From: Dan Fabulich (dfabulich@warpmail.net)
Date: Tue Sep 03 2002 - 02:48:32 MDT
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> One must keep track of the distinction between the actual, real fact
> that the Sun is a great big hot thing roughly eight light minutes away,
> and the fact that we humanfolk can never be 100.0000% sure of this -
> which is *nonetheless* absolutely true. The universe contains a great
> many absolute facts and we cannot be absolutely sure of them. The fact
> that *we* are uncertain about these facts and that we are aware of *our
> own* uncertainty does not mean that we should model the *universe* as
> being uncertain about the same subject matter. That goes beyond
> anthropomorphism; it is confusing the map with the territory.
It's not confusion, it's free reinterpretation. Furthermore, this
particular argument reminds me a little too much of the sort of arguments
that people used to try to levy against the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle.
Now, I hear you saying already: Heisenberg got lucky. That approach
doesn't work across the board. Quantum is weird. Facts are still facts,
they're just occasionally tricky to pin down, etc.
Well, all I'm saying is this: Next time you go running off saying
"postmodernists have nothing useful to contribute," [that IS *your*
subject line, is it not?] take a step back and remember that these wacko
not-particularly-realist interpretations of the world began in the minds
of free thinking postmodernists, but are now the cornerstone of modern
science.
Playfully creative interpretations lead to useful results. Not all the
time, but some of the time; way way more than enough of the time.
I tell you again: saying that the postmodernists have nothing useful to
contribute is like saying that the poets have nothing useful to
contribute. *Even if* you attempt to make art and free interpretive play
justify itself on the grounds of utility [but why should they?], *even if*
we concede that none of them are even *trying* to do work that's "useful"
in any ordinary sense of the word, *even then* you have to concede that
sometimes, if only by accident, they inspire good ideas.
> Now of course you can argue that the universe is also uncertain, but if
> you do that, you need to provide evidence. Pointing at uncertain humans
> is not evidence for this thesis.
Sometimes evidence is on hand. Sometimes it isn't. But would you require
a poet to provide evidence for his metaphors? No? Then why hold people
in other arts to this standard?
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:39 MST