these last three 1) 2) and 3) are the only quantitative propositions obtainable

this is where the quantitative method ends

people often assume necessarily X<Y -> "people in 2000 are more preoccupied with war"

that seems to be in accord with common sense

but it is not a scientific argument, it needs further elucidation and corroboration

so if you see someone make the argument "1990 corpora had "war" 15,000 times and 2000 corpora had 30,000 times. hence people in 2000 are more concerned or preoccupied with war sentiment or activity"

they're not making a scientific argument if that is all that has been provided

that's just not science, and those arguments need to be dismissed, or at best taken as facetious

so, i mean, this case here is not representative of how quantitative argumentation works

@taylor Well, I mostly agree, except that the numbers could be a useful piece of information for the eventual analysis.

@taylor Well, I'm afraid I read argumentation like this all the time in social psychology.

which part are you in disagreement with?

Like the Denise-Dentist paper.

@taylor Perhaps no part.

lolz

well i just wanted to address that case since you brought it up, but i think i understand now your scepticism of the "argument via quantification"

@taylor Yeah.

So the issue is that getting lots of data like this often just results in...lots of data.

its not any inherent ineffectualness, its the potential for misuse and fallacy?

They are often not something you can really work out into a meaningful conclusion, and yet this is often attempted.

@taylor Yes, the potential, which exists partly because you often can't do much with the data.

So researchers need to get some conclusion.

well i would very strongly ask you to be more hesitant before a judgement like that

Which judgement?

"you often can't do much with the data"

We are talking about literature here, right?

yes

Not some chemical experiment.

Scratch "often", then.

And replace with an unspecified frequency.

Have you read the Denise-dentist paper?

Of course that is social psycholoy / sociology.

I had not just those areas in mind, but also policy making.

although i'm not trying to disparage literary work or endeavour, nor am I trying to devalue literately work or analysis in general. i agree with you that strict formal methodology is not the only mode of inquiry worth considering

Which is obviously not science.

@taylor And how would you define "strict formal methodology"?

if even a given literary analysis has no formal method of analysis, it does not mean that it is devoid of creative intellectual merit

i use the technical sense of the term "formal"

And what is that?

And why is it better than a more implicit approach towards argumentation?

formal argumentation is axiomatic argumentation

The problem is, how can you be sure that A follows from B?

well, formal analysis using the methodology of linguistics and statistics is better in some ways, whereas a creative and expository directive for analysis is also better in some ways

Don't many steps in a complex argument about the real world require all sorts of assumptions?

I have nothing against a formal approach where appropriate.

I do not feel that we fundamentally disagree so far.

Well, how can you have formal argumentation about a real-world subject, then?

well now your question the relationship between mind and world

that's not necessarily a concern to the application of the scientific method

Eh.

usually the first assumptions are that some worldly phenomena is to be mentally understood as some axiom A

within some framework F

I don't know what you mean, but, when you're trying to argue about what conclusions you may draw from the occurrence of word X, you are arguing about something in the real world.

So you need assumptions.

well were getting into the realm of philosophy here

Not much farther than we already were?

I'm not sure what our points were, nor whether we disagree.

yeah, i just wanted to get a better understanding of why you were so sceptical of formal argumentation

formal is the same thing as quantitative

a lot of people have a candid disdain for scientific methodology

Formal is the same thing as quantitative?

How do you mean?

Seems like two different things to me.

which is fine whatever, but those people are always operating under the assumption that formal science acts to degrade the fascination or allure of the world, humanity, or whatever

Now you're talking about silly people.

Ehh...

Formal is the most abstract and Numerical the most concrete

so "quantitative argument" is not the same thing as "numerical argument"

I'm not sure I follow your argument here. How do you define "quantitative"?

I define it as using lots of things that are expressed as quantities, which includes numbers, volumes, percentages, frequencies...

well im sure your well familiar with what a numerical proposition is

all numerical statements are quantitative statements, and then there are quantitative statements which are not numerical

I define numerical as simply "having to do with numbers", and a proposition as a statement with a truth value...so a statement with a truth value that concerns or involves numbers?

@taylor Depends on your definition, I guess...

in other words, the notion of "quantitative" is a generalization of "numerical"

You could say that.

But I'm not sure in what practical context here you would think the distinction is applicable?

oh yes well this is the part that takes a considerable leap in abstract thinking if your encountering it for the first time

quantification is basically a more mathematically abstract system then numbers

it has a greater conceptual scope

So...

and can be applied to do the same thing numbers can do, like measure distances, rates, times, locations, whatever

What does this mean in a practical context?

Usually, in science and in policy-making, quantification concerns numbers—or do you disagree?

well since it is more general, it can apply to things that numbers couldn't adequately handle

Can you think of a kind of policy that depends on quantification but not on numbers?

in an informal sense yes, but I'm using it in a very specialized technical sense here

Example case?

well, taking the example i brought up when we were taking about your paper and i mentioned a paper i read about how to assess plagiarism

the authors needed a model for linguistic cognition

a model that is far outside the reach of numerical description

numeral systems and models are rather limited in their explanatory power

Then how does this model work?

so topological spaces were used as the cognitive model

which is what i consider to be a quantitative model

nothing to do with numbers

in this case, algebra and arithmetic (and some definitions from calculus) were just too weak to be of use

so a more abstract model had to be adopted

Well, I don't know how this model works, so I don't have an opinion on it.

yeah, you just gotta study it i guess

Probably.

ive tried telling people this before that there are more abstract things than numbers in science

numbers are only a small part

mathematics has a much greater conceptual scope

Sure, there are all sorts of abstract concepts besides numbers.

