control as knowledge

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
21

[From Bill Powers (980302.1622 MST)]

Tracy Harms (980302.10)--

Isn't this starting to sound a bit like scholasticism? The problem with
"knowledge" is that it's just a word. Before you can start equating
knowledge to other things -- justified true belief, embodiment as control
-- you must say what the word means.

I cannot agree with this assessment. If anything, I've been assuming
that we all *don't* "know what knowledge is"; i.e. that we all have some
serious reconceptualization to do in order to adjust our casual
understanding of knowledge (which we all share, and which is not
problematic) to fit a sound technical understanding of knowledge. I do
not exempt myself from this challenge.

I didn't make myself clear. Suppose I said (to use another made-up word),
"Gostakage is the combination of clear vision and undefined goals." Would
you agree or disagree? Or is there some question you would like to ask me
before you said anything else?

Best,

Bill P.

22

[From Bruce Gregory (980303.1327 EST)]

Bill Powers (980301.0921 MST)

Bruce Gregory (980301.0527 EST)]
Tracy Harms (980228.21)

Isn't this starting to sound a bit like scholasticism?

The last time I looked up "scholasticism" in the dictionary it
said, "See CSGnet." This net has become the embodiment of
scholasticism. Vastly more bandwidth is devoted to the "meaning"
of the models than to how well the models explain the data and
what data the models need to explain. True, an even greater
amount of intellectual capital has been expended on the
"meaning" of quantum mechanics, but most practioners avoid these
futile and circular discussions like the plague.

Sorry to be so ill-tempered. I'll have to adjust the dosage of
my medication...

Bruce