{Biblical Circles (3) [continued (3)]}[13th September 1989]

[Redbook6:256-257][19890913:0927h]{Biblical Circles (3) [continued (3)]}[13th September 1989]

19890913.0927

[continued]

The other* significant feature would be a surprise if I had not already been working in that direction, although it completely overturns my former speculations on the subject. It is that Prophets are found, not at s~ as I have suggested earlier,** but [at] J~G~R~ at least on a state’s cycle. (So perhaps Saints are at s~, or m~-s~?) Actually this makes a great deal of sense – this is the side of Revelation and inspirational thought;#** and it is the stage in a state’s life cycle where things are going structurally wrong, where clear-sighted people can see that things are going structurally wrong, and where no one else seems to see it or be able or willing to do anything about it. Prophets are therefore indeed the inner circle equivalent of artistic people on the outer circle: men*** quite possibly [‘]of unclean lips[’],# but called and inspired by God.

The interesting characteristic of this cycle is that there appears to be no contra-rotation in the development of Israel at all, unless one can stretch it a bit by saying that Moses ‘created’ Israel at Sinai (presumably by the legal equivalent of creative accountancy). Radial resonance appears, particularly in the second (left) side of the circle, in the Individuals in opposition to the secular, outward symptoms of that stage of the outer circle.

*[See last previous entry]

**ref Vol {IV. [[Redbook4:199-200][19871206:1235e]{Sense and Sensibility (2)}[6th December 1987],] 199 [&f],

[[Redbook4:234-235][19871216:2211b]{Prophecy and Intellection, Wisdom and Intuition}[16th December 1987],] 234,

V [[Redbook5:13-14][19880212:1155f]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (6)]}[12^th February 1988] ] 13}

**cf also T[arot]XVI at j~

***[& women, of course; this should go without saying, throughout these Journals, except where the context otherwise requires, eg in discussions of gender]

{Although the State, of course, is on the O[uter] C[ircle]; but the Prophet is pulled through into the I[nner] C[ircle] by the Spirit.

#[Isaiah 6.5]

[PostedBlogger30042020]

{Biblical Circles (3) [continued]}[13th September 1989]

[Redbook6:255-256][19890913:0927g]{Biblical Circles (3) [continued]}[13th September 1989]

19890913.0927

[continued]

Some fascinating points emerge from this analysis.* First, that the one exception** is Moses, who I had always thought of as the Lawgiver*** – but he is with implementors, down at U~, where in the early autumn of the annual calendar lawyers are statistically significant.**** As one might then expect, he is immediately followed by the Judges.

The Kings at A~ represent the temporal, not sacred, kingship of Israel; Israel’s brief period of secular triumph is here, like most people’s: after the struggle and before the retribution or decline. Samuel is seen, like Moses, as an implementor, a fixer in the period of increasing complication: if an expression of God, then God working in the outward circle, veiling the Spirit with the curse of destruction.#

*[See last previous entry]

**{(ref above, this [ms] page [– see last previous entry]}

***{cf [[Redbook6:319][19891014:2300]{Bringing out the Evil}[14th October 1989], 3rd para,] 319}

****& doctors – cf the [Biblical] laws on personal hygiene

[by birthdate; see earlier vols]

#N[um]b[ers] 31,

1 S[amuel] 15

{See [[Redbook6:206-207][19890814:1600]{Deuteronomic Circles and the Voice of Conscience}[14th August 1989],] 206}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger29042020]

{Biblical Circles (3)]}[13th September 1989]

[Redbook6:255-257][19890913:0927f]{Biblical Circles (3)]}[13th September 1989]

19890913.0927

[continued]

*

One of the interesting features of the Biblical Judaic cycle of c2000 years is that by starting with or shortly before Abraham (c1850bc[e] or earlier) and ending that cycle with Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, things are placed more or less where one would expect – with one exception:**

[The ms diagram reproduced above is too complex for text to be extracted here at present]

(I ought to have, but did not, appreciate [sic] until today that between the Israelite’s capture of Jerusalem and the division of Israel from Judah – which of course ended in the deportation and destruction of Israel – was a period of only 70 years, during the reigns of David and Solomon.)

