Re: [Critical-Realism] Creative Dialogue: Adieu.

["Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Re lack of clarity, you say that what you've been 
>trying to do is "to persuade critical realists not 
>to throw the radical baby out with the non-Marxist
> bathwater". What does that mean? That critical 
>realists throw out everything non-Marxist and keep 
>the Marxism? But that's a nonsense, not worth discussing. ...

Therefore it is not what I meant.  The fact that you ask the question,
Mervyn, is evidence that you are not intuitive.  The fact that you are
prepared to ridicule a nonsense interpretation is evidence that you are not
being fair to someone you don't understand, which was why a
specifically-relevant means to "depth-understanding" was suggested in the
first place.  

(What's wrong with Nevil Shute, anyway? He was no slouch: designer of a
successful airship and 'plane, a successful business man and writer with the
good sense to drop out of the rat race; like many serious writers a
perceptive observer of culture and character, and one of the few able and
courageous enough to discuss the human side of technology and bureaucratic
government).

As to "what I meant":- though it was, of course, pointing back to recent
history of several listers refusing to consider anything somehow associated
with religion or information science, what had been in my mind had been my
remarks about radicals in the letter of Sat 02/06/2007 12:21 about "Moving
On. ...", which I repeat now for your convenience.  George had kindly
written:

>Perhaps you can lay out some of the relationships you draw 
>between Catholicism and critical realism.   

"Those who have studied secular society can probably speak thereof better
than I; what I have had to contribute is apparently exceptional insider
experience of Catholicity, logic paths/programming, the physiological causes
of personality differences and strategies for dealing with clashes.  The
sort of philosophical connection with critical realism the latter enables me
to see is that intellectual justification of Christianity involves the
unfashionable Bhaskarian type transcendental retroductive argument, that
this is causally explicable in terms of [NOT]AND rather than [NOT] OR logic
circuits, and that Left and Right are not exhaustive in politics: these may
be defined in terms of differences of preferred method as well as results,
this being just applicable whether one is talking about religous or secular
societies. (Christ was at least as Left as Marx, but with 76% of us using
Right thinking strategies, most followers of Marx as well as Christ are
traditionalists, and conversely, a few traditional conclusionists like
Chesterton are highly creative Lefties)."    
  
Having lived all my life with personality clashes of the type now
bedevilling this discussion (the devil being not in the detail but in the
eye of the beholder), the Myers-Briggs strategy which has worked for me has
been accepting that people ARE different, learning HOW they differ in
conduct and values (what is reasonable FOR THEM), and WHY we need and should
respect types other than our own, even if they do irritate us in
characteristic ways (i.e. because our differing strengths and weaknesses are
complementary).  That fits in well with CR principles, but not with
traditionalist thinking.  Its an old story: "What does he know, he's only a
Christian information scientist" is not that unlike "Who does this Jesus
fellow think he is? Isn't he just that carpenter from Nazareth"?

Mervyn et al, perhaps it is time for me to "Move on" for now and let the
academics among you continue to argue about the letter of RTS rather than
the ongoing spirit of Bhaskar.  Thank you for generating opportunities for
presenting some theses.  Proverbially, "you can lead a horse to water but
you can't make it drink".  However, if I've put water in the trough and the
horse knows where it is, it can always drink a bit later.

Adieu.

Dave T. 


-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mervyn
Hartwig
Sent: 21 June 2007 11:54
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Creative Dialogue

Hi Dave

Frankly, I don't find it very worthwhile engaging with you because I don't
find your postings very clear or consistent or to the point or on some
things well informed. Now you're rabbiting on about my alleged
Australianness, when you know very little about my identity and it's anyway
beside the point, and about my need for a depth-understanding of your own
personality. Why should I single you out for such attention (especially
given that you read Neville Shute)? I clearly can't bestow it on all the
critical realists in the world.

Re lack of clarity, you say that what you've been trying to do is "to
persuade critical realists not to throw the  radical baby out with the
non-Marxist bathwater". What does that mean? That critical realists throw
out everything non-Marxist and keep the Marxism? But that's a nonsense, not
worth discussing. If you can't state your overall project coherently, the
devil will be in the detail.

You say "the crucial CR question is HOW is it possible to detect them
[errors] without knowledge?" I've been arguing that it isn't possible (if
knowledge includes provisional understandings). You say machines can do it,
and intuitives. But you also say that machines can't understand, and we've
been talking about humans who can; and that machines help generate  illusory
appearances that there is no error.  As for intuition, a moment's reflection
will show that its insights can only occur on the basis of a thoroughly
immanently prepared ground -- great familiarity with existing knowledge,
theories, traditions etc.

Mervyn

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'" 
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Creative Dialogue


> 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
> 

_______________________________________________
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