Or How to Hunt a Submarine
---- by JLS
------- for the Grice Club
------------ I USED "COMPLEAT" and was wondering. It _is_ archaic, and Jason suggests, 'till it starts being profitable'.
So a good way to consider:
"your archaism or mine?"
----- (I recall there was a magazine article about pick up lines, and the title went, "Your euphemism or mine?" -- so the idea here is to play on the locus -- your PLACE or mine?")
Anyway, the maxim should be under 'manner' or modus -- These conversational category, as Grice has it, depends not so much on what-is-said (or explicitly put forward) -- to aim at something that is left unsaid -- the implicatum -- BUT at HOW what is said is said.
I treasure an essay in Manuscrito by a German scholar who studied the tetraedron of the categories -- why they NEED to be four, at least four, and no more than four -- a compleat Griceian, as it were.
So, under "Modus" -- read: "be perspicuous" (i.e. be clear), avoid obscurity of expression.
Surely 'compleat' is just as obscure, i.e. none, as 'complete', so it cannot be that. What maxim is being flouted? One wonders.
--- It's like 'ye olde shoppe' -- it's profitable. Perhaps the idea is to flout what we've learned. Parents spend too much time to correct the horrid spelling habits of their children (teachers can care less). So the kidd, or kydde, as it were, sees the olde signe on ye wall and asketh, Faddher, "Hwaet ist them signe in suche archayck spelling meant to sygnifye?". Andd ye father answerers, ''Tis ye olde spellinge sisteme off ye Anglish people."
Some googles for compleat:
The first in the rank are:
How to keep your volkswagen alive (ObGrice: This was Grice's car in the States -- a yellow one, he used mainly to philophise away from home, as he had it parked up in the hills, rather than to drive): a guide for the compleat idiot.
Shakespeare: The compleat works (abridged).
The compleat slave: a submissive lifestyle.
And the fourth and last for this post, the one I was referring to I had come across earlier, upon Kramer's mention of the prisoners' dilemma: it's "The compleat strategyst".
Amazon reads:
"The compleat strategyist: being a primer on the theory of games of strategy."
When The Compleat Strategyst was originally published in 1954, game theory was an esoteric and mysterious subject, familiar only to specialized researchers, particularly in the military. Its prominence today can be traced at least in part to this classic book, which popularized the subject for amateurs, professionals, and students throughout the world. This is a reprint of a 1966 revised edition of the book originally published in 1954.
-----
I WAS a strategyist till a Russian told me, "To talk is not to war". Ah well.
In any case, these are "GAMES of strategy", and I see the thing is so old (1950s) but still he's flouting, "spell things correctly":
From wiki:
"The evolution of coooperation:
"Accounts of the success of operations research
during the war, publication in 1944 of John von Neumann and
Oskar Morgenstern's Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Von Neumann & Morgenstern 1944) on the use of game theory for developing and analyzing optimal strategies for military and other uses, and publication of John William's [sic] The Compleat Strategyst, a popular exposition of game theory[4], led to a greater appreciation of mathematical analysis of human behavior.[5]"
Oddly, Grice almost got killed by those uncooperative submarines (*). Apparently, the way the Allies saw cooperation was as the way to have less of those, and it worked (for them). Grice was in the theatre of operations early in 1941, but was transferred, for the good of philosophy, to Admiralty! He retired with flying colours as a handsome R. N. captain -- and he learned the sea chanties alright ("Every nice girl loves a sailor" being used in WoW, 1967 as an example of what he tolerably calls a 'hyperbole' -- especially in a domain restriction of 'a' to "one" sailor -- 'nice' is etymologically, 'ne-scius', i.e. unknowing -- but they, that's archaic.
Ship ahoy!
* From wiki: "The idea that human behavior can be usefully analyzed mathematically gained great credibility following the application of operations research in World War II to improve military operations. One famous example involved how the Royal Air Force hunted submarines in the Bay of Biscay.[**] It had seemed to make sense to patrol the areas where submarines were most frequently seen. Then it was pointed out that "seeing the most submarines" was also a function of patrol density – i.e., of the number of eyes looking. Making an allowance for patrol density showed that patrols were more efficient – that is, found more submarines per patrol – in other areas. Making appropriate adjustments increased the overall effectiveness." Refs:
**Morse, Phillip M.; Kimball, George E. (1951), Methods of Operations Research, (1956), "How to Hunt a Submarine", The World of Mathematics, 4, Simon and Schuster, pp. 2160–79
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think you mean The Compleat Works of Wllm Shkspr (Abridged) (I don't know why it's not "Abrdgd," but apparently, it isn't.)
