Month: June 2013

Just a holding post for now – need time to come back and build on thoughts.

Natalie Wolchover article Is Nature Natural at Simons Foundation.

And an io9 piece reviewing it here.

Wilful prejudiced rejection of any Anthropic mentions. When will these scientists listen to themselves.

“Multiverses might not make sense,
but I’m sure we could do the math.”

Or in the words of Michael Frayn’s Copenhagen:

Bohr I said wave mechanics and matrix mechanics
were simply alternative tools.

Heisenberg Something you’re always accusing me of.
‘If it works it works.’ Never mind what it means.

Bohr Of course I mind what it means.

Heisenberg What it means in language.

Bohr In plain language, yes.

Heisenberg What something means
is what it means in mathematics.

Bohr You think that so long as the mathematics works out,
the sense doesn’t matter.

Heisenberg Mathematics is sense! That’s what sense is!

Bohr But in the end, in the end, remember,
we have to be able to explain it …

The word nature – how can the nature of our (or any other) universe not be natural. This is just word games. The fact is the standard (Copenhagen quantum interpretation) model universe is unnatural, unreasonable – not true or real – if it gives us a model that is arbitrarily nonsensical. Sense matters.

The maths is all well and good (if correct) but there still has to be a reasonable ontology of what exists (be-ables in John Bell’s terms) – see also these pieces:

Tim Maudlin : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fxRTtOQI60
Lee Smolin : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QIJtICy-vE

Hat tip to David Morey for all three links on Facebook and MD. Man, Einstein was right – when it comes to scientists

“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen.”

Hat tip to David Gurteen for reminding of the Einstein quote (again).

[Interesting that the Simons Foundation – as well as Maths, Physical & Life Sciences scopes also covers Autism. Part of the problem with scientism.]

A date for the diary : April 21-26 2014 is the
20th Anniversary conference Toward a Science of Consciousness in Tucson.

Ned Block, David Chalmers, Karl Deisseroth, Daniel Dennett, David Eagleman, Rebecca Goldstein, Stuart Hameroff, Christof Koch, Henry Markram, John Searle, Petra Stoerig, Giulio Tononi and many more.

Many of the usual Tucson suspects, Chalmers returns, plus Dennett, Searle and Goldstein. Chalmers and Hameroff are the program co-chairs. Aug 15th is the deadline for abstract submissions.

Two interesting case studies – the dangers of knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing. [Hat tip Futility Closet via BifRiv]

Everything in moderation,
including moderation itself.
What logically follows
is that you must,
from time to time,
have excess.

Courtesy of WattDickie.

Great to see the results of getting this story together.
[Post Note : later full review here.]

At one point “it was war”,
but all the time “you’re in
rock and roll heaven, man”.

Previous posts, expressing concern that the whole story wasn’t really out there, [here] and [here] are consigned to history. Great result. The moral of the story is “in Muscle Shoals they have The Swampers” where “these black guys are mighty pale“, but don’t forget “FAME is where it all started“.

[Man, I do miss Alabama.]

[BTW Keith Richards – the luckiest guy who know’s he’s so lucky that his luck still hasn’t run out. Had to watch Ladies and Gentleman and Shine a Light last night. Love the man.]

[Anyway – can’t wait to see Muscle Shoals the Movie. Interesting that producer / director Greg ‘Freddy’ Camalier talks in the cliche of the place – the town of Muscle Shoals itself – having a “vibe”. I just don’t see that. For me it was the studios themselves and the people in them at one period in time. FAME itself was not originally located in Muscle Shoals, but in Florence (home of W C Handy) – still the F in FAME – geographically over the border on the Memphis & Nashville side of the business, before crossing the mighty Tennessee River to Muscle Shoals. Good to see the Movie Web Page has links to both FAME and MSSS, though the latter is broken. I hope the MSM-Foundation gets the full history straight having bought the physical MSSS studio, since the FAME2 (active business) web-page still has only a one-liner about The Swampers leaving to set-up MSSS, despite it then running successfully for a decade and recording a large proportion of the acts trailed in the movie. As Rick said is was war at the time – I think the history needs to be clearer on who recorded what where with whom, when the world came to Muscle Shoals. The Muscle Shoals story started with FAME and Rick Hall, and FAME is the current ongoing music business that inherits the heritage, but it’s history is more than FAME. I’ll comment further after I’ve seen the film. PS – the MSSS .org address link is dead, but both the MSSS .com and .org addresses are owned through a discrete privacy service.]