*ref [[Redbook6:244][19890912:1140k]{Historical Circles (3) [continued (4)]}[12th September 1989],] p244

{cf [[Redbook6:115)][19890315:2020]{Biblical Circles (1)}[15th March 1989],] 115,

[[Redbook6:150-151][19890713:1847f]{Biblical Circles (2)}[13th July 1989],] 150,

[[Redbook6:159-160][19890718:1601]{Deuteronomic Circles and Fertility Rites}[18th July 1989],] 159,

[[Redbook6:206-207][19890814:1600]{Deuteronomic Circles and the Voice of Conscience}[14th August 1989],] 206}

**[See next entry]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger28042020]

{Reason in Science [continued (5)]}[13th September 1989]

[Redbook6:253-254][19890913:0927e]{Reason in Science [continued (5)]}[13th September 1989]

19890913.0927

[continued]

This last* example of scientific reasoning is more problematic, in my view still an open question, and one which goes to the foundation of the issue, which is whether intellection is superior to all other modes of thought – particularly intuition – or not. But the common theme linking the other examples is poor use of English, and as logic can only (so far as I know) be expressed by us in language, whether literary or symbolic, scientific reasoning can properly be criticise[d] for its expression in, or understanding of, [–] that is for its use of, [–] literary language, as it can for any other defect of practical method.

One advertiser seems to have tumbled to this defect, though, in the same issue:** –

‘Shamed by Your

Mistakes in English?

[“]Between you and I, Jane was

invited as well as myself

I expect you was asked too![”]’

***

*[See last previous entry]

**[New Scientist 1681[,] 890909]

***[Advertisement for the Practical English Programme, copied into the ms at p254. The quotation under the headline is in a speech bubble in a photograph of a man purportedly saying it to a possibly younger woman who is evidently not impressed.]

[PostedBlogger27042020]

{Reason in Science [continued (4)]}[13th September 1989]

[Redbook6:250-253][19890913:0927d]{Reason in Science [continued (4)]}[13th September 1989]

19890913.0927

[continued]

Finally, in the same review,* the old chestnut of staff selection by objective tests against personal interview comes up: the claim being that ‘repeated demonstrations [show] that taking such interviews into account only lowers the predictive value of more objective tests’.* Apart from the quibble that it is not the predictive value of the more objective tests, but that of the whole staff-selection process, which is lowered – I assume that by ‘more objective tests’ is meant written yes/no boxed-answer type qustions with template scoring systems (or the computerised equivalent), and having sat a few of these I am intuitively highly suspicious of them in principle as restrictive and exclusive, rather than creative and inclusive, means of communication. If a blind test could be run comparing the careers of successful applicants for the same type of job accepted under both systems (ie with and without interview) over a long period within the same company and then following the careers of leavers outside it, I should pay attention; but as such tests are so far as I know only used for management and equivalent grades of staff (whether experienced or trainee), it would have to be a very large company.

I once heard a Civil Service admin[istrative]** trainee selector defend their system, which involves objective and other peculiar forms of assessment, on the ground that those who passed tended to go on to do well in the Civil Service whereas those who failed tended not to – which sounded suspiciously like circular reasoning, in the circumstances.

*[The review photocopied into the ms at p250 – see last previous entry but one]

‘Even psychology departments often select students and staff by personal interview despite repeated demonstrations that taking such interviews into account only lowers the predictive value of more objective tests.’

[Perhaps they just wanted to meke sure they had interesting and pleasant people to work with?]

