From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jan 07 2004 - 12:52:23 GMT
Hi Scott,
I have to preface my comments by saying I haven't read Charles Murray's
"Human Accomplishment." So I have no idea what his position would be in
response to your observations. My comments are strictly ad hoc.
> > 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.
>
> Or, some contributors have attained celebrity status. How does the solitary
> genius who challenges the Kuhnian paradigm get published? Usually, they
> don't.
We can always assume the existence of unsung heros who go unrecognized.
But, Murray's measurements of excellence are based on actual achievements,
not on imaginary "what if" and "if only" scenarios.
> >As example of the validity of the Curve, consider golf.
>
> A biological accomplishment. It is rarely difficult to establish betterness
> in sporting events (except maybe gymnastics and such).
True. But the Curve seems applicable to higher levels as well.
> > 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.
The Nicklaus example is a metaphor for the pattern. Applying the pattern
to higher levels, the Nicklaus of physics would be Einstein, of literature
Shakespeare, of art Michelangelo, of philosophy Plato, of mysticism
Buddha, etc.
> > Murray makes two factual assertions. The first is that his numbers
> > reflect the definitive consensus among those who know what they are
> > talking about.
>
> That is, intersubjective agreement.
Yes, but restricted to an elite group. Hardly democratic.
> > 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.
> How do you tell whether the high measurement comes from "objective fact",
> or whether it comes from some social or scientific fad, like celebrity
> (science too has its celebrities)? Carl Sagan is an example in my mind of
> someone who was valueless as a thinker outside of his specialty, yet had
> high celebrity status.
I guess that fads and celebrity are accounted for Murray's measurements of
value by invoking a time factor, the "test of time"as it were. Sagan is
already under criticism by his peers for being, if not a phony, close to
it. I doubt if a hundred years from now he will get much ink.
> > 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."
>
> By Murray's methods, Pirsig would be rated nowhere as a philosopher. How
> many articles has he had published in academic philosophy journals? How
> often is he cited by his "peers", that is, other philosophers? So if you
> like Murray's "objective proof", then you should ignore Pirsig.
Again, it's too early to tell Pirsig's eventual standing on the scale of
achievements.
> ZMM was rejected by 30 publishers before it was accepted. What if Pirsig
> had given up at 25? The hilarious novel "A Confederacy of Dunces" was also
> rejected by everybody, leading the author to kill himself. His mother
> finally found a prominent novelist (Walker Percy) to read it, and he got it
> published. Now "everybody" sees it as a great novel. How many other
> "Confederacy of Dunces", or ZMM's, are there that never made it?
Well, not "everybody" exactly. I never heard of "Confederacy of Dunces"
Probably the reason you put quotes around "everybody." Your "what if"
scenarios are infinite and thus of questionable relevance. I mean, what if
there weren't 1.6 million abortions in the U.S. every year? How many
geniuses were "rejected" before being born?
I think Murray is on the cutting edge of a "objective" numerical approach
to validating the MOQ. As long as "objectivity" is so highly esteemed in
our science-oriented milieu, I think Murray's book is worth a careful read
which I intend to do.
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 : Wed Jan 07 2004 - 12:51:32 GMT