Transcribe
Translate
Fantods, whole no. 9, Winter 1945
Page 7
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
EFTY-NINE page 7 the realm of so-called sociology. Sociologists, like philosophers, usually claim to be less poetic than they are. To sum the whole thing up; I'd answer the problem which started this article by dividing all books, works of art, scientific papers, etc., into three main groups (with intermediates between all of them): 1. Those whose value is estimated,non-intuitively, by the precise conformity of their conclusions to the specific evidence of the senses. (The scientific or objective deductive yardstick.) 2. Those whose value is estimated, intuitively, by the logical validity of their arguments, regardless of the applicability of their conclusions to the observed universe. (The mathematical or objective inductive yardstick.) 3. Those not judged by any concrete standard, but by the general conformity of the whole to preconceptions of the reader about social relations, and the general ability of the whole to originate, by word-association, emotions not unpleasant to the reader. (The poetic or subjective yardstick.) A few postscripts. First,the criterion of originality is of course independent of the listing attempted above -- a stolen mathematical derivation is just as poorly received as a plagiarized poem. Second, there's no deciding relative values between things measured on different yardsticks (unless you are a utilitarianist or a Roman Catholic); Bertrand Russell, Madame Curie, and John Keats are inherently incommensurable. And finally, just to clarify my position, I'll classify the present article by the above system: It's 1/3 category 1, and 2/3 category 3; which means it has no absolute value, can't even have any absolute correctness. It expresses not facts but attitudes; even these are, inevitably, described inaccurately. I hope it won't therefore be judged worthless. worry that for awhile, braintrusters "An eminent authority once remarked that there is a lot of humbug in mathematical papers. He knew, having done it himself several times." -- Oliver Heaviside pq - qp CULTURAL NOTE: I recently purchased a pamphlet which, it professed, contained a method for making one's self understood in ten different languages. Naturally I was somewhat skeptical, but on perusal I was amazed to find that the booklet did do just that. Witness, now, my linguistic attainments: Musza wziac na phzecyzysz! [[Words in Russian?]] [[Words in Hebrew?]] Do I make myself understood? [[Words in Chinese?]] [[Words in Japanese?]] [[illegible]]
Saving...
prev
next
EFTY-NINE page 7 the realm of so-called sociology. Sociologists, like philosophers, usually claim to be less poetic than they are. To sum the whole thing up; I'd answer the problem which started this article by dividing all books, works of art, scientific papers, etc., into three main groups (with intermediates between all of them): 1. Those whose value is estimated,non-intuitively, by the precise conformity of their conclusions to the specific evidence of the senses. (The scientific or objective deductive yardstick.) 2. Those whose value is estimated, intuitively, by the logical validity of their arguments, regardless of the applicability of their conclusions to the observed universe. (The mathematical or objective inductive yardstick.) 3. Those not judged by any concrete standard, but by the general conformity of the whole to preconceptions of the reader about social relations, and the general ability of the whole to originate, by word-association, emotions not unpleasant to the reader. (The poetic or subjective yardstick.) A few postscripts. First,the criterion of originality is of course independent of the listing attempted above -- a stolen mathematical derivation is just as poorly received as a plagiarized poem. Second, there's no deciding relative values between things measured on different yardsticks (unless you are a utilitarianist or a Roman Catholic); Bertrand Russell, Madame Curie, and John Keats are inherently incommensurable. And finally, just to clarify my position, I'll classify the present article by the above system: It's 1/3 category 1, and 2/3 category 3; which means it has no absolute value, can't even have any absolute correctness. It expresses not facts but attitudes; even these are, inevitably, described inaccurately. I hope it won't therefore be judged worthless. worry that for awhile, braintrusters "An eminent authority once remarked that there is a lot of humbug in mathematical papers. He knew, having done it himself several times." -- Oliver Heaviside pq - qp CULTURAL NOTE: I recently purchased a pamphlet which, it professed, contained a method for making one's self understood in ten different languages. Naturally I was somewhat skeptical, but on perusal I was amazed to find that the booklet did do just that. Witness, now, my linguistic attainments: Musza wziac na phzecyzysz! [[Words in Russian?]] [[Words in Hebrew?]] Do I make myself understood? [[Words in Chinese?]] [[Words in Japanese?]] [[illegible]]
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
