Hi Rich,
Apologies for the language issue. It is a form of laziness in a way (it is easier to say the word that I heard on a bus rather than use simple language).
The only thing I would say in relation to your google post is that when I use the word “incommensurable”, I am not meaning necessarily to play in the post-modernist views (the Kuhnian view). What you have posted below could be viewed as a constructivist view of incommensurability (playing into the idea of not being able to say “which one is right”).
Perhaps someone else can comment on this, but the realists position and the notion that knowledge is fallible, means that we cannot say something is right or true, we can only say that our claims more closely mirror the world than others. Popper, who was an advocate for this notion of fallibilism was, I understand not a humble person. But I think this position is a position of humility. Managing for emergence means that we do not have control over what emerges. We can only act, and then monitor the impact and then choose to amplify positive (emergent) patterns and constrain those that we do not want. This is where the wisdom of the crowd might have something really interesting to say. But, I think the wisdom of the crowd has to be set within a broad context of decision logics – and this is why I have been interested John’s epistemic cycle etc of abductive, inductive and deductive reasoning.
It ‘s all early days on this stuff.
Cheers and thanks for an interesting exchange.
Richard
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, 16 August 2011 5:55 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology
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