Are you a Renaissance Man? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Borodog

01-29-2007, 04:44 PM

So what makes a renaissance man, and how do you stack up? Can you beat swing dancing astrophysicist?

I like to tell people I'm a "Renaissance Man", because I have lots of varied interests and I'm fairly good at everything that I do. I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics, am a college professor and do research, but I'm also a dancer and professional dance instructor. I play the drums and I'm a pretty good sketch artist and cartoonist. I'm good at physics, economics, mathematics, logic, argument, debate, poker, all that left brain [censored], and I'm fairly musical, have good rhythm and balance, am creative and artistic and all that right brain crap.

But does any of that really make me a "Renaissance Man"? I don't think so. I'm pretty good at everything I do, very good at some things, but I don't think I'm great at any of them. Well, that isn't true. I think I'm a great teacher. I teach physics better than much better physicists, and I teach dancing better than much better dancers. I feel like I can explain complex things in ways that are easily understood. But still, that's only one thing, and I'm not a freakish Sklanskyesque savant at anything (I suppose that is good); I am often wrong (sometimes I feel like half my posts in SMP are me conceding errors in the other half of my posts).

I'm not really the "Renaissance Man". I'm the proverbial Jack (or possibly just the 9 or 10) of many trades, King of none.

Is pretty good at everything you do good enough if you're not great at anything?

Georgia Avenue

01-29-2007, 04:47 PM

You, and most people who think they are Ren Men, are actually Dilettantes. Not really an insult, just an observation. I'm proud of my dilettantery, but it definitely means I'll never be really really good at anything. Anyway, f--k the ants, the grasshoppers get more leg.

--GA

PS: Did you mean Rennaiance FAIR Men?

ChicagoTroy

01-29-2007, 04:54 PM

Ha! I've been thinking about this recently.

This is a tough one, and partly because "pretty good" is so relative. I'd suspect that good enough to be considered a Renaissance Man would mean you'd have to have sufficient skill in at least 2 or 3 areas such that you'd be published/recorded/recognized in some way that would suggest you could do several disparate things at a professional level.

E.g., Steve Martin can do standup and act, is published as a novelist and playwright, and composes music. He seems like a pretty good example, even though that's all related to the arts.

OTOH, I know guys who have lots of random hobbies that they don't have the raw talent to excel in and won't put in the time to get very good. So they rely on moderate ability, light practice, and are pretty good at a few things.

Borodog

01-29-2007, 04:56 PM

I suppose dilettante is very apt for a few things, but it isn't really apt for any of my careers (physics, dance, teaching physics and dance). I take those seriously, and consider them the things that I am (at least) very good at. And they are, by definition, professional and not amateur interests.

Interestingly, I think I'm more of a real estate dilettante than a real estate professional. My wife is a pro; I'm probably going to abandon it since I'm teaching/researching during the day and dancing/teaching 4 nights a week now.

[ QUOTE ]
PS: Did you mean Rennaiance FAIR Men?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't make me post the photo of me with my hair braided.

jackdaniels

01-29-2007, 04:59 PM

Excellent thread.

It occured to me during the most recent OOT "What are you the best at" thread that while many people here are the best in one thing or another, the majority of users are people who can be good at many things, while never being the BEST at anything. It is important to note that while I am the best poker player amongst my friends, I don't even rank top 100 on 2p2. The same goes for many other "skills" I have. So, to summarize, while I am not the "best" at anything when compared to all other "bests" in the field, I am often "good" enough at these things to be the "best" of my circle of friends/family etc..

Borodog

01-29-2007, 05:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent thread.

It occured to me during the most recent OOT "What are you the best at" thread that while many people here are the best in one thing or another, the majority of users are people who can be good at many things, while never being the BEST at anything. It is important to note that while I am the best poker player amongst my friends, I don't even rank top 100 on 2p2. The same goes for many other "skills" I have. So, to summarize, while I am not the "best" at anything when compared to all other "bests" in the field, I am often "good" enough at these things to be the "best" of my circle of friends/family etc..

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent point. This is the size-of-the-pond effect.

guids

01-29-2007, 05:11 PM

Im only great at one thing, gambling, even compared to 2p2er's I think my only real talent lies in being able to make money off gambling, or others who gamble.

tdarko

01-29-2007, 05:16 PM

"It occured to me during the most recent OOT "What are you the best at" thread that while many people here are the best in one thing or another, the majority of users are people who can be good at many things, while never being the BEST at anything. It is important to note that while I am the best poker player amongst my friends, I don't even rank top 100 on 2p2. The same goes for many other "skills" I have. So, to summarize, while I am not the "best" at anything when compared to all other "bests" in the field, I am often "good" enough at these things to be the "best" of my circle of friends/family etc.."

I don't think you have to be the best in many areas to be a Ren man. Being "great" not "good" would seem appropriate. Just like the Steve Martin example, he isn't the best in any of the examples mentioned b/c only one can be the best at something so then there would be so few to choose from.

Given enough self-awareness you can properly gauge what you are just good at and what you are truly great at. Most people aren't great at anything.

DING-DONG YO

01-29-2007, 05:21 PM

and I stay harder than a cinder block, maaaaan!!!

4_2_it

01-29-2007, 05:23 PM

I'm definitely not a Renaissance Man as I am not artistic in any sense of the word.

I will have to settle for being a Family Man.

Alobar

01-29-2007, 05:27 PM

If being a Renaissance man is simply just never losing the desire to learn new things or to not be scared to try something different. Then yeah sure. I think thats where most people "fail" at life. Everyone likes to find a nice spot to [censored] and then never move from it. People are scared of change and of new things and this hampers their personal growth.

However I never in a million years would actually use the phrase "renaissance man" when describing myself to people. I think that comes off as a bit attention whorish "look at me, i think im special". I dont mean that in an insulting way towards you Boro, just giving my take on it. A lot of it comes down to intent tho. I think there are two kinds of people when it comes to this stuff. People like Bruiser who its obvious do these things for their own personal desires, and people who do all these things so that they can impress other people with their knowledge and varied talents. I personally feel the former is impressive and noble, and the latter is shallow and meaningless. But maybe being proud of being diversified isnt a bad thing, and Im confusing it too much with vanity. I dunno

guids

01-29-2007, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If being a Renaissance man is simply just never losing the desire to learn new things or to not be scared to try something different. Then yeah sure. I think thats where most people "fail" at life. Everyone likes to find a nice spot to [censored] and then never move from it. People are scared of change and of new things and this hampers their personal growth.

