silke is saying that 'round about the first or third century, the
physical, stellar entity at the center of our planetary system ceased to
be a fiery chariot driven by a god named Apollo!
Again, you are clearly not following Silke's argument, Raghu, but bravely
doing battle with one of your own creation.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: Let me reiterate the implication of
: your belief. If principle is a human concept,
: before the existence of humans, no principles
: existed. As a subset, no principles which
: allow the Sun to exist existed. Therefore
: the Sun didn't exist before humans.
: You shrink from the logical conclusion of
: your premise, yet you cling to your silly
: premises !
: This is irrational.
What is irrational is your insistence that you know what Silke means
better than she does, despite disagreement not only from her but other
people as well.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Richard Harter (c...@tiac.net) wrote:
: dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) wrote:
: [snip snip snip]
: >Has it ever occurred to you that you might, at times, be just as
: >responsible for the lack of progress in mutual understanding in the
: >course of disagreements like these, as the other side may be?
: Progress in mutual understanding! Mutual understanding???? Where did
: that come from? We can't have any of that sort of thing here. It just
: isn't done.
I didn't mean here, necessarily, Richard ... just more as a general
principle.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Andy Lowry (a...@Ra.MsState.Edu) wrote:
: And I keep waiting for the definition of "concept" to appear, since I'm
: really fuzzy on how there can be a concept without a mind to hold it.
I could think of several very sarcastic responses to this, but let be....
Raghu Seshadri
Paul Ilechko (pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com) wrote:
: I think you are misrepresenting their claims. I don't think anyone is
: saying that the sun did not exist. I think perhaps they are saying that
: itself, but as I said, I haven't followed it that closely.
This is yet another triviality. Why do people
make the obvious point that the Sun (the word)
is different from the Sun (the thing in the sky) ?
Are they under the impression that this is
not already known to everyone ?
Stating obvious trivialities seems to be
a pomo trademark.
: The Sun is a star - why do we give it a special name ? Because there is
: a tremendous mythology attached to it which is socially constructed. The
Wrong-o. It is special to us humans because
1. It is so close compared to the other stars that
it belongs in a special category; it looms so
large in our sky and it is responsible for our
days and nights, which control our lives.
2. Our survival depends on its heat. If Sirius
disappared tomorrow, most of humanity wouldn't miss
it. Not so with the Sun.
Neither of these points is socially constructed.
On the contrary, mythologies etc about the sun
arose because of its importance as indicated by
these 2 points. You have got it backwards.
: Sun appears to rotate around the earth, and its disappearance brings on
: nightfall. This has been an incredible source of myths, stories and
: religions over time. I think discussion of the Sun certainly has
: resonances beyond it being a ball of burning gas.
"mythologies about the sun" are obviously
socially constructed, yet another trivial point
not deserving mention, as everyone knows it
and no one disputes it.
: > : I am less clear that saying that mathematical concepts existed before
: > : there was a language to describe them (and yes, Richard Harter is right
: > : and "exist" is a real fuzzy word here) makes sense.
: > There are several philosophies that are
: > current on these matters. It is interesting
: > that while philosophers differ, the overwhelming
: > number of practicing mathematicians think
: > and act as if Platonism is true - that mathematical
: > objects exist in nature, waiting to be discovered,
: > so to speak. (Result of a University of Chicago survey)
: I always thought mathematics was an art, but it appears that most
: mathematicians are engineers ;-)
There is a big difference between discoverers
and engineers.
: > Think of the example Mario cited - Fermat's Last
: > Theorem. Do you think that it was true before Fermat
: > was born ? If yes, you have agreed that mathematical
: > concept existed before it was discovered.
:
: To my mind it was neither true or false, as it did not exist as a
: theorem before Fermat proposed it.
You are making no sense here.
The question is - before Fermat's birth, could
you have obtained integers a, b, c, n such that
n n n
a + b = c for n > = 3 ?
This question can have only 2 answers - yes or no.
No third answer is possible, (except "I don't know" ofcourse)
It cannot be "neither true nor false".
