Interesting topic. I'll have to sleep on it...
No, I won't. I'm both.
First, on an unfamiliar topic, I want as much information as possible and since I do a good deal of background research for my stories, I'm fairly quick at selecting and assessing fresh sources. On familiar topics, I already have an extensive collection of relevant links to consult. On very familiar topics, i also have a headful of prior knowledge. Information complicates the examination of issues.

But the issues themselves usually come down to what people want and why. That may seem complicated, even mysterious, in terms of individual psychology or social organization or historical accuracy - but if you can trace the main driving force, it can be summarized quite simply.
So, I guess I complicate in order to simplify.

:up: Interesting! Thanks for sharing this.

(I’ll shorten the names to Sim and Com).
Reminds me of Ken Wilber’s concept of ‘holons’ which is anything that is simultaneously both a ‘whole’ and a ‘part’.
Example: a leaf on a tree is both a whole leaf, and is a part of tree.

So as a duality (whole and parts), it’s not unexpected that people gravitate towards one side or the other in the thinking.
Somewhat like left or right handedness.

This could be related to (or different way to say) your Sim/Com idea.
(Anyone who excels in both areas (Sim AND Com) is quite gifted; the world needs such gifts.
“From those who have been given much, much is expected!” lol).
The Artist: the whole view would equate to the Sim of your description.
The Sci-Technician: the parts view is the Com.

Neither is better than the other.
Each is vitally important; each has their role.
As they are manifest in an individual, each has their potential strengths and weaknesses.

Witt's Tractatus is analysable on this basis. It begins of course 'The world is everything that is the case.' It seems that everything flows from this simplicity.

But the book gets complicated, with lots of paras and sub-paras, to describe an entire system built on such a basis.

And then, darn it, it ends a systematic account with what is almost a dismissal of, certainly a proposal to overwhelm, the whole complicated system:

'My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands
me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out
through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw
away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world
rightly.'

So, at the last, 'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.' You can't get simpler than that.

So, at the last, 'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.' You can't get simpler than that. — mcdoodle

But you can point out that it is simplistic. :wink:

Interesting response! :up:

I haven't read through the Tractacus, but what you said reminded me of the Zen saying, "Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; After one gains insight through the teachings of a master, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; After enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters are waters."

As an engineer I'm a complicator. I have to consider a multitude of details, about the ways physical things interact, in order to do my job well. — wonderer1

Funny... As an engineer I saw my primary job as taking the multiplicity of the universe and simplifying it so it could be used to make decisions. I might have hundreds of data points related to the presence, depth, and concentration of chemical contaminants in soil. I had to turn that data into a line on the drawings that showed where we had to excavate soil to remediate the site.

Funny... As an engineer I saw my primary job as taking the multiplicity of the universe and simplifying it so it could be used to make decisions. I might have hundreds of data points related to the presence, depth, and concentration of chemical contaminants in soil. I had to turn that data into a line on the drawings that showed where we had to excavate soil to remediate the site. — T Clark

:up:

Right. There are many different sorts of tasks involved in getting engineering projects done. I design high accuracy electronic measurement instrumentation. So I was only talking about what I do as an engineer. Not what engineers do in a general way.

The hedgehog and the fox?

Awesome! Thank you!

I've only glanced at the wikipedia page, but that is something I definitely want to read.

:pray:

Not the same, but also not too far from the way William James uses the handy pair 'rationalist' and 'empiricist' or 'tender-minded' and 'tough-minded', as there is a tendency toward monism of principles for the former and pluralism for the latter.

I have sometimes felt bad, when sitting on the porch discussing philosophy (and politics and music and art and...) with my son that I begin every response with "It depends" or "It's complicated." --- Might be another one of those side effects of having been a competitive chess player in my youth, learning that generalities have exceptions and everything comes down to specifics. I kinda miss being more hedgehog, but you live long enough and you learn.

Missing the forest for the trees is a real thing, but a forest without trees is a castle in the air, if you don't mind mixed metaphors.

Missing the forest for the trees is a real thing, but a forest without trees is a castle in the air, if you don't mind mixed metaphors. — Srap Tasmaner

and so you observe : pine, maple, pine, pine, pine, pine, choke cherry, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine, maple, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine pine, pine, pine, spruce, pine, pine, viburnum, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine, willow, willow, pond, willow, poplar, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine, spruce, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine..... Pine forest.

