a) Pragmatism is one. b) Skepticism is another, with an emphasis on finding flaws in the very notions you depend upon in order to strengthen your certainties. c) Seek uncertainties, not to turn them all into certainties but as a reminder of whatever limitations of scope you may have. You can do all of these while also pursuing your dominant directions.

a) Pragmatism is one.
b) Skepticism is another, with an emphasis on finding flaws in the very notions you depend upon in order to strengthen your certainties.
c) Seek uncertainties, not to turn them all into certainties but as a reminder of whatever limitations of scope you may have.

You can do all of these while also pursuing your dominant directions.

—-

You rarely see a defense for a good reason:
It’s usually invisible to the person or people who fall into that category.

=====

A lot of people unquestionably take God for granted. Normal people are known as Christians and have the same way of thinking as them. Anybody outside of their circle of normalcy is degenerate in some way.

Same idea.

=====

Better example: If you were raised in the US and always stayed near where you grew up around similar people, you have this notion of “normal” that’s all tied into what you know.

You don’t have a name for your way of thinking.

But… folks outside of your “normal” might.

=====

No mind reading needed. One can go by written or spoken output.

Totally objective, at least from an outside frame of reference.

You do believe in “frame of reference”, yes?

======

“If something is objective, frame of reference doesn’t matter.”

So, you believe in a frame-invariant objectivity?

Is it a scientific objectivity and/or philosophical objectivity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(frame_invariance)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

====

In short, I’m attempting to find the frame of reference for your conceptualization of objectivity, as your assertions alone don’t seem to be making any headway.

=====

Words have meanings.
“Objectivity is objectivity” is self-referential.

===

Time is not an commodity right now. Nothing to waste.

I gave you three common ways that objectivity is framed.

A dictionary is a simplification for generalized usage. I’m unpacking it as we’re in specific usage now.

======

If you’re looking for an exit, you can say that this is boring to you. That’s fine.

=====

dictionaries are a for-profit industry. Language is public domain. You give dictionary editors way too much power if you let them make decisions about meaning for you. Ultimately, we commumicate in concepts, the words are supposed to represent them. Concepts abide, but words evolve, and sometimes too many (and even conflicting) ideas may be implied by a word, thus the parsing that Kevin is attempting. Please cooperate with the attempt, at least”

======

I’m not trying to trap you in a corner but I *am* framing objectivity as “always in a reference frame”, even frame-invariant objectivity.

This is based on my underlying assumption that frames > objectivity., even so much that I’m willing to discard frames-as-objective if I must.

But so far, I have no reason to.

======

Einstein’s use of frames was particularly interesting as he was using movie film and film production (camera perspectives) as a metaphor for his concepts.

I wonder if he were generating his ideas today with more complex technologies available, would his concepts use different metaphors?

=====

“Concept” etymologically is from a 17th century idea that the brain “bore” thoughts, as the brain structures bear a striking similarity to the uterus.

Ideas are from Plato of course.

But I don’t think it all dissolves into arbitrariness.

What saves it from being arbitrary is history. A lot is trackable through history, enough that a foundation is there.

——

[but it’s not a foundation, as that implies a hard bottom — this is why I love unpacking metaphors.

======

Scientism is considered a “slur” word among some circles.

=====

I see that now, but I had to follow my “train of thought” first

You don’t think there are people who attempt to use scientific principles in areas where it doesn’t work?

=====

So, people lie. That’s true.

 They can talk “as if” they have a bias but REALLY don’t have that bias.

===

Bias can be calculated based upon word output.

=====

Document classifiers have been doing it for years. How accurate? Depends how well the AI was trained and how consistent the output of the writer is in staying within the typical boundaries of the classification.

======

“Depends” doesn’t mean 0-100%. People tend to write in common patterns. We communicate in common patterns: that’s how we understand each other at all.

Training an AI to extrapolate these patterns is easy now. About two decades of solid work on it, first in the early 90s and growing along with computer power, volume of human output to work with, and better and better code.

I ran a bunch of my writings through a “Dewey Decimal” classifier used by libraries. It got the subjects down pretty good.

======

(almost 3 decades – I’ll go with 25 yrs. The work in the 80s was pre connectionism although they did have parallel processing which they used for things other than analyzing language)

=====

Your thoughts are your own BUT because “we live in a society”, see the same movies, TV shows, go to similar schools, have common jokes, etc, our patterns of thought are greatly shaped by that stuff.

So, yes, you’re unique as nobody has quite your perspective.

But a good amount of it is common. That’s objectively true.

======

Wait: MEASURABLY true.
Hence: “scientism” is detectable.

======

BUT, what I’m using to convince you is “rhetoric”. That’s the science of convincing others, you might say.

======

Now, I don’t know if you are of a “scientism” way of thinking. All I know is you don’t seem to think it’s relevant or detectable.

=====

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


seven − 4 =

Leave a Reply