|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
13th February 2014, 06:44 AM | #2321 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
As can be seen from my actual highlighting, which you snipped, I highlighted your claim that Nersessian's "specificity enables more targeted, intelligent management of research programs". I assert that the evidence you have been providing within this thread (in the form of your own posts) has not supported, and has in fact undermined, your claim that Nersessian specificity enables more intelligent management of research programs. Fair enough. So far as I can tell, the only person here whose thinking has been greatly influenced by Nersessian's model is you, BurntSynapse, Buck Field. When speculating about the possible impact of Nersessian's model on management of research, it seems reasonable to use your own posts as a guide. That may be unfair to Nersessian, but it is not unfair to you. The evidence you have presented so far, in the form of your own posts, tells us the specificity of Nersessian's model does not guarantee specificity of recommendations made by those who claim to have been influenced by Nersessian's model. Your posts also tell us Nersessian's influence will not necessarily lead to more intelligent management of research programs. To "narrow it down" for you, I will remind you of the few specific recommendations you have made within this thread. You resisted repeated requests for specificity, but I found an interview in which Buck Field (aka BurntSynapse) said he wanted to hire a bunch of quaternions experts. There's nothing wrong with quaternions, but the reasons you gave for thinking further research into quaternions would be beneficial appeared to have been derived from the crackpot idea that quaternion formulations of Maxwell's equations are inequivalent to vector formulations. Pressed for specifics, you began to speak of Euler angles. When experts explained that Euler angles are just a particular representation that happens to use vectors, and that the problem with Euler angles is a mere coordinate singularity akin to the meaninglessness of "east" at the North Pole, you retreated into vague claims of risk in vector mathematics. Pressed for specific examples of serious risk within any mathematics used by physicists, you resorted to name-dropping, mentioning Gödel several times (while misspelling his name). Gödel himself did not perceive any serious risks within mathematics, so we suspected your name-dropping was nothing more than a crackpot misinterpretation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Subsequent discussion confirmed that suspicion. You then resorted to mentioning Quine and other names, even though you understood Quine's research no better than Gödel's. You have also advocated "dimensional analysis", which appears to have been a phrase you invented without realizing it's a common name for sanity-checking units. Your advocacy of "dimensional analysis" appears to have been motivated by your belief that physicists have not been paying enough attention to non-Euclidean geometries. You apparently were not aware that Einstein's general theory of relativity is based upon non-Euclidean geometry. In every one of those cases, you resisted correction by domain experts. Elevating your own uninformed judgment above that of domain experts is not the hallmark of intelligent project management. The fact that someone who claims to have been influenced by Nersessian's model has been recommending so many specific examples of unintelligent project management tends to undermine your claim that Nersessian's model enables more intelligent project management. You also misrepresented the Rational Unified Process by claiming it recommends revision of NSF's definition of transformative research. Unfamiliarity with prominent standards (and/or dishonest misrepresentation of such standards) is not a hallmark of intelligent project management. Speaking of NSF's definitions, you are still pretending you were criticized just for suggesting those definitions should be revised: You were criticized for the vagueness of your suggestion that NSF's definition of transformative research should be revised. That definition is pretty short. Which specific words, phrases, or sentences do you believe to be inconsistent with "HPS experts' models for, and conceptualizations of" etc? What specific words, phrases, or sentences would you use instead? Refusing to answer such specific questions is not a hallmark of intelligent project management. Complaining about how no one understands what you mean is not a hallmark of intelligent project management. When no one understands, good project managers explain themselves more clearly and specifically. Poor communication, bafflegab, and name-dropping are not hallmarks of intelligent project management. To your credit, you have told us you do not really believe faster-than-light travel can be achieved by applying the principles of project management to scientific research. Even so, you continue to write as though you believe the principles of project management have something to do with your advocacy of a faster-than-light project: You have ignored repeated requests to explain why you continue to write as though project management were relevant to faster-than-light travel even after you have emphatically denied any belief that project management can be achieved by applying the principles of project management to scientific research. Advocacy of expensive projects that are almost certain to fail is not a hallmark of intelligent project management. Summary: You have not presented specific evidence that Nersessian's model enables more intelligent management of research. If we were to judge the impact of Nersessian's model by reading what has been written by the one person in this thread whose thinking has been influenced by Nersessian's model, we would conclude that Nersessian's model is more likely to enable unintelligent management of research. |
