frorum for week of 31 October: error, ignorance, use

Oh this is a question that simply has my name on it.

I would seek to minimize both error and ignorance with absolutely no concern for maximizing use. I would strive to be the abstract spiritual scientific leader.

We can think of error and ignorance-avoidance as being two ends of the epistemology spectrum. Rather than see the two ends as opposing sides that simple cannot co-exist I think it better to see them as opposing sides that compliment each other. The immediate analogy that comes to mind to me is science and art: These can be seen as opposite opposing ends of spectrum as well, however both are quintessential for human civilization, knowledge, and on just being human. Striving to maximize both art and science separately doesn't create a problem at all, in fact it creates progress. We don't try to find some common ground for the two within a common framework. That would be folly and cause all sorts of chaos. Disciplines for instance where science and art merge often have more examples of bad sloppy science and bland empty artistic discourse (Psychology is an example of this, I believe: http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/index.html).

Similarly, for epistemology, you want to extend your boundaries in all possible directions of the spectrum, being as good of a coherentist(ignorance-avoidance - the spiritual leader/art) and a foundationalist(error-avoidance - the abstract scientist/science) as possible. This means we're not tied to a single method, nor are we reducing the quality of the content of our knowledge by trying to stick to the middle where there's both a moderate amount of error and a moderate amount of ignorance. Extend both ways as far as possible to make progress.

As for times when the two clash: I'd constantly argue and compete with my other self to make the abstract scientist a better scientist and the spiritual leader a better leader. Competition should force further excellence in either side, with revised models meaning a closer approximation of knowledge. Yes, sometimes one side will win unanimously, and other times the other side will, but at least in this way it's clearer which side has holes in which arguments; likewise, you take only the best of both sides.

As for the technologist: I'm a thinker, not a doer. That's just me.

However, if the question had meant that I could only choose one: I'd choose the technologist solely because I cannot choose between the other two.

-Cornelis Dirk Haupt