However I never in a million years would actually use the phrase "renaissance man" when describing myself to people. I think that comes off as a bit attention whorish "look at me, i think im special". I dont mean that in an insulting way towards you Boro, just giving my take on it. A lot of it comes down to intent tho. I think there are two kinds of people when it comes to this stuff. People like Bruiser who its obvious do these things for their own personal desires, and people who do all these things so that they can impress other people with their knowledge and varied talents. I personally feel the former is impressive and noble, and the latter is shallow and meaningless. But maybe being proud of being diversified isnt a bad thing, and Im confusing it too much with vanity. I dunno

[/ QUOTE ]

As crazy and naive as I think theBruiser500 is, I admire him getting off his duff, and doing all the cool things that he does because he wants to.

phish

01-29-2007, 05:40 PM

True Renaissance Men are able to DO a lot of things: good artist, architect, sculpture, music, philosophy, etc.

Of course, back then when our knowledge base was much smaller, it was possible to be great at a number of fields.

Today, that's practically impossible.

I've heard of Jeopardy winners being referred to as Renaissance Men. To me, that's laughable. Knowing a lot of trivia or even important info is not the same as being good at doing them. These guys are just trivia experts, not Renaissance men. It's like referring to your classmate who knows every stat about baseball as being a great baseball player.

Borodog

01-29-2007, 05:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If being a Renaissance man is simply just never losing the desire to learn new things or to not be scared to try something different. Then yeah sure. I think thats where most people "fail" at life. Everyone likes to find a nice spot to [censored] and then never move from it. People are scared of change and of new things and this hampers their personal growth.

However I never in a million years would actually use the phrase "renaissance man" when describing myself to people. I think that comes off as a bit attention whorish "look at me, i think im special". I dont mean that in an insulting way towards you Boro, just giving my take on it. A lot of it comes down to intent tho. I think there are two kinds of people when it comes to this stuff. People like Bruiser who its obvious do these things for their own personal desires, and people who do all these things so that they can impress other people with their knowledge and varied talents. I personally feel the former is impressive and noble, and the latter is shallow and meaningless. But maybe being proud of being diversified isnt a bad thing, and Im confusing it too much with vanity. I dunno

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense taken. Personally I'm a little of both (I mean, look at the thread; duh). The stuff I do I do because I'm genuinely interested in it, but once you've invested a lot of time in something and you are proud of it, it's hard to be uber angelic and not want to say "Hey look at me" sometimes.

private joker

01-29-2007, 05:58 PM

I've been called a renaissance man a lot, and I guess I take it as a compliment since most people intend it to mean you know a lot about a lot of things and can do a lot of things well. I wouldn't say I'm classically good at that many things, but it's true that I go out of my way to try and excel at whatever I'm interested in.

For example, I was one of those high school nerds who was in the honors classes, was 1st chair sax in band, ran varsity track (and NCAA track at Georgia), majored in philosophy, got published in a mathematical journal for finding a shortcut (for multiplication of radicals), then won some writing awards, got a master's in film production, became a journalist writing music and movie reviews, was a radio DJ and talk show host (for college radio movie shows), a winning Limit Hold'em player, and I can also play rhythm guitar.

But while I'm good at those things, I don't think I'm Great at anything but writing. I'm good *enough* at poker but not great yet. I think to be *great* at something it has to be your only thing and your passion.

El Diablo

01-29-2007, 06:06 PM

Boro,

I'd echo Alobar's response. I do often wish that I was pursuing something where I had a legitimate chance at being the best in the world. I think I still have a chance at being the best movie director or winemaker in the world, and maybe senior tour golfer. I have yet to do any of those things, but I'm holding out hope.

"What could you be best in the world at?" is another thread we should do.

imitation

01-29-2007, 06:09 PM

I played in the second team for about 8 sports in my highschool. I'm thoroughly a seconds player all round I can pick up almost any sport and play it pretty well quickly but I never get past that point, similar to my studies, recently I was top of my class for first 2 semesters studying Chinese, 3rd semester I was mid of the pack.

I like to think this is ok. But i'm longing to find something I'm really good at.

Justin A

01-29-2007, 06:16 PM

Golden_Rhino

01-29-2007, 06:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I played in the second team for about 8 sports in my highschool. I'm thoroughly a seconds player all round I can pick up almost any sport and play it pretty well quickly but I never get past that point, similar to my studies, recently I was top of my class for first 2 semesters studying Chinese, 3rd semester I was mid of the pack.

I like to think this is ok. But i'm longing to find something I'm really good at.

[/ QUOTE ]

It takes a certain amount of fortitude to A) admit you're not the greatest athlete and B) to suck it up on the second team all the time. I think you are really good at persistence, which is a pretty important quality to have.

gumpzilla

01-29-2007, 06:23 PM

I used to aspire to be a Renaissance man. In the end, it would appear that what I've attained instead is a broad mediocrity. I'm "good" at a lot of things if you compare me to average, but I'm usually more interested in being good compared to people who are good, if that makes sense. Chess is a perfect example. I will beat a random person at chess quite often; playing against people who are at all serious about it as a hobby, I'll get my head ripped off and shoved down my throat.

Graduate school has made me realize that I lack the requisite monomania and concomitant work ethic to ever cut it as a top flight scientist; once that was realized, it's become more apparent to me why so many people shoot for pure monetary success, because once your initial ambitions get spanked it seems like the best way to keep score.