: Did imaginary numbers exist in
: nature before humanity found a need for them ?
This is a different kind of abstraction
than the one formulated by the theorems.
While theorems state properties which pre-exist
before the theorems were discovered,
things like imaginary numbers are tools
that mathematicians fashion. Imaginary numbers,
you will notice, do not state any principle
of nature by themselves. They are a convenient
notation, that's all.
RS
Daniel Hugh Nexon
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Paul Ilechko wrote:
> Raghu Seshadri wrote:
>
> > What is your position on this ? Do you
> > think the sun didn't exist before humans
> > "conceptualized" about it ? If you think
> > that is absurd, then we can discuss the
> > difference between an object and a concept
> > and other higher stuff. If not, further
> > discussion is not likely to be useful.
>
> I haven't followed that part of the discussion, and I'm not sure what
> the specific differences of opinion are; however, I will answer your
> question specifically. I DO think that the sun existed before humans
> "conceptualized it". I doubt that anyone specifically disagree with that
> question, and there are probably some subtle semantic issues here that
> aren't clear from what you are saying.
Some people would put it this way: the question of existance is distinct
from the question of what a thing is. The sun, rocks, etc. all exist
independently of humans and "discourse." *However*, the meaning of the
sun, rocks, etc. does not -- nor does the identification of the 'rockness
of a rock.'
Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science |
"Surely here is an opportunity to get rid of that great stick of a
character _Homo economicus_ and to replace him with someone real, like
Madame Bovary." -D. McCloskey, _The Rhetoric of Economics_
Raghu Seshadri
Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: : Let me reiterate the implication of
: : your belief. If principle is a human concept,
: : before the existence of humans, no principles
: : existed.
: Qua principles, true.
:
: : As a subset, no principles which
: : allow the Sun to exist existed. Therefore
: : the Sun didn't exist before humans.
:
: independently of its representation. Equally, I have no doubt that the sun
: did its thing before someone formulated the principles. That's actually a
What is that thing that you have no doubt about ?
What governed the action of "that thing" ? What is
your name for the principles that governed "that thing"'s
actions ?
: necessity, since quite a few principles have turned out to be wrong. If
: the actions depended on the principles, then everything would disappear
: along with the principles that get superceded. It's your position that
: leads you into absurdity. Unless you want to argue that "a principle" is
: something that is always true.
What ?
We have had defective understanding of the principles
that govern the Sun's processes, true, but this does
not indicate absence of any principle ! The Sun itself
acted according to some principles, only we had the
wrong idea about it. The rightness/wrongness of our ideas say
NOTHING about the presence/absence of the principles that
govern the Sun's actions.
: : You shrink from the logical conclusion of
: : your premise, yet you cling to your silly
: : premises !
: : This is irrational.
: You don't understand the premise. Perhaps you should have asked me to
: clarify how I understand "principle" -- much depends on it...
I just assume that you use English. If you have
defined "principle" to mean a five-legged orangutan
in your mind, naturally it will distort the
smooth flow of our communication.
I suggest you return to the standard meaning
of words.
RS
Raghu Seshadri
: : : mind, either.
:
: : Your last sentence precludes any reasonable
: : dialog with you, Silke.
:
: No it doesn't. Your misunderstanding of it suggests that you don't want
: to discuss the matter reasonably.
Let's examine your reason below.
: : The logical conclusion of
: : what you wrote there is that if we humans
: : didn't exist, the principles that govern the
: : existence of the sun today wouldn't exist
: : either, so the sun wouldn't exist but for
: : humans.
: No, that's not the logical conclusion. What silke was saying is that
: "principles" are mental constructs, labels that we place upon reality in
: order to comprehend some part of it in terms that are suitable to us.
So what word do you use for the actual, real,
genuine, natural principles that governed the
Sun's behavior before humanity evolved ?
Let us call it principle-1, as opposed to
principle, which is a "mere" label. Are you
satisfied now ?
I doubt it, as playing mere word games seems
to be the entertainment of choice here.
