Re: Torkel Franzén is dead


MoeBlee wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
George Dance wrote:
I think that is very unfair.
I disagreed quite strongly, and at length, with Torkel
on the subject of Chaitin (Algorithmic Entropy);
Torkel seemed to regard Chaitin as almost a fraud.
But I thought his arguments were always cogent,
and thought-provoking.


Then I assume that Torkel believed you had a PhD in math, and thus
considered you a peer, capable of understanding logic and worth
discussing it with. Which would explain the difference in your
experience of him, and that and some the other who have posted on this
thread.

You assume.

That's right. I can't ask him.

But you haven't given any reason to think that Franzen
considered a lack of a PhD or any degree whatsoever to exclude anyone
from understanding logic or discussing it intelligently.

It's a matter of record that Torkel believed some people lacked the
ability to understand even propositional logic, and trying to do so
would only confuse them. AFAIK, he never spelled out who those people
were when he was alive. It's also a matter of record, though, that
(according to his correspondents) he would discuss the subject with
some, and refuse to do that with others - and that the difference seems
to correlate with the PhD/non-PhD distinction.

You say that
the difference in how Franzen treated posters is "explained" by
Franzen's belief as to whether the poster had a PhD in mathematics, but
that just ignores a more simple possible explanation, which is that
Franzen treated people according to his evaluation of their posts, not
of their academic credits.

There are lots of possible explanations - FAWK, he could have made
assumptions about their race and treated them differntly on that basis
- none of which is more obviously 'simpler' than any other. One
couldn't fget him to say when he was alive, as he didn't say, and one
certainly get him to say now.

I thought when he was rude it was generally deserved,
and nothing I've read in this thread has changed my mind on that.


I don't think anyone expects to change anyone's mind; it is reasonable
to believe one's own experiences rather others' testimony, if the two
contradict.

The posts are up for everyone to see and evaluate for themselves.

They certainly are.

The
subjectivity of experience you mention is not so much that of exposure
to different posts (though it is to some extent, since no two people
will have read the exact same set of posts) but rather of one's own
appraisal and feelings about those posts.

We have evidence for the lack of exposure to different posts; in this
thread, for example, both you and Lester Zick have responded to his
critics by stating that they haven't read the posts in question. OTOH,
the fact that the criticism is coming from more than one person is
reason not to chalk it all up to a feeling.

So if you feel that Franzen
treated you unfairly (or whatever) then you can remark upon that as a
statement of your own feeling.

And similarly, the claim that Torkel never treated anyone unfairly can
be pinned on the claimant's feelings, as well - which makes all the
testimony equally unreliable. (Unless that, is you also believe in two
types of people - those capable of reasoning logically, and those
forced by lack of ability to 'think' with their feelings - and
arbitrarily assign Torkel's admirers and detractors to the opposing
camps on that basis; but that sounds completely arbitrary and ad hoc to
me).

But unless you point to specific posts,
then other people cannot evaluate for themselves whether your appraisal
is justified.


Anyone is welcome to search for, and read for himself, the exchanges
between Torkel and those who have written about him in this thread.

.

Relevant Pages