What, Why & How do we Know ?
Another fine spot by Jorn at Robot Wisdom. “The Wicker Man” is an almost forgotten film that made an impression on me, though I never analysed why then, an awful long time ago.
This review by philosophical writer Robert Farrow weaves an analysis of Foucault’s ideas (and others) into a synopsis of the plot. No less interesting are the witty captions to the illustrations and the promise of further interesting content at “Metaphilm“.
One important thread in the development of Pirsig’s ideas, starting with Northrop and the aboriginals of “Latin” America (and all points “East” of western thinking), continued in the North American Indian anthropological forays with Verne Dusenberry. A descendent of said anthropologist points out that Dusenberry’s book is back in print with Oklahoma University Press.
Some interesting Dusenberry biographical points just in the site blurb which might explain Pirsig’s remarks that Dusenberry had a better knack than he did, when it came to interacting with the indians on their own terms. He was an adopted son.
Is that snow on the top of my reading list ?
[Note also error in the Laverne Madigan details in the Pirsig timeline – to be corrected.]
“The simple truth — I don’t know, I just like it that way — simply won’t do, so into this vacuum rushes the bullshit” a quote from Design Observer (Harry Frankfurt) via Adrian Trenholm comments on Johnnie Moore’s blog “Sophistry”. A story where a subject finding no credible patterns to explain something, concocts complex fiction. (Not quite the same point because this subject has deliberately been given no obvious easy explanation, but it does show how people prefer seemingly sophisticated explanations to simple ones. But, careful with that razor Occam !)
Johnnie also presents this antithesis, on exposing emotional honesty, in a Buddhist context, but without comment. What’s your point Johnnie ?
Mark Federman makes a connection between this Canadian political taping story and Watergate, following recent “Deep Throat” revelations. Interestingly the story has it’s own justification “Everybody … tapes all their conversations with politicians.”
And people are surprised ? Actually I can remember being shocked in a previous life when a colleague told me he taped every conversation with his manager.
The royal we that is. I blogged when I first spotted Skype that it came from the same guys that brought us Kazaa – P2P technology being fundamentally analogous to semantic networks, that I had been following and blogging about those technologies generally. I’d forgotten until I read this BBC story.
Hofstadter’s metaphor for the brain / mind as a colony of ants makes only one reference to E O Wilson, as author of “The Insect Societies”. Been meaning to add E O Wilson to my reading list.
One quick google throws up this exchange, something I’ve alluded to many times about a number of physicists. Stephen Hawking recently said that the human race won’t last this millennium unless we start to colonize space. Do you agree ? E. O Wilson ” I admire Hawking but I think he’s completely wrong. All of the evidence shows that we can turn Earth into our permanent, safe home.” [via Salon] Interestingly, the photo of Wilson in this article has him with a large model of an ant, very like Escher’s Mobius Strip. Just noticed I was reading these Hofstadter passages whilst sat in the “Little Creatures” brewery in Freo.
Wow, didn’t realise Consilience was so recent (1998). “Insect Societies” pre-dates Hofstadter (obviously, he quotes it) but Wilson also published Pullitzer prize-winning “Ants” in 1991. The word “consilience” (meaning little more than convergence, of ideas across diverse domains) was apparently coined by William Whewell, in The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, 1840 [Wikipedia]. The word is listed in the 1913 Websters [OneLook]
The biologist (sickle-cell) S.J. Singer apparently said : “I link, therefore I am.” (Quoted from Consilience)
As a 1998 book, I can see why Consilience was a reactionary undertaking. For example Bjorn Lomborg is an interest of mine (not because I agree with him, I’ve not read him, you understand, but) because of the intense debate he caused, and the questions he raised about motives for doom & gloom arguments. E O Wilson’s review of Lomborg is wholly negative, and bemoans the scientific resources expended countering his suggestions. Interestingly in this article, neither Lomborg, nor his inspiration Julian Simon, is quoted as saying anything controversial, quite the opposite. “primary research on the environment, generally appears to be professionally competent and well balanced.” There is no question that, in the process of creating a political movement and seeking the scientific evidence to support it, environmentalists have sometimes made both factual and strategic errors — who hasn’t? But environmentalists are not devious puppeteers controlling the heartstrings of the hoi polloi and the purse strings of politicians. The skeptical environmentalist is jousting at windmills, whereas the people he denounces are fighting real battles. If the words of Lomborg’s nemesis-turned-idol Julian Simon come true — if “the material conditions of life continue to get better for most people, in most countries, most of the time” — it will be with the help of, not in spite of, the environmental movement. [Kathryn Shulz in Grist]
The point for me … Lomborg’s error is in implying a “conspiracy theory” angle to erroneous (spurious, secondary) bandwagon-jumping motives on eco-arguments. No amount of objective scientific debate can sustain or refute that. Only something like common sense. A bit like the quote made against Dawkins – “the atheist who has done more than any other for the cause of religion”; scientists arguing objectively against Lomborg, and using mainstream media to do it, are digging their own graves, spreading the meme “with 3,000 footnotes.” (Me too, BTW)
Interestingly Dawkins mocks “the great convergence”. Interesting too that induction (the basis of the original Whewell definition of consilience, induction from two directions to the same conclusion) is much undermined anyway since Popper.
Aung San Suu Kyi is 60, and still under house arrest.
Couldn’t help noticing the hypocrisy in this tale of envy and fear between dynamism and comfort. We are so mixed up. Yes, that’s we.