Thursday, June 4, 2009

More basics

There is much to cover in looking at the basics and more. One thing of importance would be what 'truth' is or may be.

Ever ask anyone? Try it and see the different responses. As well, consider the types of response modes. That is, some immediately go to big-T issues. One might say that for some in the USA it's sufficient to go to a Constitution except those legal, and political, views are not applicable, always, to what is necessary for establishing scientific fact or for founding some mathematical process.

Those who deal with the subject like to describe various means for truth. There is a brief list that will be visited again (see Substantive theories, at Wiki).

Keep in mind, though, that the issues of underdetermination will be seen as important, as one would expect given the mention in this blog of quasi-empiricism many times. Too, 'being' will be kicked around a time or two.

The modern conundrum is that though we have worked out some truth issues people to people (note, please, that these resolutions of the problems are local and limited, as we can see from studying history), when the computational (artificial) comes into play, the issues are exacerbated for several reasons.

Though, they are also helped as we see with the convergence of views when reality is augmented. Just witness how twitter-ing builds swarms of affine entities. Look at how business can build upon what is thought of as a best practice to levels whose justification may need some scrutiny.


04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background issues.

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

09/02/2009 -- Lean assumes a current framework which can be improved. That the process is still effective during the change can be checked easily. However, if it is not still effective or we do not have a stable framework, then we were, by necessity, in the undecidable state.

07/23/2009 -- Some confoundedness results from not handling underdetermination properly. Of course, the whole thing is not new; it has been exacerbated and accelerated by common use of mathematics and computing. The genie is out of the bottle, folks. Hubris, in the modern age, will not relate back to engineers who have pen holders in their pockets. That is, those who resolve issues like we're seeing here will mostly be non-elite, and money does not buy the solution; people can but not in the sense of throwing them at a problem. No, there needs to be a fundamental shift to having highly trained, and intuitively capable, people involved in a process (hint, folks, not lights-out nor outsourcing - the new colonialism).

07/05/2009 -- Recent comments suggests a too strong belief in the computational.

Modified: 04/04/2011

No comments: