Re: [Critical-Realism] Creative Dialogue

["Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oh dear!

Dear Mervyn

I said nothing about my not being in error - I am relevant to this
discussion only insofar as my talents and experience are as real as anyone
else's, and better known to me for purpose of illustration.  Nor are you
relevant to it.  I am trying to explain a crucial concept rather than
criticise or belittle you for not already understanding it.  I am well aware
that I also started as "a rank amateur".

The discussion was about how automatic error detection works in computers,
i.e. it focusses on the form of the signal rather than the meaning of the
message.  It has to because (until programmed) a computer cannot understand
the messages.  

Previously I've made the point that this same mechanism can be used to
detect the occasional presence of no errors in otherwise apparently
gobblygoog messages (accepting of course that coding like parity checks can
only improve reliability, not secure certainty, and even computer hardware
can develop faults).  I've also made the point that the same mechanism is
one of just two forms of circuit logic: the NOT AND rather than the NOT OR
form (though to admit an error, I probably referred to the AND and OR forms
without the NOT). And I've also made the point which is crucial when this
underlying mechanism is applied to user programming of error checks (the
equivalent of human judgement): that the program has to compare the signal
with known types of error, which it can't do until the types of error have
become known to the system.  Taking myself as an illustration of this, I
have previously recognised that it wasn't until I was about forty that I
began to trust my own judgement, and I was nearer 60 when I learned (i.e.
was taught how) to understand myself via analysis of a Myers-Briggs
personality test.

Mervyn, your Australian and my Northern English cultures have this in
common: a willingness to call a spade a spade and not take offence if others
do.  Let me ask, then, is it "creative dialogue" to make a straw man out of
one aspect of an argument and then substitute the real man for the straw
man?

Let us step back from this.  If you are willing to try and understand my
real character, then I can point you to sometime Australian writer Nevil
Shute's novel, "No Highway", in which the character and story of Mr Honey is
an accurate reflection of mine, except that he was a backroom scientist at
the Royal Aircraft Establishment, whereas I was at the Royal Rader
Establishment.  He too was a family man, happy in his work and somehow
managing to end up with the nicest girl in town.  His problems with getting
people to take metal fatigue in their own aircraft seriously have some
similarity with mine trying to pursuade critical realists not to throw the
radical baby out with the non-Marxist bathwater.  We both end up being
considered objectionable.  I won't spoil the story by saying what Mr Honey
does about it, because that is what we still have time to find an
alternative to.

Let me also try an analogy to convey the flavour of Myers-Briggs personality
typing.  You are probably aware how cricket commentators have started
analysing a batsman's style, strengths and weaknesses in terms of where
(relative to where he is facing) he hits the ball: right or left, forward or
behind.  To say a batsman hits most of his best shots up or along the floor
in one quarter or another can be a definite and accurate statement without
saying precisely where he does hit the ball or any suggestion that he
doesn't hit it anyway else.  Likewise, there is no suggestion that
introverts and extroverts (ideas-focussed or people-focussed), intuitives
and sensors (focussed on memory or sense), thinkers and feelers (judging by
programming or primitive mechanisms) and judgers or perceptives (primitively
wanting to act or discover more), though definite types, are individually
defined thereby.  Even introvert intuitive thinking just-about-judgers like
myself have feelings.

Back on the subject, what is the point of arguing (with Ruth and against
Tobin) abour errors, if the crucial CR question is HOW is it possible to
detect them without knowledge?  The answer matters, even if you don't like
it.

Best

Dave   

     

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mervyn
Hartwig
Sent: 20 June 2007 19:01
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Creative Dialogue


Hi Dave,

So the automatic recognition of error on your part as an intuitive is
necessary for the appearance that you are not in error? I've got it.

Your attitude to Newton and esp. Shannon smacks of great man theory of
history. I should think there are philosophers and social theorists, incl. 
CRs, into the philosophy of maths and information theory who are not
ignoring Shannon, but I'm afraid it's not a road I could go down except as a
rank amateur. I seem to remember his having been discussed here quite a bit
a while back.

