Re: The differences between "wrong"; "incorrect"; and "limited"...

[John M <***>]

Judith,

did you mean to leave out "behavior"?
Then again 'wrong' can be correct, applicable, well
chosen, articulate, habituel, like: in a conservative
family a well deserved and exercised spanking. 
I think 'right' and 'wrong' is in the eyes of the
perpetrator and the critic. Unless we prescribe OUR
ways (opinion, behavior, thinking) on the world, which
is of course wrong. 

IMO a simulacron, a metaphor, a model is always wrong,
except for the natural (unlimited) model, which is the
"thing" itself. Our 1st person views are wrong, they
are filtered through OUR experience - knowledgebase
(mind, if you don't mind). And 3rd person opinion does
NOT exist, once we got hold of it it is the version
within our 1st person acceptance about it. 

I hate the English contrary of 'wrong': the "right',
but that is political. Right may be wrong, left may be
right. So right now the wrong left by the right is the
left, right on both sides. For the righteous leftists.


Then we have "incorrect" which lives in my vocabulary
as the most personal(ized) opinion. You may use
correct as affirmative, I never heard 'incorrect' for
"no". And here we splash into the negatives: false,
fake, etc. for 'wrong'? Is a lie always wrong? An
error? Some ignorance? 

I don't know at what grade (if any) do they teach the
children something like "speach and understanding"? In
the old country it was in the first years of schooling
before the kids read too much. 

If 'correct' and 'incorrect' would be obvious, then no
discussion would take place at all and development
would stop cold. (Fundamentalist religious position). 
You mentioned criteria. Utility: to (for) whom (what)?
We have more than one-track and (proverb): what is a
remedy for the blacksmith is death for the tailor. 
You identify a "functional value" as "how well will it
work for us?" for Torquemada, or Mother Theresa? 
"Cost-Benefit" i like better (if it is not
money-wise).
Just please, do not include (your) 'morally wrong',
which is absloutely culture-related. 

I know, I am stuck with 4 other languages befoire this
one, but the 'mother tongue' is the most impresive. My
mother-tongue is not Indo-European, so I value things
in different relations. Don't tell me that I am wrong,
please.

John



--- Judith Rosen <***> wrote:

> Dan brought up something that, upon further
> reflection, actually 
> presents an interesting conundrum: How do we define
> the word "wrong"?
> 
> My definition has always been: If some "thing"
> (where "thing" means 
> some answer, explanation, model, etc.) is
> fundamentally 
> inapplicable/inaccurate for that which it is
> supposed to 
> represent/pertain to, then it's wrong, even if it
> seems applicable on 
> the surface, under certain circumstances (turn it
> sideways and 
> squint!). Ultimately, this is also the difference
> between a simulacrum 
> and a true model. (Side note: sometimes the line
> between models and 
> simulacra can be a bit blurry. I attribute this to
> the fact that there 
> are always going to be lousy modelers who think like
> 
> simulacrum-builders.)
> 
> I suppose a more user-friendly term would be
> "incorrect" rather than 
> wrong. "Wrong" tends to invoke moral issues and
> personal behavior 
> judgments, etc, doesn't it-- as in "knowing the
> difference between 
> right and wrong"... So I will switch to "correct and
> incorrect".
> 
> Dan asked:
> maybe we have to be more
> specific about right and wrong, maybe by citing
> utility
> or functional value or cost/benefit, etc.?
> 
> I agree, obviously, with the first part or I
> wouldn't be writing this. 
> (Thanks, Dan.) Perhaps whether something is
> absolutely correct or only 
> partly correct isn't the only distinction between
> correct and 
> incorrect... Perhaps it's only a distinction between
> correct and 
> correct-enough-under-THESE-(specific)-circumstances.
> However, that's 
> really a different distinction, isn't it? To me, it
> looks less like an 
> assessment of the model's entailment pattern for
> accuracy, compared to 
> the system it supposedly represents... and more like
> a distinction over 
> the correct/incorrect-ness of using that model to
> make decisions which 
> will affect the actual system. So perhaps these are
> two separate areas 
> of concern, and it would require some serious
> relational thought 
> capability and good judgment to discern First: the
> correctness of the 
> model's applicability and, Second: in the case where
> the model is only 
> partly "correct" in its entailment relations to the
> system being 
> modeled, when do those circumstances exist such that
> it is 
> "correct-enough" to use. (In my view, additionally,
> it would always be 
> wise to be aware/mindful of the limitations AND the
> reasons for the 
> limitations-- which is apparently not the case,
> currently, with 
> state-based models of reality in physics.) Be that
> as it may, it's 
> clear that in order to make an intelligent
> assessment about the 
> limitations of the model and about when those
> circumstances exist that 
> the model is safe to use, one would have to do some
> serious relational 
> analysis, right? Which brings us, then, to the
> suggestions Dan offered 
> for basing a decision.
> 
> There are three possible criteria listed, for
> judging the correctness 
> or incorrectness of some scientific model in any
> given situation: 
> Utility (can it be useful?); Functional Value (how
> well will it work 
> for us?); and Cost/Benefit (this is a loaded one! It
> could refer to 
> many different ratios and some of them, I have to
> admit, are necessary. 
> Even critically important. However, there are some
> I've seen people use 
> in this category as a specious justification, using
> a very short 
> timeline to derive their numbers or some other trick
> of expedience, and 
> THAT I consider to be morally "wrong".) After
> turning these ideas over 
> in my mind, I have concluded that this list of
> criteria is dangerously 
> incomplete if it were used the way it is (which is
> not a criticism of 
> Dan-- he was just tossing ideas out here, off the
> top of his head, and 
> I'm glad he did). For example, I don't think we
> could accurately judge 
> or arrive at an answer for any of those three
> questions unless we do 
> some other assessments, first. So, to this list,
> right at number one, I 
> would add: How correct have the modelers gotten the
> entailments of 
> their model? That's a biggie, and it requires
> periodic reassessment 
> over time, as our technological capabilities
> progress, giving us access 
> to more of any system's underlying entailment, etc. 
> Then, at number 
> two, I would suggest: If the model commutes only
> partially, where are 
> the entailments off? (The answers to this will
> become very important in 
> any cost/benefit analysis we do later.) Again, we
> should periodically 
> reassess this aspect with our current capabilities--
> not just assume 
> that because it once seemed to commute really well
> that it still does 
> (It may never have fully commuted at all, only
> partially, under certain 
> circumstances.....) Similarly, we will need answers
> to my next 
> suggested addition: 3.a.) Will the incorrect aspects
> of our model's 
> entailment structure affect our project under
> consideration and/or the 
> system the model refers to--  and, if so, how? A
> corollary to this is: 
> 3.b.) What other systems are affected in relation to
> any affect on this 
> one?  In other words-- number three basically asks:
> What will be the 
> side effects of using the model in "this" project,
> with the entailment 
> structure of the model limited in its correctness in
> "that" way?
> 
> My concern over all of the above is that we
> (humanity) don't even 
> recognize relational causality as a player, in any
> scientific way. That 
> was my father's whole gig, frankly: that We need to.
> In order to 
> predict what kind of side effects eventually come
> from what kind of 
> entailment dis-relation in a model compared with the
> system it 
> models.... we really need to study the relational
> aspects of side 
> effects in a systematic way. As far as I know, no
> branch of science is 
> involved in doing that. Does anyone on the list know
> of one?
> 
> Judith
> 
> Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
> BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science
> based on the 
> Relational (Rosennean) Complexity Paradigm