: They don't CREATE physical reality or govern it, which is the erroneous
: leap you are making and attributing to silke.
Ok, but as per my definition, principle-1 does
govern reality. What now ?
: : Mr Loftus, do you agree with Silke here ?
:
: I think I do, yes. I do NOT agree with your misreading of silke's post,
: however, and I find your mounting of a high horse based on it to rather
: amusing.
And I find your meaningless quibbling,
well, meaningless.
: : If yes, any further discussion with either
: : of you is impossible. If not, I agree with your
: : point that there is a legitimate argument
: : that may be made about objects and concepts,
: : and we can continue with that.
:
: The problem is that your argument consistently confuses the two.
I have removed all confusion now. I call
the human labels "principles" and the actual
thingee "principle-1".
So, now you cannot deny the existence of
principle-1 before humans camne along.
RS
David J. Loftus
Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: Paul Ilechko (pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com) wrote:
: : I think you are misrepresenting their claims. I don't think anyone is
: : saying that the sun did not exist. I think perhaps they are saying that
: : "the sun" as a signifier of an object can be seperated from the object
: : itself, but as I said, I haven't followed it that closely.
: This is yet another triviality. Why do people
: make the obvious point that the Sun (the word)
: is different from the Sun (the thing in the sky) ?
Because the word is also a concept or principle ... at least its status
is very similar.
: Stating obvious trivialities seems to be
: a pomo trademark.
Why don't you stick the the arguments and the people you are talking to,
specifically, instead of wasting any time kicking your favorite stuffed
dog? I don't know from "pomo," but it sounds to me like a meaningless
epithet, rather like "commie" or "faggot," that one tosses in for an
extra insult to the opposition.
: : The Sun is a star - why do we give it a special name ? Because there is
: : a tremendous mythology attached to it which is socially constructed. The
: Wrong-o. It is special to us humans because
: 1. It is so close compared to the other stars that
: it belongs in a special category; it looms so
: large in our sky and it is responsible for our
: days and nights, which control our lives.
: 2. Our survival depends on its heat. If Sirius
: disappared tomorrow, most of humanity wouldn't miss
: it. Not so with the Sun.
: Neither of these points is socially constructed.
And your point would be?
David Loftus
Daniel Hugh Nexon
On 18 Jun 1998, Raghu Seshadri wrote:
> Paul Ilechko (pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com) wrote:
> : I think you are misrepresenting their claims. I don't think anyone is
> : saying that the sun did not exist. I think perhaps they are saying that
> : "the sun" as a signifier of an object can be seperated from the object
> : itself, but as I said, I haven't followed it that closely.
>
> This is yet another triviality. Why do people
> make the obvious point that the Sun (the word)
> is different from the Sun (the thing in the sky) ?
> Are they under the impression that this is
> not already known to everyone ?
Because that is *not* the claim. The choice is *not* between naive
positivism and some sort of straw-man radical hermeneutical tradition.
Let me ask you this: is the sun a "thing" or a "process"? Where does the
thing/process "cease" to exist? These kinds of ontological questions are
*not* independent of human intersubjective knowledge.
And *even* if they are, there is *no* reason to believe that the same
principles apply, to the same degree if at all, to the social/cultural
world. Human knowledge -- even scientific knowledge -- is built upon
models developed for human purposes. But in social/cultural knowledge we
*have no miracle problem* which means that even if I give you benefit of
the doubt and think you're expressing some sort of philosophical realism,
there's no reason to believe our models of the social have any "real"
status.
Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2
David J. Loftus
Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: Paul Ilechko (pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com) wrote:
: : To my mind it was neither true or false, as it did not exist as a
: : theorem before Fermat proposed it.
: You are making no sense here.
: The question is - before Fermat's birth, could
: you have obtained integers a, b, c, n such that
: n n n
: a + b = c for n > = 3 ?
Only in countries that employ the English alphabet.
: This question can have only 2 answers - yes or no.
: No third answer is possible, (except "I don't know" ofcourse)
No wonder you have such a difficult time with this discussion; you
insist on all or nothing, right or wrong, yes or no.