Just a holding post of references, thoughts and links …

I’m researching Roger Joseph Boscovich work directly and in the work of others, following this initial post;  https://www.psybertron.org/?p=5768, also following through Ernst Mach here; https://www.psybertron.org/?p=5775 and here; https://www.psybertron.org/?p=5802

My pen picture : OK so he was a polymath, with a big focus on geometry – particularly simple Euclidian geometrical analyses and proofs of many not-necessarily geometric problems. And yes, he invented a unified-field-theory view of all space-time and (potentially) explain all matter and forces between them in “his famous curve” – a single function – eye-watering mathematically, complex to the eye, but only if you think a straight line or a conic section or an inverse square law is the epitome of simple (as he explains). No masses, no forces as such – just mass-less zero-volume point-atoms separated dynamically and relatively in space and time according to the curve of propensities / inertias to mutually repel and attract. [Remember mass was just Newton’s unexplained source of inertia in response to forces used to explain observed motions – approximately. Even now this circularity is compounded by those hoping to detect the mass (!) of a Higgs boson – as part of an attempt to explain the attribute of mass (!) in all other standard-model particles.]

Perhaps more importantly, if that wasn’t important enough, this is a metaphysical / mathematical model of explanation of how space and time work, but can never be the physical model of the world of sensible objects we experience. A mass-less, zero-volume point with no attributes other than its position relative to other such points, is not something that can be experienced (or detected by any instrument). His derivation of the curve to analyse and explain the behaviour of all “points” in space-time is applied to the work by Benedictus Stay where the real modes of existence of space and time (variations in temporal and local distance) are defined as distinct from space and time as we know and experience them. As Mach later concluded – the physical and psychical are related, but they are distinct – the experienced world – the one investigated by physicists and their expensive instruments – is psychical, not actually physical, geddit?

The reason for my interest here is two-fold:

Firstly, in the metaphysical – ontologically or epistemologically – what is the best world-view; roughly, a monism based primarily on radical experience, which therefore recognises that “physical” subjects and objects are secondary constructs derived from patterns of experience – useful but secondary reality, not least because it is the only reality available to us. Therefore the construction and acceptance of significant subjects and objects is very much evolutionary psychology, in human culture including scientific culture.

And secondly, in the blind-alley that science is headed down: (a) because in the pursuit of knowledge it would be better if science did acknowledge their dependence on metaphysical assumptions, and the wisdom in valuing the right metaphysical assumptions; (b) since Copenhagen it should acknowledge specific flaws Einstein did try to warn against, rather than simply searching for ever more new “constructs” to fill gaps and anomalies in the existing (conventional) constructs; and (c) all of which is particularly problematic given the privileged position objective scientism seems to enjoy in all branches of political and economic thinking.

Anyway …. Obtained and read so far:

Dusan Nedelkovich
Natural Philosophy and Relativity of Boscovich (1922)
Translated by Roger Anderton
(2013, Lulu edition)

Ernst Mach
The Analysis of Sensations,
and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical (1906, 5th edition)
Translated by C M Williams & Sydney Waterlow
(Open Court Chicago 1914, Forgotten Books 2102 edition)

Roger Boscovich
A Theory of Natural Philosophy (1763, Venetian edition, aka “Theoria“)
Translated by J M Child
(Open Court, Chicago 1922, Forgotten Books 2012 edition)

Some observations I picked-up from Boscovich already:

• The idea that the earth is disturbed by a fly taking flight. (Theoria 1763, Art.86, P.87)
• Space-time is really place-time – space is just about relative dynamic location of points, where points are placed locally and temporally – space is simply …. nothing, a field open to all possibility. (Theoria 1763, Art.142, P.117)
• When he’s talking about “Euclidian” geometry – what is he distinguishing it from in the 1750’s ? (Theoria 1763, Art.196, P.153)

And how about this from Nietzsche (per Whitlock):

When I reflect upon my own philosophical genealogy,

I feel kinship to the anti-teleological, ie Spinozistic, movement of our time, yet with the difference that I also consider “purpose” and “will” in us an error;

and to the mechanistic movement […], yet with the difference that I do not believe in “matter” and consider Boscovich one of the great turning points like Copernicus […].