And your local philosopher will complain if you mention that not every tree in a pine forest is a pine.

(To quote J. L. Austin yet again, "You might almost say over-generalizing is the occupational hazard of philosophy, were it not the occupation.")

Here's a more controversial example because it speaks to methodology. Timothy Williamson tells a story about explaining the Gettier problem to an economist colleague, who was really puzzled by all the fuss: "So there's a counterexample, so what? Models always have counterexamples."

"Simplisticator" and "complicator" are two words I coined — wonderer1

Complexity theory has the useful dichotomy of simplexity-complicity to show how simplicity and complexity are in fact connected in mirror fashion.

The apparently simple - like some iterative algorithm - can produce huge complication in pattern. But then the apparently complex, like many things in interaction, can become complicit in producing a very simple coherent outcome.

So the point is that what looks like two extremely different modes of analysis can be shown to be the “other” of each other. The old yin-Yang thing. The simple is actually complex. But then also the complex is actually simple.

And reasoned argument is going to fare better when it seeks to “break down” the world in those terms.

And your local philosopher will complain if you mention that not every tree in a pine forest is a pine — Srap Tasmaner

Leddum! My local ecologist would chide me if I failed to. (Guess which I fear more!) For scientific purposes, we complicate by considering and investigating each tree individually. For practical purposes, we generalize according to form and function.

That's funny though, because you could align the theoretical and the practical the other way around, and it would make just as much sense. (Science looking for the universal of trees, practical concerns addressing this tree in all its particularity.)

@apokrisis is surely right, they implicate each other. Always this dialectic of the general and the specific, that's all philosophy is. But this paragraph is all generalities...

That's funny though, because you could align the theoretical and the practical the other way around, and it would make just as much sense. (Science looking for the universal of trees, practical concerns addressing this tree in all its particularity.) — Srap Tasmaner

The 'universal of trees' doesn't sound like science to me.
Certainly each tree has practical uses - but that would be commercial and exploitative. Concern for particular trees is more in the realm of ecology, arboriculture or spiritualism.

universal of trees — Vera Mont

It was picturesque. I only mean that science seeks generality, else it's stamp collecting. Do trees have a common structure? How do they differ from other plants? And so on.

As for particular trees and our practical interest, I had in mind questions like, does that limb block my driveway? You don't need a scientist to answer that.

It was picturesque. I only mean that science seeks generality, else it's stamp collecting. Do trees have a common structure? How do they differ from other plants? — Srap Tasmaner

Coulda sworn the taxonomy of trees had already been established.
There is still no universality of trees. They are all individuals - except that one silly hemlock.

They are all individuals - except that one silly hemlock. — Vera Mont

:rofl: :up:

Coulda sworn the taxonomy of trees had already been established. — Vera Mont

Probably the sort of thing I had in mind as science.

I don't understand this exchange. Is there something we disagree about? Could you tell me what it is?

I lean towards leaving things there kind of open ended, but to help spark discussion I'll end with the question, "Are you a simplisticator or a complicator?"* — wonderer1

Interesting. I have no technical expertise in any area, nor do I have much interest in math or science. Does this 'force' me into the simplisticator corner? How much of this is almost a necessary function of one's education, employment or even neurodiversity?

Is there a third option? On complex matters, I often prefer a suspension of judgement. I'm pretty keen on the answer, 'I don't know' and would prefer it if more people pursued this and just got on with their lives. On matters like QM speculation, the nature of consciousness, etc, the notion of uncertainty is more significant to me (as a skeptic) than trying to force answers. Many of us seem to hold highly complex explanations about matters we are not really qualified to understand. Perhaps this view is just a passive form of simplistication?

I don't understand this exchange. Is there something we disagree about? Could you tell me what it is? — Srap Tasmaner

Only this:
Science looking for the universal of trees.
It's not important. Just got up my nose for a minute.

Interesting. I have no technical expertise in any area, nor do I have much interest in math or science. Does this 'force' me into the simplisticator corner? — Tom Storm

Not at all. You can still appreciate and explore the complexity of transportation systems, foods, relationships, laws and customs, economics, cinema - whatever interests you, if you have the time to pursue the research and the kind of inquisitive mind that would make the effort.

