Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 10 Jan 2011, 20:54 · from 2011-January.txt.gz
This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.
From: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:54:42 -0800
Subject: (urth)
	=?iso-8859-1?q?Recent_human_crash-landing_on_Sainte-Anne?=
	=?iso-8859-1?q?=FE?=
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W2720DAA4F57E078B87D361CF0E0 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W2720DAA4F57E078B87D361CF0E0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimus+Nok8ajjh_HGZBF76Vq87=F+gFoLzc1iQWW at mail.gmail.com>

Lee Berman wrote:

>>Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: You are using too narrow a definition of "prediction" and "falsifiability."
>
> Perhaps, but remember I am not bringing up these terms myself, only responding to the
> accusations of other people using these terms.

So noted.


>>In the case of literary discussion, the "available evidence" is the text at hand, as a whole and in parts.
>
> I would add literary and other sorts of allusional links and authorial interviews
> and such but, sure that's okay with me.

I consider allusions to be "part of the text." Statements made by the
author outside of the text are of secondary importance; they can throw
light on the text, but if they contradict what is written, the author is
wrong. Oh, s/he may well be right about what s/he _intended_, but
in such a case, that means only that s/he has not successfully
communicated what s/he meant to.


>>If, in looking at Horn's experience in the pit, a reader comes up with an idea I that also explains some
>>details of his encounter with He-Pen-Sheep, then I has made a successful prediction.
>
> Sounds like James's "theory". Which I liked. Yet certain authorities
> deemed it falsified, unlikely, non-predictive or whatever. So who am
> I to believe, them or you?

The text. Compare the theory to the text. Is it consistent with the
bare facts presented? Does it enrich your reading of the text
(hermeneutically speaking)? Then consider the theory to be
(provisinally) "true," or, better, _useful_.

I don't find it useful to call a literary theory "true" except in the
most blatant case, e.g., "Moby Dick is a white whale." A theory
like "Moby Dick is a symbol of God" may be interesting and
useful, but it's hard for me to call it "true."


> Since "prediction" implies a future event,

Not so. It implies an event external to the evidence which
produced the theory. Thus, in my palaeontological example,
theory T made a prediction about fossils X, Y, and Z, _even if
X, Y, and Z were already known to the theorist_, provided that
A, B, and C were the sole evidence which led to T. This kind
of prediction is sometimes described by saying that the
theory in question has "explanatory power."


> I personally think of the concept as a "connection"- one part
> of the text or evidence linked to another. My own personal
> code is that I won't post an idea unless it has at least two
> such connections.

A good rule.

> Happily, Wolfe usually provides me with more than two.
> Yet again, the authorities

What authorities? Are you suggesting that someone here
is superior to others?

> feel that if one contradicting bit of evidence is found, the
> whole idea is falsified, disproven, etc.

If one piece of _textual_ evidence is found that is in _clear_
contradiction to a theory, then that theory, at best, cannot
be _completely_ true of the text at hand. Rather than
decrying those who point out the evidence, it is more
useful to seek a more general theory that includes the
previously-ignored bit of evidence.

> Again,
> who to believe, them or myself? Should we take a vote?

Believe the text.


> As somebody recently suggested, Gene Wolfe himself knows
> how ruined his work would be if he gave away all the "correct"
> answers. If correct answers would enhance his work, then he
> would give them. In my view, those who correct everyone else
> to allow only their own interpretations to be valid are striking
> a blow in ruining the work. Luckily this List is not all there is.

While I don't think anyone on this list, including you, is doing
so, I agree that espousing a closed-minded attitude of "my
theory is right _and therefore_ no other can be" is (at best)
counterproductive.

But saying "Theory X is wrong" does not always stem from a
desire to prove that Theory Y is right. It sometimes stems
from an awareness that Theory X is inconsistent with some
crucial piece of evidence. That, I believe, is what you are
mostly seeing on this list.

It may be that there is no golden theory T that explains all
the evidence in, say, 5HoC, to the exclusion of contrary
theories. In fact, I am inclined to believe that there is none,
either for 5HoC or the Solar cycle. Someone recently
brought up Frank R. Stockton's classic short story "The
Lady -- or the Tiger?" and I suspect that Wolfe, in at least
some of his novels, plays the same game on a higher level
-- there are multiple and contradictory theories possible,
that are each individually consistent with and explanatory
of the textual evidence, and no textual way of determining
which is correct.

But a theory which contradicts some aspect of the text
is _not_ such a theory. A theory that says that, clearly,
the Lady came out of the door is reasonable. A theory that
says the Tiger came out of the door is also reasonable.
But a theory that says the Daleks came out of the door
and exterminated the young man, the princess, and the
king, is _not_ reasonable (though it is amusing).


> Perhaps. But even here, your words suggest you
> recognize the much greater difficulty in "proof" and
> disproof when it comes to the understanding of art
> vs. understanding of the natural and real world.


Heh. Thank you for putting "proof" in quotes.

> I am rather acutely aware of how often the ideals of
> science fail on the basis of human failings. Ego,
> greed, despotism, territoriality, aggression; all
> these are factors in whether real science decides
> to accept or falsify a hypothesis.

I would suggest that, to the extent ego, greed,
despotism, territoriality, or aggression take part in the
acceptance or rejection of a hypothesis, the process
is _not_ "real science."


> How much do these factor in when the subject
> of the study is fiction and the outcome of little real
> consequence? From my experience, about the
> same. It is easy enough to stir these hidden
> agendas into full view. I'm sure you've seen them.
> You've been around here a lot longer than me.
> How could they be missed?

Ego and aggression are the only ones of this list that
might reasonably be imputed to this list: there is no money
to be made, no territory to be controlled; nobody is even
trying to gain or defend tenure. And the only one with the
_ability_ to be a "despot" is Our Beloved Moderator, who
has largely kept his hands off the debates except to toss
in a cooling-off suggestion on occasion.


> The eternal question here- who decides when a
> connection/prediction is valid and relevant and when it is not?

The text. Always come back to the text.


> Can you ever really know (other than for yourself) what is
> the best answer for a fictional question? If you know,
> please tell me. Reveal the Secret Formula. When there
> is disagreement about fiction...
> ?*HOW DO YOU KNOW WHO IS RIGHT?*

Yes, we can _sometimes_ know the best answer for a
fictional question. We can know that the model for Leopold
Bloom's adventures is the _Odyssey_, and not, say, the
_Iliad_ or _Gulliver's Travels_ - even if the text of _Ulysses_
makes allusions to both of them.

On the other hand, we can't know for certain what the
symbolism of the White Whale is.


> (interestingly, my current work project is an
> investigation of the 10 year impact of the study linking
> childhood vaccinations and autism. All the human
> failings listed above come into play; large sums of
> money, massive egos, cover-ups, fraud, panic and
> disease outbreaks are all a part of the equation)

That's interesting to me, as both friends and relatives
fall on the Asperger/autism spectrum (and I may be
ever-so-slightly Aspie myself). I've been following this
for, well, close to ten years, and ----

Aw, shoot. This is off topic, isn't it?


-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net