CrayZee

01-29-2007, 06:46 PM

Maybe philomath is a better term than dilettante, I dunno.

adios

01-29-2007, 06:54 PM

Being in the top echelon requires talent. You probably know who Robert Royston is. He's a friend of mine and he's truly a fine person (haven't seen him in several years). My wife and I used to dance competively many moons ago and we met Robert when we were competing (he was a judge). We visted Robert when he lived in the Bay Area many years ago and we had some lessons from Robert as well as some choreography. Best dance experience I ever had as I got to see what a really top notch dancer is all about. Showed me what I could never be. But I also realized that you don't have to be top echelon to have fun with it and I actually enjoy dancing much more now. I can attribute that directly to having worked with Robert. So I guess this is a long winded way of saying that there's alot of difference between being accomplished at something and being top echelon. Being accomplished at many things would fit my idea of a renaissance type FWIW.

CharlieDontSurf

01-29-2007, 07:00 PM

Since when did being great at something have anything to do with being a Renaissance man.

ilya

01-29-2007, 07:02 PM

You sound like a Renaissance Man to me. I think the people caling you a dilettante are applying unreasonably high standards. Back around the time of the Renaissance there was a lot less to learn if you wanted to achieve excellence in several fields, and the pool of competitors was much smaller. Today, being in the top 1-2% in the world at any one pursuit is an achievement that requires a lot more time, effort, and talent than it did during the Renaissance...so to be that near the top in two or more fields, IMO, qualifies you after adjusting for mastery inflation.

Scotch78

01-29-2007, 07:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, back then when our knowledge base was much smaller, it was possible to be great at a number of fields.

Today, that's practically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, sort of. Given our prevailing epistemological assumptions and the structure of our educational system, I agree. However, I think that we have artificially fragmented knowledge.

At some point in western civilization we started believing that physics and ethics were distinct fields of knowledge, so our physicists developed scientific theories that don't address human behavior and our moralists developed ethical theories that don't explain physical phenomena. Our universe is not naturally fractured like this, though.

As a very rough example, let's define life as a force that opposes the second law of thermodynamics. Now, this will open a common area of study between biology, chemistry and physics, but most people already consider them somewhat connected, so let's go the extra inch: let's measure moral value by the level of entropy in a system.

Okay, so how might we do this? Well, to give one example, this principle would evaluate the taking of life in a manner that conforms with our common sense. It would make murder immoral, but allow for the morality of self-defense. Also, it would judge the murder of animals immoral without legislating vegetarianism (hunting for food would not necessarily increase entropy). And, as the kicker, it would also provide a reason why murdering a human could be worse than murdering an animal.

I could go on for days, and would have to in order to really explain my ideas, but hopefully this gives you guys an idea.

Scott

4_2_it

01-29-2007, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Since when did being great at something have anything to do with being a Renaissance man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definition from Answers.com:

[ QUOTE ]
Renaissance man
n.
A man who has broad intellectual interests and is accomplished in areas of both the arts and the sciences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say accomplished is closer to great than good.

BadBoyBenny

01-29-2007, 10:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Boro,

I'd echo Alobar's response. I do often wish that I was pursuing something where I had a legitimate chance at being the best in the world. I think I still have a chance at being the best movie director or winemaker in the world, and maybe senior tour golfer. I have yet to do any of those things, but I'm holding out hope.

"What could you be best in the world at?" is another thread we should do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that pursuing something with the effort that it takes to be the best in the world is just not something most people are made for. To be the best in the world at any of the things you listed would require extraordinary focus and effort that is usually not compatible with a propensity for posting in Internet forums.

I think a lot of 2+2 posters have the opportunity to be Renaissance Men by the average person's definition, but I doubt any of them have the combination of drive+ability to be the world's absolute best at anything.

pryor15

01-29-2007, 10:38 PM

dilettante \DIL-uh-tont; dil-uh-TONT; dil-uh-TON-tee; -TANT; -TAN-tee\, noun:
1. An amateur or dabbler; especially, one who follows an art or a branch of knowledge sporadically, superficially, or for amusement only.
2. An admirer or lover of the fine arts.

adjective:
1. Of or characteristic of a dilettante; amateurish.

seems to me Boro is more than an amateur in his various fields

Jeff W

01-29-2007, 11:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really the "Renaissance Man". I'm the proverbial Jack (or possibly just the 9 or 10) of many trades, King of none.

Is pretty good at everything you do good enough if you're not great at anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's semantics, but I'd say you're a polymath and not a renaissance man.

Myrtle

01-30-2007, 12:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Is pretty good at everything you do good enough if you're not great at anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO.....Ubeturass it is!

The journey's the thing, my friend......not the destination.

Go out in your backyard......Look around. Where would you put a small rock/flower garden?

Imagineer it......what do you want it to look like? Where should it be?

Look at what others have done. What do you like; what don't you like?

Design it in your mind, then go out and get whatever materials you need to make it happen.

Then.....make it happen.

Reflect upon every step of construction before you do it....let your mind wander and think of your options.

After you've finished, step back and look at it. Is it what you wanted? Should you change things?

You'll get to the point where you'll be happy.

Now is the time to step back and realize that you've just created something out of nothing......Your own something.

It may not be regal...or the best. But you did it.

Maybe your next one will be better.....if you reflect upon it.

It could be a garden....or a book case, or a stone wall or a fender on a car.

It could be almost anything, but it doesn't have to be the BEST anything.

It's the journey.......not the destination.

Borodog

01-30-2007, 12:21 AM

I'm too dead from a 15 hour day to contribute anything coherent right now, but I am really pleased with all of the input in this thread.

Zeno

01-30-2007, 12:43 AM

The epitome of a Renaissance man is probably Leonard de Vinci. Obviously this is a high mark that few have the innate qualities, talent, and drive to achieve. But the distinction of Renaissance man is more concept and attitude than that of measured achievement, in my opinion. Others in this thread have touched on this also and it is the germ and impetuous of a “Renaissance Man” (however that phase can be quantified). It is an almost inborn sense of infinite curiosity about the world around you, the will to find out for yourself, the drive to always put forth your best effort at whatever task, an honest sense of wonder about the universe and the marvels and vicissitudes of the human condition within it. It is not just acquiring knowledge for its own stake on a wide variety of subject matter (Polymath) but the striving for understanding, the wish to synthesize, to ponder ultimate questions and the puzzle of existence.

The goal is not being a 'Renissance Man' but that after the majority of the journey is over, taking in the vista and being satisfied that the path was worthwhile.