: It cannot be "neither true nor false".
Certainly it can, if it does not exist. The concept of "true or false"
cannot be applied to something that does not exist. Similarly, would you
say Sherlock Holmes was evil or good before 1850? Gotta be one or the
other, apparently.
: : Did imaginary numbers exist in
: : nature before humanity found a need for them ?
: This is a different kind of abstraction
: than the one formulated by the theorems.
: While theorems state properties which pre-exist
: before the theorems were discovered,
: things like imaginary numbers are tools
: that mathematicians fashion. Imaginary numbers,
: you will notice, do not state any principle
: of nature by themselves. They are a convenient
: notation, that's all.
Your argument is tautological, Raghu. Before you have shown to people's
satisfaction that properties or principles pre-exist, you restate it as a
postulate. We disagree that they pre-exist, so you have to start there;
you can't move on from there and say "of course, this was pre-existing,
but this was not."
I venture to guess that several of us -- Silke certainly, and perhaps
Paul as well -- disagree with the distinction you are making, which
appears fairly arbitrary, between a theorem and an imaginary number.
They are both "convenient notations," I'm afraid.
David Loftus
Raghu Seshadri
: : current on these matters. It is interesting
: : that while philosophers differ, the overwhelming
: : number of practicing mathematicians think
: : and act as if Platonism is true - that mathematical
: : objects exist in nature, waiting to be discovered,
: : so to speak. (Result of a University of Chicago survey)
: point.
Once you prefix the phrase "there is always a possibility",
then you can write any irresponsible, unlikely, unreasonable
statement, and yet no one can contest you :-)
Eg, "there is always a possibility that I will
win the New York Lottery hundred times in a row"
: : Think of the example Mario cited - Fermat's Last
: : Theorem. Do you think that it was true before Fermat
: : was born ? If yes, you have agreed that mathematical
: : concept existed before it was discovered.
:
: I would have to say no.
:
: : If no, please give me your reasons.
:
: Physical phenomena that conform to the contours of Fermat's Last Theorem
: probably existed and/or transpired before Fermat was born, yes, and even
: before the human species came into existence, but that is hardly the same
: thing as saying "Fermat's Last Theorem" existed as a concept before it
: was concocted.
I don't care (and I didn't ask) about it
"existing as a concept". I asked you if it was true ?
Why don't you give me a straight answer ?
: Think of Fermat's Last Theorem as "the color red." Does the color red
: exist in the land of the colorblind? Yes and no ... in just the same
Ridiculous comparison. "red" is the name for
a certain kind of perception as it appears to
our eyes. So naturally in the land of the
color blind, red doesn't exist. There is
no "yes and no" about it. The answer is "no".
Not so with Fermat's theorem, unless you ar ein
an universe where counting is impossible.
RS
Raghu Seshadri
: : existence of the principles which allow
: : the Sun to exist. This is the same as
: : denying the existence of the Sun.
:
: Oh, for crying out loud. Silke did not deny the independent existence of
Yes, she does, David. It is you who isn't
understanding her right. She clearly says that
principles cannot exist without humans.
: independent existence of principles by which we apprehend and appreciate
: the sun, and try to predict its future behavior. You're trying to act as
What, then, about the actual principles ( I call
them principle-1 as opposed to principle) ? Do they
exist ?
: if Silke is saying that 'round about the first or third century, the
: physical, stellar entity at the center of our planetary system ceased to
: be a fiery chariot driven by a god named Apollo!
:
: Again, you are clearly not following Silke's argument, Raghu, but bravely
: doing battle with one of your own creation.
I could say the same about you.
RS
:
:
: David Loftus
Raghu Seshadri
: people as well.
People CAN make statements whose logical
inferences may surprise them.
RS
Raghu Seshadri
: : you have obtained integers a, b, c, n such that
:
: : n n n
: : a + b = c for n > = 3 ?
:
: Only in countries that employ the English alphabet.
This answer convinces me that I am wasting
my time responding to David.
RS