Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Communication can never be descriptive. I am altering your mind to experience what I want you to experience.
I mean sure, in a colloquial sense I am describing that the coffee cup on my desk is red. That is to say it's
this color.
And in the sense that they get a description. They may use this in a number of ways. Some perhaps fit my purposes. Some not.
So, my prescription, which may be down to 'think of it like this' may lead to a range of actions. They get a potential resource - one that may or may not work and to various degrees in different contexts - whatever my intentions.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:32 am
Everything about human interaction is prescriptive!
Only?
[/quote]
For the purposes of "describing reality correctly" (devoid of any context) it's a fool's errand. There can be sufficient descriptions for particular purposes given some pragmatic context, but there doesn't seem to be context-free descriptions.
I can go along with that, with the proviso that descriptions can be used in ways beyond the scope of my intentions.
If I simply tell someone to do something, they either do it or not - perhaps to some degree, and with varying degrees of sloppiness and via their interpretations.
But the descriptive element may rest in them and be used later in a variety of ways.
Sometimes this will lead to problems because the description doesn't work outside the context where it did work. But some descriptions give a wider range of applications. And some describers get good or bad reputations due to, yes, the appropriateness of their description/prescription to context, but also in some cases because their (intended to be to some degree general) descriptions can be used in a variety of contexts. Sort of like some models/theories in science lead to better hypotheses used in research. Some don't.
The more generic and context-free a description the less useful and pragmatically irrelevant it is.
"The universe exists". OK true. And then?
That's at the extreme end of generality. Might it not be the case that stuff more in the middle of spectrum can offer a wide range of applications. If we are in a cave and I hear a bear grumble and move towards me and my sun in the dark and I know he has no idea what a bear is, me shouting 'run' fiercely is a good prescriptive option. However sitting with him at the homestead, describing this as a large omnivorous and dangerous animal with the following habits I know and reaction they have coming near their cubs and some generalities about their goals, habits and concerns could allow my son to deal with some future situations that are specific but I don't know those specifics. I'm not, as you say, going down to the quantum level, but he doesn't need that.
Of course my description above is not context free. I am generally giving him a how to survive bear encounters information.
But it's more context free than some descriptions. I'm trying to load him up with something to work with in general. Perhaps as an expert I know how bears tend to differentiate between very specific environments (this kind of grove, swampland, banks of rivers) and very specific information about body language or whatever.
But I try to give him a core base description that increases safety now.
But even here it's a pretty focused encounter. I know something generally I want to get in my kid's mind.
But humans are also exploring with less clear goals and contexts. Building up stores of info and models. This can be useful but the encounter may be elicited by someone wanting to building up a range of knowledge, a lot of descriptions. Which will then be field tested by life and encounters with books, researchers, people, building sites, microscope use, whatever.
Just as your knowledge of programming is finding a wider range of applications than you might have intended. And, yes, you pass this on in specific contexts, but they may now be used by use in the future in ways unintended and not connected.
The expert or interviewee may not be the one determining the context. And the context may be a kind of general knowledge (in some area). Often we don't just hang each description or prescription or combination to a well thought out context. This can be problematic, but it also can be, I think, useful.
For the purposes of keeping your carpet dry that seems like a sufficient description of what's going on.
OK, yes, a description.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:32 am
Aren't our efforts with ourselves and others also to get at description?
For its own sake? I hope not!
I generally agree, though I am just plain curious. Now my curiosity may be an effective trait. I end up gathering stuff, enough of which is useful (taken in the broadest sense) to offset the energy put in to finding out stuff that never is. So, what may see like for it's own sake (curiosity) may be useful. Or it may be useful to follow one'se curiosity even if one has not the slightest idea why it may be useful and without that motivation (as far as we can tell involved).
Also learning about one thing, I dunno tanning hides, may never lead to my tanning hides, but the particular process of learning about it might teach me something about learning. Or it might be a useful analogy for something. Or I might realize years later that while I never developed the slightest interest in tanning hides, I learned something from the way this guy described the process - what he focused on and why, or his passion and what this lead to, or how he dealt with problems. And while none of these thing directly translated into my novel writing process, they modeled something else about art/craft or whatever that was helpful.
I'm going on and on a bit and I realize that you may find none of this has any disagreement with what your saying. In a way I am checking to see that or if it does go against or seem to things you've said.
It is truly prescriptive. You've left out a lot of detail. And you've brought a lot of detail into focus (rain, thunder, windows). Your goal (keeping your carpets dry) is what made you bring all that stuff into focus while leaving out the details about the color of the sky, and the smell of the ozone in the air; and the size of the raindrops; and the volume of water pouring down.
I would say in this specific situation, where I had a fairly specific goal - find out the source of the noise and make sure it's not something problematic for my carpets or a break in, then my description is tailor suited to those possibilities I am trying to rule out.
But, in other parts of life, without a specific stimulus that I want to understand more about immediately, I may be building up pools of information and models, I guess with a built in heuristic/urge (curiosity) that this will be helpful or merely enjoyable.
You can find stuff out for yourself as much as you want. At what level of detail/fidelity would you describe it? How much depth or breath would you deem sufficient? At what level of abstraction would you analyse that which you are finding out? All the way down to quantum? All the way up to cosmology? How would you contextualise your findings?
Curiosity guides this. Then often contexts and problems arise in the process and I am curious about these or do realize an application. But I have a fairly opened ended approach when seeking descriptions...sometimes. Other times I am looking for something more specific and I likely know in advance the level of detail I want.
If you don't know any of these things - you have no relevance filter. Which knowledge is relevant and which is irrelevant? You'd just be acquiring general knowledge. Know-that. Not know-how.
Well, some
know that is know how. Or can help with
know how. I'm not interested in a bunch of disassociate facts, generally. I don't do well at Trivial Pursuit compared to those who are interested in those things. My mind ignores names a lot. I do not know the name of the street I see out my front windows. I know the one that t-squares it, which is my address street. Some street names seep in, like if they are important bus stops. But I am hilariously terrible at understanding directions by street names. They have to give me visual directions, what I will see. And I know my city of residence better than most people as far as getting lost or navigating between places.
If I know 'a bunch of facts' that I think I generally have a lot of interconnecting information. I did terribly on history tests in school that focused on the names of Kings, but well on essays focusing on topics, trends, related events (though not the dates).
Pardon. I'm exploring this about, which is thinking out loud, which may be rude. I'm just trying to see what I think and do here.
I guess the main point I want to raise is that I think general somewhat contextless descriptions and seeking them out is both natural and useful. And even if I do not have a conscious context for the knowledge, this is not a reason to rule it out. I guess another way to put this is learning models and approaches without clear goals may provide use later, directly or in ways that are unlikely to be predicted (my meeting the great tanner example). So, I think there is value for heading out with descriptions even if the context, goal and prescriptions related to that are not yet known.
But maybe there is a way I need to challenge my approach to learning things. And there have been shifts as I age.
Ok.