Mervyn

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'" 
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Creative Dialogue


> Hi Mervyn
>
>>What is supposed to happen [if the synthesis is already being argued for 
>>in
> a dialectical dialogue]? I suppose the parties could continue with 
> whatever
> work they have to do, feeling somewhat encouraged.
>
> That is precisely what I hope would happen, as it did with me when I
> encountered CR. The difficulty with expecting that to happen is that most
> people do not imagine there is an existing answer, or even an answer, and
> many display the "not invented here" syndrome.
>
>>I don't accept your dichotomy between 'intuitive' and 'sensory' thinkers.
> We all think intuitively inter alia, and CR is oriented against such 
> splits.
>
> My usage is an ellipsis, the Myers-Briggs evidence confirming Jung's
> professional experience that people tend to be better at one or the other
> type of reasoning.  Are you objecting to the ellipsis or to the fact that 
> we
> are not all the same?
>
> When I argue for this I argue not only empirically but also CR-wise in 
> terms
> of "how is it possible". Yesterday I was grateful for your acknowledging
> (Wed 19/06/2007 23:29) the force of my argument about  recognition of 
> error:
>
>>>I particularly like the bit about the automatic recognition of error 
>>>being
> necessary for the appearance that there is no error ...
>
> But previously (and to some people's taste ad nauseum) I've pointed out 
> (on
> the basis of neural circuits being electrical and my experience of how
> error-correction works in electrical computers) that that is a sufficient
> explanation of how intuition works; and that Claude Shannon not only 
> showed
> how to automate conventional logic in this way, his revolutionary concept 
> of
> information was introduced as a means of making feasible the similar
> automation of error recognition and correction I became familiar with.
>
> To go back to where you started, what has NOT encouraged me is the 
> complete
> disinterest (as yet) shown by philosophers and social scientists among 
> most
> others in the work of Shannon, whose social impact has perhaps even 
> exceeded
> Newton's, and been far more relevant to the human aspects of philosophy 
> and
> social science.
>
> Thanks for the comments, anyway.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mervyn
> Hartwig
> Sent: 20 June 2007 09:46
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Creative Dialogue
>
> Hi Dave
>
> What is supposed to happen? I suppose the parties could continue with
> whatever work they have to do, feeling somewhat encouraged.
>
> I don't accept your dichotomy between 'intuitive' and 'sensory' thinkers. 
> We
> all think intuitively inter alia, and CR is oriented against such splits.
>
> Mervyn
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Creative Dialogue
>
>
>> Hi Mervyn
>>
>> Please excuse me joining in, but this has gotten to be as big an issue 
>> for
>> me as it seems to be for George.  Your first comment helps me understand
>> where you are coming from:-
>>
>>>what you [George] call 'critical convergence' I'd call 'creative
>>>dialogue'.
>>
>> As I see it, if dialogue is "creative" then it MAY be leading to
>> convergence.  It may however lead to incomprehending but respectful
>> tolerance, generate antagonism, or even lead to decisive rejection,
>> depending on what it is "creating".  In other words, dialogue is not
>> necessarily dialectic.  It is not necessarily the case that all parties
>> have
>> part of the truth and together create the "synthesis".  What is supposed
>> to
>> happen when what some parties may eventually recognise as the synthesis 
>> is
>> what other parties have been arguing, in language developed within their
>> own
>> "specialism", all along?
>>
>>>I agree with Ruth re (a) - there's not much commonality here.
>>
>> Having looked back at what Ruth was arguing at (a), I agree there is not
>> much commonality in the SOLUTIONS offered, but I don't see that means
>> George's exemplars were not AIMING for the same reality as RB: at least
>> originally, though like the great Chomsky mimicking pre-quantum chemists
>> in
>> that piece Tim presented to us, they may have written off the possibility
>> of
>> what they were personally not yet in a position to imagine.  Peirce and
>> Dewey were different types of pragmatist and a long time ago; a lot has
>> happened in the field of logic since then.  Even Popper was formed before
