Re: Torkel Franzén is dead

MoeBlee wrote:
George Dance wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
Again, you have not shown any reasonable grounds to infer that Franzen
disqualified posters on the basis of a lack of a PhD. "A matter of
record according to some correspondents" is NOT a matter of record.

What everyone has said about Torkel is part of the record. That
doesn't mean one should believe what everyone says; that would be
absurd. But when Timothy Murphy, eg, calls Torkel's arguments cogent
and thought-provoking, that is evidence that Torkel made cogent and
thought-provoking arguments in some of his posts.

As I said, you haven't given any reasonable grounds to infer that
Franzen handled posters on the basis of a lack of PhD, or whatever it
is that (with precise paraphrase - see later in this post) you're
claiming.

It just means that my evidence is purely anecdotal; I haven't tried to
count or class the posts in this thread.

What particular anecdotal incidents do you refer to?

I have to reject that explanation, because the evidence I've seen
indicates that he responded to posters in the same way each time, no
matter what they wrote. He never flamed a math PhD for making a typo,
for example; he would shrug it off as a typo.

Did he attack someone for making a typo? It's possible. But it would be
better if you gave an example and also gave grounds for thinking that
the attack was not just motivated by what else the poster wrote as
opposed to calculating that the poster does not have a PhD.


Please look again at B.20 from the "Logic in Schools" thread (the link
for which I've already given you), in which Torkel Franzen attacks a
poster just for having made two typos in the past.

No, deciding on race is not simpler than just reading posts and
respondeding on the basis of what is in the posts. I would give ANY
poster the default (innocenct until shown not to be) that what they
respond to is what is in the posts they read much more so than to what
might be the race of the poster, UNLESS I had reason to think
otherwise.

The above is my reason for thinking otherwise; and I think the evidence
will show it.

What above is a reason? What evidence?

That he responded to posters in the same way whether he agreed or
disagreed with; those he was polite to, he was always polite to; those
he was rude to, he was always rude to. Since the content of those
peoples' posts wasn't always the same, but they were, it's unreasonable
to think he always responded based on the contents of the posts, and
not on Franzen's opinion of the poster.

Let's stay clear on what I actually suggested; that having a math PhD
was sufficient to avoid being flamed by Torkel.

You haven't shown that the poster having a PhD is IN ITSELF what
Franzen used as the basis of his decision.

Since I haven't suggested that, I don't have to show it. You don't
prove anything by telling me I haven't defended a strawman.

I didn't suggest, and
don't think, that having a math PhD was necessary; and I see it as
obviously false that a non-math PhD was either necessary or sufficient.

Math PhD, non-math PhD, necessary, sufficient, whatever. You've not
shown that Franzen used any such consideration.

'Whatever'? You pretend to not understand what I'm saying, but demand
evidence for it anyway? First, let's get perfectly clear on what I am
saying:

Frankel divided people into two groups, my labels for which are
Mathematicals and Submathematicals - though, since you don't like the
latter term, I'll use the only one you've suggested: "Some People." He
was polite to Mathematicals, and trolled Some People. I've said that
virtually all of his logic posts were trolls of Some People, and you've
challenged my quantifier.

Now, where's my evidence? To start, in the I've already given you, in
which Franzen does nothing but troll someone who, if my thesis is
correct, he saw as a typical example of Some People.

For example, Franzen had total contempt for philosophers who wrote in
symbolic logic (which includes a good number of philosophy PhD's),
considering them to have produced little more than "mumbo jumbo."

Please show a specific quote by Franzen saying that.


<Sigh> Same thread, post B.88; in reply to:
<quote>
Formalizing allows either party in a discussion to spot each others'
mistakes (either of translation, or of inference), and agree on them

Such ideas have indeed traditionally been put forward in philosophy.
In most arguments, however, using predicate logic formalizations
is just an irrelevant piece of mumbo-jumbo, more likely to introduce
new errors and confusions than correct old ones.
</q>

One
couldn't fget him to say when he was alive, as he didn't say, and one
certainly get him to say now.