13th February 2014, 09:02 AM | #2322 |
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
|
Easily, a fever does not include diagnostic procedures while the diagnosis of a fever necessarily does. Which of course is the distinction between having a fever and being diagnosed with one. Again what you have not explained (other then the analogy thing) is what specific changes you want to make and why. I find it rather curious that before you were remarking to undocumented assumptions yet the one recommendation you actually make is documenting representational analogies. |
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ |
|
13th February 2014, 09:35 AM | #2323 |
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
|
Really?!?! It’s the very distinction you and apparently Kuhn are citing, “Once a paradigm shift is complete”. We are able to specify one particular feature the buildings height is greater than any of those in history. So while we do know a-priori what will make some building the tallest we don’t know a-priori what makes something the next paradigm shift, to do that we would have already had to have made that shift. While some proposal might be potentially “revolutionary, transformative” it isn’t a “paradigm shift” until it is “a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science”. Just by the definition you cited above. It seems you want to ignore the definition you just cited to perhaps assert a potential paradigm shift as a paradigm shift and that’s putting the cart before the horse. |
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ |
|
13th February 2014, 11:04 AM | #2324 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
And your statement just shows that you have no knowledge of the history of paradigm shifts and that your knowledge of the history of science is lacking. None of those organizations are involved in paradigm shifts.
You have yet to even know the history of modern particle physics and astrophysics, and you pretend that project management would have made a difference. Not for Becquerel, Fermi, Pauli, Heisenberg, Bohr, Yukawa in particle physics or Einstein, Hubble or Guth in astrophysics. So please read Kragh's book, there are five major paradigms shifts from Becquerel to Feynman and Gell-Mann, please explain how on earth project management would have helped. |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
13th February 2014, 11:08 AM | #2325 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
13th February 2014, 11:10 AM | #2326 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
13th February 2014, 01:07 PM | #2327 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
The ideas that you've actually explained, as far as I can tell between the gaps and noise, are without merit. You also claim to have a different set of ideas, which you won't explain. Thus, I am justified in simultaneously criticizing your ideas and criticizing your lack of explanations.
To make things clearer, I think that the first set of ideas (the meritless set) is basically the whole enchilada. I think the latter set of ideas (the unexplained) doesn't actually exist. The only evidence for such a set is stuff like this:
Quote:
|
13th February 2014, 02:35 PM | #2328 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
|
We have to pick our battles. It seems appropriate to snip things which seem uncontroversial or not worth introducing distractions.
The description of my opinion seems a sufficiently abbreviated summary as to be a useful shorthand, but would be too high level for criticism of underlying processes, intermediate steps, etc., which are omitted for practical reasons. In responding to Ben earlier for example, I had to decide whether to launch into a distinction of HPS use of paradigm shift in noun or verb uses, and particulars within them. Sometimes we have to guess from context, and in this case: an estimation of the audience level of familiarity with the material. This last factor is why I even use the term paradigm shift instead of cognitive frame recategorization or some such. I love agreement, however small! If we're going to criticize details, please criticize an accurate version of my actual position. I claim that Nersessian's model offers policy developers a resource they previously lacked during the last major round of transformative research support guideline development. I believe a start to that project can be considered to have begun at a workshop in 2004 (I think) in Sante Fe, and completion could plausibly be claimed with the 2012 website updates explaining transformative research. As a guide is reasonable - so is consideration of context which seems a recurring problem. In my recollection, use of one's posts as a guide to that person's opinions has never been unfair to a 3rd party. YMMV. Good. I would not want to present anything to be taken as guaranteeing specificity of recommendations, especially when the context appears to change. I don't think I've ever said anything about Nersessian's influence in terms of changing research management. I would say that's not her role or goal. If she advises policy development teams, is she influencing research management? Depends on how direct we feel a consequence needs to be linked to an action in order to qualify as "changing" something. It seems sensible for anyone to resist "Have you stopped beating your wife?" inquiries. Asserting underlying problems can be to avoid substantive problems, but I think I'm pretty inviting of not only well-informed criticism, but even criticism that despite deep flaws, has value. Yes. This criticism was previously covered. I claim that processes matter in the real