Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics
Posted by: Mike
Date/Time: 24/01/2003 17:25:03

I'll model your response :)

You wrote:

"What Carmen and I attempted in the epistemology that we developed for NLP in Whispering was to point out that it is not only social scientists that confront this issue but everyone - whether we are speaking of particle physics or "why" that neighbor of mine is so..."

I totally agree, and I'm glad to read that.  I'm not far into the book yet (I just joined a small discussion group with some other grad students and Dr. Tom Malloy at the University of Utah), but I thought that was what you were suggesting.  On page 11 there is a distinction made between the patterns of NLP and the patterns of the physical world that made me wonder for a moment, but the intent was clearer when I got to the discussion on psychophysics.

You wrote:

"What do you understand to be the motivation of such social scientists?"

I hope it is benign, but I'm not sure.  My brother's dissertation (English literature) attempted to take a fresh look at Ruskin's critique of science (particularly Darwinian science).  Part of what he implied was that science traditionally has sought to establish an (positivist) authority independent of the vicissitudes of human nature.  My brother seemed to be arguing, like you, that the nature of language made this "objective" scientific authority no more authoritative than any of the other ways of knowing.  A quote from Darwin illustrated the point nicely.  When he was confronted about the amiguity of the phrase "natural selection" (if "natural" implies the lack of human intervention and "selection" implies a selecting agent, critics argued, then the phrase is contradictory), Darwin replied that the difficulty would be forgotten in time and as the phrase gained familiarity.  My brother argued that while Darwin may have been right that the difficulty was in part forgotten, but the ambiguity remained; which ambiguity about the role of a selecting agent may have contributed to the atrocities of the eugenics movement. 

Anyway, I hope social scientists don't have a diabolical intent.  I lean toward the positive intent assumption often posited in NLP circles.  But denying the ambiguity of language can have dire consequences when the authority of science goes unquestioned as a result.

Thanks for your response.


Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
NLP & statistics02/01/2003 10:42:12Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
     Re:NLP & statistics02/01/2003 11:27:47Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
          Re:Re:NLP & statistics04/01/2003 08:44:24Bruce
               Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics04/01/2003 11:23:38Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
     Re:NLP & statistics04/01/2003 18:33:09Bruce
     Re:NLP & statistics05/01/2003 17:23:40John Grinder
          Re:Re:NLP & statistics06/01/2003 07:47:18Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
               Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics17/01/2003 19:46:21John Grinder
               NLP & statistics18/01/2003 00:16:31suzyhomemaker
                    Re:NLP & statistics18/01/2003 04:03:44John Grinder
                         Re:Re:NLP & statistics18/01/2003 23:03:27Robert
                    Re:NLP & statistics09/02/2003 12:10:24Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
               27/02/2003 02:28:33Ryan Nagy
               NLP/statistics/dynamic systems27/02/2003 02:33:32Ryan Nagy
                    Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems03/03/2003 06:53:34Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
                         Re:Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems04/03/2003 17:45:19Ryan Nagy
                         Re:Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems04/03/2003 22:09:54John Grinder
          A statistical model of elegance and diffusion21/01/2003 03:19:20Rob Manson
               Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion21/01/2003 04:16:48John Grinder
                    Re:Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion21/01/2003 10:55:06Rob Manson
                         Re:Re:Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion21/01/2003 17:22:38John Grinder
                    The genetics analogy21/01/2003 11:54:19Rob Manson
                         Re:The genetics analogy22/01/2003 04:27:46John Grinder
                              Re:Re:The genetics analogy22/01/2003 05:35:59Rob Manson
                         Re:The genetics analogy22/01/2003 04:27:48John Grinder
                         Re:The genetics analogy22/01/2003 04:27:53John Grinder
                         Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations22/01/2003 05:53:24nj
                              Re:Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations22/01/2003 07:39:41Rob Manson
                                   Re:Re:Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations22/01/2003 17:24:09John Grinder
                                        Re:Modelling vs Analysis22/01/2003 23:16:12Rob Manson
                    The genetics analogy21/01/2003 11:55:16Rob Manson
     Re:NLP & statistics24/01/2003 06:49:17Mike
          Re:Re:NLP & statistics24/01/2003 16:39:35John Grinder
               Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics24/01/2003 17:25:03Mike
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics24/01/2003 18:26:08John Grinder
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics28/01/2003 20:04:54Mike

Forum Home