Re: Torkel Franzén is dead

George Dance wrote:

Not 'a talent' - the word he used was 'aptitude.'

Look in a damn dictionary. Merriam is the one I use. 'talent' - given
all caps 'TALENT' - is listed as a synonym of 'aptitude'. You choose
'ability' without qualification. It does give you a nice strawman to
knock down as opposed to you being a reasonable debator by granting
that he may just as well have been making the REASONABLE claim that
some people lack talents for certain things.

Yes 'can cause'. Not 'will cause'.

Obviously; Torkel Franzen gave no sign that he thought his knowledge of
logic was causing him to utter absurdities, for example.

So, that's consistent with his point that formal logic CAN (his word)
cause mixups, not WILL (your word) cause mixups.

Sometimes people make mistakes in
informal logic and sometimes people don't.

So? What is that relevant to?

Are you just testing my patience for the sport of it? It's relevent to
the distinction between CAN cause and WILL cause.

And Franzen did not say that
such mistakes are irremediable so as to deny that certain people
competent in informal logic, but without talent for formal logic, can
learn formal logic if they make special efforts to do so.

From which you infer that he believed that SP's (those who lack the
aptitude) could learn formal logic if they made special efforts to?
I'm afraid you're going to have to come up with something better than
that.

I didn't say that. Just that what Franzen wrote does not preclude that
he recognized that some people can learn with extra effort, so what he
wrote does not ENTAIL that he thought such mistakes are irremediable.

And you left out the OTHER senses of the word that MORE fit what
Franzen was saying. Those senses include such things as 'talent' or
'proclivity', etc.

Oh, I 'left out the OTHER senses,' did I? Can you post the full
definition, and show the world what I left out? Or do you just expect
them to take your word that I left part of it out?

Anybody can look in a dictionary for him or herself. And you even
QUOTED me mentioning a sense you left out - talent. Sheesh!

YOU choose to take Franzen to mean 'aptitude' in the
sense of mere 'ability', but (speaking of context), the context of his
remarks much more suggests that he is speaking of talent rather than
mere ability.

'Talent' does have two senses: basic ability to learn, or a special
gift. It looks like you're just trying to equivocate on those two
senses.

I'm not equivocating on anything. I'm just pointing out that you can
take the man in a reasonable sense or you can insist on taking him in
the most unreasonable you can extract. Reasonable discussion usually
requires taking people in some reasonable sense when that reasonable
sense is just as likely and just as literal even as the most
unreasonable sense you can scour to find.

If you want to convince anyone that Torkel meant anything other than
the above definition by aptitude, show some evidence. Start by posting
a definition that includes your purported 'sense'.

It's a literal sense, given in the dictionary. It is YOUR job to show
that he meant the quite unreasonable sense that you demand is THE sense
he meant. Why do I have to accept YOUR determination that he meant an
unreasonable sense?

That is, when you are faced with understanding what the
man wrote, you choose to take him in the LEAST reasonable sense, which
is a sense that he could hardly support, rather than take him in a
reasonable sense.

Perhaps you mean 'charitable' rather than 'reasonable'.

'Charitable' not in the literal sense, but in a sense that people
sometimes have - to be charitable by being reasonable to allow that,
all other things being equal, a person is likely to be saying something
reasonable as opposed to something unreasonable especially when a word
such as 'aptitude' has a literal synonym of 'talent'.

It is not reasonable to think that there are many
people who can reason informally but who cannot learn formal logic even
if they devote enough concentration upon it

Depends what is meant by 'reasoning informally'; that could mean a lot
of things. One thing Torkel cannot mean by it, though (logic being
'essentially mathematical', and these peope having no mathematical
'aptitude') is learning the rules of formal validity. Beyond that,
your guess is as good as mine.

He gave formulas more than rules as examples. Anyway, I've made my
point by now.

; but it is reasonable to
observe that there are people who reason quite well informally but who
do not have a talent for formal logic.

Oh? Who, for instance?

