Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Unsung Forum »
"Horrorcore".... what next?
Log In to post a reply

139 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Squid Tempest
Squid Tempest
8672 posts

Re: okay, okay. State the fucking problem properly Stray.
Oct 09, 2009, 23:58
stray wrote:
Close ? Outstandingly so yes mate.

A couple of things though, just for clarification. Your point 4 is correct, though its a classification issue. Yes it is valid to use more than one model, however what I was saying is a model (as in a singular one) can have many regions that are incompatible (in a sense) with each other IF you have a parameter (or parameters) that define the regions, and you can use these parameter(s) to identify/weight contributions and correlations (er.. integrate, kinda) that maintain a valid, calculatable, relationship between your inputs and outputs. What is know > to what happens/predicated, in short, the fundamental proof of the model. Ummm... but yes, you can argue that these regions are effectively different models, I have no problem with that, but I'm a terribly laissez-faire kinda guy.

Point 6. Well obviously. But thats not what I'm getting at. What I'm trying to get accross is that there are a lot of things that will forever remain theoretical. also,the methods available to us in analytical terms (modelling so as to analyse something) can as you correctly state be so woolly (when dealing with non-deterministic, non-linear, recursively-adaptive systems) as to be of questionable worth.

I'm just trying to get accross a glimpse at the problems, hopefully so that people 'get' that science doesn't always have the righteous unreproachable stance. All of theoretical science completely accepts this. What I see, increasingly, thanks to Dawkins, is lots of people with no clue bigging up science (and mathematics) ability to find the 'truth' above all other approaches. Other approaches being both theological, and more importantly philosophical.

Yes, this is where we may differ, and where I also differ from many who do actually understand the problems I'm stating (or trying to). That to me, the method of modelling and analysis in such a 'scientific' (ergo, mathematical) sense is not actually better, or arguably best practice in general. Those that argue it is feel they are allowed to shit on anyone who suggests an alternative so called non-scientifc approach. To me, that is horribly missing the point because ermm.. Maths itself is made of many regions, and there are no links between the regions, or even defined parameters for the regions scope, (fields of mathematics as it were) so they have no fucking right really to challenge any alternatives... Do you get it ? I'm really struggling to explain it, but there is something John Cage said about music which to me says it very eloquently..

"If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical
and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience."

Sorry if the bullet points were an over-simplification, I kind of realised that, but I didn't want to rant on too long if I hadn't got the gist.

I think I'm right in saying that what you are referring to towards the end of this last post is people who forget that science is a tool for exploration of knowledge, and mistake it for the knowledge itself i.e. mistaking the map for the territory. As such, science isn't so much "wrong" as misused.

Do you think science can extend itself beyond the current limits and be a useful tool in these respects?

I like the John Cage quote btw.
Topic Outline:

Unsung Forum Index