From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jan 07 2004 - 18:54:31 GMT
Platt
Can you try to explain what you mean by objective as it
is a word I generally avoid? Especially when the MOQ is
meant to offer explanations in terms of SQ/DQ rather than
subject-object? Or do you mean objective in a different sense?
I stick only to talking about values or according to
experience, or current data, or IMO, or it hangs
togther nicely, or has greater explanatory power,
or seems to work, or seems to avoid falling into the trap of X,
or avoids the contradictions of Y,..etc..
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: MD Measuring values
> 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
>
>
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 - 19:28:03 GMT