That insinuates essentially a "guilty unless denied" argument. Franzen
didn't have to say a damn thing about the subject.

Not unless he raised it himself. Which is relevant to the evidence
below.

Then please quote Franzen raising the issue of PhDs.


Please drop your strawman. I suggested Timothy Murphy's polite
reception from Torkel was caused by Torkel's belief that Murphy had a
PhD: not to claim that Torkel ever 'raised the issue' of PhD's - which
I have never said - but because it's reasonable to believe that
Frankel considered math PhD's to be Mathematicals, rather than members
of Some People - had Franzen considered Murphy to be one of Some
People, he'd have been as rude to him as he was in the posts I've
already given you links to.

I don't know which particular remark of mine you have in mind and the
context of it. I said that Franzen made plenty of helpful posts. I
don't recall saying that people's negative assessments of him are due
to their not having read those posts (though, of course, I can't rule
out that they may not have read those posts).


You're misunderstanding me. You responded to galatea in the way Zink
responded to someone: by saying that you hadn't read the posts he was
talking about.

I don't recall exactly what I posted to galathaea, but my main point
was that I did not know specifically what posts galathaea has in mind.

Right.

And I don't know what you think that has to do with my original
challenge: You made some claim about Franzen and how he posted to
people based (necessary, sufficient, math, non-math, I don't know, I'll
let you state precisely what you mean) on PhD

Please back up your claims - give the specific quotes where (you say) I
claimed that Torkel discriminated "based ... on PhD", and that he
"raised the issue of PhDs" - or withdraw them as straw men.

; but you've not cited
even a single example.

Timothy Murphy (a Mathematical) has said that Torkel Franzen was always
polite to him, even in disagreement. In contrast, I have given you two
links to threads in which Torkel was the opposite to two other posters,
both of which (I'd infer) he saw as Some People. There are lots more
just like (2), which will follow after we've dealth with these two.

It's likely that I will have to say the same thing when
you introduce specific posts.

Say what same thing? I asked you to cite specific posts in which the
poster having a PhD was a factor (in whatever sense you are claiming it
was a factor) with Franzen.

I'll cite: (1) Mr. Murphy's testimony, and (2) the contents of the two
threads you have already been sent. There's a lot more threads on
sci.logic just like (2), if you really want to look for them. But for
now, let's just look at what I've already presented.

What would that have to do with my adducing
certain posts in his favor if I were to do that?

The fact that you'd seize on the opportunity to make and attack an
apparent strawman - apparent, since you still have a chance to show
that I said Franzen discriminated "on PhD" period - indicates your bias
on the subject.

I've read quite a bit by now. Unless you at least point to a specific
thread and posts, I can only take your remarks as merely your own
expression of your own evaluation without consideration to make your
evaluation subject to the merest objective context of specific threads
and posts. You don't have to substantiate your claim, fine. But if you
won't at least point to a specific thread, then I have no reason to
give any credit to your claim.
MoeBlee

All right; that's a good place to begin by introducing evidence. So
I'd like to introduce the following link, which I'll label Exhibit B
(Exhibit A was the quote from his exchange with xyz):

http://tinyurl.com/lmyxl

Read it and make your own judgement. I would make two claims about
that thread: :

1) In it, Torkel advances his thesis that there are some people who are
incapable of understanding symbolic logic; and that for them to try use
it would only muddle their thinking. (For convenience, I will call
those "Submathematical" humans, or SMs.)

I answered that in a post previous to this one. You egregiously
misparaphrased Franzen and you've added provocative rubric of your own.

So I've now changed the "rubric" to Some People, just to please you.

2) Torkel does so only as a troll: to distract attention from the topic
under discussion(which he ignores completely) and try to provoke a
flame war by calling someone an SM.

You only CLAIM that.

And you claim the opposite; which we're in the process of discussing.

