The Ineffable
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2013, 03:57 AM
RE: The Ineffable
(17-03-2013 03:26 AM)fat cat Wrote:  ...
So what's the word for one who doesn't assume any deities do/don't exist, but who also doesn't assume we can/can't know they do/don't exist?

That would be... 'Ghost'

And someone who believes / knows the opposite is an 'aghostic'.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
17-03-2013, 09:13 AM
RE: The Ineffable
Hey, Hafnof.

Yeah, this isn't so much about God claims. I mean, sure, they're unknowable, but we're really talking about the ineffable, which is unknowable because it's unnameable.

There's a reason that there are so many poems about love. Because no one really understands it in literal terms. The poets have to give it a go.

Quote:There may well be cognitive limits to our ability to come up with ideas.

For sure I think there are limits to our cognitive ability. The idea that the intellect of man is unlimited seems pretty stupid to me. What I kind of find interesting about all of this is, why are there certain things, certain experiences, that we seem incapable of understanding in cognitive terms? I mean, the mundane answer is that we just can't, which is fine, but what is it about some of these things we cannot name that makes them impossible to name?

On the subject of Sexton's popularity,

1 - That article is three years old.
2 - His popularity has sum zero to do with his ideas or with this thread.
3 - His ideas are the start point of this thread, the catalyst, not the destination.

Hey, Fat.

I'm really hoping this doesn't come across as douchey, but are you familiar with qualitative research? Does the qualitative not bring into question the omnipotence of the quantitative?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 01:47 PM
RE: The Ineffable
Ghost, I prioritize not assuming what anyone's unstated intent is, and I have no basis for considering anybody a "douche", so I don't think your questions came across as coming from one. Smile

Yes, I am familiar with qualitative research. I don't intentionally seek it, but have read about a few various studies.

The phrase "brings into question" makes your second question vague. Does "brings into question" just refer to questioning in reaction to observing the qualitative? If so, what question(s) is the omnipotence of the quantitative being brought into?

That said, I think whether or not the qualitative brings into question that omnipotence depends on what quality is referenced and what mind(s) are observing that quality, because we each have unique mental/emotional associations (or their absence) with every quality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 02:45 PM
RE: The Ineffable
Hey, Fat.

I am, among other things, a social scientist. The social sciences would be impossible without qualitative research.

There are some areas of inquiry that simply cannot be quantified. In these cases, we look into the matter by studying qualitative data. The production of questions to amass qualitative data, the amassing of that data and the interpretation of it is as much an art as it is a science.

My question is basically that you spoke about how everything can be quantified, but the reality is that thousands of studies occur every year that can make no use whatsoever of quantitative research. So the "omnipotence" that I'm questioning has to do with the all powerful ability to quantify everything. See what I mean?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 03:28 PM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2013 03:34 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: The Ineffable
(17-03-2013 02:45 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Fat.

I am, among other things, a social scientist. The social sciences would be impossible without qualitative research.

There are some areas of inquiry that simply cannot be quantified. In these cases, we look into the matter by studying qualitative data. The production of questions to amass qualitative data, the amassing of that data and the interpretation of it is as much an art as it is a science.

My question is basically that you spoke about how everything can be quantified, but the reality is that thousands of studies occur every year that can make no use whatsoever of quantitative research. So the "omnipotence" that I'm questioning has to do with the all powerful ability to quantify everything. See what I mean?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Positivist social scientists use methods resembling those of the natural sciences as tools for understanding society, and so define science in its stricter modern sense.

Interpretivist social scientists, by contrast, may use social critique or symbolic interpretation rather than constructing empirically falsifiable theories, and thus treat science in its broader sense. In modern academic practice, researchers are often eclectic, using multiple methodologies (for instance, by combining the quantitative and qualitative techniques).

Interpretive sociology is the view in social science that the social realm may not be subject to the same methods of investigation as the natural world; that academics must reject empiricism and the scientific method in the conduct of social research. Antipositivists hold that researchers should focus on understanding the interpretations that social actions have for the people being studied.

Well then this explains quite a bit.