world, giving the example of binary math. While all the equations may be equivalent, what we can actually do in the real world given real world constraints makes a huge difference that it would be very foolish to ignore. It may be a "mere singularity", but that seems valid counter-evidence to the claim that there is "no difference" in using the different systems. I took math experts at their word that it did matter, as well as other claims they made which I'm not in a position to argue with them, any more than I can argue with Nersessian. The histories I read of the Heaviside-Tait debates claimed this was an issue, and I've no problem admitting that I've virtually no ability to assess the reliability of those accounts, so yeah: I'm vague. Nevertheless the accounts seem reliable, so like everything else, I'm going with them (like Dirty Harry) until someone comes along with changes that make sense. Name-dropping is normally used to position oneself within a social hierarchy which members of this group could consider my purpose. It is often used to create a sense of superiority by raising one's status in the group. By implying (or directly asserting) a connection to people of high status, the name-dropper hopes to raise his or her own social status to a level closer to that of those whose names he or she has dropped, and thus elevate himself or herself above, or into, present company. When people are from a very privileged position, from time to time it seems appropriate to give clues to others who seem to be speaking to a very different sort of person. If they don't get the hint, it shows. Name-dropping can also be used to identify people with a common bond. By indicating the names of people one knows, one makes known his or her social circle, providing an opportunity for others with similar connections to relate. As a form of appeal to authority, name-dropping can be an important form of informal argumentation, as long as the name being dropped is of someone who is an expert on the subject of the argument and that person's views are accurately represented. My citations are intended to be of this type. To me, focus on umlauts more than the point of what was intended smacked of desperation to avoid seeing the point. Correct: it was the appropriateness or certainty of reliable application to which his Incompleteness Theorem speaks. Yes, undoubtedly. Exactly what one might expect from 9/11 conspiracists' reactions to recommendations by an architectural engineer for improving skyscraper designs to withstand jet collision. Useless. If there is some specific attribute to the Incompleteness Theorem's relevance to certainty of a system upon which I've erred, critics must state what that is. Hand waving toward a mere implication of deficient understanding is only intelligible with regard to the person expressing such vacuous objections. The fact is that I've been and continue to be quite open about my lack of knowledge of Gödel, but this stands in sharp contrast with my exposure to Quine, who is on a par with Popper in my personal HPS pantheon. False. I had realized the compound term was in use in math, but so far it has only proven to be an obstacle within environments where there is an all-but-inerrant instinct to misinterpret, which is to say: here. If presenting to mathematicians however, I would feel uncomfortable using the term due to audience considerations. I'd have to say that at a first approximation, this is accurate - but only to a first approximation. True. I consider GR to be a generalization of special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. I regard GR as concomitant with the notion that spacetime curvature depends on the energy and momentum of whatever matter and energy are present, but that could be mistaken. I haven't researched the specifics. Hm. I can see how it might seem that way, but obviously my view differs. This judgment assumes agreement on the appropriate domain which it seems clear is absent. If you perceive many examples of this type, your condemnation is rational with the available information you have. Absent suspicion that there might be contextual factors which change the calculus of one's reasoning, it seems difficult to alert one to the uncertainty of their opinion. Of course it does not. Application of interpretations by some people of some specific principles of the Rational Unified Process within discipline appropriate translations in support of very narrow, specialist goals as understood within some specific cognitive framework about which the average scientist had never heard, etc., etc.,... with ad infinitum empiricist objections as are well known in HPS. We can always object on the basis that X isn't empirically and completely defined for every term and for each term used in each definition. OK. "Just" seems the operative word here. I don't think I ever suggested, nor to I believe criticism of me was only motivated by revising NSF definition. That is one of the criticisms raised, ignoring the merit of such criticisms. Agreed. That's a good question which I think should be answered by the kind of process used which produced the first version. I will probably drop offline for a time to answer that. A valuable observation, true in more ways than you know. Since I've no trouble being understood with military, policy, HPS, PM, NGO, and other audiences, I'm fairly certain I've not complained about a global situation which doesn't exist outside this tiny thread. Depends. I'd say good project managers weigh the costs & benefits for investing in developing and presenting more clear and specific explanations to those who indicate contempt for understanding their opinion, then make a decision based on the context. True. Because "real belief" (meaning high certainty) in a successful FTL outcome is unwarranted, (as in the