Some other reasons why mathematics was crippled on Safehold?

I doubt that they can cripple formal logic as a lot of it is derived from verbal debating and rhetoric which are clearly skills taught by the church to their priests and lawyers.

I am fairly sure that Langhorn would have considered the crippling effect of roman numerals sufficient to stifle development. The thought of trying to do probability with roman numerals scares the crap out of me.

Silverwall wrote:I doubt that they can cripple formal logic as a lot of it is derived from verbal debating and rhetoric which are clearly skills taught by the church to their priests and lawyers.

I am fairly sure that Langhorn would have considered the crippling effect of roman numerals sufficient to stifle development. The thought of trying to do probability with roman numerals scares the crap out of me.

Well, there's logic and there's logic. The traditional A > B > C reasoning is kind of hard to cripple because it is as you say derived from verbal debating.

But when you start to have multiple statements that affect each other A > B > C doesn't cut it anymore. Suddenly you are in the area of algebra to be able to deduct the outcome of the statements or if complex statements are true or not.

You could of course draw a map of the statements relationship to deduct the end result and suddenly you have discovered the basics of Veitch maps and its later successor Karnaugh maps. And then you have the basics for boolean algebra.

So why haven't we seen anything of this on Safehold? Because there was no reason for people to stray outside the knowledge the angels parceled out in their books. Any innovation is suspect and there hasn't existed any kind of institution on Safehold where you could researched knowledge.

Randomiser wrote:

DMcCunney wrote:
<snip>.

The Brethren of St. Zhernau's effect on this was quite indirect. After all, they were an obscure, small monastery tucked away in a seedy part of Tellesburg, most folks in Charis weren't even aware they existed, and their principal influence was on members of the clergy. Having local clergy who didn't say "You can't do that!" was an aid, but not really a cause.

Dennis I'm not sure the Royal College was quite as timid as you suggest even pre-Merlin; more circumspect certainly.

I never suggested they were timid, just very circumspect, because they knew how their efforts would be viewed by both the Inquisition and the more conservative of their countrymen.

My point was simply that their main function was to be a library and repository of already known information. That alone provided significant advantages to Charis.

And the mode of thought that went with it did so as well. Recall in OAR where a couple of Hector's spies in Charis are discussing what Charis might be up to that Hector should know, and one comments that even Hector doesn't properly understand just how good the Charisian navy is. Part of that superiority stems from thinking systematically about what they are doing and why they are doing it, with developed standard doctrine for situations they've encountered and a willingness to develop new doctrine as needed. A lot of what Charisian naval officers are expected to know and do is stuff that can be taught in a classroom, and part of an officer's education is likely that sort. My impression of other navies is that it's "learn by doing at sea from someone who's done it before", which is absolutely required but not necessarily sufficient, and the general art of war on land and see is "How we've always done it."

The Brethern's main effect on the Royal College was that Harahld and most probably his father were aware of the Journals and their contents which almost certainly encouraged their support and funding for the Royal College.

But the support and funding had to be circumspect. It was the Royal college, originally started by the King of Charis, but it stayed rather carefully at arm's length from the King because of the suspicion with which it was viewed.
_______
Dennis

OrlandoNative wrote:

Annachie wrote:And really, once the arcangels hand over an abacas and a 13 knott rope, that's most of your basic engineering right there.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

The arcangels didn't hand over an abacas. Remember, that was an introduction of Merlin's.

Can't say about the origin of any knotted ropes, however.

Was it? Damn I thought it was something they already had

OrlandoNative wrote:

Annachie wrote:And really, once the arcangels hand over an abacas and a 13 knott rope, that's most of your basic engineering right there.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

The arcangels didn't hand over an abacas. Remember, that was an introduction of Merlin's.

Can't say about the origin of any knotted ropes, however.

Was it? Damn I thought it was something they already had.
Having Roman numerals, a roman abacas seems natural.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Joat42 wrote:But when you start to have multiple statements that affect each other A > B > C doesn't cut it anymore. Suddenly you are in the area of algebra to be able to deduct the outcome of the statements or if complex statements are true or not.

Is this not the difference between logic and formal logic? Consider the difference between the concept, "The map is not the territory." and Goedel's formal incompleteness proof. Formal logic allows testing of axioms by seeing whether the implications match reality although the axiom cannot be tested directly.

My thought on this is that since any language is in some way a mapping of (hopefully) reality, the incompleteness proof must also apply to statements. Fantasy statements don't connect to reality (although they may echo parts of it) and so are certainly incomplete. The concept mentioned applies to statements which connect to reality. In principle testing key parts can show the statement is either true or false, but we should always remember that something we haven't thought of may be the reality. In practice, it is possible to falsify statements, but not to prove any is true. Goedel's proof, IIUC, applies to the completeness of any system whether it is fact or fantasy.