Oh please, the denial would be to say that everyone has a talent for
formal logic, which would make 'talent' meaningless. Morever, whatever
examples I gave you would be from my personal experience (since the
subject is not exactly in the headlines or one that history very much
cares about), and so you'd hardly be convinced by my mentioning
personal instances. Anyway, you are definitely not one of them, since
I'm finding your informal reasoning to be abysmal.

If one were SINCERELY interested
in what Franzen meant, then one would opt for the reasonable sense as
opposed to trying to convict him for an unreasonable sense.

Oh, all right: Let's look at the reasonableness. Assume that you're
right on both points: Assume that there are such people as you've said
with no aptitude for formal logic,

I would say there are people without the talent. And I am not to be
taken as saying that there are fairly intelligent people without even a
mote whatsoever of some potential understanding.

some of whom can even 'reason well
informally' (whtever that means);

Such things as that they're not ripe targets for sophistry, can follow,
with a keen sense, things like political arguments, can apply deductive
and inductive informal reasoning to the tasks of their job, and even
reason well in areas of study, etc.

and further assume that you're right
about what Franzen thought such people could learn logic if they tried
really, really hard.

What I said was that his remarks don't entail that he thought such
things impossible. If he did think there are very many otherwise astute
people who just can't learn basic formal logic no matter how hard they
tried, then we'd have to see what his argument might be for such a
position (which would be a position I don't agree with, notwithstanding
remote exceptions).

But the point is just that it is reasonable to observe that one can be
an astute person but still just not have the knack for logic formulas,
thus getting mixed up on formulas and requiring more work on the
subject than other students who might not even be otherwise any more
logical in everyday logic.

How do those facts reasonably support his stated
position, against their knowing (or even being exposed to) formal
logic?

Where have you been? I've been saying that I do NOT find his argument
convincing here.

Let's see the argument you think he was making: don't just tell
us how 'reasonable' it is.

What is reasonable is the observation that some astute people don't
have a knack for logic symbolisms. What I don't buy is Franzen's
argument, from that observation, that it wouldn't be a good subject to
teach as part of the regular curriculum. Franzen may have more argument
to provide, but since I don't know what it might be, I just have to say
that I find his argument unconvincing to the extent he gave it, even
though I find reasonable to entertanin the premise that there are
people who reason well informally but who pretty much just get
themselves tripped up by logic symbolisms.

Though English was not Franzen's first language, he used it better than
many native English-speakers. There is no reason to think that he was
unaware of the definition, or that he was using the word in a special
sense.

"THE definition"? You just LEFT OUT some usual (NOT special) senses in
the defintion.

Which you can prove by posting the definition in full, and/or some
other definitions, containing that 'usual sense'.

Look it up. I find Merriam to be a pretty good dictionary.

And you did that to saddle Franzen with an UNreasonable
sense

Meaning that I consider it unreasonable as well? That is completely
false: I think that it's quite reasonable to believe that Torkel
considered those lacking mathematical aptitude to be not as good as he
was.

Now you're on about "not as good as he was". How many clay pidgeons do
you want to shoot in one day?

That explains both how he treated them, and why he did not pull
those kinds of stunts with any math PhDs. I've explained all that to
you; do not try to tell me that I really believed something else.

Yes, Dance, you keep turning those "explanations" over in your mind.

so that you could go on to make a caricature of his views with
highly provocative rubric such as "sub-mathematical human".

You're still going on about the 'rubric,' even after I changed it to
the neutral Some People (SP) at your request?

If I'm not mistaken, that post by me was in response to one that came
before you started 'SP'. Was it not?

What's your problem
here?

In general, that you've smeared Franzen by saying that VIRTUALY ALL
[emphasis added] his 00-06 sci.logic posts are stirring or perpetuating
flames, though you cannot support that claim. And specifically, in this
point, that Franzen did not make such a clear partition as you claim
and you have shown no "correleation" regarding PhDs; and generally
again, that, so far, your posts have been mind-reading,
mischaracterization, a lie ("ignored completely" the subject of the
logic in schools thread), illogical, and otherwise a tedious and
tendentious bore.