-Zeno

bellytimber

01-30-2007, 12:45 AM

Myrtle

01-30-2007, 12:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The epitome of a Renaissance man is probably Leonard de Vinci. Obviously this is a high mark that few have the innate qualities, talent, and drive to achieve. But the distinction of Renaissance man is more concept and attitude than that of measured achievement, in my opinion. Others in this thread have touched on this also and it is the germ and impetuous of a “Renaissance Man” (however that phase can be quantified). It is an almost inborn sense of infinite curiosity about the world around you, the will to find out for yourself, the drive to always put forth your best effort at whatever task, an honest sense of wonder about the universe and the marvels and vicissitudes of the human condition within it. It is not just acquiring knowledge for its own stake on a wide variety of subject matter (Polymath) but the striving for understanding, the wish to synthesize, to ponder ultimate questions and the puzzle of existence.

The goal is not being a 'Renissance Man' but that after the majority of the jounery is over, taking in the vista and being satistified that the path was worthwhile.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

....as always Z, very well-spoken,

Thank You.....

Scotch78

01-30-2007, 12:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
my sense is that a bet like that would be a lot more audacious today. Even a memory freak like Ken Jennings is going to go belly-up if he has to have a detailed debate with, say, Craig Venter on the human genome, Harold Bloom on literature, and diebitter on growth capital.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a perfect example of the false assumptions that have entered our culture. Memory is not the fulcrum. Depending on exactly how we define the debate's winner, I would be willing to stake everything I own on such a prop bet.

Scott

guids

01-30-2007, 01:06 AM

Howard Treesong

01-30-2007, 01:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But the distinction of Renaissance man is more concept and attitude than that of measured achievement, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quarrel with your goal of having a good attitude, but it doesn't have much of anything to do with being a Renaissance Man. I don't think there's any real debate over the notion that the term implies great and wide-ranging knowledge regardless of attitude. The debate is really over whether or not RM status requires true expertise in at least some of your subjects.

Amusing tangential quote about a Renaissance Man: John F. Kennedy famously commented, addressing a group of Nobel laureates, that it was "the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House—except when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

NT!

01-30-2007, 01:28 AM

I would say I'm some sort of weird decadent hillbilly renaissance man. Without going into too much detail, here's a skill set that you don't see every day, in rough order of my level of expertise:

Musician - bass guitar (theory, composition, arrangement and performance)
Social Worker
Poker Player
Bowler
Freelance writer / essayist
Artisan Breadmaker / cook
Demolition Derby Driver & car tech
Stonemason

In all but one of these I have some level of professional or semi-professional experience. As a bowler, I have made far less money than I did as a poker player, but there was a time when I bowled scratch and showed a modest profit from brackets, high game pots and side bets.

Some of these things I did because I wanted to, others I did because I needed some work, but I felt they were all enriching experiences, and would gladly do any of these things again for work or play.

Zeno

01-30-2007, 01:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The debate is really over whether or not RM status requires true expertise in at least some of your subjects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. But certainly the proper frame of mind is thee important perquisite to achieving "Renaissance Man Status", whatever that is. Having a wide range of knowledge and skill in a variety of subjects is necessary to a degree, but it depends not only on the definition but on the measuring stick used. Can an African bushman be a Renaissance Man? Was Confucius a Renaissance man? Cicero? Voltaire?

If we define Thomas Jefferson as a Renaissance man (a perfectly apt definition in my opinion) then certainly this measuring stick is only to be achieved by the very few. Thus leaving the rest of us satisfied to at least having the frame of mind to achieve the goal however distant and out of reach it is.

-Zeno

Scotch78

01-30-2007, 02:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Memory is not the fulcrum.

what do you mean by that, could you expand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. The shortest answer is to say that wisdom and knowledge are not the same thing, but unless someone has studied something like Buddhism or Platonism, that probably won't help much.

The long answer would help a lot more, but it is REALLY long. It would also be very difficult to discuss on a message board format. I will try to get the ball rolling though, and maybe we'll end up with a separate thread, IRC discussion, or somesuch.

As stated, systematically answering your question is a very long, arduous discussion, but I will try to give you a bunch of thoughts that hint at the "answer", and based upon your response, hopefully I can figure out how best to proceed.

In Plato's Apology, Socrates explains how he came to realize that wisdom is knowing that one knows nothing.

In "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense," Nietzsche claims that "truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are," and in Human, All-Too-Human, that, "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

First order logic allows one to quantify over subjects, but not predicates. Within FOL, there is disagreement as to which rules of inference should be used, and changing the set of rules changes the range of provable theorems (i.e. our knowledge base). However, any false argument is disprovable in all FOLs.

Then there is second order logic, which quantifies over predicates. There is a lot of disagreement over this type of logic, and even about whether it is even possible. Well, let's assume that:

1. SOL is possible.
2. SOL is in fact how the human brain functions.
3. SOL has no proof power, only the ability to disprove false arguments.

And finally,
4. We mistakenly think that our brains utilize a FOL.

I hope that helps some,
Scott

gumpzilla

01-30-2007, 02:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my sense is that a bet like that would be a lot more audacious today. Even a memory freak like Ken Jennings is going to go belly-up if he has to have a detailed debate with, say, Craig Venter on the human genome, Harold Bloom on literature, and diebitter on growth capital.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a perfect example of the false assumptions that have entered our culture. Memory is not the fulcrum. Depending on exactly how we define the debate's winner, I would be willing to stake everything I own on such a prop bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Between this and your weird-ass invocation of the Second Law in the earlier post, I can't say I have a clue what you're talking about. But you're saying that you would actually bet on the generalist vs. all of the world's specialist in their own specialty? This seems pretty sorely misguided to me, unless the definition of the debate's winner will be "the person who knows least."

Scotch78

01-30-2007, 02:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But you're saying that you would actually bet on the generalist vs. all of the world's specialist in their own specialty?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am saying that, depending on how we defined winning the bet, I would bet on myself against the specialists. And no, I do not consider myself a generalist, I am a Socratic philosopher.

Scott

edit: I would take the bet regardless of the particular definition of victory used, but only under certain rule sets would I be willing to stake everything I own.