The question is whether crippling mathematics, which is only one group of branches in formal logic would be thought enough, or whether a more general crippling would be used. BTW, if the choice was for a more general crippling, how could it be done

DMcCunney wrote:And the mode of thought that went with it did so as well. Recall in OAR where a couple of Hector's spies in Charis are discussing what Charis might be up to that Hector should know, and one comments that even Hector doesn't properly understand just how good the Charisian navy is. Part of that superiority stems from thinking systematically about what they are doing and why they are doing it, with developed standard doctrine for situations they've encountered and a willingness to develop new doctrine as needed. A lot of what Charisian naval officers are expected to know and do is stuff that can be taught in a classroom, and part of an officer's education is likely that sort. My impression of other navies is that it's "learn by doing at sea from someone who's done it before", which is absolutely required but not necessarily sufficient, and the general art of war on land and see is "How we've always done it."

From the original reference:

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.c ... 7i3Yq7TNFQ

Long time readers of Political Calculations know that we actually enjoy acknowledging when we've been wrong or have made errors in our analysis, because we learn more as part of the process of getting to the truth, which is where we really want to get in doing what we do. That's why we take time to describe how to replicate the mistakes we've made and also why we even thank those who identify our errors for the improved insights that result from correcting the mistakes!

IMO, the bolded part is the key difference between science and pseudoscience in any discipline. There is much pseudoscience today - FWIR, some tests of whether experiments or observations that are the basis of published peer reviewed papers can be replicated have shown negative results in the papers tested ranging from 25% to 50%.


More effort in experimental and observational testing of ideas and less in how flashy the idea is just might be a good plan

DDHv wrote:

Joat42 wrote:But when you start to have multiple statements that affect each other A > B > C doesn't cut it anymore. Suddenly you are in the area of algebra to be able to deduct the outcome of the statements or if complex statements are true or not.

Is this not the difference between logic and formal logic? Consider the difference between the concept, "The map is not the territory." and Goedel's formal incompleteness proof. Formal logic allows testing of axioms by seeing whether the implications match reality although the axiom cannot be tested directly.

My thought on this is that since any language is in some way a mapping of (hopefully) reality, the incompleteness proof must also apply to statements. Fantasy statements don't connect to reality (although they may echo parts of it) and so are certainly incomplete. The concept mentioned applies to statements which connect to reality. In principle testing key parts can show the statement is either true or false, but we should always remember that something we haven't thought of may be the reality. In practice, it is possible to falsify statements, but not to prove any is true. Goedel's proof, IIUC, applies to the completeness of any system whether it is fact or fantasy.

The question is whether crippling mathematics, which is only one group of branches in formal logic would be thought enough, or whether a more general crippling would be used. BTW, if the choice was for a more general crippling, how could it be done

It has already been done. Consider the setup, the archangels provided all the knowledge necessary for man to go forth a multiply in gods glory. There was no need for institutions expanding knowledge, innovation is mostly incidental and requires the test. In that kind of intellectual climate there is no real higher education from where you have a foundation to question the world. And the basis for logic is the questioning of how things work and fit together, and my guess is that the people asking 'why?' often enough gets into trouble; ie. the setup is self correcting.

..snip..

Joat42 wrote:It has already been done. Consider the setup, the archangels provided all the knowledge necessary for man to go forth a multiply in gods glory. There was no need for institutions expanding knowledge, innovation is mostly incidental and requires the test. In that kind of intellectual climate there is no real higher education from where you have a foundation to question the world. And the basis for logic is the questioning of how things work and fit together, and my guess is that the people asking 'why?' often enough gets into trouble; ie. the setup is self correcting.

Or it would be if the people at the top actually corrected themselves in all aspects instead of the ones that prevented them from lining their pocket books. Merlin's job would have been a lot harder if the Church was run honestly at all levels and no one was ever given reason to reject Church authority.

evilauthor wrote:

Joat42 wrote:It has already been done. Consider the setup, the archangels provided all the knowledge necessary for man to go forth a multiply in gods glory. There was no need for institutions expanding knowledge, innovation is mostly incidental and requires the test. In that kind of intellectual climate there is no real higher education from where you have a foundation to question the world. And the basis for logic is the questioning of how things work and fit together, and my guess is that the people asking 'why?' often enough gets into trouble; ie. the setup is self correcting.

Or it would be if the people at the top actually corrected themselves in all aspects instead of the ones that prevented them from lining their pocket books. Merlin's job would have been a lot harder if the Church was run honestly at all levels and no one was ever given reason to reject Church authority.

Oh, absolutely - to a degree. But the innovations (gunpowder for example) made possible because of the graft and greed doesn't equal the progress needed for changing the society so people can ask difficult questions about the world.