ReplyDeleteThe submarine story reminds me of one I heard in college about how the Air Force inspected planes that returned from combat to see where the bullet holes were. The planes were strengthened in the places where there were the fewest holes, the theory being that the planes were being hit randomly, so that places with few holes were places where a hit was fatal.
I must say I re-read the thing, and can't say I understand it. Of course my subtitle was after the ref.: "how to hunt a submarine" (which being in "The World of Mathematics", thought would be something Kramer would find an interest in). Neither can I say I understood the thing about the holes in the planes.
ReplyDeleteOn my first reading of the 'evolution of cooperation' thing I had just assumed that 'more eyes see more than fewer (eyes)', which seemed like a contradiction of 'too many cooks spoil the broil' ('muchas manos en el plato hacen mucho garabato', I think the Spanish goes).
"It had seemed to make sense to patrol the areas where submarines were most frequently seen."
"BUT Then it was pointed out that
the very "seeing the most submarines" was also a function of patrol density – i.e., of the number of eyes looking."
"Making an allowance for patrol density showed that patrols were more efficient – that is, found more submarines per patrol – in other areas."
"Making appropriate adjustments increased the overall effectiveness."
But since it's all so random-y, I cannot see how those things can be planned _for_ effectiveness.
Incidentally, Grice's ship was apparently hit by one of those horrid U-boats, so-called. But I will have to recheck the facts. It did mean that Grice _was_ involved _in_ actual 'fighting', which does make a difference, they say. --.
Yes, indeed:
ReplyDeleteThe Compleat Works of Wllm Shkspr
by the Reduced Shakespeare Company, that
"played", the wiki reads,
"at the Criterion, London, where it ran for 9 record-breaking yrs. It has become one of the world's most popular shows, playing frequently in a variety of languages." Etc.
Not that it's important, but many planes returning from combat have bullet holes in them. Obviously, those bullets are not fatal to the plane, because the plane make it back despite the holes. Presumably, then, parts of the plane that do not have bullet holes represent parts where a bullet strike would bring the plane down. So the parts that have no holes need to be reinforced.
ReplyDeleteOn the submarines, I would not assume that the distribution of subs was random. Presumably, the enemy had routes it liked to use and places it liked to hunt. The places with the highest concentration of subs would yield the the most sub discoveries per patrol, not necessarily the greatest number of discoveries in absolute terms. By sending more patrols to these target-rich zones, the number of subs found would increase, and, whatever advantage the enemy thought it got from being in those zones would be lost as the enemy lost the use of the zone.
You may recall that this is really the principle of my "brain" computer program, which randomly searches its database for answers to questions. One way to make the program more efficient is to layer the data, with one layer consisting of a "categories" zone and the second consisting of several zones, one for each category. That way, the program could first try to match the query to a category and then query only the matching zone. Assuming a limited number of total queries, that seems like an efficient way to proceed. Finding subs in the ocean is like finding answers in your brain. (Or not.)
I see. I get the hole in the plane scenario very right now. Thanks. Yes, I could see the argument ran along those lines when you mentioned 'fatal'. For some reason, I am thinking of Glen Miller -- the plane was never found, hole or no hole. Ah well.
ReplyDeleteWill re-read the sub thing, since I still sort of escape to it (It sounds presumptuous to say that it escapes _me_). But then it _is_ late, etc.
I see the point about the many eyes and the zone, etc. The Enemy losing a zone meaning going for another zone, I presume, etc. The wiki mentions this in connection with operations research etc.
--- I enjoyed the application with the 'brain' thing about the category and the sub-category.
finding subs in the ocean is like fidning answers in your brain.
Kramer writes. Don't you hate it when he also writes, "Or not" and yet someone (i.e. I) fails to quote that, yielding his "p or q" into "p"? I tend to use "or something" with a similar intention in mind -- but I would not allow a dot -- or 'punto' as they say in the vernacular -- to stand in between! (a 'punto' is slang for a john, here, too -- i.e. a man looking for a woman, somehow --
"Finding subs in the ocean" is like indeed a very difficult thing.
As opposed to 'plenty of fish in the sea to fry', which seems like a peace of cake in comparison -- provided you have cooking oil.
I retrieved those things about Socrates and Plato -- different headers -- because I've been spending the last two hours or so unsuccessfully and thus pretty frustratingly -- but hey I'll survive -- trying to locate some LONG excerpts IN LATIN that I submitted elsewhere about military strategy -- it was a Loeb Classical Library thing: Fonto, or Aeneas, etc.
The wiki has an entry on "Strategikon", which, it says, was used up to the Second World War, -- when 'operations research' as it were, became all the rage, it would seem.
I would not know how to formalise the 'cooperative' basis -- if there is such -- the the sub scenario as per the wiki. Who are cooperating? The different patrols? Or the Hun themselves? It cannot be that the Allies are cooperating with the Hun.
It may do to see if these Morse and Kimball (or should it be "this Morse and this Kimball"?) do use 'cooperate' as a verb.
Oddly, McCreery circulated today elsewhere a rather silly (but hey) definition of politics. Not the art of the possible (as Peron has it in "Evita") but something like: the substraction of money from the few, and votes from the many, under the pretext of protecting one from the other" -- or something. Where it all looks pretty competitive.
When the compleat strategyst speaks of 'games of strategy' we are using 'game' metaphorically? or is it 'strategy' that we are using loosely? It seems that 'war is war'. But perhaps there IS a common-ground? I mean, I show a white flag. It means, "I surrender". Of course the gurkhas at Goose Green could care less and still behead me, but that's what I meant, non-naturally! (Too bad -- I know of people who were attacked mercilessly by them). Etc.
Don't you hate it when he also writes, "Or not" and yet someone (i.e. I) fails to quote that, yielding his "p or q" into "p"?
ReplyDeleteYes, and no. If I were being held to the belief, I would want to have the "or not" quoted. But if I'm just throwing an idea out for the kids to play with, it's almost a distraction to focus attention on how strongly I believe it.
And then there's the matter of reading idioms literally. "Or not," as a separate sentence, is nothing more than Dennis Miller's "But hey, that's just my opinion; I may be wrong." It's a reminder that I don't purport to speak ex cathedra, that I'm speculating and won't be offended by disagreement. I suppose it's a bit precieux, but ain't none of us perfect.
We have this interesting phrase, that I suspect JL hates: "yours truly" to refer to oneself, as in:
Don't you hate it when he also writes, "Or not" and yet someone (i.e. yours truly) fails to quote that, yielding his "p or q" into "p"?
I don't like it either, but it does have the advantage of speaking of the speaker in the third person in those rare cases where the grammar of the sentence gets all discombobulated by the first person. Whatever the correct rule, the brain "hears" "I fails" in JL's version of the sentence, and it jangles.
Also, I like to save "id est" for "in other words," and use viz. for "namely." It's a bit of a hyper-correct affectation, but that's why we're here, right? (Actually, the even more correct intro for JL's one-word clarification is probably "sc.", but I'll confess that I don't recall ever seeing that one used, no matter what Wiki says, and there are limits even to my purism.)
Excellent. I should start with 'precious' in French, since the implicatum, call me illiteratus, 'escapes' me -- and this will be one instance of the very sparse use I'll try and make of that silly phrase, too: 'escape'. Indeed, it is strictly 'escapes my _memory_.' So it cannot be used, except idiosyncrasically, to mean, 'escape my understanding'. And less so, invert the order and have _me_ escaping the thing I don't understand.
ReplyDeleteYes.
"don't you hate it when people (sc. yours truly) fail to do the right thing?"
_is_ clumsy. I guess I felt okay because I have HEARD people say, "John and me are going to the movies". So this got me into thinking that "I" would be regarded okay but of course, the problem is with the "fails". So 'yours truly' seems apt there.
As for the 'Or not'. Yes, I get the point. Plus, Kramer used it in brackets:
p.(Or not).
----
In a way, it IS different from a usage I inflict often on people -- and academics too, who hate me for that but they can blame it on my furrinness):
"or something"
Cross Examination:
"Well, Jaspers held that the phenomenology of the spirit was not Hegelian in nature but neo-Kantian, or something".
This is so anti-Griceian (complete strategyst) that it hurts. At various levels in next post. Right now.
Kramer said that p or not.
ReplyDeleteYes, and no. If I were being held to the belief, I would want to have the "or not" quoted.
I won't be offended by disagreement. I suppose it's a bitprecieux
--- I see
Yes, different from
Kramer said that p or something.