Pete H

01-30-2007, 03:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Is pretty good at everything you do good enough if you're not great at anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is to me.

I find no meaning in trying to be the best in the world in anything.

Like you I've been good at most things I've tried and I could be excellent in several things, but I don't want to spend all my time practising just one thing. I want to try everything.

Most of things I try I learn the basic skills and then lose interest pretty quickly and try something else.

NP: Sinister - Art Of The Damned

imthaifool

01-30-2007, 05:32 AM

None of these make you a Renaissance Man in the classical sense. For one thing, you need to be able to fence. More importantly though, what is the definition of a Renaissance Man in today's time. Surely it would be drastically different than his classical counterpart.

maryfield48

01-30-2007, 10:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
None of these make you a Renaissance Man in the classical sense. For one thing, you need to be able to fence. More importantly though, what is the definition of a Renaissance Man in today's time. Surely it would be drastically different than his classical counterpart.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt the term 'Renaissance Man' existed during the Renaissance.

Phat Mack

01-30-2007, 12:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The debate is really over whether or not RM status requires true expertise in at least some of your subjects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. But certainly the proper frame of mind is thee important perquisite to achieving "Renaissance Man Status", whatever that is. Having a wide range of knowledge and skill in a variety of subjects is necessary to a degree, but it depends not only on the definition but on the measuring stick used. Can an African bushman be a Renaissance Man? Was Confucius a Renaissance man? Cicero? Voltaire?

If we define Thomas Jefferson as a Renaissance man (a perfectly apt definition in my opinion) then certainly this measuring stick is only to be achieved by the very few. Thus leaving the rest of us satisfied to at least having the frame of mind to achieve the goal however distant and out of reach it is.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

My hero is Montaigne. But I'm not sure Montaigne would qualify as a Renaissance Man; he wasn't the master of a wide variety of skills, he was instead a man with a wide range of interests. And when Montaigne was interested in something, he thought about it but did not master it.

I think mastering one or two fields is enough, whether the fields be brain surgery or growing green beans. Doing so will teach the pleasures and pitfalls of the process, and give a person a rough idea of how far he wants delve into what interests him.

jmo

w_alloy

01-30-2007, 01:12 PM

Scotch,

Although I have found your posts in this thread interesting, they are somewhat off topic to the discussion in this thread. You seem to think you can win thsese debates by bringing every debate into philosophical terms, perhaps questioning reality and truth, which is not what everyone else intends and which would not be looked upon favorably in any normal rule set. Memory would be "the fulcrum" with nearly all rule sets and judges in said debates. Additionaly, your post is somewhat condescending and hints at self-delusion. I mean this all in the nicest way possible and look forward to reading further posts by you.

Borodog

01-30-2007, 02:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
None of these make you a Renaissance Man in the classical sense. For one thing, you need to be able to fence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Borodog

01-30-2007, 03:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, back then when our knowledge base was much smaller, it was possible to be great at a number of fields.

Today, that's practically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, sort of. Given our prevailing epistemological assumptions and the structure of our educational system, I agree. However, I think that we have artificially fragmented knowledge.

At some point in western civilization we started believing that physics and ethics were distinct fields of knowledge, so our physicists developed scientific theories that don't address human behavior and our moralists developed ethical theories that don't explain physical phenomena. Our universe is not naturally fractured like this, though.

As a very rough example, let's define life as a force that opposes the second law of thermodynamics. Now, this will open a common area of study between biology, chemistry and physics, but most people already consider them somewhat connected, so let's go the extra inch: let's measure moral value by the level of entropy in a system.

Okay, so how might we do this? Well, to give one example, this principle would evaluate the taking of life in a manner that conforms with our common sense. It would make murder immoral, but allow for the morality of self-defense. Also, it would judge the murder of animals immoral without legislating vegetarianism (hunting for food would not necessarily increase entropy). And, as the kicker, it would also provide a reason why murdering a human could be worse than murdering an animal.

I could go on for days, and would have to in order to really explain my ideas, but hopefully this gives you guys an idea.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

The study of the natural sciences and the study of human action are completely different. They operate in different directions. In the study of, for example, physics, the fundamental "axioms" by which the universe operates are unknown. Man's understanding of these axioms can become ever better as he forms, tests, falsifies and discards hypotheses, but he can never really check his "answers" because he cannot see God's solution manual.

The study of human action flows in the opposite direction. Man can directly apprehend the axioms of human action by introspection. He can then logically deduce laws of human action (such as economic laws) from them.

The two are not entirely dissimilar; once man is convinced that his description of the universe's laws are "good enough" for some application, he switches from induction to deduction, and does things like design buildings and bridges that follow from his theories of the universe's laws.

The other fundamental difference between natural sciences and the science of human action is that in the study of human action, experiments can not be repeated, nor can variables be isolated.

In other words, these sciences devloped distinctly because they are distinct. The classical physicists and the classical economists each developed amazing edifices of knowledge. In fact, it has largely been to the (dramatic) detriment of the social sciences that over the last 80 odd years people have attempted to treat them like the physical sciences.

PS. Life does not "oppose the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

Scotch78

01-30-2007, 07:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Although I have found your posts in this thread interesting, they are somewhat off topic to the discussion in this thread. You seem to think you can win thsese debates by bringing every debate into philosophical terms, perhaps questioning reality and truth, which is not what everyone else intends and which would not be looked upon favorably in any normal rule set. Memory would be "the fulcrum" with nearly all rule sets and judges in said debates. Additionaly, your post is somewhat condescending and hints at self-delusion. I mean this all in the nicest way possible and look forward to reading further posts by you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, my preferred rule set would be the following:

-I may only ask questions.
-Each question must be in a yes/no format or ask my opponent to choose between two distinct alternatives.
-In order to "win" the debate, I must show my opponent why his beliefs regarding his field are incorrect, and then increase his understanding of his field.
-With most opponents, I would be willing to let them determine when I have won (though only I may end the debate prior to them conceding defeat).

My goal would not be to undermine knowledge in general, though the fact that all knowledge is unsupportable does enable the achievement of my goal. Rather, by having previously disproved certain falsehoods in my own belief set, I have learned how to do the same for other belief sets.

