Derren Brown is a fantastic Magician. He is following int he tradition of Houdini and Randi by providing tools to better evaluate claims. These videos are available on his site. You should check it out.
Great short video series on critical thinking: "Argument: A Field Guide in Six Parts"
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Robo Avians
Originally I was going to write about the use of drones and the interesting legislation happening about their civil use here in the US. But then I saw the Ostrich design and my love of birds (and robots) outweighed the effort I would expend to type up something of actual substance. Enjoy the below knowing that the other article is on it's way.
Seagull
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnR8fDW3Ilo
Hummingbird
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1EYpAqqC2s
Ostrich
http://www.ihmc.us/groups/fastrunner/
Seagull
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnR8fDW3Ilo
Hummingbird
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1EYpAqqC2s
Ostrich
http://www.ihmc.us/groups/fastrunner/
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Reduction and Granularity
At what point does it make sense to model the activity? Certain molecular properties will effect the behavior of a system in ways a different elemental combination would not.
The question, for example; 'does morality come from the benzine molecule?' is a failure in this type of analysis. The description of fluid dynamics vis-a-vis the propagation of wavefronts in a large body of water will likely only gain small benefit from discussions of hydrogen and oxygen reactions (at best). Instead things that require a statistical description will after a certain threshold only be burdened by details.
The question then becomes one of picking the right degree of reduction. Below which the information is lost to granularity and above which the involved factors become either irreconcilably large or in other ways of retraction to the system.
This will require a degree of sensitivity to the data set as well as the goal of the inquiry; lacking this information only the grossest of descriptions will be made available.
Again it becomes one of defining a question, allowing for a recursive development to treat the data set will at some point lead to diminishing returns. But should always be considered if there is time and processing power to spare. Otherwise it may be more useful to open multiple conflicting models and look for best fits within each constraint base.
If data is ill-defined, then some form of self referential learning system will be required.
The question, for example; 'does morality come from the benzine molecule?' is a failure in this type of analysis. The description of fluid dynamics vis-a-vis the propagation of wavefronts in a large body of water will likely only gain small benefit from discussions of hydrogen and oxygen reactions (at best). Instead things that require a statistical description will after a certain threshold only be burdened by details.
The question then becomes one of picking the right degree of reduction. Below which the information is lost to granularity and above which the involved factors become either irreconcilably large or in other ways of retraction to the system.
This will require a degree of sensitivity to the data set as well as the goal of the inquiry; lacking this information only the grossest of descriptions will be made available.
Again it becomes one of defining a question, allowing for a recursive development to treat the data set will at some point lead to diminishing returns. But should always be considered if there is time and processing power to spare. Otherwise it may be more useful to open multiple conflicting models and look for best fits within each constraint base.
If data is ill-defined, then some form of self referential learning system will be required.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Pragmatic Empiricism
Incompleteness tells us that we can't have a self describing system that is internally consistent. This means that any claim must be grounded ultimately in some other idea. Often people chose some fallacy (appeal to authority) for this. My personal preference is for one of building on the facts at hand and using the results to build better definitions. This starts with statements such as "I am here and it is now" After which it is a question of methods.
Why do I think a Starting point such as this is a good one?
It seems impossible for a thinking being to not posses that statement in some form. It is nearly tautological in its description.
Why then do I choose to say pragmatic empiricism?
This is the resultant idea of a best guess given the available evidence.
The next question is one of methodology and construction; What can we say of the ways in which we make our. Choices? What means suit the situation? What is the most appropriate way to deal with the given information set?
The methods of knowing are laid out in other of the available essays and should be referenced as need be.
Why do I think a Starting point such as this is a good one?
It seems impossible for a thinking being to not posses that statement in some form. It is nearly tautological in its description.
Why then do I choose to say pragmatic empiricism?
This is the resultant idea of a best guess given the available evidence.
The next question is one of methodology and construction; What can we say of the ways in which we make our. Choices? What means suit the situation? What is the most appropriate way to deal with the given information set?
The methods of knowing are laid out in other of the available essays and should be referenced as need be.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Objective values
Really enjoying writing on the train. Here is this mornings commute notes.
Morality is often referenced in objective terms (I think this is good for psychological reasons) with the idea of a godless world being said to lack any place for this notion.
The failure of he imagination here is one of treating morals as an abstract notion rather than a practical one. If we are to assume that the existence of morals is a result of our evolutionary and cultural development, then we should treat it as a biological fact.
Another example of a biological fact about humans is the existence of opposable thumbs. You can metaphorically substitute the existence of thumbs for any inference about the development,or platonic nature, of morality.
Do animals have thumbs?
Well some do and some don't it depends on their evolutionary heritage. More over we can see that there are different variations and levels of sophistication to thumbs.
What do we do with people who have no thumbs or under-developed thumbs?
We try to give them assistance.
Would intelligent extra terrestrial entities have thumbs?
We imagine so, but they may have developed a different method of gripping things.
____________________________________________
The focus becomes different here, more general. This may be a great topic to explore in more detail.
We are then left the question of whether certain types of things are inherent in their materials or if they are one of a possible group of strategies that might be deployed.
The two types of objective ideas are the Platonic ideal and the developmental solution. These may be in full philosophical conflict or may exist in some synergistic form. With certain ideas being inherent and discoverable while others built from reaction to constraints of the past.
We can also see that when applied to mathematics we have systems that might be inherent in the definitions of things while other ideas are tools developed to deal with a limited realm of information.
We see that systems are to some extent a simplification of something greater. We have from incompleteness the understanding that any single system we create will fail to describe itself and be self consistent. This is overcome to some degree by overlapping separate exclusionary systems. And may be the result of trying to describe the universe in terms simpler than itself. We have then (if true) reached then limit of the "thing in and of itself"
Morality is often referenced in objective terms (I think this is good for psychological reasons) with the idea of a godless world being said to lack any place for this notion.