YouTube graph) while cautious optimism regarding unparalleled related advantages appears to me, well-justifiable. It would be more accurate to say that project management could be valuable for a successful FTL project. I don't think my advocacy per se relates to PM, in that I don't think I'd ever describe it that way, no. I'm going to assume "FTL" was intended for the middle (2nd) use of "project management" in that sentence. On that assumption, it would be more accurate to say that if FTL were achievable, better project management (defined as designed for this application to the degree possible) in support of the scientists would make the likelihood of creating enabling discoveries more likely, over reduced durations, at lower overall cost, and of better final quality than if we do not improve the current standards, which are in many cases: first drafts. I hope this is not taken as ignoring another request, since if its not a typo, I don't know what it means. An infinite number of things are not intelligent PM, project advocacy like that included. If specific (empirical) evidence existed, there would be no need to recommend the change. I'm advocating an experimental approach based on inference from disciplines which are not traditionally associated. I think I've been competent in identifying potential risks of transdisciplinary, non-traditional application, and more than fair in admitting the limitations of myself and my judgments. True, but since that's an inappropriate standard for anyone proposing a recommendation to do something new, it seems inappropriate here. To repeat: that I'm a poor representative of her genius seems beyond doubt. |
13th February 2014, 04:41 PM | #2329 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Surely I am not joking, Mr BurntSynapse !
You claimed that there was a "Nersessian Model". Then you claimed that that was actually a "Nersessian Representation". Now you move the goal posts again to "the main thrust of Creating Scientific Concepts". Any way you have still not cited, quoted or described what this thing is or for that matter its relevance to this thread. Thus [B]BurntSynapse[/b], please cite, quote or describe the "Nersessian Model"/"Nersessian Representation"/"the main thrust of Creating Scientific Concepts". First asked 5th February 2014. Apparently you cannot understand sarcasm or English : * We know that Nersessian's work has nothing to do with project management and any continuing fantasy that project management can do magic in the area of scientific research (like create a FTL drive). * You have explained nothing about project management and the specific area of application (scientific research) that we are talking about. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
13th February 2014, 05:37 PM | #2330 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
I would prefer to criticize an accurate version of your actual position, but the best I can do is to criticize the version you have presented.
I did not realize your claims regarding the importance of Nersessian's model were limited to the process of revising agency guidelines for funding transformative research. When I highlighted your specific claim we are ostensibly discussing, I thought you were claiming Nersessian's model enables more intelligent management of research programs in general. This is an example of your resistance to correction by domain experts. With my highlighting: Yes, we realize your name-dropping was intended to
To me, it's comic relief. The person who was hoping to create a sense of superiority while implying a connection to people of high status did not know how to spell the name of the authority he was invoking. Incorrect. Gödel's incompleteness theorems (note the plural) are not about certainty of reliable application. Gödel's incompleteness theorems say any reasonable system that can express the basic properties of arithmetic will be unable to prove all of the truths that system can express. On 21 November 2013, I explained your errors in considerable detail, complete with citations (including several in the spoiler). You ignored that detailed criticism, and you now refer to that detailed criticism as "Hand waving toward a mere implication of deficient understanding" and as "vacuous objections". This is another example of your resistance to correction by domain experts. On 22 November 2013, I noted your grotesque distortion of Quine's underdetermination theory and quoted Burton Dreben's refutation of a misinterpretation that may be related to yours. General relativity says gravity is a manifestation of non-Euclidean geometry. Einstein's notion of a spacetime manifold is pseudo-Riemannian (hence non-Euclidean). You have been told this several times, and it would be trivial for you to confirm what you have been told. If you are unable to comprehend Wikipedia articles, you could ask your skiing buddy Lisa Randall. Obviously. This phenomenon has been studied by social psychologists such as David Dunning and Jeffrey Kruger. Yes. I noticed that mistake too late to correct my post. I agree with that. Our disagreements involve the question of whether your advocacy of FTL projects and your conduct within this thread are signs of better project management or worse. |
13th February 2014, 08:44 PM | #2331 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,299
|
|
__________________
"Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it." -- Anonymous Slashdot poster "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore." -- James Nicoll |
|
14th February 2014, 07:15 AM | #2332 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
|
|
14th February 2014, 07:56 AM | #2333 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
|
Perhaps that is your best, but we would have a meager approach to communication indeed if it were true.
