Wow, EricC. I never knew that. It's so 19th century! N
On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 10:52 PM Eric Charles <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure how it got on this thread... but I think it is worth noting > as often as possible that TMS is "Mesmerism." > > Among other aspects of his early work, Mesmer waved extremely large > magnets around people's heads, and created effects thereby. Gardens with > enormous magnets that you would walk through became popular, etc. > > Then it was all discredited. > > Then it became fashionable cutting-edge science. > > The world is odd. > > Best, > Eric > > <[email protected]> > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 12:45 PM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Transcranial magnetic stimulation is used for medication resistant >> depression. One could imagine an active learning protocol with EEG >> feedback. fMRI would be trickier since a second set of pulsed magnets >> would be needed. And MEG would saturate, but maybe some sensors wouldn’t >> lose calibration and could recover? >> >> >> >> *From: *Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Prof David West < >> [email protected]> >> *Date: *Tuesday, April 7, 2026 at 9:27 AM >> *To: *[email protected] <[email protected]> >> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Metaphor... and more... >> >> do the magnets produce an altered state of consciousness, or just mess up >> the optic nerve? "Sparkles and rainbows" are a common aspect of LSD trips. >> How strong a magnet? Sounds like something I might try. >> >> >> >> davew >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2026, at 9:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> >> I briefly collaborated with a staffer at the National High Magnetic Field >> Laboratory. She said that near the big magnets, vision goes to sparkles >> and rainbows. >> >> >> >> I think this experiment might not be a good idea, at least in the cause >> of understanding the scientific utility of metaphor? >> >> *From: *Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Santafe < >> [email protected]> >> *Date: *Monday, April 6, 2026 at 7:08 PM >> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Metaphor... and more... >> >> Thanks Nick, >> >> >> >> I will have to read your longer-form work. Your use of all this is so >> far from my own, and so far from any literature and user community that I >> work with or in, that I don’t even know what you mean different words to be >> doing in your sentences, and thus what you believe yourself to be >> asserting. (If I could track that much, I could then come back to whether >> I think the assertions “go through”, or under what analysis one would make >> such a judgment.) >> >> >> >> Clearly this is going to be a matter of just blanking my mind (giant >> magnetostimulation of the brain) and submerging in your writing for a >> while, to try to “get a feel” for your language usage. Then come back to >> these short forms and see if I can follow them any better. >> >> >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 6, 2026, at 7:42, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> DES -- One urgent point. I asked George to look at our correspondence to >> see what I was missing. He caught one thing immediately "Fitness causes >> selection, selection causes fitness" is not necessarily a tautology nor do >> i think of it as such. Its a virtuous circle, or "spiral" so long as >> *selection >> and fitness can be independently known. * >> >> >> >> I apologise for wiring text that was open to that misinterpretation. >> >> >> >> N >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2026 at 5:39 AM Santafe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> >> >> I’m kind of relieved that I posted “I promise I really will shut up” on >> Apr 1, before Gil’s brief blast of exasperation, which I kind of get. I >> think I should keep my word, as much as possible without being obnoxious. >> >> >> >> At the same time, thank you for taking the time to reply, including what >> I actually wrote, and responding to it in-frame. >> >> >> >> Your two papers are attached to the later email, too, so we have them. I >> will read if and as I am able. The abstracts sound like they make a much >> more normal reference to the routine work that people actually do, than >> many of the post-string here have (to me); so that is hopeful. >> >> >> >> I tried a couple of times to come up with some kind of reply, and decided >> it is hopeless. There is a perfectly good language to address