I say all this not from some well of self-confidence, though I would certainly be lying if I claimed to be humble, but rather because I firmly believe that most people are fundamentally mistaken about what knowledge is. But this is not some universal truth that only I know, it is a basic assumption in practically all eastern religions and much of the oldest western philosophy. It just so happens that our current society has turned human existence upside-down.

For example, you said that memory would be the axis of judgment for nearly all rule sets in such discussions, and I have a feeling you would claim this is most especially so with scientific subjects. However, I would claim that such is in fact impossible. Like my assertions about second order logic, the scientific method completely lacks the ability to affirm truths. It is solely a tool for the disproof of falsehoods.

A hundred years ago, most scientists may have felt otherwise. But today, particularly with the publication of books like Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, I think the vast majority of career scientists would acknowledge that science does not work by building facts upon facts, and thus that memory of those "facts" would not be the best judge of expertise.

Scott

Scotch78

01-30-2007, 08:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The study of the natural sciences and the study of human action are completely different. They operate in different directions. In the study of, for example, physics, the fundamental "axioms" by which the universe operates are unknown . . . . The study of human action flows in the opposite direction. Man can directly apprehend the axioms of human action by introspection.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree here, and unfortunately I will have to do some "philosophizing" in order to do so. Since you mentioned economics, please prove to me one of the laws of human action that supports economics. I can guarantee you won't be able to, if for no other reason than that knowledge itself is impossible.

However, I can also give you one less esoteric reply. Are you completely content with your life? Is everyone else that you know completely content with their lives? Hell, is anybody that you know completely content? I would certainly have to reply in the negative to each question. But if we are indeed capable of knowing for certain the laws that govern ourselves, why have so few people "solved" themselves? Why does humanity espouse so many differing religions?

[ QUOTE ]
The other fundamental difference between natural sciences and the science of human action is that in the study of human action, experiments can not be repeated, nor can variables be isolated.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not entirely true. First off, it is pretty hard to completely isolate a single variable or exactly reproduce an experiment in the physical sciences. Second, you don't meditate, do you? A much higher degree of isolation and accurate reproduction is possible in human affairs than you are probably aware of.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it has largely been to the (dramatic) detriment of the social sciences that over the last 80 odd years people have attempted to treat them like the physical sciences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
PS. Life does not "oppose the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

[/ QUOTE ]

Disprove me /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. Actually, I wasn't really claiming that it does. I was just offering up an example assumption for the sake of argument. However, if you wanted to go into it further, you'd probably be surprised how much defining life forms as systems that decrease local entropy would accord with your intuition of what life is.

Scott

gumpzilla

01-30-2007, 08:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
PS. Life does not "oppose the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

[/ QUOTE ]

Disprove me /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system - thank you, Sun. That's pretty much it, and this is standard anti-creationist fare. You are welcome to claim that this doesn't prove anything, but if you're going to try to use science against itself, it would help if you had a better idea about what the limitations are of well-known scientific principles and what it is they claim.

Digression time; don't read if you aren't interested in the second law of thermodynamics. In general, I think people get a little too excited about the choice of the technical term "entropy" and its similarity to the nontechnical word of the same name. It doesn't really mean chaos, or organization, or anything like that. It's nothing more than a count of the number of ways you can organize things at the microscopic level to produce the same macroscopic variables, usually in the context of something like a collection of magnetic spins, or the location of molecules of gas in a room.

To make some of this concrete, consider 100 coin flips. 100 heads in a row isn't any more improbable than specifying the precise sequence THTTTHT..TTTHTH. What IS more improbable is the net number of heads - tails. This is because there are many more configurations that produce 50 heads, 50 tails than 100 heads. When you blow this kind of reasoning up to the scale of things like the number of atoms in a room (on the order of 10^24 or so), the probabilities become such that, absent some external force, you're just about never going to see any outcome other than the average outcome of uniform dispersal across the room.

All the second law of thermodynamics says is that when you consider all aspects of a system, it's going to move towards these more probable states. And seen this way, it's not really a rigid law - it's just overwhelmingly likely to be true. The classical proofs of the 2nd law required axioms like "No engine can do work drawing and releasing heat from a single reservoir at fixed temperature" that are empirically true because the probabilities are so mindbogglingly small of things turning out any different.

I believe there have been actual papers attempting to show things disobeying the second law. But the systems where they have tried that have been very, very small, where the fluctuations in probability are proportionally vast compared to macroscopic, real world experiences. Thermodynamics has done its job real well as a scientific theory; at the macroscopic level, you're not going to see things disobeying the second law.

Scotch78

01-30-2007, 09:00 PM

Gumpzilla,

That has to be some of the best out of context quoting I've ever seen. Congrats! I'm really tempted to not even respond to you, but what the hell. This is the ElD forum, not OOT.

First off, I think you are attributing a much stronger claim to me than I intended to make. I was simply offering an example of an assumption that would open doors for common study between two supposedly disparate fields of study. I was not claiming that life is in fact a force that opposes the SLOT. My goal was to show that physics and ethics do not have to be completely unrelated, no more or less.

Second, I said that life opposed the SLOT, not disproved it. For example, let's look at ectotherms. They take heat from their environment and convert it into other forms of energy, and if I remember correctly, heat is the most "chaotic" form of energy (am I remembering incorrectly?). I was most certainly not making an argument for creation by design, which is both a crummy argument in itself and a conclusion that I don't believe in.

Third, I have been keeping things very rough and simple in this discussion. My use of the SLOT was simply for the purpose of contrast, to present an idea very quickly so that I could move to the meat of the discussion. I left many gaps unfilled, and it seems that you have been filling them in for me in ways that I would not do so myself.

Scott

gumpzilla

01-30-2007, 09:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]

First off, I think you are attributing a much stronger claim to me than I intended to make. . . . I was not claiming that life is in fact a force that opposes the SLOT. My goal was to show that physics and ethics do not have to be completely unrelated, no more or less. . . . Second, I said that life opposed the SLOT, not disproved it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded parts appear to be in contradiction. What exactly did you say, then? Are you trying to win that debate you were talking about?