Jolly. I withdraw the phrasing.

Is there a third option? — Tom Storm

I can't help but think the only real option is oscillating between the two, what I was gesturing at with the word 'dialectic'. The synthetic and analytic impulses must both get their say.

Interesting. I have no technical expertise in any area, nor do I have much interest in math or science. Does this 'force' me into the simplisticator corner? How much of this is almost a necessary function of one's education, employment or even neurodiversity?

Is there a third option? — Tom Storm

I think taking the idea of sims and coms (thanks 0 thru 9) too seriously would be... ...wait for it... ...simplistic. I suspect it is a matter of all three.

I think all of us are both sims and coms, in ways that vary idiosyncratically. I don't think technical expertise specifically has much to do with it. I do think having real expertise in some way has something to do with it. Maybe having expertise, in dealing with some aspect of how things work in the world specifically, but for all I know, being expert at bonsai or dealing with human BS, is as effective as being an autistic electrical engineer.

I think having expertise can counteract the impact that the Dunning-Kruger effect has on us. Having a field of investigation where we know what we are talking about might make us more aware of when we don't know what we are talking about and at least a bit better at avoiding putting our foot in our mouths.

Perhaps of similar value, is having greater cognizance of when other people don't know what they are talking about. The knowledge of science aspect does play an important role in this case.

On complex matters, I often prefer a suspension of judgement. I'm pretty keen on the answer, 'I don't know' and would prefer it if more people pursued this and just got on with their lives. — Tom Storm

:up: :up: :up:

I don't know how many times I've explained to Christians that I'm perfectly fine with not knowing things, and admitting as much. I guess one thing about engineering for me, that has given me a real appreciation for people who can show me that I'm wrong, is design reviews. These days I go into design reviews hoping that the others on the review team will look super critically at a design I'm presenting, and spot any boneheaded mistakes I've made.*

When I was forum shopping recently I noted your shoshin as a very appealing aspect to this forum.

On matters like QM speculation, the nature of consciousness, etc, the notion of uncertainty is more significant to me (as a skeptic) than trying to force answers. Many of us hold highly complex explanations about matters we are not really qualified to understand. Perhaps this view is just a passive form of simplistication? — Tom Storm

I will leave those considerations of the koan to you. I don't know.

* There are limits. :rage: :wink:

And BTW, I'm a bit stoned, and suspect that was awfully disorganized and stream of consciousness, but I'm a bit stoned.

And BTW, I'm a bit stoned, and suspect that was awfully disorganized and stream of consciousness, but I'm a bit stoned. — wonderer1

So, not "boneheaded mistakes" but stoneheaded mistakes? (Just joking; I live just five minutes from the stoner capital of Australia). :halo:

At work it's boneheaded. I save the stoneheaded mistakes for the forum.

:up:

I haven't read through the Tractacus, but what you said reminded me of the Zen saying, "Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; After one gains insight through the teachings of a master, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; After enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters are waters." — wonderer1

How do you interpret that? How does it bear on the topic?

In respect of the general question, one way of thinking about it is that the search for general laws brings a simplicity to complex phenomena. For example Newton's laws sum up in a few lines the rules which govern the behaviour of matter across an enormous range. Einstein's theories can be written on an A4 page (or so I believe). But their manifestations can form unfathomable complexities.

I listened to a talk by a physicist the other day. He pointed out that the concept of gravity is simple. But if you balance, say, a pencil on its point, it is impossible, to all intents, to predict how it will fall. He used that as an illustration of how simplicity can give rise to complexity.

Overall, in traditional philosophy, I think 'the simple' was felt to be somehow prior to or superior to 'the complex' because of the tendency of complex things to break down. The source or origin of things - not God, in Greek philosophy, but the One - was completely simple, and so not prone to change. But then, the world, as they obviously recognised, was exceedingly complex. So how the simple One became the complicated Many was one of the major preoccupations of Greek philosophy. Intererestingly, atomism was a proposed solution to that problem, as the atom was essentially simple in that it was not composed of parts and was eternal, but in combination with other atoms, could give rise to an infinite number of variations. That was the genius of Democritus and Leucippus (eloquently stated in the classic text, De Rerum Natura, by the Roman poet Lucretius, still a staple of university curricula worldwide).

Too much pseudo-intellectualism.

You haven't understood the topic.