the problem >> that, after we have identified and characterized traits, and observed that >> sometimes they change frequencies in populations, we don’t generally know >> at the outset whether there is something about the traits’ functions in >> organisms’ lives (in their population contexts) that is eligible to be a >> “cause” of that change in frequency. We would like to know, for which >> traits in what settings, variations in trait parameters result in >> variations in function performance that (through the vast noise of >> everything else that is going on too) poke through to result in changes in >> trait frequency. There are no tautologies in the statistical reduction >> that defines different components of change (among which one is fitness, >> though its definition is partly by convention), and there are no other >> problems than the ordinary problems of functional characterization and >> statistical analysis in figuring out which variations in trait parameters >> and functions correlate with changes in trait frequency robustly enough to >> be candidates for cause of the change in frequency. It’s all so terribly >> ordinary and understandable. >> >> >> >> Meanwhile, you have a program: to assert that there are some tautologies >> and some ambiguities etc. Therefore I understand that, since we can >> observe a field of people who get from problem statements to answers, by >> completely ordinary and conventional steps with standard methods, without >> tautologies, whatever those people are doing is simply irrelevant to your >> program. >> >> >> >> I will admit, so that it doesn’t just seem irritating, that at a >> half-dozen points below, I am sure that you are just throwing up verbal >> chaff and playing word games to try to make something that is actually >> completely ordinary and orderly “look” all mangled and messed up. But it >> doesn’t look that way to me. At every one of these, I trip over some >> string of words that looks like complete nonsense, which doesn’t make the >> idea we were on “look” like anything; it just veers away from the track of >> that idea to put a word game in its place. (An example: "success causes >> fitness, and that fitness causes success") It was after trying to call out >> two or three of these that I realized i need to just give up. I suspect >> you could follow an ordinary mathematical argument about as well as the >> next guy, and you just don’t want to. Thus anything I try to reply will >> just yield another round with the same form as this one. I will add to >> irritating the list, which is what I wanted to cut away from doing earlier. >> >> >> >> >> I appreciated your introduction of placeholders, and of course I am quite >> open to that kind of thing. Not so open to the Chalmers kind, which is >> defined as having _no_ added content from what our ordinary, understandable >> language, is already doing. I don’t know why you think you see a >> non-Chalmers-like placeholder here; but okay. >> >> >> >> So, is it the English who say: Please Proceed. >> >> >> >> I do hope you will be able to push through to the book you were writing. >> We accumulate all these unfinished efforts, and it is a shame if they can’t >> get to some safe harbor in some output. >> >> >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 4, 2026, at 14:23, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> DES -- I hate to drag you back into our den and maul you some more but >> your last post was fascinating to me and so akin to difficulties we have >> had with Elliott Sober and difficulties I have had understanding entropy >> (ugh) that I want to pursue them with you further >> >> >> >> >> >> *--for me, “fitness” is a name given to (something like) the units (or >> dimension) in which reproductive success is measured, or quantified. Not >> sure “units” is quite the right term, but the point is that it’s about >> defining a quantification program for observed outcomes, or the model >> variables that we try to fit to them. I had taken the state of modern work >> to show that this is the only actual meaning the term was ever given.