Looking for fault in others' words, presentation, or appearance without seeking understanding or contribution seems far from anything to which most people would aspire on perhaps more careful consideration. In accord with your previous claim, I'm going to regard this criticism as "not the best you can do", since this states a position I don't hold and differs substantially from what was presented. Especially notable is introduction of a "limited to" condition which did not exist in my claim. I don't think asking that criticism be accurate is reaching for the stars. This venue has by far provided the most criticisms, mistakenly claimed to address opinions I hold. Rereading the thread to see where/how the general application got inserted into the specific claim highlighted, I didn't see an obvious candidate, so I'm not sure how to respond. I was not aware anyone here claimed expertise on the Heaviside-Tait debates, much less that they contested what other scholars HAD cited important differences in methodology, which to me is the relevant standard. Your comment suggests you have something else in mind. I suspect your criticism again attacks a position different than that stated, but absent a clear reference to the target of the attack, its impossible to have much certainty. I've already acknowledged the fact that many here possess very high confidence in my premeditated dishonesty. As indicated before, the difficulty considering the possibility that my proposals are in fact well-founded, and that my opinions are changeable upon presentation of good argument is a completely normal and common characteristic for groups such as this. You criticize a position I don't hold, haven't claimed, and even assuming I had, this particular if-then style objection would still seem to be false to the degree it's truth-functional at all, which seems debatable. Quite to the contrary of the premise: I've been very clear that I'm not familiar with Gödel's "results" and underlying derivations in the mathematical sense. I only claim a knowledge of a description of very narrow application of his incompleteness theorem provided by a primary source which if cited, would almost have to be considered name-dropping. On the other hand, this lack of familiarity with mathematical results has produced no noticeable obstacles to the desired effects to most audiences, so this criticism seems to also rest on a non-sequitur. Also, given the context of profound and highly consistent misperception relative to what I actually write, I think it likely my intended effects have been understood or remembered no more accurately, although you seem to have both very clear ideas and certainty that makes real-world verification (of checking with me about my position) superfluous. Actually, its even worse than ignorance: laziness which continues: I still haven't bothered to look up umlaut keystrokes, and decided not to use the Goedel alternate form. Whether something is "about" something else seems vague and highly subjective. For 9/11 conspiracy theorists, skepticism appears not to be "about" questioning their own opinions for example, but it is properly applied (in their view) to the arguments of others, and the merit of such application, seems to justify quite liberal relaxation of normal rules for evidence and reason - such as quoting accurately with context. For example, if we are building a house and tell the decorator we think grey stone is a good candidate for a bathroom wall, we don't expect him to object on the grounds that the geology which created the grey stone has nothing to do with our house, much less bathrooms. Presented as if I would disagree...indicating inaccurate understanding. False. I refer to the citation of "subsequent discussion" as hand-waving. [quote=W.D.Clinger;9836841] ...and as "vacuous objections"[quote] Incorrect. "Vacuous objections" refers to criticism asserting a vague, relative assertion of understanding Quine's research no better than Gödel's, which even if not factually wrong, tends to imply access to either telapathy, or more probably: a very active imagination. This does not appear to be an objection for which real-world evidence or sound reasoning can have much bearing. Vacuous is not a very diplomatic term however, and I probably should have used another. This is another example of your resistance to correction by domain experts. You asserted my ignorance, but without providing any specific defect in what I actually said, it is challenging to know what sort of benefit or correction to my admittedly unlimited ignorance we might expect. This objection again argues against a position I don't hold. I happily stipulate everything in the comment is perfectly accurate in every detail. Can I possibly be more approving? You seem to have confused my statement about overlapping timeframes of GR & non-Euclidean geometry development for some statement about the content of those theories. I'm not in a position to personally evaluate the content, only a few small characteristics. This really should not be that difficult a distinction to make, surely. Unsurprisingly, my opinion differs since I think of them as non-overlapping. Should Linus Pauling's Vitamin C fables, Bobby Fischer's anti-Semitism, or Arthur Doyle's fairies be taken as evidence for the quality of the field in which they made their most notable contribution? It doesn't seem so to me. |
14th February 2014, 08:10 AM | #2334 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
14th February 2014, 02:38 PM | #2335 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
|
The perception of which seems inversely proportional to both the degree an audience keeps the "thinking" in "critical thinking" and perhaps their grades in English.
