tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post2070047291475314392..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The fallacy of difference, in science and artUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65196762899954043152011-07-13T14:41:15.406-04:002011-07-13T14:41:15.406-04:00"monstrocity" is a good coinage."monstrocity" is a good coinage.mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17431606105803911142011-07-11T20:12:35.709-04:002011-07-11T20:12:35.709-04:00"But I am entirely unconvinced that modern ar..."But I am entirely unconvinced that modern art is not simply the art of bullshitting your audience into thinking you are oh so deep so that you earn some money off them."<br /><br />I just saw the movie "Exit through the giftshop," in which the ending makes this point nicely. Although I have to say that its unfair to paint with such a wide brush... when art overlaps fashion/trends/$$ it can get pretty bad.<br /><br />Just like music has its "top 40," and literature has crappy novels, other forms of art have its low brow form for the casual consumerccbowershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11686910795750392419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72520097555378878942011-07-09T22:46:00.629-04:002011-07-09T22:46:00.629-04:00"in the sense that fallacy = always false&quo..."in the sense that fallacy = always false"<br /><br />A fallacy means the reasoning is incorrect, not that the conclusion is false. It's essentially the same as the "post hoc" fallacy.Greg Esreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07603715438745451628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-22909922762466850212011-07-09T22:21:05.538-04:002011-07-09T22:21:05.538-04:00Another example is that when a non-religious perso...Another example is that when a non-religious person is having some sort of emotional difficulty, a religious person will often say it's because "you don't have God in your life".Greg Esreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07603715438745451628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9527099687157529892011-07-09T22:12:40.189-04:002011-07-09T22:12:40.189-04:00Because artists, like scientists, are concerned wi...<i>Because artists, like scientists, are concerned with understanding the world, </i><br /><br />I disagree. I think artists do what they do in order to express something they feel needs to be expressed. That 'something' need not be anything leading to understanding and need not concern our world at all.<br /><br />This is aside from the rather thorny problem of trying to demarcate the boundary between what is art and what is not. Perhaps Massimo will have a go at that in his next book having gained a proficiency in cleaving after dividing science from nonsense.Thameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056803143951310082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84584286996943407172011-07-09T16:20:07.217-04:002011-07-09T16:20:07.217-04:00Reminds me of this David Simon interview:
http://...Reminds me of this David Simon interview:<br /><br />http://www.believermag.com/issues/200708/?read=interview_simon<br /><br />Salient quote:<br /><br />"My standard for verisimilitude is simple and I came to it when I started to write prose narrative: fuck the average reader. I was always told to write for the average reader in my newspaper life. The average reader, as they meant it, was some suburban white subscriber with two-point-whatever kids and three-point-whatever cars and a dog and a cat and lawn furniture. He knows nothing and he needs everything explained to him right away, so that exposition becomes this incredible, story-killing burden. Fuck him. Fuck him to hell."Gabriel Duquettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00288149550111449441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20646301244733420652011-07-09T11:16:01.217-04:002011-07-09T11:16:01.217-04:00@Stan - here I think the fallacy is the how the ob...@Stan - here I think the fallacy is the how the obvious or glaring differences tend to mask the 'differences that make a difference' in a historical analysis or the point of work of art.<br /><br />Using your example and the sociological one above, I read this post as a complaint that people from culture X(EverybodyKnowsA, b ,!c) explain culture Y(!EverybodyKnowsA, b ,c) by focusing on EverybodyKnowsA instead of EverybodyKnowsA and 'c' equally or perhaps properties 'd' and 'e' that are not measurable in culture X.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77009500105166939972011-07-08T16:10:29.095-04:002011-07-08T16:10:29.095-04:00I don't think that this is a fallacy at all, i...I don't think that this is a fallacy at all, in the sense that fallacy = always false. If X = a & b & !c, and Y = !a & b & c, then we can understand X either in terms of its commonality with Y, or its difference from Y. If we think we already understand the commonality, then the most interesting feature is its difference.<br /><br />So the fallacy appears to be false, itself.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32998303323779682432011-07-08T08:13:47.424-04:002011-07-08T08:13:47.424-04:00I wonder how much of this fallacy can be attribute...I wonder how much of this fallacy can be attributed to a simple neglect of detail. That is, perhaps we can't be bothered to imagine the many more ordinary features of something with an extraordinary feature.Robin Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396528456436940972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20299667334261101162011-07-08T00:15:59.806-04:002011-07-08T00:15:59.806-04:00Julia, apologies for calling you Massimo. I misint...Julia, apologies for calling you Massimo. I misinterpreted the "posted by Massimo Pigliucci" line at the bottom of the post as a byline.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28184954512370504372011-07-08T00:08:45.931-04:002011-07-08T00:08:45.931-04:00Massimo, it's very strange to me to think of f...Massimo, it's very strange to me to think of flat characters as being defined by difference. To me the flatness of a character is roughly proportional to the degree to which that character resembles other characters of the same type. "The rebel" and "the funny one," in other words, are dominated by the <i>generic</i> aspects of their characters. Perhaps you're really thinking not of stock characters, but of <i>caricatures</i>. That would make a lot more sense to me. Caricatures are certainly dominated by the most distinctive features of their subjects -- suddenly I'm thinking of Cyrano de Bergerac's nose. <br /><br />But then I would have to argue that caricature is one of the cornerstones of art! Certainly if your aim is realism, then you might want to avoid obvious caricatures, but (first) not all good art aims for realism, and (second) even realist art needs to strike an appropriate balance between the generic and the characteristic. <br /><br />I think the second point is important, but I want to emphasize the first here. Consider <i>Candide</i> -- I don't think Voltaire's aim was realism. <i>Candide</i> is a wonderful work of fiction, and it's full of caricatures. The same could be said for <i>Gulliver's Travels</i>, <i>Hard Times</i>, <i>Huckleberry Finn</i>... and so on. Caricature is so closely related to the way we perceive the world that art cannot easily eschew it; consider, for example, the results that pop up for a google search for <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=caricature+and+face+recognition" rel="nofollow">caricature and face recognition</a>.