But would you call them quantitative if they have nothing at all to do with numbers?

well i think your talking about logic systems

statement and propositional logic

I'm not talking about anything in specific.

and its higher order siblings

And I would not call formal logic quantitative per se—would you?

eh it doesn't really matter, the only distinctions worth making are formal vs not formal, and quantitative vs numerical

I'm still not sure the latter distinction makes much difference in the contexts I had in mind.

@Cerberus Hello, have a minute?

Hi.

@Gigili What can I help you with?

I am writing a very formal and important email to a professor, want to make sure that I didn't make an embarrassing mistake or something.

Heh.

So are you in doubt about something?

> Thank you very much for your reply, professor. May I ask you questions occasionally? I really want to master this subject since I found it very useful and important in other areas of computer science and as I've planned to do PhD overseas, I'm willing to write an article on the subject with the potential of being published later. If would be really great if you could help me about this.

@Cerberus ^.

Looks good and polite and everything?

It looks mostly good and polite. Shall I correct a few small things?

Yes please.

Is the the start of the e-mail?

Yes, that's all I want to say.

And when you say "I've planned", do you mean "I am trying to get a position", or "I will do my PhD overseas"?

Former.

OK.

One thing, you will probably start your e-mail with "Dear Professor X", so that you don't need "professor" again in the first sentence.

Right, I thought it would sound more interesting to start it a bit differently this time!

Fixed.

And?

> Thank you very much for your reply. May I ask you a question occasionally? I am truly doing my best to master this subject, because I found it very useful and important in other areas of computer science; moreover, because I plan to do a PhD overseas [or "abroad", unless you specifically wish to stress the importance of your cross-Atlantic plan], I would like to write an article on the subject, which I hope to see published. If would be really great if you could help me with this.

Two more things.

What is this about publishing an article?

Do you mean anything more specific than that you would like to have your article published in some scientific journal some day?

If not, you could as well leave it out, because that is already implicit in the word "article".

Secondly, do you want any other help from him besides asking him a question now and then?

Because your last line sounds a bit like you would like him to help you with more things.

@Cerberus Well, don't you write one then you try to have it published somewhere afterwards? I say that to encourage him to help me because I will add his name or something.

@Cerberus Umm, that's a start. I will ask him questions about a book for now.

@Gigili Okay, sure, so then perhaps it is a bit redundant to say so explicitly?

It might sound a bit as though you cared more about publication than about writing the article itself.

That's why I might leave it out.

@Gigili Okay, well, if you are afraid he might not be all that interested or willing, "it would be great if you could help me with this" might sound like more work than simply your first request to ask him occasional questions.

@Gigili How about simply "I would like to write and publish an article on the subject"?

That makes the publishing a bit less as though it were a major concern in itself.

Umm.

Why did you change it to "a question"?

It'll be more than one.

The more than one is already expressed by "occasionally", which must be more than once.

If you ask someone questions occasionally, it implies to me that you will ask him several questions at a time.

Besides, it sounds lighter this way, like it would take less of his time.

Ah OK.

A general tip: I would use fewer contractions (like "I've").

In an e-mail like this, they sometimes (though certainly not always) clash with the more formal tone a bit.

It's not very important.

Noted.

I still think you should look at the exact structure of this sentence:

> I am truly doing my best to master this subject, because I found it very useful and important in other areas of computer science; moreover, because I plan to do a PhD overseas [or "abroad", unless you specifically wish to stress the importance of your cross-Atlantic plan], I would like to write an article on the subject, which I hope to see published.

It is suggested that x is the reason for y, but I'm not sure that is really what you mean.

You are saying 3 things:

1. I am truly doing my best to master this subject, because I found it very useful and important in other areas of computer science

2. I plan to do a PhD overseas

3. I would like to write an article on the subject, which I hope to see published.

But the connections between these three are not entirely clear to me.

That is, the since/as/because doesn't sound entirely logical.

Thank you very much for your helpful information and suggestions.

Good luck!

@Cerberus Oh Chrome sucks. I saw those comments of yours when I left the room. Actually I was notified the moment I left the room.

So I sent the email because I thought you saying nothing meant it's OK now!

Oh, odd.

Well, it's fine either way.

@Cerberus This makes sense to me, I mean the "because".

Yes, that one is clear.

@Cerberus As I plan to do a PhD abroad, I would need some published articles to win a scholarship.

Again I do need to master the subject.

Right?

Okay, that makes more sense.

I would normally only use as for a fact that is already well known to the reader, something that you only want to remind him of.

What would you use in that context? since?

Because.

Since is also normally used for things that the reader already knows about.

OK, you are quite right.

Note that many people use as for because, but that is considered bad style by some.

Noted. That's the way I used to use it too.

But I have to go now. Thanks again and bite.

OK bai!