The cat sat on the mat, or something.
Here the 'or something' can have the scope of the whole 'sentence':
The cat sat on the mat, or something (viz.: it was raining).
Or some component of the sentence:
I would submit that "or something" can apply to each component and sub-component:
The cat sat on the mat, or something--perhaps it was _one_ cat. (challenging 'the')
The cat sat on the mat, or something -- perhaps it was a rhinoceros (challenging 'cat')
The cat sat on the mat -- or something. Perhaps she shat on it too (challenging 'merely sat').
The cat sat on the mat, or something. Perhaps it was Aunt Ruth's wig (challenging 'mat')
The cat sat on the mat, or something -- perhaps it was "mats", by the bulk of the thing (challenging 'the mat')
The cat sat on the mat, or something -- not including her flies which makes the thing an uninformative thing to say, even if they didn't literally _sit_ on the mat. Challenging the subject being singular rather than plural.
----
Columbus thought that the earth was round, or something.
In a way, the 'or not' of Kramer compares:
"To hunt for submarines in the sea is LIKE finding answers in your brain, or something".
I suppose the implicata are all the same, and spring from Maxim of Quality: be as informative as is required.
"or something" is a guarded tag. Implicatum: the utterer is valuing (precieux) Maxim of Quality over Quantity -- as he should: when there's a clash between these two categorical maxims, prefer the Quality.
That is why Miller (I'll find more about him -- he seems like my sort of chap) we can easily allow:
"p, but hey, I may be wrong".
But NOT
"p, but hey I'm ALWAYS wrong".
The latter would be like Socrates's challenge to Gorgias in Gorgias, as per post, "Where Socrates and Grice agree". I'll paste the Greek right now. So compare it with Miller's.
Kramer quotes from Miller:
ReplyDeleteBut hey, that's just my opinion; I may be wrong.
which Kramer sees (alla "or not") as "a reminder that [the utterer doesn't] purport to speak ex cathedra, that [he is just] speculating and won't be offended by disagreement."
Gorgias: But this is not so.
Socrates: You believe THAT?
Gorgias: Not necessarily.
Socrates: I don't get it.
Gorgias: No, I don't believe it too firmly. It's none of my convictions.
Socrates, smugly: Ouk an eti met' emou hikanôs ta onta exetazois eiper para ta dokounta sautôi ereis!
"I'm afraid it will be impossible for me to continue our search for truth together
with you if thou, Gorgias, artgoing to make statements you don't reallybelieve!"
Or:
"I'm afraid, my dear friend Gorgias, that thou canst no longer be a fit partner with me in probing the Truth if thou art going to speak
against your own convinctions!"
At which point Gorgias uttered Greek for "Bugger off".
Ah well. I submit that Gorgias was NOT like Dennis Miller -- but more like Odysseus when having the Horse of Troy:
"Here's a lovely present from the Greeks to you, Trojans: a veritable horse toy."
---- He wasn't speaking out his convictions, and the probing of the truth was impossible.
It is also Moore's paradox:
"The cat sat on the mat but I know she didn't".
In that case, it's like Epemenides -- Cretan Liar -- paradox with a straight face!
On the other hand, 'or not' can also flout the maxim of informativeness at the level of what I call, after Ramsey, the White-Knight Implicatum: (Cited by Ramsey in "Foundations of Mathematics", back in the 1920s, before Grice):
The song will bring tears to your eyes, or...
-- Or else what, asked Alice.
-- "or else it won't, you know".
Ramsey remarks that the White Knight IS Being informative but not in the type of logic that Grice tried to analyse the implicata for: classical bivalent one. In a logic that does not abide by 'tertium non datur' (things are either true or false, and 'or' is always inclusive), what the White Knight thing is the biggest otiosity possibly a monster or critter said in Wonderland or outside it!
I read "or something" to mean "or something else sort of like that":
ReplyDeleteHe's very metaphysical - attributes he fate to God or something...
It's about doubt as to a detail, not doubt as to entire proposition.
Precieux refers to the French literary thing that has a long history but has come to have a connotation of affected cuteness. (Or not!)
Sorry can't seem to understand the italic sentence: "attributes he fate to God or something". I do get the idea that in Kramer's idiolect, 'or something' applies to "God" (or something" i.e. "else sort of like that").