Hence for Nietzsche (per Pearson)

The material world of matter is not contained in space and time,
the world is place and time.

Spinoza (and Newton) work 165o-1670 ish
Boscovich work 1740-1770 ish
Nietzsche work 1860-1890 ish
Priestly, Davy & Faraday all refer, Fellow of Royal Society, etc.
Know to and corresponded with Lalande, D’Alembert, Lagrange, Laplace, Jacobi, Bernoulli, Voltaire and more

Werner Heisenberg (1932):

Among scientists from the 18th century Boskovic occupies outstanding place as a theologian, philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer. His “Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis” announced hypotheses which were confirmed only in the course of last fifty years.

Also, names from Serbo-Croat & Jesuit Latin have several variations, with and without accents, which makes searching complicated. (Interestingly Google Translate makes a pretty good job with both Latin and Serbo-Croat text.)

Roger / Ruder / Ruđer / Ruger / Rudger / Rogerius / Ruđera / Ruggero / Ruggiero / Rogerio / Rudjer
Joseph / Josep / Jusep / Josip / Giuseppe / Josepho
Boscovich / Boscovic / Boscovicius / Bošković / Boskovic / Boškovića / Boscovi’c

Eventually you find his Wikipedia entry under “Ruđer Bošković” (And a very comprehensive entry it is.)

CroALa – Croation Athors in Latin – looks a good source of clean electronic texts, but their focus is mainly poetic and prose, rather than philosophic of scientific.

Lancelot Law Whyte – Has been the primary modern  source on Boscovich – ROGER JOSEPH BOSCOVICH S.J., F.R.S., (1711-1787) – Studies in His Life and Work on the 250th Anniversary of His Birth – (ed. Lancelot Law Whyte, 1961)

There is one particular set of work from 1844-1846 looking at how Boscovich work was received at Princeton, mainly lo-quality scanned copies of Serbo-Croat text with some English language references.

Ditto Ivica Martinović (2012) on how Boscovich was received between 1761 to 1773 in Zagreb / Vienna (Croatian / Austro-Hungarian) – full of good secondary references and good searchable PDF text – and including summaries of key Boscovichian ideas. [Most of what follows is taken from Martinović (2012)]

Roger Boscovich – Theoria (1763) – De Lege Virium in Natura Existentium (aka De Leg Vir) (1755) – De Viribus Vivis (1745) – De Lunae Atmosphaera (-) – De Solis ac Lunae Defectibus (1765) – Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis (1763)

Isaac Newton – Optiks (-)

Pál Makó / Paul Mako / Mako-de-Kerk-Gede – Ontologia (1761) – Physica (1762) – Compendiaria Physicae Institutio (1762),

Benedictus / Benedikt Stay – Philosophiae Recentioris (Rome, 1760)

Carolus / Karl Scherffer – Institutiones Logicae et Metaphysicae (1752) –Institutionum Physicae pars prima seu Physica Generalis (1752) – Institutionum Physicae pars secunda seu Physica Particularis (1753) – Physica Generalis (1753)

Leopold / Leopoldus Biwald – Physica Generalis (1767) – Ex Philosophia (1765) – Praefatio (1767)

Sigmund von Storchenau – Logica (1770) – Prolegomenon in Philosophiam (-) – Ontologia (1771) – Cosmologia (1771)

Giovanni Battista Scarella – Physicae Generalis Methodo Mathematica Tractatae (1754)

Moses Mendelssohn

Joannes Baptista Horváth – Physica Generalis (1770),

LaLande – Astronomia (Paris, 1764) – Close friend of Boscovich)