The thread you cite shows quite differently.
Franzen's view on this subject is not one that I am even sympathetic
with. I like symbolic logic and wish it were taught more. I don't have
any kind of studies to show that symbolic logic helps people in
informal thinking, but it has helped me, so I hope that it will help
other people.

Nice to hear.

On the other hand, I see Franzen's point, and at least to
the limited (quite limited, I feel) extent that he's supported his
point, it does add an interesting and helpful qualification.

As I understand Torkel's point, it is that Some People - a class that
he does not name, but identifies by pointing to examples - should not
even be 'exposed' to formal logic, much less learn it, because it
causes them to assert absurdities. Which point he uses as a premise to
argue against formal logic's being taught universally (the subject of
the thread). Let's see what you understand his point to be.

He may
very well be correct (though, I'm rooting for him not to correct) that
many people who otherwise reason quite well informally only get mixed
up by the formalisms so that the formalisms don't contribute to such
people's informal reasoning.

And he may very well be wrong. We're not arguing about the truth of
your interpretation of Torkel's claim, though, but about the difference
in our interpretation.

So he was very much right on topic in that
thread.

How so? How do you see that as addressing the topic (teaching logic in
the public schools) at all? Some children who are perfectly good at
counting get 'mixed up' when they first use addition; is that an
argument against teaching those children to add?

You're miffed because he used your own previous confusions in
formal logic as anecdotal for his position.

Please do not tell me what I think. I do not care whether Torkel
Franzen (whom, as I've already told you, I consider a troll) considered
me to be a typical example of Some People (an SP). What bothered me
were his asseretions that there were SP's. .

His doing that was surely a
barb against you, but it still was an apropos illustration of his point
and his point still was very much on the topic of that thread.

His remarks were 'on the topic of that thread' only if you interpret
his remarks as I've been doing - as an argument against Some People
being exposed to logic via public education.

So when you say he "ignores completely" the topic of the thread, you're
as good as lying.

Please back up your claim - cite one post in which Torkel addressed the
topic in any other way than his barbs at the SP - or withdraw it.

Moreover, enough of his posts in that thread are
informative enough to add to the chunk of those that are not just
stirring and perpetuating flames so that these are evidence toward the
verdict,

Well, now, that's debatable. Please cite one 'informative' post of
his.

even in just this one "Exhibit", that it is not the case that
virtually all of his posting was stirring and perpetuating flames.

Thank you for your opinion. Now let's see you back it up. Please
start by finding the two posts that I requested: an on-topic post that
was not a 'barb', and a 'barb' that was informative, about anything.

Otherwise, I will continue to count every Franzen post in that thread -
as well as every Franzen post in the other thread I've now sent you -
as a troll. If you object regarding any post in particular, please
cite the specific post.

.

Relevant Pages

  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Torkel_Franz=E9n_is_dead?=
    ... thought-provoking arguments in some of his posts. ... Franzen handled posters on the basis of a lack of PhD, ... opposed to calculating that the poster does not have a PhD. ... The above is my reason for thinking otherwise; ...
    (sci.logic)
  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Torkel_Franz=E9n_is_dead?=
    ... considered a lack of a PhD or any degree whatsoever to exclude anyone ... that he read the posts and decided on the basis of what was written in ... the posts. ... poster the default that what they ...
    (sci.logic)
  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Torkel_Franz=E9n_is_dead?=
    ... opposed to calculating that the poster does not have a PhD. ... I asked that you quote the posts here. ... "correlation" with PhDs in math. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Torkel_Franz=E9n_is_dead?=
    ... considered a lack of a PhD or any degree whatsoever to exclude anyone ... It's a matter of record that Torkel believed some people lacked the ... thought-provoking arguments in some of his posts. ... that he read the posts and decided on the basis of what was written in ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Einstein is my hero
    ... Responding to posts with the single word "Plonk", ... which is intended to irritate the poster ... and get a flame war started. ... Responding to posts with useless references designed to con ...
    (sci.physics)