Some psycholinguistic theorists suggest that sarcasm ("Great idea!", "I hear they do fine work."), hyperbole ("That's the best idea I have heard in years!"), understatement ("Sure, what the hell, it's only cancer..."), rhetorical questions ("What, does your spirit have cancer?"), double entendre ("I'll bet if you do that, you'll be communing with spirits in no time...") and jocularity ("Get them to fix your bad back while you're at it.") should all be considered forms of verbal irony. Regardless of the various ways theorists categorize figurative language types, people in conversation who are attempting to interpret speaker intentions and discourse goals do not generally seem to identify, by name, the kinds of tropes used. Readers may draw from that anything they like. "Those practical applications"? |
14th February 2014, 03:03 PM | #2336 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Once again, I see:
a) Lengthy rebuttals of critiques of your idea---particularly rejecting the form, phrasing, timing, author, or authority of such critiques. Once again I do not see: a) Any positive argument explaining how your idea is a good idea. I've never, ever, ever seen a proposal presented so cagily. It's like: imagine if the Quantum Universe report read like this:
Quote:
|
14th February 2014, 03:57 PM | #2337 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
14th February 2014, 03:59 PM | #2338 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
Your approach may be the best you can do. I concede that.
"Limited to" was my inference. I concede that. You object when your claims are interpreted as general, just as you object when your claims are interpreted as being limited to the specific circumstances you mention. I concede that. It's easier to get away with mathematical errors at a Trekkie convention than with audiences that contain many physicists, mathematicians, and professionals who work in related technical disciplines. I concede that. Some readers may not bother to click on the link I provided for your grotesque distortion of Quine's underdetermination theory. I concede that. Although readers who do click on that link can read Burton Dreben's demolition of your belief that Quine's underdetermination theory supports your conclusion that it's "very difficult to formally demonstrate one theory (Zeus) is better or worse at explaining falling than a theory of gravity", you do not understand how Dreben's words refute your argument. I concede that. I concede that your advocacy of FTL projects is analogous to Arthur Conan Doyle's belief in fairies. I also concede that the relationship between intelligent project management and your conduct within this thread may be analogous to the relationship between chess mastery and anti-Semitism. |
14th February 2014, 04:12 PM | #2339 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,299
|
*Ahem* I think your example might have worked better if you'd chosen a venue less likely to contain an unusually high number of physicists, mathematicians, and professionals who work in related technical disciplines. Like, say, a
|
__________________
"Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it." -- Anonymous Slashdot poster "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore." -- James Nicoll |
|
14th February 2014, 04:30 PM | #2340 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
|
14th February 2014, 06:32 PM | #2341 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
|
|
14th February 2014, 07:20 PM | #2342 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
|
Yes, I try for my best, and try not to change the subject or resort to snarky attacks when my errors are pointed out.