* >> >> >> >> I am happy to have a variable with a name to represent that dimension. I >> just think "fitness" is an appalling name for it. Call it selectedness. >> Call it success. Just don't call it fitness or adaptedness or anything >> that might confuse a reader into thinking that you have any information >> about the morphological or behavioral synchrony of the organism with its >> environment. The essence of D's theory is that success causes fitness, and >> that fitness causes success. If one calls oneself a Darwinist it must be >> because those connections between the two ideas are empirical, not logical. >> >> >> >> *— are you two claiming otherwise; that my supposition is not at all >> the case? That there are biologists for whom there is some other meaning, >> instead of or in addition to the one I gave above, about being a >> measurement unit? * >> >> >> >> Indeed, we are >> >> >> >> *Something like: “fitness” is a name for “the cause of reproductive >> success”. As if to say: Well, there’s this thing with the form of a name, >> so there must be something it names, that is a kind of causal force >> responsible for generating what we witness as reproductive success. And >> since there is one name, there must be some one kind of causal force it >> names.* >> >> >> >> Well, if we do believe that the relative success of every genetic type of >> organism is systematic then it has a cause. Now I suppose that it's >> possible that each instance of success has a different cause, in which we >> would have reduced Darwin's theory to, "whatever causes an animal's sucess >> causes its success". But I think even FW would rate that a tautology. To >> escape that bind, we have to find some class of relations that leads to >> success which is other than the class that leads to failure. And to be a >> proper Darwinian you have to at least be able to entertain the possibility >> that selection would produce something other than fitness and vice versa. >> >> >> >> *— to me, an interpretation like that is so bizarre, it would never have >> occurred to me to that there is anyone making it. * >> >> >> >> Well, here we are. We stand before you. I have been making such a claim >> in print for 56 years, so either I have managed to pull the wool over many >> editors' and reviewr's eyes, or it has some resonance somewhere among >> biologists. I hope calling it "bizarre" isn't the first step toward putting >> your fingers in your ears and shrieking. >> >> >> >> . >> >> *It seems very similar to taking an expression like “elan vital”, and >> saying that, since it has the shape of a name, there must be something it >> names. * >> >> >> >> Well, exactly! The example I like to use is the "dormitive >> virtue"..Years ago, before the dinosaurs, Lipton and I wrote a paper in >> which we talked about such expressions that purport to be explanatory but >> which include a reference to the explanandum within the explanans as >> "recursive". (eg. life is caused by the Life Force) The dormitive virtue >> was a place-holder for what came to be known as the very specific chemical >> properties of morphine. The Moliere play makes fun of people who imagine >> that the assignment of a placeholder has solved the problem. We thought >> of these place holders as serving to keep the goal in sight while >> scientists looked for it. Science consists a lot in filling in or dividing >> up these place holders. The progress in the identification of the AIDS >> virus is a wonderful example. See, if tempted, Comparative Psychology >> and the recursive nature of filter explanations >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.clarku.edu%2ffacultyworks%2f66%2f&c=E,1,k4G28ruXzTMikjk22fWt55DQZBrY8oTBaFPZetykCEmKkrdW7Zgm_InoVrTc91PCgHYC1XjdS7pzs2zz_HaX2PnsGuZtad3L3YiDf1g2E2bBiY5y9m0Lp_g,&typo=1> >> >> >> >> *To me, those are strings of words that satisfy rules of syntax and that >> don’t have any semantic referents at all. They may as well be Chomsky’s >> “colorless green dreams” or something. I would not have imagined that >> there was anything anyone expected, beyond the working out of the mechanics >> of lots of cases of how-lifecycles-play-out-in-contexts, which can fill out >> some vast taxonomy that has no singular “essence” underneath it. That >> could well be my lack of empathy for how many other people think, like my >> lack of empathy for their thoughts about God (along with my ignorance about >> who is in the world). * >> >> >> >> Indeed. That would explain a lot. Please understand that I am a lifelong >> unbeliever. I am not even an atheist. My family had no interest in >> religion whatsoever. You might call me a religious Ignoramist. I have >> never been cuffed on the ears by nuns. >> >> >> >> *— I guess, since there are people who continue to talk about Strong >> Emergence, and Philosophical Zombies, and who sound to me much like people >> who talk about God today, and maybe like people who would have talked about >> Elan Vital some generations ago, I should have right away imagined this >> reading of what you were writing.