My views are on record: Torkel treated what he saw as my kind
with total contempt, because he thought that was what my kind deserved.
If that sounds like he considered us subhuman, so be it; that's how it
looks to me like he did consider us. That explains why he trolled us,
some (like me) for years. I'm not going to hide any of that, just
because you call it a 'caricature.'

Yeah, so be it, even if takes you putting words in his mouth,
mischaracterizing what he said, taking what he wrote in its most
unreasonable sense, and even lying.

IF you are
SINCERE about discussing Franzen's views, then you wouldn't be trying
to knock them down with such cheap strawman tactic.

Well, here's your chance to prove your straw man. Post your different
definition of 'aptitude' (as well as the full definition from my
source, part of which you claimed I left out).

What 'source'? A straight out synonym of 'aptitude' is 'talent'.

Introduce your own
evidence that Franzen thought that at least one SP - one person who
clearly lacked mathematical 'aptitude' in his eyes - could learn the
subject given the right education or training.

I addressed that about twice now in this post.

Explain why he then
argued against giving such people that education or training. Then you
have some reasonable grounds on which to cry 'straw man'.

He argued against formal logic as a regular part of the public
educational curriculum. I tend to disagree with him on that, but I
don't find it entails whatever it is you are trying to say about him.

I don't have an aptitude for car mechanics, but I am capable of
understanding it if I choose to concentrate upon it.

So you are unable to learn car mechanics, regardless of education or
training, because you don't choose to concentrate upon it?

That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I just said. I don't have an
aptitude, in the sense of a talent, but I could learn if I devoted
sufficient concentration to the subject. Not only do you choose to take
Franzen in the most unreasonable sense, but even here you choose not to
even think about what I wrote but rather to take me to being saying
ridiculous things that you would see I am not saying if you just read
fairly what I actually wrote.

All right; when you tell me that by 'aptitude' you mean 'ability to
learn without concentrating', I'll believe you.

I didn't say that. Why can't you just take comments in, as you say, "a
charitable" way? Obviously, even talented people often have to
concentrate on their subject. And I should go on to say that obviously,
I don't have scientific formulations and definitions and studies to
give definitive sense to PRECISELY how much concentration and of what
nature of concentration. But that doesn't disallow me from making such
everyday observations as that it would take me a lot more concentration
than it takes many other people with talent for auto mechanics.

When you tell me that
Torkel meant the same thing by 'aptitude', OTOH, I'm afraid I'll have
to ask you to back that up.

That's the sense I take him, since it is a reasonable sense, and I find
more profit and more chance of being accurate as to what a person means
by taking him or her to mean a reasonable sense rather than an
unreasonable sense. And YOU are the one prosecuting a claim about
Franzen, so YOU need to demonstrate that he must have meant the more
unreasonable sense that you are claiming he should be taken in.

Does the
fact that you don't choose to concentrate upon car mechanics falsify
the idea that it would be good for you to know car mechanics?

Of course not. But it's a question premised in your choice to take both
Franzen and my own comments in an unreasonable sense even though a
quite reasonable sense is right in front of you.

But that's the "reasonable interpretation" that you're asking me to buy
into here: that Franzen was opposed to my kind learning formal logic,
even though he believed that we could learn it if we chose to. That's
not my interpretation at all: My interpretation, as I told you, is
that Franzen was opposed to my kind's learning logic because he
considered us incapable of understanding the subject.

He didn't say he was opposed to certain people learning about the
subject. Rather, he just said that it would not be helpful to make it
part of the regular curriculum. And he pointed to the mixups that are
engendered by such studies, but he did not at all commit himself to
saying that such mixups cannot ever be cleared up. Usually, with
sufficient study, they can be cleared up. Franzen's point was just that
it's not required to take on such study and mixups regarding formal
logic if what one wants to do is just to be a good informal reasoner.

