From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Aug 03 2004 - 22:50:37 BST
Hi Mark, Paul, DavidM, and all,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: MD DQ & emergence
> msh says:
> I guess not. But I do know a little about Calculus, and it sounded
> like you saw in the development of Calculus "the technique of an
> outside confirmation of an operational mechanism," your words, which
> I don't really understand.
<snip>
mel:
When an analogy becomes belabored, it is best to drop it and return to the
original subject. Emergence is my subject as it points to the Dynamic.
Here are some URLs, please pursue them and let me know if they seem to show
you what I caught a glimmer of. It sometimes takes a while to get to
something worthwhile. I did my search sometime ago and since I never got
specific enough to footnote, I never used references, so these are not
specific, but they give you a start to begin familiarizing yourself with
Emergence.
<references>
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/emergence/grobstein.html
http://emergent.brynmawr.edu/wiki/index.cgi/EmergenceReadingList
http://llk.media.mit.edu/projects/emergence/
http://emergence.org/
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2002/02/22/johnson.html
<\references>
Just to honor your request vis calculus, which was mentioned secondarily to
light sources in photography as my primary, and decidedly stronger analogy:
Newton approached the geometric problem of time and motion in the physical
world (space), but what he saw in his synthesis of the knowledge that came
before was primarily approached as geometry, with calculation as merely a
technique, a necessary evil and only later published, almost an
afterthought.
Leibniz approached geometric shape as constructed of infinitesimals, but in
pursuit of this he seemed to approach the solution as more a question of the
technique of solution (the act of calculating)
(Here is where the analogy is made to support Emergence.) Given:
1) Newton's emphasis on the physical world
2) Newton's synthesis-to-manageability of what came before and it pointing
to limits
3) Leibniz' insight into the problem of the "tools set" and his creation of
the notation.
(Explosive complexity of later development from original basic rules or
insights - in this example.)
Man's ability to understand his world mathematically exploded in
application, scope, and creativity. Together with precision of measurement
and scientific method, birthed modern science.
Century 20 added the multiplier of calculational density read computers.
Think more of James Burke's connections and discoveries from different
directions, than of analogy.if that makes sense.
-----------------------------------------------------
mel:
"outside confirmation of an operational mechanism" is a piece of analytical
jargon that slipped out. My apologies for leaving that undressed. I was
thinking in "shorthand."
I should have probably used more effort and communicated a notion similar to
the way triangulation works for determining position or communicating the
notion of secondary confirmation or some such.
In an analytical laboratory the use of an instrument produces results and a
novice will take the results as true, which in a sense they are, but before
the result can be tied back to the real world, as opposed to the "instrument
world", there needs to be a clear understanding of what is measured.
There are two things measured by an instrument:
Number one, which everyone thinks of: The response of the sample to the
instrument.
Number two, which is easy to forget: The response of the instrument to the
sample and to itself.
Number two explains the condition where a result can be termed an artifact
of the instrument.
To avoid this or validate the real world result, we often employ instruments
with a different application of physics to the problem. The behavior of the
sample and instrument are measured in the result.
The results of the two analyses on the sample when compared give a better
idea of the sample characteristics than either instrument will alone. Also
the comprehension of the differences give insight into the instruments,
techniques, and their data or analytical artifacts.
["outside confirmation of an operational mechanism" real world example:
Employer drug tests.
The typical testing company uses tests for known derivative
products in urine.
If the result comes back positive, most often the employer simply turns you
down for the job and never says why. or Your employer fires you over the
result.
Problem: the derivative products can have more than one source. (neither
the testing company sales-weasel nor the human-resources-weasel bother with
this little fact.) A better determination can be made by using other
instruments and protocols for other less common breakdown products or more
direct markers.
So, in order to save money, knowing that 70% of positives are false with
existing test, the testing companies and the human resources folk make their
decisions on your future. (the 70% figure came from a state police chemist
at a Hewlett-Packard seminar)]
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> msh:
> I'd be interested to know what changed after three years. Sure, the
> private sector can be creative and dynamic, but so can the public
> sector. The differences between the two sectors is about funding and
> subjects of study. The private sector is not likely to study
> anything that can't be justified in terms of the bottom line. This,
> to me, is the pursuit of profit, not truth.
mel:
In academia, there was a lot of reliance on "appeal to authority",
which was often less about truth than about reputation and grants.
R&D in the private sector moved faster and WAS about truth.
(Other places might have seemed different to me for both the
academic and the private.)
-------------------------------------------
> msh says:
> Your use of the word "ideology" is highly idiosyncratic. The
> dictionary definition of the word suggests nothing about needs,
> aspirations, commitments, or causes. So in your phrase "personal
> ideologies" maybe it's the word "personal" that you believe carries
> this extra weight. I see no reason why it should.
mel:
IDEOLOGY - The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and
aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
"American Heritage Dictionary" c 1973
That might explain some of our differences in usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------
msh says:
> All views are personal. Not all personal views are held
> passionately, and, even if some are, your implication seems to be
> that passion destroys rationality. This may be true for some, but
> certainly not all.
mel:
The statement "All views are personal." bothers me, it seems I
need to think about it. I do however agree that a tension between
the emotive and the rational is not always uncontrolled.
>
> msh says:
> So it's the response, not the issue, that may be "Hot-Button",
> reactive without thought, knee-jerk. Might be better to say "Hot-
> Button responses."
mel:
You have a point, it is more correct to express it so.
--------------------------------------------------
.msh:
Tons of people are capable of providing cold-
> button, rational analysis of a wide variety of views, even if their
> views are passionately held. Just try me. Or, if you really want a
> lesson in the art of passionate rationality, try Chomsky.
>
mel:
I look forward to more exchanges with you, they are enjoyable and
help to sharpen the thoughts in my damaged brain. Otherwise it is
odd you should choose Chomsky. I observed an exchange of
his twenty-odd years back, in which he was adamant to the point
of resorting to ad hominem attack, rather than address objections
to his view. I have studiously avoided anything of his since. of
course I should just chalk it off to 'we are all human'.
We seem to be straying from metaphysics...
Thanks again for your thoughtful responses and your
patience with my quirks.
thanks--mel
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 03 2004 - 23:22:44 BST