[originally posted to Social Synergy Weblog]
Fellow Cooperation Commons blogger Michel Bauwens has initiated a blog-debate (a “grid blog”?) about Marc Fawza’s “The Unwisdom of Crowds” ideas.
Michel’s response is in his blog posting. My own response is here: Why Digg Is A Poor Example of “The Wisdom of Crowds”.
I am glad that Marc took the time to create his arguments, because they give a point to contrast and compare the differences between different peer production systems, and what emerges from them.
[originally posted to Social Synergy Weblog]
Fellow Cooperation Commons blogger Michel Bauwens has initiated a blog-debate (a “grid blog”?) about Marc Fawza’s “The Unwisdom of Crowds” ideas.
Michel’s response is in his blog posting. My own response is here: Why Digg Is A Poor Example of “The Wisdom of Crowds”.
I am glad that Marc took the time [...]
Comments
@ 11:58
Besides the level-of-meaning issue I have with the line-by-line mapping between my argument and Sam’s argument (which by the way I do agree with on his level of meaning, not the level of meaning I use to convey these types of ideas to the ‘crowd at large’), I have the following to highlight. I am sure most would disagree with it as the very core mission of smart mobs seems to be (at least to me, but I have not had much learning about it yet) about creating better governance structures.
The belief I’d like to highlight is very simple:
The core governance process that we use in society today is the result of thousands or tens of thousands of years of trying different ideas.
I believe that the core governance process is immune to innovation over the short range, and that applies to any time period.
I believe that we can build on top of the core process (the core process being the one the Greek invented and the one we use now, which at a high level hasn’t changed much since it was invented)
Building on top of the existing core governance process is where I see potential innovation.
My belief is that, based on history, the core governance process that works well today is immune to innovation over the short range. Change at the core of such fudamental process happens incrementlly over thousands of years.
I believe that we may be trying to do things much faster than is possible based on similar attempts throughout history.
There are inconsistencies in any argument in any system of logic because logic cannot be absolutely consistent, never mind trying to test the consistency of an argument made in one system of logic with another argument made in a different system of logic
which is what I see as having happened in the case of Sam’s argument vs mine.
Marc
@ 14:54
To clarify, I did not mean you that Sam’s original set of counter arguments were not ‘related’ to the subject we were discussing. Not at all. How could I!
I meant that I did not see them as being derived from the same axioms and rules of inference that I use.
That is to say, your assumptions and inference process differ than mine enough to produce two different deductive systems, which is the abstract way in which I see it if we were discussing formal theory.
Well, that settles that bit
The key thing for me to convey is this:
I don’t believe in right and wrong as absolutes.
It follows that I believe that there is no absolute truth. This follows from formal theorems in metamathematics as well as from the history of science.
I believe that the only truth is the act of thinking itself, which is similar to the saying that “The plan is nothing. Planning is everything.”
I believe the only ‘truth’ is what we’re doing right now: thinking and debating.
Having said that, I believe in beliefs. Meaning, I believe in making basic assumptions.
My basic assumption is that the process of governing human societies in cyberspace will ultimately go back to the classical model of today in 10, 20 or
50 years.
That does not mean we shouldn’t experiment with alternatives.
Again, the act of planning, thinking and experimenting is the only truth there is.
So let’s think, plan and experiment and let’s do that differently (on purpose) because the particular thoughts, plans and experiments are nothing. The act of thinking, planning and experimenting is everything.
Marc
@ 03:44
Here is my final statements on the subject, taking into consideration your and Sam’s arguments.
-
What is Truth?
I believe that the conscious act of planning, thinking and experimenting is the only truth there is, and that the particular thoughts, plans, processes and results that we generate in the process are transient artifacts.
What is Belief?
I believe in beliefs, i.e., I believe in making basic assumptions.
Future of Governance
My basic assumption is that the process of governing human societies in cyberspace will ultimately go back to the classical model we have today in the Western world. It may take 10, 20 or 50 years of experimenting with but I believe we will come full circle to what we have today.
I believe that the core governance process that is our democratic process (which is in essence the same basic idea as that invented by the Greeks, with several important innovations built on top of it) is immune to innovation in the short range. This belief applies to our core governance process now or at any time, i.e. it will always be immune to innovation in the short range. Change in such a process that is fundamental to our existence and progress tend to happen every so many thousand years, not at once in a broad manner.
I don’t believe that we will succeed in changing the core process that is the current process we have today. believe that we can innovate on top of it.
That does not mean we shouldn’t experiment with ideas.
So let’s think, plan and experiment and let’s do that differently (on purpose) because the particular thoughts, plans and experiments are nothing. The act of thinking, planning and experimenting is everything.
Anyway, there is definitely a level-of-meaning issue in these debates, including with Michel. What is conflated at one detailed academic level is not on a much higher experiential level, although if I was to argue at the same level I would still be sticking to the above statements.
Thank you Sam and Michel for debating these ideas.
The truth is in the debate itself, not in any particular result.
Marc
-
Marc
@ 04:49
One last set of statements to clarify the context for my argument:
Truth
I believe that the conscious act of planning, thinking and experimenting is the only truth there is, and that the particular thoughts, plans, processes and results that we generate in the process are transient artifacts.
Belief
I believe in beliefs, i.e., I believe in making basic assumptions.
Consistency
I believe that the human mind in trying to prove that it is consistent and complete, from within itself, it is proving exactly the opposite, i.e. that it is inconsistent.
Arguments
Based on my belief about the inconsistency of the human mind, I find myself going full circle back to my definition of truth, which is as intended in this progression of thought, i.e. the act of argument and not the particular results is the only truth.
-
I look forward to seeing the result of your work implemented
And thank you again for the debate.
Marc