But not willing to show an inch of willingness extend a hand of rational understanding? That's a shame, I think. Criticism of specific claims when interpreted as general and general claims being interpreted as specific with the only apparent purpose to justify a strawman fallacy is objectionable categorically, but also in point of context because its not merely unhelpful, but seemingly deliberately seeking to avoid agreement and progress. That observation seems relevant as your comment conveys desperation to never admit the slightest error in any detail. This habit seems unfaithful to the purpose of critical thinking and logic - which I take to be tools that are supposed to guide us to better thinking. I yield to your apparent superior experience getting away with mathematical errors. My field is standards development for management & administration where I've made plenty of mistakes, but I think its been years since I consciously tried to obscure them. A sense of mortality seems to make us more honest in some ways. If someone wants to debate mathematical claims, (rather than the claims about relative risk in selection and application of particular mathematics), I must excuse myself. A number of criticisms like yours here continue to imply that I profess significant competence in that field, after failing 2nd year Calculus twice. Anyone is free to call me out the next time I profess ANY serious mathematical talent not taught at a nameless Ivy League biz school. If you'd explain what, exactly is the problem with my position, there's room for dialog. I'm happy to adopt any modification for which you can provide believable support - all you have to do is present it. "Grotesque distortion" doesn't tell me what, out of the infinite number of potentially related concepts is problematic. I don't care whether I'm shown my current appraisal of Quine is wrong or my theory is bad, because there's probably an infinite number of ways that's true about any position. Surely its fair to ask that critics provide some clue as to what is so horrible about the advocates claims. What possible benefit derives from attacking opinions another doesn't hold and making vague claims about positions' problems. The Zeus quote is not my idea. It's almost a verbatim quote explaining Quine from an award winning HPS professor whose name I'm happy to provide with the understanding I'm not deceptively name-dropping. Clearly this is more comfortable than addressing any actual point of the discussion, but in my experience being a courageous adult usually seems less painful in the long run. And what do you think the relationship is between anti-Semitism and its ability to provide evidence for or against chess mastery? My opinion has been stated (that there is no proper relation). Might we agree? |
14th February 2014, 08:10 PM | #2343 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
|
Maybe any or all. I'm willing to take any of the 3 and let you pick which. All I need is to understand what is meant by the term "your pet theory", assuming this refers to concept(s) I actually believe...
Also, we'd probably need to have a shared definition of "show", so that we agree on whether something explains something else adequatlely. I tend to use possible worlds semantics for justification but here, larger issues of modal logic looms large and consistently present the greatest obstacles. I'm not sure how to overcome those. Ideas? |
14th February 2014, 09:27 PM | #2344 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
You seem to have forgotten that you objected to interpretation of your highlighted claim as a general claim and later objected when that very same highlighted claim was interpreted as being limited to the specific circumstances you mentioned when stating your objection to interpreting the claim as general.
You seem to have forgotten that your claims about relative risk rested upon your erroneous interpretation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which was a mathematical error. Once your mathematical error was recognized, your claims about risk in mathematics were seen to have no foundation. You seem to have forgotten that you have consistently preferred your own (mis)interpretation on mathematical issues such as quaternions, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and the ubiquity of non-Euclidean geometry in relativistic physics to well-reasoned and clearly stated explanations provided by qualified physicists and mathematicians. You seem to have forgotten that my quotation of Burton Dreben's refutation of your grotesque distortion of Quine's underdetermination theory was accompanied by a citation and link to Dreben's entire paper, which is mainly devoted to refuting Hilary Putnam's many misinterpretations of Quine. It is conceivable (albeit unlikely) that the award-winning HPS professor whose name you're happy to provide (but haven't) is even more prominent than Putnam, but that doesn't matter. Wrong is wrong, no matter who's wrong. You seem to have forgotten that you introduced Sir Doyle's belief in fairies within a discussion of "your advocacy of FTL projects and your conduct within this thread". The question you invited me to answer made no sense within that context unless you think Sir Doyle's belief in fairies is somehow analogous to your advocacy or conduct. I agree there should be no relationship between anti-Semitism and chess mastery, just as there should be no relationship between intelligent project management and your conduct within this thread. On the other hand, it would be easy to name a chess master who was anti-Semitic. That's why I wrote "may be analogous" instead of "is analogous". |
15th February 2014, 02:22 AM | #2345 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
15th February 2014, 05:30 AM | #2346 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
This thread reminds me of this:
http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhob...4#.Uv9hWhaDIZ4 |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
15th February 2014, 06:10 AM | #2347 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
|
Alleged memory lapses or no, if an altered, misapplied, or mischaracterized position is attacked by a critic, pointing out the fact seems like it should be allowed.