On the history of qualitative research

In the early 1900s, some researchers rejected positivism, the theoretical idea that there is an objective world about which we can gather data and "verify" this data through empiricism. These researchers embraced a qualitative research paradigm, attempting to make qualitative research as "rigorous" as quantitative research and creating myriad methods for qualitative research. In the 1970s and 1980s, the increasing ubiquity of computers aided in qualitative analyses, several journals with a qualitative focus emerged, and postpositivism gained recognition in the academy. In the late 1980s, questions of identity emerged, including issues of race, class, and gender, leading to research and writing becoming more reflexive. Throughout the 1990s, the concept of a passive observer/researcher was rejected, and qualitative research became more participatory and activist-oriented. Also, during this time, researchers began to use mixed-method approaches, indicating a shift in thinking of qualitative and quantitative methods as intrinsically incompatible. However, this history is not apolitical, as this has ushered in a politics of "evidence" and what can count as "scientific" research in scholarship, a current, ongoing debate in the academy.

You could always try the Quantitative research method and compare the results with your qualitative research.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 03:42 PM
RE: The Ineffable
Fst.

If you're going to quote something, properly cite and reference it. Whatever that was was so out of context that it becomes meaningless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 03:52 PM
RE: The Ineffable
(17-03-2013 03:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Fst.

If you're going to quote something, properly cite and reference it. Whatever that was was so out of context that it becomes meaningless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipositivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_methods

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 04:16 PM
RE: The Ineffable
(17-03-2013 12:08 AM)Julius Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 11:47 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Julius.

Asshole.

I am not a Theist.

Take your ranting somewhere else.

The men are having a conversation.
I don't believe you.

If you are...an Atheist, then why not refer to God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost as Cock-sucking Bullshit...or something like that.

Let's see you do it. Then I'll leave you alone.

Julius
Atheists and agnostics have no need to profane what is meaningful to others.
Thinking people can remain polite and discuss issues in varying degrees of depth.
To follow your example forums such as this would have little to do, would they?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 06:25 PM
RE: The Ineffable
Just as an aside, but kinda related, here's a little in-joke from my field of expertise... Services.

What is 50 centimetres of security?


To explain, for those interested...

When designing services, having ascertained Demand, it is important to get the design right to ensure value is created for your customers.

'Design' focuses on a service being:
a) Fit for purpose (it has the right Utility (functionality))
b) Fit for use (it has the right Warranty (service levels))

The 4 main service levels to be designed into the service are:
1) Availability
2) Capacity
3) Security
4) Continuity.

During the design stage, appropriate metrics need to be considered that will be used later when the service is live, by the Operations team, to determine whether critical success factors are being met.

So the negotiation goes...
Dear customer, how much Availability would you like / are willing to pay for?
Answer e.g. 99.999999999 (11 x 9s is what is aimed for in Cloud Computing and equates to a fraction of a second downtime per year)
This is a quantifiable, and therefore objective, metric.

The Availability metric determines that, for example, in Singapore no-one waits longer than 5 minutes for a train.


How much Capacity would you like / are willing to pay for?

This is a quantifiable metric and can be determined from the Availability target and therefore we can work out how many trains are required and how big are the carriages.


Dear customer, how much Security would you like / are willing to pay for?

Can I please have 50 centimetres of Security?

Huh?!?

The feeling of personal safety is qualitative.

It still can be measured (and therefore, known) but only via subjective means e.g. a customer satisfaction survey.


The tendency is to go for maximum security "to be on the safe side" but this can stifle freedom and innovation.

Case in point... RIM (Blackberry) coming up against the Saudi government for being too secure and therefore losing a rich market.

The Saudis argued that they wanted to be able to access their citizens data and monitor their activities for anti-terrorist reasons.

Yeah, right!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
17-03-2013, 09:10 PM
RE: The Ineffable
(17-03-2013 02:45 PM)Ghost Wrote:  My question is basically that you spoke about how everything can be quantified, but the reality is that thousands of studies occur every year that can make no use whatsoever of quantitative research. So the "omnipotence" that I'm questioning has to do with the all powerful ability to quantify everything. See what I mean?

Okay, that was the first possibility I considered you were getting at by mentioning the "omnipotence". The reason I asked my question, though, was that I thought my first comment clearly conveyed an accounting for our current inability to quantify many, many things.

Since you were mentioning the "quantifiable" in relation to considerations of what we are "meant to know", I interpreted "quantifiable" simply as meaning something that one can quantify if one has the ability to quantify it. So I made my statements only intending to convey that our current inability to quantify any given thing does not render that thing universally unquantifiable.

I see now I may have been speaking to a nonexistent issue. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: