Five Blind Men and an Elephant

[fomenter]

and would model agnosticism be considered a form of syncretism?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Hey... Would Syncretism be considered the Law of Fives in Eristic-speak?

It could, I suppose it depends on the relation being discussed in Syncretism. For example, trying to claim that Coyote and Loki are the same because they're tricksters, seems like the law of fives being applied. Saying that Eris and Discordia, or Zeus and Apollo are the same, seems more a study of history than finding patterns, since it appears that there was a relationship between the Greek and Roman gods.

Finding relationships between Hindu, Lutheran and Buddhism though, I think would require LAWL O' 5's for sure

and would model agnosticism be considered a form of syncretism?

I don't think so. Syncretism seems like a Model which could be used by a Model Agnostic, but (based on my current understanding) it appears that Syncretism is actually an attempt to put a bunch of models together, in order to create a single model. Model Agnosticism, as I understand it, isn't looking for a GUM (Grand Unified Model).

[Cain]

You know, I'll normally let an imagebomb or two go, so long as they aren't too excessive.

However, when they start fucking up my browser, there I draw the line.  I think its a good rule, generally, since my connection is not as good as most peoples.

Davedim,
continue being a dick, and I will find something inventive to do with your email.  Capische?

[LMNO]

Hey, doesn't this all imply that Carl Jung may be a fascist?

[fomenter]

i thought model agnosticism was a type of GUM a model of how perceptual models work

[Messier Undertree]

Davedim,
continue being a dick, and I will find something inventive to do with your email.  Capische?

Heh, okay I'm done.

[Cain]

Thank you.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Hey, doesn't this all imply that Carl Jung may be a fascist?

Ah, maybe... he was from Europe, and all Europeans are fascists, right? (Except for the British)

i thought model agnosticism was a type of GUM a model of how perceptual models work

Model Agnosticism works at a meta level, I think. It makes claims about how much we can trust any given model, but it doesn't necessarily try to mush all of the models together. Syncretism seems, to me, a process of taking a couple beliefs from Belief System A and mixing it in with Belief System B, Model Agnosticism tends to be more about believing Belief System A for a bit, then dumping it and believing Belief System B for a little bit.

The practitioner might start tying various models together in a Syncretic sort of way, but that's not really the goal of Model Agnosticism, as I understand it. In fact, I'd probably argue that believing the Syncretic model any more than you believed A or B would appear contrary to what I see as  the goals of Model Agnosticism.

[Cain]

So, to tie it up, Model Agnosticism means buying into the entire model or worldview for a time, then abandoning it (ie "paradigm piracy") whereas syncretism is trying to tie together several divergent worldviews or models into a new whole.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So, to tie it up, Model Agnosticism means buying into the entire model or worldview for a time, then abandoning it (ie "paradigm piracy") whereas syncretism is trying to tie together several divergent worldviews or models into a new whole.

I think that's probably a very good summation

[fomenter]

Hey, doesn't this all imply that Carl Jung may be a fascist?

Ah, maybe... he was from Europe, and all Europeans are fascists, right? (Except for the British)

i thought model agnosticism was a type of GUM a model of how perceptual models work

Model Agnosticism works at a meta level, I think. It makes claims about how much we can trust any given model, but it doesn't necessarily try to mush all of the models together. Syncretism seems, to me, a process of taking a couple beliefs from Belief System A and mixing it in with Belief System B, Model Agnosticism tends to be more about believing Belief System A for a bit, then dumping it and believing Belief System B for a little bit.

The practitioner might start tying various models together in a Syncretic sort of way, but that's not really the goal of Model Agnosticism, as I understand it. In fact, I'd probably argue that believing the Syncretic model any more than you believed A or B would appear contrary to what I see as  the goals of Model Agnosticism.

titcm - calling model agnosticism syncretic is probably a misuse of the word, the meta model nature of model agnosticism makes it seem to be syncretic when its a model of models (but since there is no mushing )the word doesn't apply.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Hey, doesn't this all imply that Carl Jung may be a fascist?

Ah, maybe... he was from Europe, and all Europeans are fascists, right? (Except for the British)

i thought model agnosticism was a type of GUM a model of how perceptual models work

Model Agnosticism works at a meta level, I think. It makes claims about how much we can trust any given model, but it doesn't necessarily try to mush all of the models together. Syncretism seems, to me, a process of taking a couple beliefs from Belief System A and mixing it in with Belief System B, Model Agnosticism tends to be more about believing Belief System A for a bit, then dumping it and believing Belief System B for a little bit.

The practitioner might start tying various models together in a Syncretic sort of way, but that's not really the goal of Model Agnosticism, as I understand it. In fact, I'd probably argue that believing the Syncretic model any more than you believed A or B would appear contrary to what I see as  the goals of Model Agnosticism.

Did you mean to say something?

[fomenter]

edit  after mouse coordination problems

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

edit  after mouse coordination problems

is mouse coordination like cat herding?

[fomenter]

related to, if you have a discordinated mouse problem a herd of cats is a good remedy