'Concentrate' obviously means 'special concentration' when I mentioned
it, not just some minimal amount of concentration. Franzen said that
there are people who reason well informally but who do not have an
aptitude for formal logic.

No, he did not. What he said was: "experience supports neither the
idea that people who
reason well in non-mathematical contexts should have an aptitude for
formal logic, nor the idea that a study of formal logic will help
people reason well in non-mathematical contexts"

I think my paraphrase is adequate for the context.

IOW, he's saying only that there is no evidence against him. He is not
saying that there are people who both reason well and have an aptitude
for formal logic; just that there is no evidence that there aren't any.

Obviously, there's a tacit instantiation to certain people who do
reason well informally but who don't have an aptitutude for formal
logic. It's woven right into the fabric of the sentence, otherwise he'd
be making a vacuous claim for not having it instantiated to anyone.

You are at a nearly fervid prosecutorial pitch right now - subjecting
sentences to such utter level of exactitude that I can't say a damn
thing about anything without you making irrelevent, not even valid
nits.

In that context, a reasonable sense of
'aptitude' is 'talent' rather than 'ability that cannot be acquired
even with sufficient effort to acquire it'. It's very simple: I don't
have a talent for fixing cars, but if I made a special effort, I could
learn to fix cars.

Which is an argument against your being 'exposed' to auto mechanics?
Remember that that is Torkel's conclusion: exposing Such People to
formal logic causes them to assert absurdities.

He argued against it being required as part of the regular curriculum
toward the aim of improving people's informal reasoning. I don't see
where he claimed that people should not expose it to themselves as if
they want to do so or that others should refrain from presenting the
subject to whomever might be interested.

And it is reasonable to think (at least based on any
quotes you've given so far) that what Franzen was saying was that some
people who reason well informally don't have a talent for formal logic

The B.10 quote dos not support the idea that Franzen claimed there were
such people. If you have a quote where he suggested that there were,
please post it.

I don't remember what B.10 is, but we've been over and over these
quotes.

but not to argue that there are not many of these people who could
learn formal logic if they devoted special effort to do so.

The position he was taking in the argument was that Some People should
not learn logic.

He said that, for some people, trying to learn formal logic sometimes
does not help toward informal logic. I don't see any quote you've
adduced that claims that such people simply cannot learn formal logic
no matter how hard they try.

How do you get from your
they-could-learn-with-special-effort to his no-effort-
should-be-made-to-teach-them'?

That people may be able to learn something eventually does not entail
that it would be helpful to make the subject part of the regular
curricula toward the aim of improving informal reasoning. On the other
hand, I don't find Franzen's argument convincing toward the conclusion
that the subject should not be part of the regular curricula.

"It would be a good thing for people in general to know logic," [Dance]

"Why? As you yourself have demonstrated, an exposure to formal
logic can cause people to make all sorts of absurd assertions
that they wouldn't otherwise make." [Franzen]

IOW, even Some People who know the subject can be caused to make 'all
sorts of absurd assertions.'

Studying the subject leads some people to make absurd assertions.
That's true. (I just don't happen to find that it's enough to dissuade
us from teaching logic as part of the regular curriculum.)


[B.10]
"> It would be a good thing for people in general to know logic,
" Why? As you yourself have demonstrated, an exposure to formal
logic can cause people to make all sorts of absurd assertions
that they wouldn't otherwise make."

He is challenging the idea of Some People "know[ing] logic, not just
learning a bit of it.

One part of what he wrote is true: Some people get mixed up by formal
logic who would not otherwise get mixed up about similar topics
informally. But I will grant you that he was not careful in that spot.
He should have qualfied that he was responding to your use of 'know' in
a way that he didn't appear to be allowing the sense of saying that one
can know logic (in the sense of having a basic mastery of it) and yet
be prone to using it to make absurd assertions. I'll grant that you're
correct on this particular skirmish regarding the word 'know' and that
Franzen allowed himself to be taken as making an overstatement and that
to the extent he meant it, then he did make an overstatement. Anyway,
he did not claim that such people should never learn the subject even
if they are interested in it. Rather, he argued that it is not useful
to have the subject as part of the regular curriculum toward the
objective of improving informal reasoning.

