[Humanist] 28.844 an argument & belief system

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Tue Mar 24 07:12:44 CET 2015


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 28, No. 844.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>          (11)
        Subject: where arguments are defeated & beliefs prove wrong

  [2]   From:    Desmond Schmidt <desmond.allan.schmidt at gmail.com>        (228)
        Subject: Re:  28.843 an argument & belief system


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 06:24:45 +0000
        From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
        Subject: where arguments are defeated & beliefs prove wrong

Following up on Martin's query to Dominic about his argument and belief 
system, asking for a demonstration of its success with Sonnet 116, I'd 
like to ask the opposite: an significant instance of its failing, in detail. 
Do we, unassisted or not, learn more by having our beliefs confirmed 
and arguments triumphant than by their defeat?

Yours,
WM
-- 
Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/), Professor, Department of Digital
Humanities, King's College London, and Digital Humanities Research
Group, University of Western Sydney


--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:24:56 +1000
        From: Desmond Schmidt <desmond.allan.schmidt at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re:  28.843 an argument & belief system
        In-Reply-To: <20150323061259.98982C8D at digitalhumanities.org>


Hi Martin, Dominic,

It is my understanding that CIDOC CRM and any inference system based on it
would be a way of thinking/reasoning about metadata of whole museum
objects, including manuscripts and books, but not of their actual contents.
In that case any such "argument and belief system" could not tell us much
about the contents other than in very broad brush-strokes. In that case a
concept mining tool might shed more light on the contents and/or their
related annotations.

Desmond Schmidt
IFE, Queensland University of Technology

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Humanist Discussion Group <
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:

>                  Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 28, No. 843.
>             Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>                        www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                 Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
>
>
>
>         Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 09:59:49 +0000
>         From: Martin Mueller <martinmueller at northwestern.edu>
>         Subject: Re:  28.842 an arguent & belief system
>         In-Reply-To: <20150322072610.046D0C2F at digitalhumanities.org>
>
>
> Many thanks for this very full explanation. What about an example
> demonstrating the practice. Take a much commented text like Sonnet 116
> "Let me not to the marriage of true minds," a text that like Shakespeare's
> other famous sonnets has a lot of stuff (from planets to cosmic junk)
> revolving around its sun. Would it ever help a literary critic make more
> sense of it?
>
> MM
> Martin Mueller
> Professor emeritus of English and Classics
> Northwestern University






More information about the Humanist mailing list