The failure of he imagination here is one of treating morals as an abstract notion rather than a practical one. If we are to assume that the existence of morals is a result of our evolutionary and cultural development, then we should treat it as a biological fact.
Another example of a biological fact about humans is the existence of opposable thumbs. You can metaphorically substitute the existence of thumbs for any inference about the development,or platonic nature, of morality.
Do animals have thumbs?
Well some do and some don't it depends on their evolutionary heritage. More over we can see that there are different variations and levels of sophistication to thumbs.
What do we do with people who have no thumbs or under-developed thumbs?
We try to give them assistance.
Would intelligent extra terrestrial entities have thumbs?
We imagine so, but they may have developed a different method of gripping things.
____________________________________________
The focus becomes different here, more general. This may be a great topic to explore in more detail.
We are then left the question of whether certain types of things are inherent in their materials or if they are one of a possible group of strategies that might be deployed.
The two types of objective ideas are the Platonic ideal and the developmental solution. These may be in full philosophical conflict or may exist in some synergistic form. With certain ideas being inherent and discoverable while others built from reaction to constraints of the past.
We can also see that when applied to mathematics we have systems that might be inherent in the definitions of things while other ideas are tools developed to deal with a limited realm of information.
We see that systems are to some extent a simplification of something greater. We have from incompleteness the understanding that any single system we create will fail to describe itself and be self consistent. This is overcome to some degree by overlapping separate exclusionary systems. And may be the result of trying to describe the universe in terms simpler than itself. We have then (if true) reached then limit of the "thing in and of itself"
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Unstated premises
Trains of thought number two. Where I see how much use and sense my free form notes written on a train ride make.
In most statements there are supporting ideas that are never directly addressed. These are called unstated premises. When we evaluate truth. Maims we should be aware that there may be certain intermediary steps or fundamental ideas that are not explicit in the argument. It is a good exercise to determine what these are, or might be. If an unstated premise conflicts with any of the stated premises it should be used as a consistency test and if found to not be a necessary condition ignored. If the premises as stated are insufficient the arguer must either state additional premises, restructure the argument, or abandon their rational claim. Premises that are left unstated should only be done so in a formal situation if the argument would be needlessly cluttered by them, or If they are not required for a particular section of the argument ( and will be stated later). In informal argument premises may be left unstated if they are thought to be implicit, for elegance, brevity, or simplicity. If an argument is. Challenged on grounds of insufficient evidence, then unstated premises may be brought to bear.
In most statements there are supporting ideas that are never directly addressed. These are called unstated premises. When we evaluate truth. Maims we should be aware that there may be certain intermediary steps or fundamental ideas that are not explicit in the argument. It is a good exercise to determine what these are, or might be. If an unstated premise conflicts with any of the stated premises it should be used as a consistency test and if found to not be a necessary condition ignored. If the premises as stated are insufficient the arguer must either state additional premises, restructure the argument, or abandon their rational claim. Premises that are left unstated should only be done so in a formal situation if the argument would be needlessly cluttered by them, or If they are not required for a particular section of the argument ( and will be stated later). In informal argument premises may be left unstated if they are thought to be implicit, for elegance, brevity, or simplicity. If an argument is. Challenged on grounds of insufficient evidence, then unstated premises may be brought to bear.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Necessary and sufficient. With and without the Oxford comma.
Notes from my evening commute.
We must understand that for a proposition to be true there are certain minimum requirements that must be met. These must be true in ALL Cases and we call them necessary conditions. When you are making or investigating a truth claim it may be helpful to determine what these are. If any of these fail to be true you may dismiss the claim as having false premises or conclusions (deductive). If the necessary conditions are met, we then may ask if there are sufficient conditions. These differ in that a failure of necessary conditions negates a claim but does not support it, while sufficient conditions suggest that it may be true. To rephrase we may see that falsification may be deductive while truth is inductive at best. Holding a position based on the necessary alone is week for positive. Claims. While meeting the minimum requirements it is not a guarantee. Sufficient reasons are selected after the necessary, we can use such tools as elegance and simplicity as well as best explanation.
To suggest a belief is rational is to say that it has covered both the necessary AND sufficient conditions of that conclusion. If sufficient conditions are not met you have at best an appeal to pragmatism or some other form of wish thinking. Agnostics can be separated into two claims; that a thing cannot be known in principle or that a thing is unknown given the current information ( but is knowable). I suppose we could be agnostic about agnosticism but that road seems short and while diverting it is beyond the scope of this essay.
We must understand that for a proposition to be true there are certain minimum requirements that must be met. These must be true in ALL Cases and we call them necessary conditions. When you are making or investigating a truth claim it may be helpful to determine what these are. If any of these fail to be true you may dismiss the claim as having false premises or conclusions (deductive). If the necessary conditions are met, we then may ask if there are sufficient conditions. These differ in that a failure of necessary conditions negates a claim but does not support it, while sufficient conditions suggest that it may be true. To rephrase we may see that falsification may be deductive while truth is inductive at best. Holding a position based on the necessary alone is week for positive. Claims. While meeting the minimum requirements it is not a guarantee. Sufficient reasons are selected after the necessary, we can use such tools as elegance and simplicity as well as best explanation.
To suggest a belief is rational is to say that it has covered both the necessary AND sufficient conditions of that conclusion. If sufficient conditions are not met you have at best an appeal to pragmatism or some other form of wish thinking. Agnostics can be separated into two claims; that a thing cannot be known in principle or that a thing is unknown given the current information ( but is knowable). I suppose we could be agnostic about agnosticism but that road seems short and while diverting it is beyond the scope of this essay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)