We have to call them something; it makes more sense than referring to
them as 'some,' 'those,' or 'such' people.

Now you're either trying to be funny or you are succeeding at being
disingenuous.

For someone who doesn't want to speculate about my motives, you're
certainly doing a lot of expounding on my state of mind.

I didn't say I would not speculate. I just said I was disinclined at
that time and not likely to comply with your request soon. Moreover,
just now I speculated an alternative and allowed for an alternative
that hardly requires speculation, since you've have lied about Franzen
when you claimed he "ignored completely" the subject of the thread
about logic in schools.

That you want to provide a noun for people who usually
reason well informally but who don't have an aptitude for formal logic
does not require you to adopt about as inflammatory term as you can
come up with.

As you know, I do not want to 'provide a noun for people who usually
reason well informally but who don't have an aptitude for formal
logic.' I want to provide a noun for the people Torkel identified as
my kind, who lack the aptitude for formal logic, period, and therefore
should not be exposed to it, period.

Yes, George.

I'm convinced that Franzen did consider my kind (SP's) to be inferior;
and (in keeping with his use of 'aptitude') that our inferiority could
not be addressed by education or training. Just because you call it a
'caricature' is no reason for me to pretend otherwise.

Okay, okay, already. You're completely right. You've convinced me.
Franzen saw two kinds of people in this world, and it correlates with
having a PhD in mathematics (or something like that, I'm not sure, I
have to wait for you tell me exactly what I can say about that), and
VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING he posted was stirring or perpetuating flames
against the Mathematical People. Do I have it right now? Or did I mess
up? Was some of the stirring and perpetuating sometimes against the
Mathematical People also? I want to get this right, because I sure
don't want to mistate this air tight case you've documented against
Franzen.

It has to be borne in mind that Franzen is referring to an identifiable
subclass (sorry for the 'sub', but that's the term) of humanity, which
he believed did exist and he could identify. It's urgent to give them
a name, so that we keep in mind which subclass that is - not the
(possibly empty) subclass of SP's who reason well informally, for
instance.

It's urgent for you, since your hell bent for leather to make Franzen
look posthumously bad as you can.

so that it is not
YOUR place to at least devise a term that is reasonable and does not
evoke horrible connotations in association with Franzen but rather that
I must devise a term for you as you otherwise declare your full
intention to saddle Franzen with an inflammatory word of your, not
Franzen's, invention.

So what's your term? None? Then it's Some People or (SPs).

I don't have a term, since Franzen made no such parition. Oops. I'm
sorry. I forgot. You're absolutely right. Yes the terms should be
SubSomeOthers and Mathematical People. And we should never forget that
Franzen hewed to this partition in virtually all his posts in sci.logic
between at least 2000 and 2006 (right?) and that if he thought you were
a SubSomeOther then you didn't stand a chance of ever getting anything
from other than stirring and perpetuating flames against you. And
plenty of people know this. But it is still urgent that we don't forget
that that Franzen thought just this way, just as you say he did,
George. Just as you say Franzen thought and was motivated, is exactly
the way it must have been, George. Silly me for ever ever doubting
that.

MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages

  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Torkel_Franz=E9n_is_dead?=
    ... "Talent n 1 a special aptitude or facility. ... 'ability' without qualification. ... Let's look at the reasonableness. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: 10,000 hours of preperation
    ... Aptitude might ... be a better word than " talent" which is often misleading. ... spell at age two, and others do it at age four. ... I think it's great that people are actually conducting studies and ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz)
  • Re: Aussie Bench Strength
    ... There's talent, aptitude, attitude and luck. ... Kumble will end up with a better career record in terms ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Aussie Bench Strength
    ... There's talent, aptitude, attitude and luck. ... Kumble will end up with a better career record in terms ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)