ReplyDeleteThanks for the preziosismo thing. Indeed! "Or not!" is indeed a preziosismo. There's also "Not!". When I was revising literature on negation with L. Horn, I think there was this essay by G. Ward (or someone) who wrote on "Not!" or something. Eg.
"It's raining"
B: Or Not.
"It's raining. Or not."
"It's raining".
"Not!"
---
The point I was making about the clash of quality and quantity was badly expressed. I meant to say that if one cares to add, "or something", the implicature (trivial at that) is that since he is abiding by 'say what you have adequate evidence for' -- or something -- he is not SURE and the 'else sort of like that' is added.
It may also be used by teenagers or those sounding like them to show respect for addressee:
"We should go to this bar, or something".
Teenagers are strict adherents of the Gricean maxims. Hence the proliferation of "like", "sort of", "sorta", "kinda", "you bet", "I guess", etc. All qualifiers that are strategical in avoiding the Gettier point about knowledge being justified true belief.
As someone said, "honesty is the best policy, says I". But I forget who "I" was.
The 'thing' in 'or something' can be dropped in some dialects, for good, I would think, i.e. for a good effect, "I bought some very nice", i.e. someTHING. "She was wearing a Greek tunic or some". Etc.
He's very metaphysical - attributes his fate to God or something... Sorry.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say "Hunting subs is like remembering data. Or not." I am saying what I am sure of: that I think hunting subs is like remembering data, but I'm not sure it is. I'm implicating ambivalence, in which I am quite certain I am being accurate.
Aha. Matter of fact, we discussed elsewhere with Kramer -- in his THEORIA listserv -- re his blog entry on "Doubt" -- the film with Merryll Streep. So I get his point. We had concluded that Sister A. cannot really KNOW what she claims to know when she says, "I just KNOW it" (with a slight Irish brogue, if that's possible). In this case we have:
ReplyDeleteP or not.
Utterer is certain that p.
But to avoid the dogmatic tinge,
It is not the case that utterer KNOWS that p.
(To know and to be certain are different things).
To mark the uncertainty about the truth-value of what the utterer is certain about, utterer adds, "Or not".
Incidentally, it woud be good to discuss the brain versus other things. Call me a physicalist but I don't find 'answers' in my brain. I may find a neuron, and a mirror one at that. Some philosophers -- but then they have nothing else to do -- including Gricean ones like Brian Loar, are pretty careful in comitting to a sort of multiple realisation type of functionalism. In which case, hunting submarines in the sea is like WHAT in the brain -- and WHAT in, say, our psychological capacities -- doxastic, subdoxastic, ratiocinative, etc. one wonders. This machine I'm using is being extremely slow, so I shall disconnecdt and log in again at a later date, I hope.
The mind/brain thing is obviously a big deal. For now, I'd just say that my mind is affected by what goes on in my brain and that what goes on in my brain when my mind looks for answers is like what happens at sea when planes look for subs. Why do you think they call it the "subconscious"?
ReplyDeleteOh my god -- that's true! Was it a Freudian invention? I don't have the OED to hand, but was it really Freud who coined 'sub-conscious' (only in German, of course). Indeed, it seems like U-conscious, U-boat, etc. 'unter' -- cognate with Gk. hypopotamos, under-river.
ReplyDeleteI like Kramer's comment on the big deal that the brain/mind thing is:
"what goes on in my brain when my mind looks for answers is like what happens at sea when planes looks for subs".
Good. Some minor considerations:
while missiles have now been mainly automated, in the days of the Bay of Biscay, it was captain Jones and Captain Smith and captain Williams and ... who looked for subs. Pilots.
This point is important vis a vis Cummings, "Mental representation and meaning". To transfer a human scenario to the brain or mind commits one to the 'homunculi' theory or 'homunculus' theory: i.e. that there are little men. Etc. Similarly, the discoverer of the spermatozoon in the homo sapiens made a sketch of it which included little men or a little man (mannikin) in each cell or gamete. Odd.
This is back in a way to the egoless gene. Or in general, the use of metaphors -- anthropomorphic at that. But it interests me because of the Gricean consequences. Grice would allow 'rationality' to apply to the human level -- NOT to the neuronal level. Yet at points he does speak of 'ratio essendi': so the reason why a mirror neuron works as it does. So the neural synapsis may be said to follow a _pattern_ that has a reason to it (Grice even allows for things like "The reason why the bridge collapsed is that it suspension devices were made of cellophane"). Etc.