RE: Cons and Facades

From: Lawrence H. de Bivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Thu Jun 15 2000 - 12:11:04 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Cons and Facades"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA03358 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:12:51 +0100
    X-Authentication-Warning: maigret.umd.edu: debivort owned process doing -bs
    Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 07:11:04 -0400 (EDT)
    From: "Lawrence H. de Bivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
    X-Sender: debivort@maigret.umd.edu
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Cons and Facades
    In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458C2@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0006150701560.6554-100000@maigret.umd.edu>
    Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Vincent Campbell wrote:

    >Information and truth are not the same thing. You specifically said the
    >truth, which surely means more than simple information like passwords- it
    >implies value for one thing. A password is not a truth claim, 'the world is
    >flat' is a truth claim.

    Good point. I accept your distinction.

    >Truth claims surely only have value if they can be communicated and thus
    >tested in some way or other (not necessarily experimentally, but also
    >philosophically, or as a test of faith perhaps).

    Without repeating the various reasons that might underlie _not_
    communicating a truth, it is not clear to me that truth claims only have
    value if communicated, though perhaps the question is one of to whom it
    must be communicated. A truth claim may be able to be tested without being
    first communicated. For instance, a person could develop a truth claim,
    and then test it by him/her-self, or with a small team. The experiment
    might never assert the claim itself, but be designed with it implicitly in
    mind, so that the results of the experiment generate speak directly to the
    value of the claim. In science, I think this happens fairly
    often. Hypotheses don't always state the larger thinking or truth claim of
    the experimenter; hypotheses may state well toned-down or sub-elements of
    the truth claim. (Or even created after the experiment, when there is
    greater clarity about what the experiment actually revealed. <smile>)

    Cheers,

    - Lawrence

    |---------------------------------------------|
    | ESI |
    | Evolutionary Services Institute |
    | "Crafting opportunities for a better world" |
    | 5504 Scioto Road, Bethesda, MD 20816, USA |
    | (301) 320-3941 |
    |---------------------------------------------|

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 12:13:34 BST