From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 14:53:10 GMT
Hi All:
Just as I was about to give up on the possibility for a numerical
accounting of value at the intellectual/aesthetic level, accepting DMB's
judgment that values at the third and fourth levels are difficult to
quantify because "they are more dynamic and therefore exhibit a much less
consistent pattern of preferences," I happened across a review of book by
Charles Murray titled "Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in
the Arts and Sciences from 800 B.C. to 1950."
Murray's approach is numerical and mathematical, listing 4,002 significant
individuals over 2,750 years who comprise humanity's all-star team by
reviewing 167 respected encyclopedias, biographical dictionaries, and
other references, tallying up the size, frequency, and content of the
entries on specific individuals, then crunching the numbers.
Using something called the Lotka Curve, Murray established a pattern of
excellence based on Lotka's observation that most contributors to
scientific journals write only one article while a tiny few --the giants--
write dozens. As example of the validity of the Curve, consider golf.
More than half of all the professionals have never won a tournament, and
of those who have won, a majority have won only one. But Jack Nicklaus won
eighteen majors. As Murray notes, you can come up with as many postmodern
theories about social construction of reality as you like: It won't change
the fact that Jack Nicklaus was a much better golfer than most great
golfers. This pattern tends to hold true for science, art, literature,
philosophy and every other realm of the human pursuit of excellence.
Murray makes two factual assertions. The first is that his numbers reflect
the definitive consensus among those who know what they are talking about.
His second claim is that this consensus of opinion reflects objective
fact. Behind these assertions is the his basic assumption that excellence
(value) in art, science and philosophy exists and therefore can be
measured.
This is what I was seeking--an "objective" measure of value at the upper
levels based on an application of mathematical methods that have been so
successful at the lower levels. Whether you agree or not with Murray's
approach, you have to give him credit for pushing boundary that others had
pretty much given up on.
What Murray has accomplished IMO is objective proof of Pirsig's basic
assumption that "some things are better than others" and that betterness
is NOT just a matter of "whatever I like."
Platt
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 Jan 06 2004 - 14:51:40 GMT