Christianus Wolfius –  Cosmologia Generalis (1737)

Baldini

Sommervogel –  Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus (1894),

Fridericus Christianus Baumeister – Philosophia Definitiva …. (1767)

Valentin Pozaić  – Filozofija Znanosti Ruđera Boškovića (Zagreb, 1987)

Marković – Ruđe Bošković (1968),

Ivica Martinović (2012) – Full bibliography follows:

Bibliografija
1. Vrela u kronološkom poretku
1.1. Boškovićeva djela citirana u austrijskim sveučilišnim udžbenicima
[Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus.] De natura et usu infinitorum et infinite parvorum (Romae:
Ex Typoghraphia Komarek, 1741).
[Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus.] De motu corporis attracti in centrum immobile viribus
decrescentibus in ratione distantiarum reciproca duplicata in spatiis non resistentibus
(Romae: Typis Komarek, 1743).
Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. Nova methodus adhibendi phasium observationes in eclipsibus
lunaribus (Romae: Typis Komarek, 1744).
Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. De viribus vivis (Romae: Typis Komarek, 1745).
Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. De cometis (Romae: Ex Typographia Komarek, 1746).
Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. Dissertationis de lumine pars prima (Romae: Typis Antonii
de Rubeis, 1748).
Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. De viribus vivis (Viennae: Ex Typographia Kaliwodiana,
1752).
Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. De Lunae atmosphaera (Romae: Ex Typographia Generosi
Salomoni in Foro Sancti Ignatii, 1753).
Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. »De transformatione locorum geometricorum, ubi de
continuitatis lege ac de quibusdam infiniti mysteriis.«, u: Rogerius Josephus Boscovich,
Elementorum universae matheseos tomus III. (Romae: Typis Generosi Salomoni,
1754), pp. 297�”468, nn. 673�”886.
Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. De continuitatis lege et eius consectariis pertinentibus
ad prima materiae elementa eorumque vires (Romae: Ex Typographia Generosi Salomoni,
1754).
Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. De lege virium in natura existentium (Romae: Typis
Joannis Generosi Salomoni, [1755]).
Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. »De materiae divisibilitate et principiis corporum dissertatio
conscripta jam ab anno 1748. et nunc primum edita«, Memorie sopra la fisica
e istoria naturale 4 (Lucca, 1757), pp. 129�”258, nn. 1�”95; nanaslovljeni predgovor
napisan 1757. na pp. 131�”134.
Martinović, I., Recepcija Boškovićeve filozofije …, Prilozi 76 (2012), str. 197�”264 259
Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. Philosophiae naturalis Theoria (Viennae Austriae: Ex
officina libraria Kaliwodiana, 1758).
»Appendix ad metaphysicam pertinens de anima, et Deo.«, pp. 280�”295, nn. 520�”549.
»Supplementa.«, pp. 296�”322, nn. 1�”75.
Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. Philosophiae naturalis Theoria (Viennae Austriae: Apud
Augustinum Bernardi, Universitatis bibliopolam, 1759).
»Adnotanda, et corrigenda.« uz slog prvoga izdanja, bez paginacije, prirodani na
kraju knjige.
Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. Theoria philosophiae naturalis (Venetiis: Ex Typographia
Remondiniana, 1763).
Maire, Christophorus; Boscovich, Rogerius Josephus. De litteraria expeditione per
Pontificiam ditionem ad dimetiendos duos meridiani gradus et corrigendam mappam
geographicam (Romae: In Typographio Palladis excudebant Nicolaus et Marcus
Palearini, 1755).
Stay, Benedictus. Philosophiae recentioris … versibus traditae libri X, Tomus I. cum
adnotationibus et supplementis Rogerii Josephi Boscovich (Romae: Typis, et sumptibus
Nicolai, et Marci Palearini, 1755).
»De spatio, ac tempore.«, pp. 341�”347, nn. 41�”57.
»De vi inertiae.«, pp. 363�”370, nn. 108�”132.
»De corporum collisionibus directis.«, pp. 409�”423, nn. 324�”397.
Stay, Benedictus. Philosophiae recentioris … versibus traditae libri X, Tomus II. cum
adnotationibus et supplementis Rogerii Josephi Boscovich (Romae: Typis et sumptibus
Nicolai et Marci Palearini, 1760).
»De cometarum caudis.«, pp. 491�”492, nn. 630�”634.
2. Scarellina djela citirana u austrijskim sveučilišnim udžbenicima
Scarella, Joannes Baptista. Physicae generalis methodo mathematica tractatae et in tres
tomos distributae tomus primus (Brixiae: Typis Joannis Baptistae Rossini, 1754).
»Caput tertium. Continuum extensum ex inextensis componi non potest.«, pp. 18�”40,
»§. 17 Systema P. Buskovik« na pp. 35�”40.
Scarella, Joannes Baptista. Physicae generalis methodo mathematica tractatae et in tres
tomos distributae tomus secundus (Brixiae: Typis Joannis Baptistae Rossini, 1756).
3. Austrijski sveučilišni udžbenici s boškovićevskom sastavnicom
3.1. Pál Makó
Mako, P.[aulus]. Compendiaria metaphysicae institutio quam in usum auditorum philosophiae
elucubratus est P. Mako e S. I. (Vindobonae: Typis Joannis Thomae Trattner, 1761).
[»Ontologia«], pp. 4�”110, nn. 1�”218.
[»Cosmologia«], pp. 111�”200, nn. 219�”327.
260 Martinović, I., Recepcija Boškovićeve filozofije …, Prilozi 76 (2012), str. 197�”264
Mako, P.[aulus]. Compendiaria physicae institutio quam in usum auditorum philosophiae
elucubratus
est P. Mako e S. I. Pars I. (Vindobonae: Typis Ioannis Thomae Trattner, 1762).
3.2. Karl Scherffer
Scherffer, Carolus. Institutionum physicae pars prima seu physica generalis, conscripta
in usum tironum philosophiae. Editio altera. (Vindobonae: Typis Joannis Thomae
Trattner, 1763).
3.3. Leopold Biwald
Leopoldus Biwald, »Ex philosophia.«, subtezarij u: »Assertiones ex universa philosophia
«, ff. a3r-a8v, predvez pseudoizdanju: Rogerius Jos. Boscovich, De Solis ac
Lunae defectibus (Graecii: Typis haeredum Widmanstadii, 1765).
Leopoldus Biwald, »Ex philosophia.«, subtezarij u: »Assertiones ex universa philosophia
«, ff. *4r-*6r, predvez izdanju: Rogerius Josephus Boscovich, Theoria philosophiae
naturalis (Venetiis: Ex Typographia Remondiniana, 1763).
Biwald, Leopoldus. Physica generalis (Graecii: Typis haeredum Widmanstadii, 1767).
Biwald, Leopoldus. Institutiones physicae in usum philosophiae auditorum adornatae
… nunc succinctiores redditae. Pars prior. (Viennae: Typis Joannis Thomae nob. de
Trattnern, 1779).
3.4. Sigmund von Storchenau
Storchenau, Sigismundus. Institutiones logicae (Vindobonae: Typis Ioan. Thom. Nob.
de Trattnern, 1770).
Storchenau, Sigismundus. Institutiones metaphysicarum libri IV. Editio altera ab auctore
emendata. (Vindobonae: Typis Ioann. Thom. Nob. de Trattnern, 1771).
4. Ostala vrela
Anonim. Anmerkungen über den Auszug, und die Kritik eines Berlinischen Herrn Recensenten
das Boscovichische System betreffend. Herausgegeben, als auf der Kaiserl.
Königl. vorderösterreichischen hochen Schule zu Freyburg einigen die Magisterwürde