* >> >> >> >> Again, that explains a lot of our difficulties. But I beg to suggest >> that there is a more generous reading. >> >> >> >> *the above is what you were claiming, it would explain why my long Emily >> Litella-like replies seemed like a tiresome recital of what population >> geneticists already do (Nick’s point that “all that would be left is >> EricS’s 2a and 2b”), which everybody already knows anyway, and which isn’t >> interesting and wasn’t to your point. So, were you claiming that there are >> biologists operating that way*? *And are there really biologists >> operating that way?y * >> >> >> >> Indeed there are. They are called comparative biologists, comparative >> anatomists,comparative ethologists, comparative physiologists, anybody who >> studies the form of classes of organisms in relation to their >> circumstances. Natural design didn't get eliminated by Darwinism; it got >> partially, and incompletely and in some cases wrongly explained by it. >> Some effort needs to be expended in finding out the degree to which natural >> design actually accounts for natural selection and vice versa. Please see >> Toward >> a Falsifiable Theory of Evolution >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.clarku.edu%2ffacultyworks%2f67%2f&c=E,1,uEqHnsI2N6agATrwVIuvnLowDECLxZG4KT5Za_GJiyC2lUxcNNve9iY0ZctgPVn2cXHp3MIF_4h0exfyKRO9KdPS6nCz0uerbqjb5nNIWBw,&typo=1> >> >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 2:17 PM Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> DES -- I hate to drag you back into our den and maul you some more but >> your last post was fascinting to me and so akin to difficulties we have had >> with Elliott Sober and difficulties I have had understnding entropy (ugh) >> that I want to pursue them with you further >> >> >> >> >> >> --for me, “fitness” is a name given to (something like) the units (or >> dimension) in which reproductive success is measured, or quantified. Not >> sure “units” is quite the right term, but the point is that it’s about >> defining a quantification program for observed outcomes, or the model >> variables that we try to fit to them. I had taken the state of modern work >> to show that this is the only actual meaning the term was ever given. >> >> >> >> — are you two claiming otherwise; that my supposition is not at all the >> case? That there are biologists for whom there is some other meaning, >> instead of or in addition to the one I gave above, about being a >> measurement unit? Something like: “fitness” is a name for “the cause of >> reproductive success”. As if to say: Well, there’s this thing with the >> form of a name, so there must be something it names, that is a kind of >> causal force responsible for generating what we witness as reproductive >> success. And since there is one name, there must be some one kind of >> causal force it names. >> >> >> >> — to me, an interpretation like that is so bizarre, it would never have >> occurred to me to that there is anyone making it. It seems very similar to >> taking an expression like “elan vital”, and saying that, since it has the >> shape of a name, there must be something it names. To me, those are >> strings of words that satisfy rules of syntax and that don’t have any >> semantic referents at all. They may as well be Chomsky’s “colorless green >> dreams” or something. I would not have imagined that there was anything >> anyone expected, beyond the working out of the mechanics of lots of cases >> of how-lifecycles-play-out-in-contexts, which can fill out some vast >> taxonomy that has no singular “essence” underneath it. That could well be >> my lack of empathy for how many other people think, like my lack of empathy >> for their thoughts about God (along with my ignorance about who is in the >> world). >> >> >> >> — I guess, since there are people who continue to talk about Strong >> Emergence, and Philosophical Zombies, and who sound to me much like people >> who talk about God today, and maybe like people who would have talked about >> Elan Vital some generations ago, I should have right away imagined this >> reading of what you were writing. >> >> >> >> If the above is what you were claiming, it would explain why my long >> Emily Litella-like replies seemed like a tiresome recital of what >> population geneticists already do (Nick’s point that “all that would be >> left is EricS’s 2a and 2b”), which everybody already knows anyway, and >> which isn’t interesting and wasn’t to your point. >> >> >> >> So, were you claiming that there are biologists operating that way? >> >> >> >> And are there really biologists operating that way? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 5:15 AM Santafe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Can I ask one last question? after which I promise I really will shut up: >> >> >> >> The content of EricC’s note below (about the key in a lock), reflecting >> back on things Nick said in the early posts about selection’s being a >> tautology, which got me started digging a hole, have bothered me through >> the night, and made me wonder if I can understand how I have been missing >> both-of-y’all’s point. Was it something like the following:? >> >> >> >> — for me, “fitness” is a name given to (something like) the units (or >> dimension) in which reproductive success is measured, or quantified. Not >> sure “units” is quite the right term, but the point is that it’s about >> defining a quantification program for observed outcomes, or the model >> variables that we try to fit to them. I had taken the state of modern work >> to show that this is the only actual meaning the term was ever given. >> >> >> >> — are you two claiming otherwise; that my supposition is not at all the >> case? That there are biologists for whom there is some other meaning, >> instead of or in addition to the one I gave above, about being a >> measurement unit? Something like: “fitness” is a name for “the cause of >> reproductive success”. As if to say: Well, there’s this thing with the >> form of a name, so there must be something it names, that is a kind of >> causal force responsible for generating what we witness as reproductive >> success. And since there is one name, there must be some one kind of >> causal force it names. >> >> >> >> — to me, an interpretation like that is so bizarre, it would never have >> occurred to me to that there is anyone making it. It seems very similar to >> taking an expression like “elan vital”, and saying that, since it has the >> shape of a name, there must be something it names. To me, those are >> strings of words that satisfy rules of syntax and that don’t have any >> semantic referents at all. They may as well be Chomsky’s “colorless green >> dreams” or something. I would not have imagined that there was anything >> anyone expected, beyond the working out of the mechanics of lots of cases >> of how-lifecycles-play-out-in-contexts, which can fill out some vast >> taxonomy that has no singular “essence” underneath it. That could well be >> my lack of empathy for how many other people think, like my lack of empathy >> for their thoughts about God (along with my ignorance about who is in the >> world). >> >> >> >> — I guess, since there are people who continue to talk about Strong >> Emergence, and Philosophical Zombies, and who sound to me much like people >> who talk about God today, and maybe like people who would have talked about >> Elan Vital some generations ago, I should have right away imagined this >> reading of what you were writing. >> >> >> >> If the above is what you were claiming, it would explain why my long >> Emily Litella-like replies seemed like a tiresome recital of what >> population geneticists already do (Nick’s point that “all that would be >> left is EricS’s 2a and 2b”), which everybody already knows anyway, and >> which isn’t interesting and wasn’t to your point. >> >> >> >> So, were you claiming that there are biologists operating that way? >> >> >> >> And are there really biologists operating that way? >> >> >> >> As always, I appreciate whatever patience or indulgence, >> >> >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 31, 2026, at 15:47, Eric Charles <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I'm a bit confused here... >> >> The initial dog pile on Nick seemed (to me) to have as one of its main >> points something like "Look, old man, once you formalize something >> mathematically we don't need to care what any of the words might mean or >> imply in any other context, it is just math, stop thinking that the words >> matter!" >> >> >> >> And now there have been several posts by EricS, at least one by Glen, and >> I think Marcus and Frank are in there somewhere as well, claiming that the >> words are crucially important and we need to take them much more seriously. >> >> >> >> So.... where does that leave us? Is everyone now onboard with >> the metaphors mattering quite a bit? >> >> >> >> I'll also note that "function" can't do the work on its own to explain >> evolution. We still need to know why some functions are favored by >> selection and others are not. EricS seemed to indicate that we assess "fit" >> by determining if animals are "happy".... but the metaphor of "fit" is like >> a key in a lock. To explain evolution you need the matching of >> form-and-function-to-a-particular-environment. That matching *sometimes* >> increases reproductive success, and *sometimes* the traits in question are >> hereditary. >> >> >> >> Population genetics combined with field research can be very powerful >> along those lines, but the math of population genetics on its own, floating >> out in the ether, can't do it at all. >> >> >> >> Best, >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 6:10 AM Santafe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> Two smaller replies to what have become two sub-threads: >> >> > On Mar 30, 2026, at 15:42, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > DES, EPC, FW >> > >> > So far as I understand, the argument flowing from Fisher makes no >> claims about the kind of trait that produces reproductive success other >> than that it is the kind that produces reproductive success. FW, if that's >> not a tautology, it's a pretty tight circle. >> >> As usual, let’s decamp to more neutral ground in the hope of having an >> ordinary negotiation. >> >> Suppose that, in your overweening pursuit of the study of metaphor, you >> never noticed that there is a once/4-year gathering called The Olympics. >> Also never learned what any of its so-called “events” are, what they are >> about, how they work, and how one differs from another. My hypothetical >> here is meant to define a condition of having “very little prior >> information” about some phenomenon that we can, nonetheless, still >> reasonably unambiguously circumscribe. >> >> But a quick inspection shows that a subset of the participants (who all >> together seem to be called “athletes”) are given metal disks and stand on >> some kind of 3-tiered podium, while other athletes do not. Being a >> statistician — a skill so helpful in the study of metaphor that it was >> worth taking the time out to learn — you immediately recognize that this is >> a kind of marking that can be used to partition the athletes. Taking >> notice, for the first time, of some of the conversation in the society >> around you, who seem not nearly so devoted to metaphor and thus have time >> to do other things, you gather that these marked people seem to be called >> “winners” (or better, “medalists”, this “winning” thing is a finer >> sub-partition; I’ll mis-use “winner” to label the most salient marking for >> this little parable). It’s handy to have such a term, for use in later >> sentences, so they become less tedious than the ones I have been typing so >> far. >> >> You also note that while there is only one 3-tiered podium and metal-disk >> set per one “event”, there seem to be many such distinct “events”, so some >> kind of event name gives you a second kind of marking you can put on the >> athletes. Moreover, interestingly, the “event” label is again a proper >> partition (or at least seems to be; this one is less cut-and-dried than the >> observation that everyone carrying a metal disk is not someone not-carrying >> a metal disk, so we are wary; the event label seems to be a bit more >> abstract): every athlete is in some “event” set, and it appears that no >> athlete is in more than one of them. As with the “winners” label, you >> learn that there are conventionalized names for the events, and you can >> find a look-up table if you need one or another of them. >> >> Now, I can make a list of statements that seem to be of two different >> kinds (scare quotes here indicate my statisticians’ attribute labels; in my >> condition of very little prior knowledge, I don’t claim I have any more >> semantics for them than I listed above): >> >> 1. Every “winner" is someone marked as having won something. >> >> 2a. Every winner in the “gymnastics” event is shorter than the average >> over all the participants; >> >> 2b. Every winner in the “high jump” event is taller than the average >> over all the participants; >> >> … (we could presumably look for other such summary statistics that seem >> to be unusually regular and to carry different values in different >> “events”). >> >> I would say sentence 1 is “a tautology”, or close enough to it for the >> purpose of this negotiation. Maybe I should use EricC’s good, and slighly >> more flexible term, “truism”. >> >> Now you may write a protest email: But the sentences 2a, 2b, have not >> told me what constitutes “competition” in these “events”: “gymnastics” and >> “high jump”, and given me the rule book for