<br /><br />This is not to say that caricature cannot be abused or used awkwardly in works of art; but I think its use is not automatically an aesthetic fallacy. I would, perhaps, turn the argument around, and say that the problem arises when caricatures are misread and mistaken for veridical portraits.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72930012232652063712011-07-07T21:21:46.578-04:002011-07-07T21:21:46.578-04:00This fallacy often leads to a fallacy of division ...This fallacy often leads to a fallacy of division as well. If "Puritanism" is X then every Puritan must be X...John S. Wilkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417266986565803683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20139216011130501882011-07-07T20:56:15.199-04:002011-07-07T20:56:15.199-04:00A pet peeve of mine is repeated appearance of this...A pet peeve of mine is repeated appearance of this fallacy in the analysis of politics. Many otherwise well-informed people insist on explaining the outcome of each presidential election in terms of its unique features - "Bush broke his no new taxes promise," "Dukakis was too unemotional when asked about the hypothetical murder and rape of his wife," "Johnson successfully scaremongered the nation about Goldwater." These explanations are not false, but they are superfluous. Election outcomes can be predicted quite accurately in terms of their common features by, for example, Douglas Hibbs' <a href="http://www.douglas-hibbs.com/Election2008/2008Election-MainPage.htm" rel="nofollow">Bread and Peace Model</a>. In particular, the elections of 1992, 1988, and 1964 I mentioned above all lie very close to the trend.alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798779972194205640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59734208436272174182011-07-07T19:50:16.508-04:002011-07-07T19:50:16.508-04:00“Only a small part of Puritan theology was Puritan...<i>“Only a small part of Puritan theology was Puritan in a special sense,” Fischer comments. “Much of it was Anglican, and more was Protestant, and most was Christian. And yet Puritanism is often identified and understood in terms of what was specially or uniquely Puritan.” </i><br /><br />Weeeell... seeing as how they originated in a society that was predominantly Christian and specifically Anglican, it is a good bet that they themselves defined themselves mostly on the base of what made them different from the generic Christian, and most conflicts with Anglicans would grow out of those special characteristics. So in this case focusing on their special characteristics may not be a fallacy, but the most reasonable approach. Don't commit the fallacy fallacy!<br /><br /><i>Because artists, like scientists, are concerned with understanding the world</i><br /><br />Really? Those who actually want to paint or sculpt naturalistically cannot help but trying to understand nature, simply to emulate it better. But I am entirely unconvinced that modern art is not simply the art of bullshitting your audience into thinking you are oh so deep so that you earn some money off them. The same goes for fancy architecture, although admittedly they at least have to make sure that the building does not collapse.<br /><br />I think this idea works best the way you apply it to poor storytelling.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70893753063465047902011-07-07T15:45:23.852-04:002011-07-07T15:45:23.852-04:00*monstrosity*monstrosityCian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52501385123921941792011-07-07T15:27:47.572-04:002011-07-07T15:27:47.572-04:00I do not have much to say about the post's the...I do not have much to say about the post's thesis, but MIT's Stata Center is a visual monstrocity and its artificial randomness and designed disorder give me nightmares.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59007977363056377252011-07-07T14:12:26.725-04:002011-07-07T14:12:26.725-04:00If I understand 'fallacy of difference' co...If I understand 'fallacy of difference' correctly (I have not read the book), it seems to be what underlies regionalism, racism, partisanism, etc. It seems to describe what has happened in the U.S. in the 2000's with apparent polarization in politics, and reinforcement by the media can exacerbate the problem.ccbowershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11686910795750392419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-92074376705521897802011-07-07T12:21:13.340-04:002011-07-07T12:21:13.340-04:00Your essay mirrors findings in developmental psych...Your essay mirrors findings in developmental psychology. I've been reading essays in <i>The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance</i> and noticed an important current in the field: the relevance of abstraction. High performers tend to think more abstractly about their work than do weaker performers. First-rate software engineers, for example, tend to think first and foremost about the purpose of their software and about broad-scale design issues, while lesser engineers tend to dive into coding too quickly and take a more aimless approach, trusting that they'll reach their goal eventually.<br /><br />This also goes along with the arguments of Thomas & Turner in their writing manual <i>Clear and Simple as the Truth</i>. In the introduction, they say that "Neither conversation nor writing can be learned merely by acquiring verbal skills, and any attempt to teach writing by teaching writing skills detached from underlying conceptual issues is doomed." Emphasis on "conceptual issues"; the authors emphasize that a writing style is defined by its stands on truth, writer, reader, thought, language, and their relationships--not things like comma usage, dialect, or word choice. The value of their thinking is apparent in their presentation: it is the only guide to prose writing I have myself found to be well-written and enjoyable.Ritchie the Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10249784344018510589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20179768909326878842011-07-07T11:55:55.963-04:002011-07-07T11:55:55.963-04:00I think there's a rather different analysis yo...I think there's a rather different analysis you could make here drawing on the theory of communication proposed by Claude Shannon (1948), which quantifies information as the degree to which something is surprising. (Note also Shannon's theory applies equally well to the sciences as well as artistic spheres). The fallacy of difference, in his terms, might be said to exclude everything but the most "informative" (surprising) parts of the signal. While this does indeed biases things, as an approximation it's pretty good since you're picking out the most informative part of the signal. Still, you're just looking at a signal here not the real thing, so maybe this just reduces model vs. reality confusion people are so susceptible to.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02873949286995651782noreply@blogger.com