in der Weltweisheit ertheilet wurde in Augustmonate 1772. (Freyburg:
Gedruckt bey Johann Andreas Satron, Universitätsbuchdrucker, 1772).
Anonim. Anmerkungen über den Auszug, und die Kritik eines Berlinischen Herrn Recensenten
das Boscovichische System betreffend. Herausgegeben, als auf der k. k. vorderösterreichischen
hohen Schule zu Freyburg einigen die Magisterwürde in der Weltweisheit
ertheilet wurde. (Grätz: Gedruckt bey Widmanstätterischen Erben, 1773).
Baumeister, Fridericus Christianus. Philosophia definitiva hoc est definitiones philosophicae
ex systemate Lib. Bar. a Wolf in unum collectae succinctis observationibus
exemplisque perspicuis illustratae et a nonnullis exceptionibus vindicatae. Accesserunt
praecipua philosophiae recentioris theoremata et indices locupletissimi, editio
nova aucta et emendata (Vitembergae: Sumtibus Io. Ioach. Ahlfeldii, 1767).
Martinović, I., Recepcija Boškovićeve filozofije …, Prilozi 76 (2012), str. 197�”264 261
Horváth, Joannes Baptista. Physica generalis (Tyrnaviae: Typis Collegii Academici Societatis
Jesu, 1770).
Sagner, Gasparus. Institutiones philosophicae. (Placentiae: Impensis Nicolai Orcesi Bibliopolae
ad S. Georgium, 1767).
Scherffer, Carolus. Institutionum physicae pars prima seu physica generalis, conscripta
in usum tironum philosophiae. (Vindobonae: Typis Joannis Thomae Trattner, 1753).
Scherffer, Carolus. Institutiones logicae et metaphysicae (Vindobonae: Typis Joannis
Thomae Trattner, 1763), »Exercitatio II. Cosmosophica.«, pp. 276�”311.
Wolfius, Christianus. Cosmologia generalis, methodo scientifica pertractata, qua ad
solidam, imprimis Dei atque naturae, cognitionem via sternitur, editio nova priori
emendatior (Francofurti et Lipsiae: Prostat in officina libreria Rengeriana, 1737).
5. Literatura o recepciji Boškovićeve filozofije u Austriji
5.1. Bibliografska pomagala
Baldini, Ugo. »The reception of a Theory: A provisional syllabus of Boscovich, 1746�”
1800«, u: John W. O’Malley et al. (eds), The Jesuits II: Cultures, sciences, and
the Arts, 1640�”1773 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), pp. 405�”450, u
poglavlju: »Boscovich’s Theory in works published in continental Europe (1746�”
1800): The German Empire, Prussia, and Poland«, pp. 418�”423.
Graff, Theodor. Bibliographia Widmanstadiana: Die Druckwerke der Grazer Offizin
Widmanstetter 1586�”1805 (Graz: Steiermärkische Landesbibliothek, 1993).
Harris, Steven J. »Boscovich, the ‘Boscovich circle’ and the revival of the Jesuit Science
«, u: R. J. Boscovich: vita e attività scientifica / his life and scientific work, a cura
di Piers Bursill-Hall (Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1993), pp. 527�”548,
napose dodatak »Jesuit commentaries on Boscovich’s Theoria«, pp. 546�”548.
Marković, Željko. »Popis djelā Ruđera Josipa Boškovića«, u: Željko Marković, Ruđe
Bošković, Dio drugi (Zagreb: JAZU, 1969), pp. 1091�”1113.
Martinović, Ivica. »Ispravci i dopune uz bibliografiju Ruđera Josipa Boškovića (1)«,
Prilozi za istraživanje hrvatske filozofske baštine 21 (1995), pp. 151�”219.
Proverbio, Edoardo. Catalogo delle opere a stampa di Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich
(1711�”1787) (Roma: Accademia Nazionale delle Scienze detta dei XL, 2007).
Sommervogel, Carlos. Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus 1 (1890), »BIWALD,
Léopold«, cc. 1528�”1530.