Also, I'm not certain what you mean by talking about opposing the second law of thermodynamics vs. disproving it. In most instances where people talk about opposing a force, they are usually talking about just that - a force. When I jump, somebody might say my manly 12" vertical is opposing gravity, but I would assume that they are talking about gravity as a force, not the law of gravity that posits the form of such force. The latter would appear to be unopposed by my eventual landing. In the context of the second law of thermodynamics, the notion of force is far less clearcut, and referencing the law itself leads me to believe you're saying "life violates the second law." Given that this is a fairly standard creationist argument - and note that I didn't say you were a creationist, merely that the rebuttal about Earth not being a closed system is a very standard and correct anti-creationist point against this argument - and is almost always the context in which the second law viz. life is brought up, it seemed like a reasonable assumption.

I disagree with Borodog's breakdown in one particular way. His claim that people can identify axioms of human behavior through direct introspection seems true in only very limited cases. (e.g., what is the abortion debate but an argument about axioms? If people aren't arriving at the same axioms through inspection, then trying to formulate consistent conclusions in the name of social science seems difficult.) Other than that, though, I think he's pretty much right on.

There certainly is some room for interplay between various disciplines, but I think you are stretching it way too far. Moral systems that would assign more moral weight to the life of a sequoia than to the life of a human (as this proposed one would) don't seem very viable to me, and I think that anything you're going to get out of an attempt to shoehorn physics into ethics is going to look pretty similar. Physics is concerned with systems that are much too simple to really have anything to say about the development of life, unlike biology, which would be the science I would look to if you want to see how it plays with ethics. I'm also giving you a healthy dose of [censored] because I think that in downplaying the accomplishments of the scientific specialist (with your debate-winning comment), you're severely underestimating the depth and breadth of their knowledge.

Howard Treesong

01-30-2007, 09:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
. . . if for no other reason than that knowledge itself is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a matter of abstract intellectual theory, I might suppose you could be correct on this point. But the mere fact that this debate exists and the respective parties appear to understand one another says otherwise. Buildings say otherwise, as do jets that fly, or predictive outcomes from bean growing or brain surgery (or even, maybe, bean surgery). At the end of the day, what is the point of your observation that knowledge is impossible?

Scotch78

01-30-2007, 10:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The bolded parts appear to be in contradiction. What exactly did you say, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not claiming that life is in fact a force that opposes the SLOT

Here I was trying to clarify that I was not positing the statement as a true proposition about the state of the universe, just momentarily assuming it for the sake of argument.

Second, I said that life opposed the SLOT, not disproved it.

Here I was trying to clarify what I actually meant by the statement.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm not certain what you mean by talking about opposing the second law of thermodynamics vs. disproving it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, that tends to happen when we simplify things for the sake of discussion, in order to help half the people understand, we end up confusing the other half :-\. I do appreciate the fact that you keep bearing with me, though.

It's been a while since I really had to think about the SLOT, but I seem to remember that there was a "hierarchy" of energy--that potential energy tends to "degrade" into kinetic energy, which "degrades" into heat--or somesuch like that, I am very rusty on this stuff. Anyway, the assumption I was making is that life "upgrades" heat to kinetic energy, kinetic energy to potential energy, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Moral systems that would assign more moral weight to the life of a sequoia than to the life of a human (as this proposed one would)

[/ QUOTE ]

You're either applying this assumption differently than I would or misreading what I said. I asserted the opposite, that this definition of life would accord with our belief that human life is more valuable than animal life. Basically, a human is capable of "upgrading" more energy than an animal is.

[ QUOTE ]
There certainly is some room for interplay between various disciplines, but I think you are stretching it way too far . . . . I think that anything you're going to get out of an attempt to shoehorn physics into ethics is going to look pretty similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would certainly agree that my ideas are way out there, as compared to the traditional views of our culture. However, I am not trying to shoehorn anything into something else. Rather, I want to see various disciplines begin with the same axioms, and develop theories which can explain a broader range of phenomena. Right now we have a situation with different axioms and specialized theories. I want to develop new axioms and theories, and I think you are interpreting my position as still using the existing theories.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also giving you a healthy dose of [censored] because I think that in downplaying the accomplishments of the scientific specialist (with your debate-winning comment), you're severely underestimating the depth and breadth of their knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a pretty strong trollish streak, so you should always feel free to harass me, I enjoy it. However, I am not (intentionally) downplaying anyone's accomplishments. Rather, I am saying that I have a better grasp for the art of questioning. Basically, I could never advance a specialist's field without him. All I do is digest his knowledge.

Here's an analogy that will hopefully help explain:

Imagine life, the universe, whatever is built out of Legos. Now, when we buy Legos at a store, they come disassembled with an instruction booklet. Unfortunately, life, the universe, and whatever else comes pre-built. In order to understand it or build something different, we first need to disassemble it.

Our educational system doesn't really teach us how to do this though, so many people end up "whacking it with a hammer". They end up with smaller pieces, but not necessarily reusable pieces. Socratic philosophy teaches one how to identify the existing cracks and disassemble life, the universe, or whatever into reusable, productive parts.

Okay, so now for "digestion", which seems to be unique to me as a philosophical term, so I should probably explain what I meant by it . . .

Many animals can swallow their food whole, but not us. We have to chew it first (this is connected to my comments about Legos). Breaking something up into smaller pieces increases the surface area to volume ratio, which allows for more interactions (more enzymes or whatever digesting the food once it reaches the stomach).

So basically, I consider Socratic philosophy the equivalent of mastication for immaterial food. The specialist provides the food, and I then help him extract its full nutritional value.

Scott

Scotch78

01-30-2007, 10:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But the mere fact that this debate exists and the respective parties appear to understand one another says otherwise. Buildings say otherwise, as do jets that fly, or predictive outcomes from bean growing or brain surgery (or even, maybe, bean surgery).

[/ QUOTE ]

You're going to run into several problems with that counter argument.

First, you've already stated that "the respective parties appear to understand one another".

Second, buildings have been known to collapse.

Third, jets have been known to crash.

Fourth, I have no idea what you are talking about with predictive outcomes from bean growing.

