I find much to reply to in Steve's msg below.
In the thread to date, Steve and Winfried are talking about negation
(causes suppression?) in the context of discourse/debate/dialogue.
The exchange creates a clear distinction for me:
- replies which just negate (e.g., "No, that's wrong" or "I don't
believe it" or "Your problem is...".) This to me is "negation."
- replies which offer an improvement or an alternative (e.g., "That's
pretty good, but doesn't explain XX; if we add a refinement ____, then we
can explain XX." or "No, I don't agree, but I think ______ explains what
you are dealing with." This is different; it's not agreement, but it
advances the discourse.
I think negation has the effect of suppression and that this is not
helpful to progress.
Now, if you disagree with something I say, even if you can't explain why,
I'd rather know this than have you remain silent. This might be a helpful
use of negation.
But, I think repeated negation will suppress. And, wherever possible,
putting forward an alternative is more effective than pure negation.
I moderating the LO list, I generally do not distribute msgs which simply
say, "I agree." I am inclined to watch for pure negation vs. improvement
and alternative, and to favor the latter. I generally do not distribute
repeated negations that offer neither improvement nor alternative.
Steve writes:
>At this point I'd like to put "pressure" on your notion that "negation is
>suppression," and ask you to consider that this position is at most a half
>truth.
...snip...
>The Copernican thesis of a heliocentric universe is a negation of the
>Ptolemaic view of the universe as anthropocentric, is it not? Is the
>Copernican thesis suppression therefore?
>
>And the Newtonian negation? Suppression?
>
>And Einstein's negation of the Cartesian/Newtonian world view?
>Suppression?
In my distinction above, Einstein's theory was clearly not a negation of
the Newtonian view, but an extension and improvement of Newton's theories
of motion of the planets.
Remember, that Einstein's "corrections" to Newtonian theory are so small
they are extremely difficult to discern, even today. We go to the moon and
to Mars with Newtonian theory! (The Relativity correction is v/c squared;
for a spacecraft leaving the Earth this is one part in ten to the
fifteenth power.)
>Sometimes, as in these examples, we are as you suggesting offering another
>useful view as a counter to one partial view.
>
>Sometimes, however, a negation cleases the world of an error: the world
>can't be both flat and round.
Cleanse the world of error? Perhaps a good theory could do this, but the
error would have to be pretty bad... Most out-of-date theories worked for
a period, they worked within a limited domain.
Flat earth actually works. You use flat earth navigation with a map for
driving and it works just fine. On the other hand, if you're flying more
than a few hundred miles, a great circle route (round earth model) is a
significant advantage.
Is light a particle or a wave? It demonstrates the characteristics of
both. In neither case does the alternative "cleanse the world of an
error."
Hmm... If I push myself, I can come up with some "cleansing" examples:
e.g., Smoking causes cancer cleanses us from the old theory, smoking is
good for you and fun. But, this cleansing occured in science and
eventually in legislation, not in discourse.
...snip...
>... the term "pressure" as I use it is indeed a metaphor, and I
>quickly admit as much when you "press" me.
>
>Do you admit similarly that "entropy production" is not real, but is a
>metaphor?
As I mention in another message today, I'm quite sure that entropy and
entropy production are human constructs created to explain the world.
There has been convergence around these concepts. They are reliable and
effective for physical phenomena. At de Lange is proposing their
applicability in other domains. I think it's at least a stimulating
notion, even if there has not yet been enough convergence to call these
"accepted scientific theories" in these new domains.
-=- Rick
--Richard Karash ("Rick") | <http://world.std.com/~rkarash> Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer | mailto:Richard@Karash.com "Towards learning organizations" | Host for Learning-Org Discussion (617)227-0106, fax (617)523-3839 | <http://www.learning-org.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>