Sommervogel, Carlos. Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus 5 (1894), »MAKO DE
KERCK-GEDE, Paul«, cc. 388�”392.
Sommervogel, Carlos. Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus 7 (1896), »SCHERFFER,
Charles«, cc. 767�”772.
Sommervogel, Carlos. Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus 7 (1896), »STORCHENAU,
Sigismond«, cc. 1597�”1601.
262 Martinović, I., Recepcija Boškovićeve filozofije …, Prilozi 76 (2012), str. 197�”264
5.2. Znanstveni radovi
Dadić, Žarko. Ruđer Bošković (Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1987), o austrijskim udžbenicima
fizike na pp. 101�”106.
Dadić, Žarko. »Uloga Karla Scherffera u prihvaćanju i širenju Boškovićevih znanstvenih
rezultata«, Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti JAZU u Dubrovniku 27 (1989),
pp. 113�”122; o Scherfferovu udžbeniku Institutionum physicae pars secunda seu
physica particularis (1763) i drugom izdanju Makóova udžbenika Compendiaria
physicae institutio (1766) na pp. 116�”118.
Dadić, Žarko. Egzaktne znanosti u Hrvata u doba prosvjetiteljstva (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska,
2004), o austrijskim udžbenicima fizike u poglavlju »Nove prirodnofilozofske
koncepcije na sveučilištima u Austriji, Slovačkoj i Mađarskoj u razdoblju od
1757. do 1766. i utjecaj Boškovićeve teorije i ideja«, pp. 220�”233, na pp. 224�”227
i 233.
Marković, Željko. Ruđe Bošković, Dio prvi (Zagreb: JAZU, 1968), o Boškovićevoj recepciji
u Austriji na pp. 458�”459.
Martinović, Ivica. 2008. »Boškovićevci na hrvatskim filozofskim učilištima od 1770. do
1834.«, Prilozi za istraživanje hrvatske filozofske baštine 34 (2008), pp. 121�”216;
usporedba
Pilippenova tezarija iz 1770. s Biwaldovim iz 1769. na pp. 127�”128; o
utjecaju Makóa na Volkovićev tezarij 1771. izravno ili preko Horvatha na p. 129; o
utjecaju Makóa na Mihaljev tezarij 1772. izravno ili preko Horvatha na pp. 133�”134.
Mendelssohn, Moses. Rezensionsartikel in Briefe, die neueste Litteratur bettrefend
(1759�”1765), bearbeitet von Eva J. Engel, Gesammelte Schriften / Jubiläumsausgabe,
Band 5, 1 (Stuttgart �” Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1991), Mendelssohnova
recenzija Boškovićeve Teorije objavljena 1759. u osam nastavaka na pp.
57�”88.
Paušek-Baždar, Snježana. »Kemijski aspekti Boškovićeve Teorije«, Rasprave i građa
za povijest znanosti 4 (1983), pp. 7�”72, o udžbenicima Makóa i Biwalda kao izvorima
Boškovićeva utjecaja u Zagrebu u poglavlju »Odjek Boškovićeve Teorije u
našim krajevima i u djelima naših autora« na pp. 68�”69.
Sauer, Werner. Österreichische Philosophie zwischen Aufklärung und Restauration: Beiträge
zur Geschichte des Frühkantianismus in der Donaumonarchie (Amsterdam:
Rodopi, 1982), u poglavlju »Aufklärungsphilosophie in Österreich«, pp. 23�”56, o
austrijskim udžbenicima s naglaskom na recepciji Wolffove filozofije na pp. 32�”43.
Sodnik-Zupanec, Alma. »Die Einwirkung von Boškovićs Naturphilosophie in einigen
philosophischen Texten des 18. Jahrhunderts«, u: Actes du symposium international
R. J. Bošković 1961 (Beograd, 1962), pp. 283�”289, osobito na p. 284.
Williams, L. Pearce. »Boscovich, Mako, Davy and Faraday«, u: Piers Bursill-Hall (ed.),
R. J. Boscovich: Vita e attività scientifica / His life and scientific work (Roma: Istituto
della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1993), pp. 587�”599; o Makóovu udžbeniku Compendiaria
physicae institutio na pp. 592�”595.

