[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

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

Hi John M.

As always, you are the Jiminy Cricket of the list; the non-reductionist "group conscience", reminding us to individually mind our tongues... lest we trip over them.

Interesting that your first paragraph, if I had written it, would have gotten me a verbal spanking from you for being a trip hazard:

J.M. wrote:
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.

I don't disagree with your basic sentiments, under general circumstances, which is odd, isn't it-- because you voiced them in your intended disagreement with me. That's all right, though. I don't mind. However, there are many aspects of that paragraph, above, which contradict one another and/or contradict your expressed sentiments. The most important, in my view, are the very first words-- "I THINK". Those are the ones we can never really get away from, you know. To try too hard to avoid "prescribing OUR ways (opinion, behavior, thinking) on the world"... is to risk becoming as reductionist as the Nobel nominating committee. Complexity is about relational context being connected to (and part of) all causality. Anything that is context dependent is not objective. The biggest problem with using modern (contemporary) science to learn about complex systems is the continual drive to excise all "semantic" pollution, to sacrifice all relational information prior to even starting analysis. We may think it's human-imposed semantic pollution, but the semantic content and involvement has very little to do with our interpretation of reality and more to do with reality in a complex universe. We are complex systems, after all. So, there is a clear danger in trying to remove every aspect that "reminds us of us". As James Thurber wrote, in his "Fables For Our Times"; "It is just as bad to fall flat on your face as it is to bend over too far backwards." Scientific objectivity (an oxymoron if ever there was one) is the quest and the justification for a great many atrocities and it also perpetuates the material-based focus of all fields of science, based as they are on the machine metaphor. To turn science into a quest for a point of view that has nothing human in it is to deform it beyond all reason, for nothing. Science only exists because of the human mind-- it is a human activity! So it is fruitless to attempt to make science "objective" if objective is defined as "untainted by human opinion, behavior, or thinking".

I find it so ironic that Rene' Descartes, the man who created "The Scientific Method" and who generated the machine metaphor is also the man who equated his ability to think with proof of existence, proof of life, and-- by extension-- proof of the value of scientific exploration.

Peace,
Judith
Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science based on the Relational (Rosennean) Complexity Paradigm
On Nov 18, 2005, at 6:39 PM, John M wrote:

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