**[The higher grade of the Civil Service, only achievable by these assessment systems]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26042020]

{Reason in Science [continued (3)]}[13th September 1989]

[Redbook6:250-252][19890913:0927c]{Reason in Science [continued (3)]}[13th September 1989] 

19890913.0927

[continued]

I am not a card player, but I think in the 3rd column* the key is the word ‘responsibility’.  I find it hard to believe that the players are not aware of the elementary facts of the game, ie prior sight of cards etc; therefore presumably they mean not decision-making responsibility but determining responsibility.  This is responsibility in the sense ‘cause’ rather than ‘moral liability’, and is arguably incorrect; but the experimenters (if my analysis is correct) should have allowed for it.**

Quite independently of this a ‘bad’ player* can ruin a game of pure chance for the other players in all sorts of ways: by not knowing the rules, for example, so that the game is interrupted; by not observing them; by distracting everyone else.


*[of the review photocopied into the ms at p250 – see last previous entry]
’Willem Wagenaar studied seasoned gamblers playing in a Dutch casino. Their behaviour was wholly irrational, given that they all claimed they wanted to win. There is a simple strategy in blackjack that limits the average losses on money staked to a mere 0.4 per cent. None of the hundred or so players he investigated used this strategy; their average losses were seven times as great (2.9 per cent). One option, available only when the dealer is showing an ace, loses the player on average 7.7 per cent. Despite its disastrous consequences more than half the players used it, presumably because they were misled by its attractive-sounding name, “Insurance”. The beliefs of the players were as irrational as their actions. For example, it was commonly held that in playing blackjack a “bad” player could ruin the game, although all that actually matters is the hand of the individual player and that of the dealer.  Even more extraordinary, players thought that the player who received cards immediately before the dealer bore a heavy responsibility: he or she could either draw a bad card that would otherwise have gone to the dealer or draw a good card thus keeping it from the dealer.  There is, of course, no conceivable way in which that player could know what the next card would be and hence decide whether to draw or not.’ 
[– Review: Rational views of irrationalists, Stuart Sutherland, New Scientist, 09091989]

**[Also perhaps the gamblers wanted to win, and win big, not minimise their losses which might not have seemed particularly interesting. But the writer of this fn is not a gambler, so finds it hard to understand the motivation: a rational animal would perhaps not gamble at all, let alone against the house, so to expect rationality in doing so would seem a trifle perverse.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger25042020]

{Reason in Science [continued]}[13th September 1989]

[Redbook6:250-251][19890913:0927b]{Reason in Science [continued]}[13th September 1989]

19890913.0927

[continued]

The same problem* appears to arise in the review [photocopied into the ms] on the left.** In the first paragraph,*** the problem lies in the use of ‘cause’.

If I understand the statistics aright, in any large group of heavy smokers, compared with non[-]smokers, twice as many will die from heart disease caused by heavy smoking and ten times as many will die from lung cancer caused by heavy smoking. Therefore heavy smoking is more likely to cause – ie be “the” (or a) cause of – a lung cancer than of a heart disease, ie 10/2 times more likely in fact, on the assumption that there are no other causes at work. The fact that three times as many smokers die of self-induced coronary illness than die of lung cancer shows merely that that there are other causes at work.

To put it another way, the statistics suggest that if you persuade a [heavy] smoker to give up smoking he will reduce his chances of lung cancer death by about 10 times and his chances of heart disease death by about 2 times. As the former represents a greater improvement in chance of survival than the latter, government campaigns are not (in this respect) misconceived.

(I admit that the issues are not quite so clear to me as in the previous example).*

*[See last previous entry]

**[Review: Rational views of irrationalists, Stuart Sutherland, New Scientist, 09091989]

***’Perhaps Aristotle’s most egregious error was to define “man” as a “rational animal”.**** Consider the following information: in Great Britain more than 200,000 people die each year from heart disease, while about 40,000 die from lung cancer. Heavy smoking approximately doubles one’s chance of dying from heart disease, and increases the chance of dying of lung cancer by a factor of about 10. Most people will conclude that smoking is more likely to cause cancer than heart disease and indeed both in Britain and elsewhere government campaigns against smoking have been largely based on this assumption. But it is false. If one takes into account the greater frequency of heart disease, then for every smoker who brings lung cancer on himself or herself there will be about three who die of self-induced coronary illness.’

