Struan Hellier (struan@clara.net)
Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:23:05 +0100
Horse,
I will answer your points quite briefly at the moment as I still think you
have the wrong end of the stick with regards to what I am trying to say and
I have promised myself that I'm not going to distract myself into side
issues that I have views upon, but are not relevant to my position. I hope
that this is not ungracious of me and will answer any specific points you
put to me.
I will take up your example of fuzzy logic.
>Of those that have heard
>of it the majority will say that it is nothing more than probability.
I am interested to know how you came to this conclusion about scientists.
Did you
actually ask them and if so, how many? Or have you simply decided what you
think they will say and written it here?
It happens by coincidence that I was visiting Leicester DeMontford
University a few weeks ago where there is a great deal of research going on
into fuzzy logic and it seems clear to me from speaking to one chap who was
involved in this research that they do not in any way see fuzzy logic as
outside the bounds of science. What I was told was that fuzzy logic is a
mathematical model for representing uncertainty. So for example, if I throw
a tennis ball, conventional mathematics will find it impossible (due to the
complexity of the action and context) to be certain where it will land.
Fuzzy logic allows you to work within an area of uncertainty. The same chap
was absolutely clear that this system is formal mathematics with membership
grades being precise numbers. He left me in no doubt that this is a logic OF
fuzziness not a logic which is IN ITSELF fuzzy. You are totally wrong in
saying that it "goes against the grain of bivalent logic
which is established western logic." It does absolutely nothing of the sort
and moreover as a mathematical model it cannot go against established
Western logic because it relies completely upon it. If it didn't accept
mathematics it wouldn't exist because that is all it is.
In fuzzy logic there is a principle known as the 'Extension Principle' which
establishes quite categorically that crisp (traditional) subsets ARE fuzzy
subsets and so there is no conflict whatsoever between fuzzy and crisp
methodology.
I'm afraid that you will have to do a lot better than point to fuzzy logic
if you want to persuade me that modern science is steeped in SOM. You state
yourself that this is very important, but why is it for you? I suggest MoQ
needs SOM and I think you
know it.
>You are definitely wrong in your view that the SOM is necessary as
>some sort of counterpoint to MoQ. Subject and Object are not
>rejected, they are just seen as opposite ends of a particular
>spectrum with an infinity of possibilities in between.
Have a look at my 'Rubber Mallet' posting for my view on this. I don't see
SOM as a counterpoint to MoQ. I see the MoQ as evolving from SOM and thus
being contingent upon it and upon refugees from it. And are you able to
escape your own charge of being pointless, elitist and dualist when you say
I am wrong? And further when you say, "Logical positivism had one fatal
flaw. It was wrong. " You have your way, they have theirs. I only point this
out because whenever I have said something like that, people tell me I'm
stuck in an SOM pattern and can't be expected to understand. It's become
akin to being accused of a pact with the devil.
I think you misunderstand Emotivism as rejecting anything that cannot be
observed. On the contrary, it gives emotions absolute validity in ethical
systems. It raises them to the highest possible level, recognises their
value and shows people that morality is not just a dry rational formula.
Emotivism allows the construction of the MoQ and gives it a big thumbs up.
You have it totally the other way round and are confusing the technical term
'meaning' with the popular use of meaning. Emotivism is the affirmation of
the value of emotions, not the rejection of the value. Your misperception is
more common than you think and comes from popular analysis and (dare I say
it) the Social Moral Values which our leaders want us to swallow. Yes
Emotivism came out of Logical Positivism but it gave a whole new slant which
I invite you to explore. I really don't want to get into much further debate
on this issue as I think it has been one of the major causes of friction
between myself and others. My way is not your way, so perhaps another
approach is better.
I have no fundamental problems with your analysis of rationality. The only
point I would make is firstly to state that if you think I am typing this
message out using my eyelashes at sixty words per minute then you are being
irrational. You may object to the semantics, but you know precisely what I
mean just in the same way as Pirsig's students saw Quality in essays they
were required to mark. You can't just simplistically write off the word as
meaning sane or insane and you also have used the dualist idea of right and
wrong. Thus I repeat what I said in a personal e-mail to a Squad
member and say (and please forgive the expression) that there is a
difference between being 'irrational' and being 'irrationally irrational' I
have no problem with the LS or anyone else being irrational, my problems
start when they become, 'irrationally irrational.'
So I suggest that what we have so far is a series of misunderstandings of
each of the points you rebuke me for.
MacIntyre - I'm not going to become a spokesman for MacIntyre as I have
given lectures upon his flaws and upon his strengths and know them
reasonably well. If you don't agree with his ethical system then that is
fine with me as I have plenty of problems with it myself. I do think you
fail to do him justice and suggest that the only reason he, "makes you want
to puke," is that you have set yourself up a rigid hierarchy which denies
the importance of context in assessing value, but I'm not sure there is much
point, in this
context, of us getting deeper into it (unless you think otherwise?) I'm sure
you will have noticed my reticence to expand these ideas in past postings
and my reticence continues simply because I'm not sure a general discussion
of ethics is going to be of any direct use to the MoQ or this forum. If the
positions of other ethicists becomes relevant as the 'ethics based on MoQ'
discussion continues then I'm sure they can be brought in as needs be.
Please feel free to disagree, but I would suggest that ethical discussions
here would be best served by having the MoQ at the centre rather than
MacIntyre, Murdoch, Berlin or anyone else. If you and others can start to
construct a practical ethical system based on the MoQ then I would offer my
oar from an outside perspective which you can take or leave.
What do you think?
<This debate is, I suspect, the first of many that will be directed
<toward MoQ and those of us in the Lila Squad who wish to see MoQ
<succeed as the successor to SOM are going to have a fight on our
<hands. SOM has 2500 years of momentum on its side. MoQ is barely out
<of the womb.
Nice rhetoric Horse. Misplaced, but nice. <grin>
Cheers
Struan
-- post message - mailto:lilasqdÉhkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:dianaÉasiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:58 CEST