scoring them. Okay. And they >> didn’t cook your dinner and do the dishes afterward either. Life is hard. >> And more a propos (breaking my little 4th wall here), the path to a >> fully-adequate “causal” theory through statistical inference is like the >> Road to Heaven: narrow, tortuous, and inadequate to many things one can >> rightly want to know. That’s what other sciences are then for. >> >> But if you claim: The sentences 2a and 2b didn’t give me _any >> information_ about these “events”, and couldn’t have, because they are >> tautologies, I would say you made an error. Of course, the real Nick would >> not say that, so we are all safe. >> >> The above parable is, of course, about selection. I didn’t say anything >> about heredity. But if I had happened to note that height is a fairly >> heritable trait, I could have spun out a much longer story, and defined >> some Bayesian-posterior conditional probabilities, which would be shown to >> have properties such as: the posterior probability, under various ceteris >> paribus conditions, for a child of a high-jump winner to turn out another >> high-jump winner is higher than for that child to turn out a gymnastics >> winner, and so forth. The amalgamation of both of those stories would go >> in the direction of Fisher’s fundamental theorem. It would leave out all >> the stuff that Fisher left out of emphasis in his mad pursuit of his >> covariance term as an analog to the thermodynamic 2nd law (a non-valid >> analogy, as it turns out to be easy to show), and that Price included >> didactically (and here, to EricC’s answer): that I didn’t even mention >> that the tall people might get drafted into wars and put into an infantry >> to fire rifles over tall dijks, while the short people might be drafted >> into Special Forces and sent on missions to attack through underground >> tunnels, and so the number of survivors could depend on many factors about >> which war their country had started, in what theater, and against what >> opposition, etc. These are the world of everything-else that Fisher lumped >> together into “deterioration of the environment”, as Steve Frank (and I >> think also Price) lays out. They are probably not well-analogized to >> “mutation”, but in genetics, mutation also goes into the same bin in the >> Price equation — _outside_ the term of Fisher’s fundamental theorem — as >> the “deterioration” effects. The accounting identity is flexible enough >> that we don’t need analogies to use it; we can formulate a version for >> whatever statistics our phenomenon-of-interest supplies. >> >> Anyway; at issue: Seriously, do we have a problem in scientific work, of >> people being unable to gain partial knowledge about phenomena through >> sentences of the kinds 2a, 2b, because they can’t tell the difference >> between those and sentence 1? In the world where I live, I don’t see >> evidence for this mistake. >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,GvQhgG8mgl44zu_Tqszk_wQFcC3LBswQyBsmnoa7umwcI4cM2jGPGmAYotJwNMri0nXMbYayX6uZw5iDa5Mn0zM5Lzi9_LPGwP2Q6dG2zkm1Zw,,&typo=1> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,23DEBEu6zm1j58j5JsswXw4R4hnyuhIceP4fdD1lMWDKru8V9CE3qD4-RYjtV5Jy9hfTf9uHOrhrlBi_RdYMT7jsteJtGiX2nEMNJisxFedZstuD_29M3FA,&typo=1> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,Ec4s1UwqPKENLyqkHX4Ib_R7EzxFYgc2j7jZdKdzIhORPykt1347aKvaSNnoCQ4Arvb6m2_GLwAwKSl29d-U5DrlMczDc4AHiyyrX-KaGBCrMK9RdKapkw,,&typo=1> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,wWOjZ0Q8WKeZG4U9_UBc_a11JtFDvedQPCTS8FL1Usmbm4F-EJO5IWv_Ignpmf4vTC3CO23cIKVFR_FtMZC8DWD4hyxlN0c7hdOfez8KEw,,&typo=1> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,kwN2JIDPqIj9UxOfed-aORUfsTjJO1DufRCI0ppHAlXiormfdNykgyPSWLfGlw5BiruUeiaRfbSG8W1tubwpfhSXeau4oRt3nvXTRhaRUQDZn1ezcoU,&typo=1 >> to (un)subscribe >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,kQqYu7I-SVHGT_AjFnLh-XWpOng69axviT6aY8I-XQhC5yk80tH2Ke3qOfyvs8l3RCZeAkeZoIR8TnddaWkwLAXTuoc5QvUR8RvkfEpSQA4,&typo=1 >> FRIAM-COMIC >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,Scpn5Z6qKVVYYNEU1u9CRDlFHpw1wgOZOdNM_lN_6PGv3Act07AQi7IpeyFshe33FmWkTI9CAG8DxLRlNRkf96ox2bRdyp5XC_cgCr8eGG_qVIaFKTZQtQ,,&typo=1 >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,NLxA-XaYLw7kDphTWfVR6urQXoJSKIwq0etxJd8ER-oc2b18abBXo9Qeee2OhAh_25GSqFBFw3JCMtIdxzYZ2dNpnjUjp4hMFRrpN814z2HxmIPhG0rfxUF-CQ,,&typo=1 >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,zA-G5QKVxSPBJmAMP_AJzjZBgLoWIDEwNhUXDpDE-ij5HxoUybuXHsL7hq3XSjcaie2WQdh2hKkTDoZpSv083KPYvq8qWzFQDpts4RVeb0UxKke--9Km&typo=1> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,YuoMqhAnODFK7gL8VQKwXiuMZPGgTcNdV3JgB-s9IGxudIzKjP_2nuVrv9XASA2GmtPpabPVY1SoV_P65J8zfqHN98PEQERGPn4JY3pb&typo=1> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,RTuBnYPs7aSXh6PCRgC3eltQzFenug0NrzICyO63IHxkmDRWr5as1yZl_aRfSuQdRBjUi6qNKJ8UnKmwUBClw5Wo4YjechJlRTyTQYdOsg,,&typo=1> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,-sgioWyoJ9Vy0MyLRBgl8ZQKbLOXF9VqGGTEutRE5wJioXcx3l2BEzHSM8_-tGX-WDZdF5260g7Uh0Nx9QOxyVNE4HeeRJ0JlF_paQyH75-KjEXPeg-W9RQpyVuR&typo=1> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >> >> Clark University >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson&c=E,1,TtGHguBztcaI183g6Goerj-O4VoUmgxpx6RFwy76dnUtcD6dMcEs2GfRLne1FYCYIv9JZQ_Qlp0DYwPIxqwUF0P5yyaODACw5wXNyxIS_4NA3OoABA1XdQ,,&typo=1> >> >> https://substack.com/@monist >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsubstack.com%2f%40monist&c=E,1,mMVE-osMfLMKveVRGsDNOLbCQxE2gtCfa9lLV-tXT5ooNLpQD3mqsdWZrYkDx7mKJDcf7XYJbAAs76SMkAt7fhk6zh8pI_xm2uaiDg2olbukzFktpA,,&typo=1> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >> >> Clark University >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson&c=E,1,2XwwB39XAWBxm8sZIiJJtQaGopoq86JnxTvN46gGqo6aH0noWqqKl_l7rB_k-DozfW1XYaJks5IPwIsYhgQEFcMMYaST1TtrgzyaPODraxU,&typo=1> >> >> https://substack.com/@monist >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsubstack.com%2f%40monist&c=E,1,svFJjYNZT04uLonFV0yujfOyRi6wCR5qc-O348ai4iwT5_F08j6oi7TW8PPCmquF6PKjGNjXrIdHlZlDzzHj1-5A3toxXWZa5j7dj8mSyCtOtir_evUN4QOA5A,,&typo=1> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,1Yj3oXBfXU9FL5YgY7_61lUY6S944YYnB3lhy68u4K0zPI0_lLJl4_qjp8pcYomUasPvoVenzsSlxfJNtZS8lkb_ALVAI9XA-ws_REd_mBz6DeUH5u3xUKaLb4A,&typo=1 >> to (un)subscribe >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,0_T3p9FRn72Wb576gUkbP3yykjXY0kTI-AElcl-eqAWYU5womwJJ5TSlBwcpkYmObXMkPxa-cqkpKy04LnwF9q_s1uc78x2KFJsgvxP6LOgk5twjJd_wXnHKPa0S&typo=1 >> FRIAM-COMIC >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,9_aFoYc8LEBvlTRa6JAb15n0L4Hhp9lNSuX13T_IT-91Oq1jkfJ6EgnCAuLWMPdqpP-KDjnAUT7o3BnwzAIHxkvOxLzAfkPL3aSIq7ro&typo=1 >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,lMJPwQ_tUH-IPBwp6f2KXYAEarkDc0KOAA6TwZdPbWwifDQprErklE2-hCs5OWhc1DmB88QWKxpEPkPKXWnNOWMIFzI2Nsv2-XLYgRhUcGlyR_J5clz3J8k1pQ,,&typo=1 >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,EHRAq7ghLpjsl4ZHF55qmSa36UhxkealN7ABfO5qkV1J2Mu-lYC4DrN5c9FnHwPRLggzrNN6rWaSOsNed8iBIyLpQVXv1Rorh78hIsygsvEtQ-gJ03xn58aZUZ2Y&typo=1> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,CPvtQP2Uq9O6hx6OoaGqvcOng_hflp90R4THZAMnk-bf2VdAlQHEaFMMukttoZR2uyYsZgR26YJosoJyZ-dw7iTGPHXyIAlnuaqMN8_mLVj8za6HIQln1mmHQapE&typo=1> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,b3AvXhVEy1N77hAdXidLqY4OnlxMl_fkKC4MfVp9DHPWwtZDZjxApEeZrUcZw35Dve69osD9oJEpNlPcXDkCs7aZTCrlkMPel65x03DIYwaqmCcXTc5c&typo=1> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,eFxPkHDLGdpdeTO-gztrhV4LEU-uCg8Vl8HgGV-NYUbjcqSv9dEjbcOW599M-ZdEWWYP_ahE2rpzPG6T4mNxVaoyagEc53ho0qfIezO1GwnGWEy0i95YVw,,&typo=1> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >> >> Clark University >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson&c=E,1,yOlkmrrUeTaGeYex3-BP2up_KTKEECrDeXyMl2bn9HMBnlqmOWOhGvMQOKYLoybbMqLzqnZSs7-_jUa1hkV7hkzl30kqZYwyMpt1XgLahOOdGMUu_KCS&typo=1> >> >> https://substack.com/@monist >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsubstack.com%2f%40monist&c=E,1,sECLaBy8NN4JIxn0K_XdKJaqDL_5f-DBJjVXY18AdRfpb1OgG3a0kH415SIPlY-o8cIJxjTizTCnZ6jKbQKh39BkP19S9307-0f-Ic2zdY6d&typo=1> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,tC0PdYiCVSRc7b8jz4x7Yig5Hz71QYRfF3irlQEjCQChVMEQeyRN9YpFygqtdMjjNaAY26D2u5JvjHK-zYJYexEHINcvJUeaY1w-_Oh9zuU78r-Vy2mwuJHIdvnH&typo=1 >> to (un)subscribe >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,2jJpuVLI2AmmQBLt5lXMu7iYyu1XmT5ctf5oDB0lgfOJhgZFy9kEb5BrFx8O8jEnVxJiV8UKNrvg45SI5-G0cNgA8zmL9lA54oNbx1TwbTkm0RE,&typo=1 >> FRIAM-COMIC >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,YtDpEX1fabSs1AlCN26XsY-EWjggWd8DwKaaGy4-VIPf0iFrJLBmyul8mQ5A7Q2Btig_DA8y8zKiI4bE9mWoTBg_21KyKki9nm5aCZijj-OY-rl5iliL&typo=1 >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,NvWsaA57CgBqzhKbNfM7nTbeUEIi3Nz3UaZ__wXB6K9DGDMn3mhCOKtx-Y5A9I84BYiPEgB3aTVYkxRGfBJEFfhZoK6HEIhqbrDn_FY5&typo=1 >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> *Attachments:* >> >> - smime.p7s >> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -- Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University [email protected] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson https://substack.com/@monist
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
