&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& FROM CHUCK TUCKER 930515 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I think there have been some misconceptions recently in the
discussion of modelling, epistemology and instructions. On
my part I have difficulty with the immediate exchange on the
net since there are a few times when a sentence of two is
selected out for examination when the interpretation of the
sentence should include the other sentences that surround it.
But, of course, this is very difficult to specify since I
don't have a way of stating: consider the next five sentences
as a unit or thought; maybe this could be done with paragraphs
but I doubt it. But let me clear something up on instructions.
As I noted: instructions are statements which refer to percep-
tions; Bill noted them as "descriptions of perceptions to be
accomplished by unspecified actions" (words in quotes may not
be verbatim). I have been trying to think of statements
that I could make to myself the would not be a specification
of a preception and I can't do it. Awhile ago I was "sealing
an envelope" and tried to think of what I would say to myself
to accomplish this act that would not be a perception to
achieve and I can't do it: "Hold the flap of the envelope with
the thumb and finger of each hand. Stick your tongue out. Move
the edge of the flap from one end to the other against your
tongue. Fold the flap against the envelope and push your finger
against it from one end to the other." One thing that I noticed
about these instructions is the they are not very precise but
I bet that even if I make them more precise in terms of the
specification of physical movements that I could not avoid
indicating perceptions: "Stick your tongue out" is a perception
not a behavior. So it seems try as I may I can not write an
instruction that does not specify perceptions. Can anyone
else do it?
The danger of ordinary language (as all of you know) is related
to the misinterpretation issue. It was Charles Sanders Pierce
that said he was a Pragmaticist not a pragmatist since the latter
word was defined in so many ways (he was particularly irritated
with William James who was his greatest supporter). Marx was not
a Marxist. So I think that care must be taken (especially with
PCT since it is a different view) when translating it into
ordinary language.
Tom asked for some advice that might be given by Bob Stewart for
those who do modelling and I put words in Bob's mouth and said:
"Continue your work. Work on your problems. Tell us what your
are doing. Keep focused on your problems. Ignore those silly
epistemological issues especially if they are introducted by
Tucker." Tom's post (930513.1659) deserves greater elaboration
and specification; there is a mongraph not an article in this
work that has to be made widely known. I hope it will be
discussed at the CSG meeting.
I will be out of town this week so I will get back to y'all next
week.
Regards,
Chuck