Hi Richard,
From Google using define:
incommensurability, via Wikipedia:
Incommensurability is the idea that it is possible to see the world in multiple ways, and
that there is not a fair method to see which way is right. Some people think
that it is possible that scientific traditions (called paradigms) can be incommensurable: it is
not really possible to say which one is right. This idea has been defended by Thomas Kuhn. He wrote: when paradigms change, the world changes with them.
Paul Feyerabend was another philosopher
who said that incommensurability was possible in scientific topics. He wrote
that it is important to remember this, because it means that it is possible to
say things that are not scientific, but also not wrong.
So put in plainer English, it means that two theories
or even opinions are not comparable, because they are in context with different
people or situations and cannot be applied in both scenarios.
I agree that multiple observers have
different interpretations, and that each observer has an interpretation that is
specific to his context or situation. The idea that science is a single
world view is preposterous to me, given the history of disagreements in science
that led to advances in every area.
You also wrote (below):
But having said that, what has emerged in
the conversation now have inter-connected threads. I think notions of self
interest and incommensurability are integrally tied to each other. An account
of self-interest cannot be developed if it does not deal with the challenges of
incommensurability and visa versa.
I heartily agree. An account of
self-interest would necessarily have to deal with incommensurability.
As you are suggesting, and I agree with
this, that participatory democracy requires the creation of pathways of
engagement at the local levels (the edges). But equally commitments to support
evolutionary processes to enable the margins to influence the hierarchy.
Managing for and mediating emergence is what I think is an interesting
challenge.
One way of thinking about this challenge is
to re think the very nature of regulation itself. Reflexive regulatory systems
are embodied in all living systems (your case study tells a story about such
things, because Strepta used a form of self interest regulation in the form of
a chemical message).
I do not see regulation as an infringement
of self-interest. It is an infringement of selfish interest and so it should be.
Yes, the well known “tragedy of the
commons” is the enemy of democracy, and regulation that is imposed rather
than WIDELY agreed to is the cause of this kind of tragedy. Regulation
should be minimal, but some of it is essential in certain cases; it isn’t
important whether we all drive on the left side of the street or the right
side, but it is important that we all drive on an agreed to side.
Thanks for relating my view of
subjectivity to the concept of incommensurability; I now have more keywords to
search for answers and more research! With a little more of your
opinions, I might begin to understand how you view emergence as related to self
interest (and not PURELY to selfishness). It is beginning to seem very
attractive. Maybe I can go back and read some of your previous posts when
the time is available.
Thanks,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Vines
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011
12:31 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self
Interest Ontology
Hi Rich,
You have asked: Is there a way we can make progress on a self interest
ontology? …. It seems to me that a much more basic understanding of self
interest is needed.
It is interesting to observe how things emerge.
From my perspective at the start of this conversation the focus was not
on self-interest but on how to think about dealing with incommensurability. I
have copied in below the bits of where I engaged in the first place. I was
interested in your views (subjective construction) and John’s differing
perspectives (analysis and rationality). I have also copied below your follow
up comments calling for “a full account of self interest”.
But having said that, what has emerged in the conversation now have
inter-connected threads. I think notions of self interest and
incommensurability are integrally tied to each other. An account of
self-interest cannot be developed if it does not deal with the challenges of
incommensurability and visa versa.
You also said: I subscribe to the
libertarian view that government only concentrates power in those who seek it,
for whatever reason, and that the wisdom of the crowd is much more potent and
effective than the wisdom of some “representative”
government. You may remember many posts back, that I was suggesting the
use of a wider participation in choosing how money is spent, and how
regulations are drawn, by enlisting the internet as a method for providing
government direction instead of a very small elite elected group.
Whilst I agree with this mostly, I am not sure always that the wisdom
of the crowd is necessarily more potent and effective. Crowds themselves can
become deluded and lost – there are plenty examples from history about
this.
So, in order to progress, I think that the mediation of self interest
requires a focus on mediating incommensurability (or perhaps a softer way of
saying this is “semantic evolution”). Ontologies cannot be hard
wired and imposed, there has to be an ability to interpret and modify these
– thus I think they have to be designed explicitly to take into account
the ability to apply human interpretative intelligence at multiple levels of
context.
As you are suggesting, and I agree with this, that participatory
democracy requires the creation of pathways of engagement at the local levels (the
edges). But equally commitments to support evolutionary processes to enable the
margins to influence the hierarchy. Managing for and mediating emergence is
what I think is an interesting challenge.
One way of thinking about this challenge is to re think the very nature
of regulation itself. Reflexive regulatory systems are embodied in all living
systems (your case study tells a story about such things, because Strepta used
a form of self interest regulation in the form of a chemical message).
I do not see regulation as an infringement of self-interest. It is an
infringement of selfish interest and so it should be.
Cheers,
Richard
From RV – 8/8/2011
RC: …….., I doubt if I can contribute much
more, since I have a very strong conviction that subjective construction is the
missing ingredient in ontology.
JS: There are three important issues that are worth
discussing, but they should be kept distinct when we're trying to analyze them:
(1.) The technical question about how modal logic is related to possible
worlds and/or possible models of the world. (2). The philosophy of
science about the nature of physical laws, and the criteria for accepting a
hypothesis as a law. (3) The psychological and sociological issues about how
scientists and engineers do their work and reach their conclusions.
In this discussion crossing over ontology and epistemic logic (and
modalities), I am not sure why there is no reference to the nature of
“evolutionary possibility”. For me, there is a need to explicitly
take into account a temporal component to this analysis …. that different
types of knowledge emerge through time.
I have puzzled over these matters for some time and
made a first attempt to link them in section 1.3 of first part of this paper
(the overarching topic being about regulatory systems not epistemology or
ontology).
From RC – 8/8/2011
I think what is missing is a full and
adequate accounting of self interest. Specifically, every American
(Australian, Syrian, Brit, Frenchman, …) has a unique evaluation of the
process. Jefferson anticipated
compromise and balance, and did not anticipate the conglomeration of
self-interests into a few major threads.
......
We need to look at multiple value structures, not just
logic, in how knowledge is represented, formulated, selected, interpreted and
conveyed into social structures.
-----Original
Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, 16 August 2011 2:36 AM
To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology going offline
Dear John, Doug and Richard, et al,
It is clear to me (and probably to all of you as
well) that none of us is going to change his position
on these issues, but we have demonstrated that we each perceive our self
interest, and the facts and rules we use to maintain those perceptions, in ways
unique to each of us.
Is there a way we can make progress on a self interest
ontology without solving these greater political problems? It seems to me
that a much more basic understanding of self interest is needed. Have we
reached any kind of a consensus on the bacterial film, on Use Case 1, or on
other ways to advance the ontology beyond airing our individualities?
Does anyone have a suggestion on how to proceed in
light of our differences?
Comments, suggestions, constructive ontolog fragments
will be appreciated.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2