[Wittrs] New reply to Re: Wittgenstein, Statistics and Judgment by Robbit
- From: Wittr2Feed <wittrs2feed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "wittrsfeed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <wittrsfeed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "wittrs2feed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <wittrs2feed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)
http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?t=rview&goto=7069#msg_7069
Subject: Re: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein, Statistics and Judgment
Author: Robbit
Date: Sat, 28 January 2012 00:07
Quite so Doug... as regards the Hacker paper on "Humanistic Understanding"
...an old favoutite site of mine and this paper by P.M.S.H.
seems eminently pertinent to this starnge notion that LW
would have anything much to contribute to proto-scientific
modeling of "expert judgement". The last thing he was
interested in is armchair scienctific model building and speculation.
PI Part II p. 227-8 seems about as much as LW himself had
to say about such matters. One wonders quite what the
conceptual problem is that these progenitors of this
proto science have that they feel Wittgensteinian
type analysis might help them unravel.
Quite possible a broadly Wittgensteinian type critique
of what such a would-be scientific enterprise means by
what it says might be in order, in much the same way as
Hacker (along with Max Bennett) have brought
Wittgensteinian type critique to bear on some of
the more extravagant speculations and claims of
some in the cognitive/neuro-science community.
Correction... this one was not for Doug but response
to John Phillip DeMouy ... ( Listmania & confusion)
--- Begin Message ---
- From: seanwilsonorg@xxxxxxxxx
- To: seanwilsonorg@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:07:56 -0500
Quite so Doug... as regards the Hacker paper on "Humanistic Understanding"
...an old favoutite site of mine and this paper by P.M.S.H.
seems eminently pertinent to this starnge notion that LW
would have anything much to contribute to proto-scientific
modeling of "expert judgement". The last thing he was
interested in is armchair scienctific model building and speculation.
PI Part II p. 227-8 seems about as much as LW himself had
to say about such matters. One wonders quite what the
conceptual problem is that these progenitors of this
proto science have that they feel Wittgensteinian
type analysis might help them unravel.
Quite possible a broadly Wittgensteinian type critique
of what such a would-be scientific enterprise means by
what it says might be in order, in much the same way as
Hacker (along with Max Bennett) have brought
Wittgensteinian type critique to bear on some of
the more extravagant speculations and claims of
some in the cognitive/neuro-science community.
To participate in the discussion, go here:
http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?t=rview&th=4073
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- From: wittrs-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:08:04 -0600
If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact,
Mailman will discard the held message. Do this if the message is
spam. If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header
with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting
to the list. The Approved: header can also appear in the first line
of the body of the reply.
--- End Message ---
--------------------------
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
** Note: This message was forwarded to Wittrs by the Editorial Board, so that
members might enjoy or comment upon it. This is a common practice. If the
message came from another list or rss feed, the link(s) should appear above. In
such a situation, the original author may not see your reply. Members of Wittrs
are encouraged to visit the link(s)that are fed here.
Other related posts:
- » [Wittrs] New reply to Re: Wittgenstein, Statistics and Judgment by Robbit - Wittr2Feed