>> Shannon and Algol68.
>>
>> Ruth's "parsing" of RB and "losing" of these worthies was fascinating and
>> worth a debate in itself. What I am getting at here comes out in her 
>> final
>> comment, though.
>>
>>>I agree with you though [George] that it is interesting to all the time 
>>>be
>> comparing and contrasting thinkers; it helps in trying to figure them out
>> I
>> think.
>>
>> Yes, but not only to figure out what they ACTUALLY said; at a deeper 
>> level
>> one may be reading between the lines, figuring out what they were TRYING
>> to
>> say, and learning about both that and one's own deficiencies by viewing
>> the
>> problem they were addressing in light of comparison of what was 
>> understood
>> by different schools then with fruitful insights [c.f. Lakatos] others
>> have
>> had since.  That of course may come more easily for intuitive thinkers
>> than
>> it does for sensory thinkers, whose strengths lie in dealing with the
>> actual.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mervyn
>> Hartwig
>> Sent: 19 June 2007 19:45
>> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Powers,processes, etc.
>>
>> Hi George
>>
>> That's fine, but what you call 'critical convergence' I'd call 'creative
>> dialogue'.
>>
>> I agree with Ruth re (a) - there's not much commonality here.
>>
>> Mervyn
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "George demetrion" <gdemetrion@xxxxxxx>
>> To: <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Powers,processes, etc.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Third, how can there be creative dialogue if there's convergence
>>>
>>>
>>> Mervyn,
>>>
>>> Critical convergence doesn't presuppose unity though it does require an
>>> identification of commonalities, which does not deny differences but
>>> places
>>> them within the perspective of the context of the broader issue or
>>> problem
>>> under investigation.  It also doesn't deny the possibility of any given
>>> theory that might prove itself superio; simply that the grounds and the
>>> counterclaims need to be carefully addressed.
>>>
>>> Briefly, to take the three related schools that I've laid out--critical
>>> pragmatism (Peirce & Dewey), critical rationalism (Popper), critical
>>> realism
>>>
>>> Commonalities:
>>>
>>> a)  Post Humean metaphyics
>>> b)  Sustained critique of both positivism and postmodernism (Deweyan
>>> analysis is commonly drawn upon by contemporary pragmatists on this even
>>> as
>>> some pragmatists are working out of postmodern filters
>>> c)  Truth as a regulative ideal
>>> d)  very rigorous work in the area of scientific philosophy (eg. Dewey's
>>> Logic:  The Theory of Inquiry)
>>>
>>> Differences
>>>
>>> a)  Dewey focuses more on inquiry; Popper focuses more on the efficacy 
>>> of
>>> the results of inquiry and works backwards (his World, One, Two & Three)
>>> b)  Bhsakar focuses more on ontology (the validity of which neither
>>> Popper
>>> nor Dewey would deny) while still accepting the ineradicable gap between
>>> what we can know and what is actual.
>>> c)  While that's a difference neither Dewey nor Popper deny what Bhaskar
>>> refers to as generative mechanisms and causal power (if I have the 
>>> latter
>>> right) even as they (perhaps?) focus more on more immediate issues of
>>> effective problem solving as defined by the nature of the problem 
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> There's nothing mystical in how this may be done.  It requires (and I'm
>>> not
>>> presuming your opposed) to greater interrdisciplinary border crossing at
>>> a
>>> fairly in-depth level which speaks to fundamental issues of breadth and
>>> depth, shaped, perhaps, by the preoblem at hand.
>>>
>>> I'd be really interested what the work in scientific essentialism may
>>> have
>>> to offer--intererested, but not at this time toi the extent of
>>> undertaking
>>> the hard work of gaining a substantial level of knowledge that would
>>> likely
>>> be needed to better appreciate how the depth and breadth of how a
>>> postpositivist theoretical and research design that accepts regulative
>>> truth
>>> as  an operative ideal might be further enhanced.
>>>
>>> George Demetrion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>>> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Critical-Realism mailing list
>> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism 


_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism




_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism