Posted on 06/08/2005 7:40:56 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
Yes, I am glad that we agree on this point.
You dismiss Brockman's opinion of Goldstein's work with a flippant remark that it's an "editorial blurb." You have done no work here. Could you please supply at least one reason why you disagree with him, and then I would be pleased to put my shoulder to the wheel as well.
I've read two interviews with Goldstein, and have read two reviews of her Gödel book. I've not read the book itself, nor any of her novels. On the basis of what I know of her and her work, I don't find her to be mis-applying scientific methods to humanities subjects. I responded to you initially in the context of the Edge interview itself. It would seem that the Brockman remarks caught your attention and prompted you to file Goldstein's work in the 'mis-applying science to the humanities' bin, but I didn't notice those remarks myself (my bad).
It seems to me that it would be important to take notice of what Brockman thought of Goldstein' work. That's why he conducted the interview because he thinks she supports his position.
You are entitled to disagree with Brockman. But what you still have not provided is some analysis of the interview that you think supports your opinion and undermines Brockman's.
You are entitled to disagree with Brockman. But what you still have not provided is some analysis of the interview that you think supports your opinion and undermines Brockman's.
Sorry, I don't see that as my burden. But I'll settle for this: quote a single remark by Goldstein in the interview that you regard as a mis-application of scientific modes of thinking to non-scientific matters. Since I didn't see any such remarks, my take is that the entire interview supports my position.
Sorry, indeed.
A single remark? Doesn't seem like much.
Again, I cite the entire interview as corroboration for my position. I ask from you only the citation of a single remark by Goldstein that seems to you to imply that she's mis-applying scientific methods to humanities subjects.
If you produce such a remark, then we can continue by discussing the remark that you produce. Makes sense, eh?
(BTW, I don't agree that science is in one little box and the humanities are in another little box and never the twain should meet, but that's a larger issue that I haven't addressed directly.)
Very wise advice – for some things. Critical, for example, in law and politics and some business decisions.
If it doesn't make sense to you, do not award it value.
Doesn't follow with the ability to be clearly articulated. You'll likely disagree with this. Perhaps I have a different definition of "make sense." Sometimes things make sense to me and I'm frustrated in not being able to articulate why.
And, what makes sense to me, may not to you. Fred Smith got a C on his Yale paper that proposed creating an overnight delivery service. Sometimes creativity and intuition "make sense" only when looked back on.
There are ideas that are difficult to articulate and difficult to comprehend. That is NOT the same as saying there are ideas that are IMPOSSIBLE to articulate.
If we're using the Platonic definition of terms then idea and concepts are the same thing, and ideas impossible to articulate is near tautology.
In this thread, I'm afraid I've gone off the rails of Plato - and at the same time, the argument of realism vs. nominalism and points in between.
I've placed Plato in a group which he might object to. Your view is closer to Plato than mine, the concept (idea) represents all the reality of the the thing.
I've put Plato in this group only on the basis of his Idea as immutable, higher and superior, yet existing (shadowy in his view) immanently in changeable time and space.
What I've really focused on is the limitation part - as raised by the discussion of Godel.
If Godel was a strict Platonist, then you are right I believe. However from reading I believe he was not that strict and would come closer to moderate realism.
Anyway, my response to your view:
Generally, I think I'm talking about something different, different applications. As I said before, in certain areas, clear articulation is required. But I do believe there are things we can know, yet not express in words - I'll use the definition of idea=conceptualized=expressed in words.
That is NOT the same as saying there are ideas that are IMPOSSIBLE to articulate.
True again for ideas so defined. However, there are things we can know that are impossible to articulate - or know, or communicate fully, ONLY by articulation.
God, by definition. But also awe and wonder for example. These we can only know in their essence by experience. And when we do, we find we often end up saying, "I just cannot describe it in words..." We've all had known such things. Beauty is much the same case.
We can of course know many things about God and awe and wonder and beauty by reading a description. But in these cases, the most important knowledge of them is reserved for direct personal experience.
This is not true for many things. If I said "we should make it illegal to have unleashed untrained dogs with powerful jaws and sharp teeth inside libraries," you would not have to have experienced it to know the most important aspect of my statement, to make decisions based on the statement, to judge the truth or error of it.
People who attempt to persuade you by claiming they know the truth, but the truth cannot be articulated, should be actively avoided.
It depends. I would disagree in the some areas of religion, art: dance, architecture, even sport. Yogi Berra was a great player and a great coach, but a great articulator he was not.
Some things can only be really known by the doing.
Thanks for your reply.
Here's a review of Goldstein's book by NR's John Derbyshire:
http://www.olimu.com/Journalism/Texts/Reviews/Incompleteness.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.