Prev: What is "the hacker ethos"?
Next: ParallelQueue version 1.0...
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 28 Feb 2010 14:10
Chris F Clark <cfc(a)shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:

> If we want, to formalize this more, it is not true:
>
> For all (person), person an element of people,
> learn(person, programming) implies learn(person, math) <
> learn(person, math) given not learn(person, programming)
>
> While it is quite possibly true:
>
> There exits (person), person an element of people,
> learn(person, programming) implies learn(person, math) <
> learn(person, math) given not learn(person, programming)
>
> And, the experiment would try to establish:
>
> Sum over all (person), person an element of people,
> learn(person, programming) implies learn(person, math) <
> learn(person, math) given not learn(person, programming)

What's the point of these "formalizations"? I posit they're just formal
mumbo jumbo -- as perhaps befits sci.logic -- of no apparent interest or
use. (We needn't go into the purely technical deficiencies of these
proposed formalizations.) A truly deplorable feature of the more dreary
sort of analytical philosophy is the fetishistic bandying about of just
this kind of gratuitous formal bunk, apparently in the incorrect belief
that it somehow makes the reasoning more rigorous or exact.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Chris F Clark on 1 Mar 2010 11:45
Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> writes:

> Chris F Clark <cfc(a)shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
>
>> If we want, to formalize this more, it is not true:
>
> What's the point of these "formalizations"? I posit they're just formal
> mumbo jumbo -- as perhaps befits sci.logic -- of no apparent interest or
> use. (We needn't go into the purely technical deficiencies of these
> proposed formalizations.) A truly deplorable feature of the more dreary
> sort of analytical philosophy is the fetishistic bandying about of just
> this kind of gratuitous formal bunk, apparently in the incorrect belief
> that it somehow makes the reasoning more rigorous or exact.

The purpose of formalization is to make things more clear by
expressing things in a language that is less ambiguous. I take it
from your reaction and the reaction of another poster, that that goal
was not achieved, at least not in communication. (It was acheived in
the sense that it helped me clarify what I wanted to address, but it
may have been superfluous after that point.)

Note, I take this clarity as being one of the central points of the
mathematics that interests me. If one can draw the analogy is a
precise formal system and apply the theorems and axioms of a system to
derive a valid result, then one has successfully reasoned in a more
careful way. the key point being that the formal system must model the
attributes of the question one is trying to answer.

In any casre, given that I did not argue from the formalizations, I
will grant that they were extraneous and not germane. I apologize if
they were puffery.







From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 1 Mar 2010 14:18
Chris F Clark <cfc(a)shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:

> Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> writes:
>
>> Chris F Clark <cfc(a)shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
>>
>>> If we want, to formalize this more, it is not true:
>>
>> What's the point of these "formalizations"? I posit they're just formal
>> mumbo jumbo -- as perhaps befits sci.logic -- of no apparent interest or
>> use. (We needn't go into the purely technical deficiencies of these
>> proposed formalizations.) A truly deplorable feature of the more dreary
>> sort of analytical philosophy is the fetishistic bandying about of just
>> this kind of gratuitous formal bunk, apparently in the incorrect belief
>> that it somehow makes the reasoning more rigorous or exact.
>
> The purpose of formalization is to make things more clear by
> expressing things in a language that is less ambiguous. I take it
> from your reaction and the reaction of another poster, that that goal
> was not achieved, at least not in communication. (It was acheived in
> the sense that it helped me clarify what I wanted to address, but it
> may have been superfluous after that point.)
>
> Note, I take this clarity as being one of the central points of the
> mathematics that interests me. If one can draw the analogy is a
> precise formal system and apply the theorems and axioms of a system to
> derive a valid result, then one has successfully reasoned in a more
> careful way. the key point being that the formal system must model the
> attributes of the question one is trying to answer.

This is I think the main point that is criticized. There's in general
no difficuly in "formalizing" a static description. However, finding
the right inference rules, axioms and theorems, matching the model is
the hard part and often overlooked. This is science and of course,
science is hard. Having just a descriptive formalism is not very
useful, without the right inference rules, if the informal descriptive
language is already good enough.


> In any casre, given that I did not argue from the formalizations, I
> will grant that they were extraneous and not germane. I apologize if
> they were puffery.


--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 1 Mar 2010 14:01
Chris F Clark <cfc(a)shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:

> Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> writes:
>
>> Chris F Clark <cfc(a)shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
>>
>>> If we want, to formalize this more, it is not true:
>>
>> What's the point of these "formalizations"? I posit they're just formal
>> mumbo jumbo -- as perhaps befits sci.logic -- of no apparent interest or
>> use. (We needn't go into the purely technical deficiencies of these
>> proposed formalizations.) A truly deplorable feature of the more dreary
>> sort of analytical philosophy is the fetishistic bandying about of just
>> this kind of gratuitous formal bunk, apparently in the incorrect belief
>> that it somehow makes the reasoning more rigorous or exact.
>
> The purpose of formalization is to make things more clear by
> expressing things in a language that is less ambiguous. I take it
> from your reaction and the reaction of another poster, that that goal
> was not achieved, at least not in communication. (It was acheived in
> the sense that it helped me clarify what I wanted to address, but it
> may have been superfluous after that point.)
>
> Note, I take this clarity as being one of the central points of the
> mathematics that interests me. If one can draw the analogy is a
> precise formal system and apply the theorems and axioms of a system to
> derive a valid result, then one has successfully reasoned in a more
> careful way. the key point being that the formal system must model the
> attributes of the question one is trying to answer.

This is I think the main point that is criticized. There's in general
no difficuly in "formalizing" a static description. However, finding
the right inference rules, axioms and theorems, matching the model is
the hard part and often overlooked. This is science and of course,
science is hard. Having just a descriptive formalism is not very
useful, without the right inference rules, if the informal descriptive
language is already good enough.


> In any casre, given that I did not argue from the formalizations, I
> will grant that they were extraneous and not germane. I apologize if
> they were puffery.


--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: What is "the hacker ethos"?
Next: ParallelQueue version 1.0...