And fifth, why the heck are you mentioning brain surgery? If you hook me up to an EKG and have me read a book, can you look at the EKG and reconstruct the actual sentences I was reading?

[ QUOTE ]
At the end of the day, what is the point of your observation that knowledge is impossible?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the average person in her everyday pursuits, nada. But we weren't talking about the everyday pursuits of the average person.

Scott

Howard Treesong

01-30-2007, 11:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
First, you've already stated that "the respective parties appear to understand one another".

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

[ QUOTE ]
Second, buildings have been known to collapse.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they have. For known reasons. The fact that we can and do build them means that knowledge is possible. Please note that I am not asserting that knowledge is perfect: people make mistakes, or don't know enough. But the predictive power of our actions means that knowledge does in fact exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Third, jets have been known to crash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same point. So what? That doesn't diminish the knowledge required to create them and make them fly in the first instance.

[ QUOTE ]
Fourth, I have no idea what you are talking about with predictive outcomes from bean growing.

[/ QUOTE ]

We put seeds in the ground and water them. We know that if we do so in certain conditions, bean plants will arise. (I'm quoting a poster above who referenced brain surgery and bean growing because a cross between the two, bean surgery, is amusing).

[ QUOTE ]
If you hook me up to an EKG and have me read a book, can you look at the EKG and reconstruct the actual sentences I was reading?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not yet, perhaps never. But we surely can tell from a brain's electrical activity that you are reading or thinking -- and both propositions constitute knowledge.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the end of the day, what is the point of your observation that knowledge is impossible?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the average person in her everyday pursuits, nada. But we weren't talking about the everyday pursuits of the average person.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but my point remains the same. We clearly can and do assess the extent of a person's knowledge on a subject. Borodog certainly knows more than I do about astrophysics. He knows more than I do about dancing. He knows more than most everyone on both subjects, and I think it's clear that if he knows more than a sufficiently large number of people on a sufficiently large number of subjects (a la Leonardo), we would consider him a Renaissance man. I think your theoretical point that knowledge is impossible is nothing but distracting sophistry -- all respect intended. It changes nothing in the answer to Borodog's original question.

Scotch78

01-30-2007, 11:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think your theoretical point that knowledge is impossible is nothing but distracting sophistry -- all respect intended. It changes nothing in the answer to Borodog's original question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. I never claimed that Borodog wasn't a renaissance man. If you start with my first response, it should be fairly clear that I was arguing against the supposed impossibility of being a modern day renaissance man. All I have really been saying is that I do not think we need to water down our definition of a renaissance man to accommodate the fruits of science.

Scott

Howard Treesong

01-30-2007, 11:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think your theoretical point that knowledge is impossible is nothing but distracting sophistry -- all respect intended. It changes nothing in the answer to Borodog's original question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. I never claimed that Borodog wasn't a renaissance man. If you start with my first response, it should be fairly clear that I was arguing against the supposed impossibility of being a modern day renaissance man. All I have really been saying is that I do not think we need to water down our definition of a renaissance man to accommodate the fruits of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I come to the same result but for a very different reason. Could anyone reasonably think that a PhD in astrophysics or similar field would slow an RM like Leonardo down?

Borodog

01-31-2007, 12:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The study of the natural sciences and the study of human action are completely different. They operate in different directions. In the study of, for example, physics, the fundamental "axioms" by which the universe operates are unknown . . . . The study of human action flows in the opposite direction. Man can directly apprehend the axioms of human action by introspection.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree here, and unfortunately I will have to do some "philosophizing" in order to do so. Since you mentioned economics, please prove to me one of the laws of human action that supports economics. I can guarantee you won't be able to, if for no other reason than that knowledge itself is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it seems like it would be impossible to "prove" anything to you because you are deliberately contrarian, and turn every discussion into some vague philosophical mumbo-jumbo so that you never have to defend, or indeed have, a coherent position nor lose an argument.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I can also give you one less esoteric reply. Are you completely content with your life? Is everyone else that you know completely content with their lives? Hell, is anybody that you know completely content? I would certainly have to reply in the negative to each question. But if we are indeed capable of knowing for certain the laws that govern ourselves, why have so few people "solved" themselves? Why does humanity espouse so many differing religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that axioms of human action exist (like, "Humans act purposefully to relieve perceived unease") does not guarantee that people understand them. Nor does understanding the laws of economics guarantee that you will be happy, if say, you aren't getting laid. That's like asking, "Well, if physicists claim to understand this "gravity" thing, why can't they all levitate?"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The other fundamental difference between natural sciences and the science of human action is that in the study of human action, experiments can not be repeated, nor can variables be isolated.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not entirely true. First off, it is pretty hard to completely isolate a single variable or exactly reproduce an experiment in the physical sciences. Second, you don't meditate, do you? A much higher degree of isolation and accurate reproduction is possible in human affairs than you are probably aware of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Experiments in the physical sciences are easily repeatable and variables easily isolated. Experiments in human behavior can never be repeated, nor can variables be isolated. Imagine trying to repeat an experiment in human behavior; the result of the experiment clearly depends on the state of the knowledge of the subject. Since you cannot "reset" the subject back to his earlier state of knowledge, the new experiment is a different one. "Meditation" has nothing to do with it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it has largely been to the (dramatic) detriment of the social sciences that over the last 80 odd years people have attempted to treat them like the physical sciences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you seem to imply that you think it would somehow be to the good of the natural sciences if we treated them like the social sciences? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PS. Life does not "oppose the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

[/ QUOTE ]

Disprove me /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply put, energy gradiants can drive systems to higher order at the expense of higher disorder elsewhere. This does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Life no more "opposes" the 2nd law than do snow flakes.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I wasn't really claiming that it does. I was just offering up an example assumption for the sake of argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you didn't actually make an argument. You just waved your hands around and strung some words together to make sentences that don't really have any meaning.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if you wanted to go into it further, you'd probably be surprised how much defining life forms as systems that decrease local entropy would accord with your intuition of what life is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which does not "oppose the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

Again, it seems like you are less interested in having a discussion than engaging in the type of warm-fuzzy philosophical masturbation for which I have little truck, so, have a nice life.