Interesting little diagram on levels of argumentation – aimed at internet social-media commenters and tweeters who rarely have time to think of how their arguments are framed.

(Post Note – This builds on an earlier draft post – published more recently.
Now Fully consolidated in this “Rules of Engagement” page.)

Like all such things – this is good in parts, basic advice, so far as it goes, as it were – it’s really a kind of idealised picture of how things might be in some objectively ideal world without real human interaction.

The important things it misses are two-fold. One is that it focusses on disagreement – unhealthy in itself – and the second is that it ignores rhetorical tricks that affect all argumentation, disagreement or otherwise.

The bottom three are what I call the degenerate zone, but the degeneration starts right from the second level, even the top level, with rhetoric. Often the initial disagreement involves a straw-man, explicit or implicit, deliberate or accidental (and all shades of guilt & innocence in-between), misunderstanding or mis-statement of the point apparently being disagreed with. At level two even presuming it’s “a mistake” by the other party being disagreed with is a massive ego-driven lack of respect by the first party. After that rhetorical games compound the situation, even if the initial “trick” was a innocent error, ironic wit becomes sarcasm very quickly – and not everyone can be court-jester at the same time – unless the sole point of the thread is amusement, which is OK, but it’s not an argument any more.

Another source of “accidental” rhetorical tricks – accidental but usually less than entirely honest – is in the very top level. The idea of “the central point”. It’s rare that any debate has only one point when it comes down to understanding an argument – even if it’s stated to look like a simple closed objective yes or no. The central point is often surrounded by implied starting positions and implied or explicit subsidiary points and asides that may not even change the actual point, just connect to some wider context for later. Very easy to “attack” the most vulnerable point, even if it wasn’t a central point, and as I say that’s quite “natural” way to approach an argument if your aim is to attack (and win) as opposed to construct (and win-win). A common way for innocent looking straw-men to slip in by picking up an incidental point rather than the point actually intended originally. You know the kind of thing …. “Ah, but you’re assuming ….” – “Well, no I’m not, but even if I were, what about what I actually said ….” etc, at which point in a fast-paced thread several third-parties are already running with the straw-man, real or imaginary.

Basically then, the two things missing from this hierarchy are:

Respect and
Questioning-&-Understanding-Before-Disagreement.

Once an inadequately moderated (inc self-moderated) thread involves people with no existing respect for each other’s positions – whether as strangers or as previously-failed-to-agree “opponents” – then in the “rush to judgement” it is only ever a matter of how long it takes to reach rock-bottom.

These are discussion forum rules I’ve touted before:

Rules of Engagement

Rule #1 RESPECT
?” Understand & Question before Disagree & Criticize.
Critical debate is essential to our agenda and anyone voicing direct disagreement with or criticism of the arguments of another must be seen to have understood, or sincerely attempted to understand, the others’ argument and to have related their counter argument to it.

Rule #2 RESPECT
?” No “Ad Hominem” attacks on the Individual.
Absolute no-no. Anyone having trouble with an individual should resolve with that individual, and involve moderator(s) in absolute confidence if mediation or moderation is considered necessary.

Rule #3 RESPECT
?” Duty of Care when using Rhetoric or Irony.
OK, but life (mine and yours) would be boring and sterile if we politely agreed with each other. So lively, critical, robust, intelligent debate is positively encouraged. What will not be tolerated is any perceived intent to circumvent Rules #1 & #2 under cover of rhetoric or irony.

Guidelines

Beyond the rules above, here are a few guidelines. The forum covers a large range of possible subjects which are undoubtedly interconnected in complex, dynamic and subtle ways, so:

In each sub-forum post we should try to “stick to the point” – that is our own point as well as any existing point to which it is a response ?” select, snip, quote and refer as necessary. If you are linking several points in one post, please try to identify them and their relationships. If your argument requires a longer piece of writing, such contributions are more than welcome, but should be offered as links and attachments if possible.

If the forum has a small (140 char) text limit, then state very simple points and link to external arguments.
Anyone posting over 200 words in a single post should stop and think of these rules.
Anyone posting 600 words or more will be asked to re-frame as a linked essay or article.

Applying the Rules

The style of this forum moderation will be …. etc ….

[Post Note : Adding the Dennett links to Rappaport’s rules for criticism and “disagreement”. Last posted here. And a final consolidation as “Rules of Engagement” here.]