****{And didn’t Aristotle say: ‘ανθροπος φυσει πολιτiοκον ζωον’ – ‘Man is (by nature) a political animal’? {– Politics} (Oxford Dict[ionary] of Quotations)}

– Yes, but apparently he also said ‘Man is a rational animal’ – Aristotle, ‘Ethics’ (Penguin) – Introduction <891214/13>.

[Or did he say that Man had a rational principle in addition to the instinctual life he shares with other animals, which was taken up by scholastic philosophy as man being a rational animal?]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger24042020]

{Reason in Science]}[13th September 1989]

[Redbook6:248-254][19890913:0927]{Reason in Science]}[13th September 1989]

19890913.0927

‘THERE’S an answer to every problem.

‘Young Cyrogenes, who is completely deaf, is assisting Professor Didipotamous on an aviation project.

‘The Professor asks him to provide a time and motion study of the local airport adjoining their research establishment … aeroplanes taking off, landing etc. However, Cyrogenes finds he can only manage to do this now and again., as his laboratory tasks keep him pretty busy. But when he sees an aeroplane, he makes a note of it, and returns to his duties.

‘Didipotamous is not pleased. “This is worse than useless,” he says to his colleague Dr, Catsnup. “We already know that every single hour, day and night, exactly one plane lands, refuels and leaves in perfectly regular fashion. And yet this report states that he finds 11 times as many planes landing as taking off. This tells us nothing useful.

‘“Ah, but it does,” says Catsup.

Q. WHAT INFORMATION DO THESE FACTS CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR TIME AND MOTION PROJECT?

Puzzle devised by Maslanka’*

I suppose it’s a bit cheeky of me, after the sort of speculation and fuzzy-logic of the previous pages, to criticise scientists for poor reasoning; but at least I recognise and acknowledge what I’m doing. As I looked at this problem I felt, not just that I was missing something, but that there was something missing: and that it probably related to the information as to what happens every hour. And it does. Working back from the answer, what must I think be intended in the second sentence of the third paragraph is that each plane takes exactly one hour to go through its landing, refuelling and take off cycle. Therefore, if Cyrogenes is 11 times more likely to see a plane landing as taking off (or, one must assume from the answer, refuelling, although the question does not state it), it follows that 11/12ths of each hourly cycle is spent landing, and => 1/12th ** taking off, ie 5 minutes.

‘You’ll find that a problem shared with I[mperial] C[hemical] I[ndustries] is a problem solved.

‘ICI

‘SOLUTIONS

A. We can calculate that each plane takes 5 minutes to refuel and take off again.

Reader Reply No. 7’*

*N[ew] S[cientist] 1681[,] 890909[,] p54-55 [photocopied into the ms]

**[refuelling &]

***The puzzle also brings out the great strength and weakness of reasoning as a method of problem-solving: that it is parameter-dependent, and therefore is unaffected by ‘common-sense’ knowledge (eg of airports) & is utterly dependent upon its prior assumptions (even# in maths).

****(I appreciate that ‘Maslanka’ is possibly an advertising agent, but ICI and its Scientists must stand or fall by their published writings.) The point is that as a matter of English ‘exactly’#* is sufficient to state that a whole plane, no more and no less, lands, refuels and takes off each hour; but insufficient to state that each plane takes the whole of#** one hour to do so. This is, I think, because a plane is discrete, not continuous.

#[especially?]

#*[as placed]

#**[ie exactly!]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger23042020]

{Historical Circles (3) [continued (9)]}[12th September 1989]

[Redbook6:248][19890912:1140o]{Historical Circles (3) [continued (9)]}[12th September 1989]

.1140

[continued]

– if,* of course, all this** has any validity or worth whatsoever!

*[See last previous entry; &ant?]

**[[Redbook6:240-241][19890912:1140g]{Historical Circles (3)}[12th September 1989]ff; &c]

{→ [[Redbook6:255-257][19890913:0927#]{Biblical Circles (3)}[13th September 1989],] 255,

[[Redbook6:257-259][19890913:0927#]{Historical Circles (4)}[13th September 1989],] 257}

[PostedBlogger22042020]