The relevance of Gödel to real world problems to which I refer came from others (name drops suppressed) who claim we can give more general epistemological interpretations of Gödel's theorems. The fact that this is not a mathematical claim does not somehow make it bad math. Application statements are different than statements about the tool being applied. A hammer has nothing to say about the deck construction to which it's applied, and that fact does not undermine that it can help us build one. A classic HPS example considers the traditional view that all truths can be proved by self-evident steps from self-evident truths and observation. It was pointed out that even the truths of elementary number theory do not seem derivable by any self-evident steps from self-evident truths. It is claimed that (assuming particular HPS understanding of “analytic”) there must be, (by Gödel's theorems), synthetic truths in mathematics. These historians claim Gödel himself made remarks in a very similar spirit that even the theory of integers is demonstrably non-analytic (in the HPS sense). To object meaningfully, some fact about these claims or my use of them should be shown as defective in some specific way. Simply calling an opinion a grotesque distortion and casting other (apparently angry) aspersions does not, and should not suffice for actual criticism. In fact, if such tactics are the best attacks offered, I often tend to take it as at least a preliminary endorsement of the advocates' position. |
15th February 2014, 06:25 AM | #2348 |
You can't expect perfection.
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,512
|
Maybe it is just a simple answer.
There seems to be more Crackpot Physics only because we know more about Physics now. Paul |
__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing |
|
15th February 2014, 07:40 AM | #2349 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
A lot of nonsense has been written about Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Those theorems are easy to explain to people who possess basic knowledge of logic and mathematics, and Douglas Hofstadter did a wonderful job of explaining the meaning of those theorems to a somewhat broader audience, but you are not the only person who still prefers mystical interpretations, of which there have been many. Adding the philosophers' analytic/synthetic muddle to the inherent technical difficulty of the theorems doesn't help.
Had you studied Quine's philosophy, you'd know Quine eventually rejected the analytic/synthetic distinction. I am not entirely convinced by Quine's argument, but Quine makes a very good case against the sort of thinking you endorsed in your paragraph above. You continue to pretend my characterization of your opinion as a grotesque distortion of Quine's theory was unsupported by specifics or argument. Fair-minded readers who examine that post will conclude otherwise. Of course you would. That earns 20 points on John Baez's crackpot index. Speaking of which:
|
15th February 2014, 08:45 AM | #2350 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
explaining the joke
Compare
with
Originally Posted by Panu Raatikainen
By suppressing the philosophers' names, BurntSynapse muddled the paragraph. In BurntSynapse's version, you might think Putnam's allegation was made by the the same person(s) who observed that not all truths of arithmetic can be "proved by self-evident steps from self-evident truths and observation". Putnam's claim actually depends upon a dichotomy Quine had rejected. ETA: Everything below this was adding during editing of my original post. Actually, I suspect the assumption of an analytic/synthetic dichotomy, which I attributed above to Putnam, is an artifact of Raatikainen's rephrasing of Putnam's claim. I don't have Putnam's "What is Mathematical Truth?" in my personal library, and won't be able to read the full paper until Tuesday. From what I can see of the paper at Google Books, Putnam doesn't actually use the word "synthetic". I also find that Putnam's paper comes pretty close to my own view of mathematics, and quite likely influenced my view. (I read it within a few years of its publication.) My objections to BurntSynapse's paragraph (beyond its plagiarism) therefore boil down to the ambiguity BurntSynapse introduced and to its reliance upon the notoriously unhelpful analytic/synthetic dichotomy, which appears (at least in part) to have been Raatikainen's doing. In general, however, I have no objection to what Raatikainen has written. In fact, I'd like to call attention to Raatikainen's review of a cleverly titled book by Torkel Franzén: Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse. In that review, Raatikainen applauds Franzén's refutation of BurntSynapse's argument:
Originally Posted by Panu Raatikainen
|
15th February 2014, 11:37 AM | #2351 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
BurntSynapse, please learn the difference between a "citation" and a "name-drop".
A citation is when you help your reader to actually locate the sources of the particular ideas you're using. In academic contexts, this is expected to go as far as giving a page number (if citing a book), a complete article-identifier (if citing a journal article), a URL and date-of-access or stable/archival link (if citing a web resource). A name-drop is when you attach a person's name to a claim, but leaving the reader with little to do but take your word for it that the source said such a thing. I don't think you're actually confused on this point, I think you're pretending to be confused because you think it's funny, but in fact you're doing a great job reinforcing my desire to keep you far, far away from any advisory role at any agency I interact with. |
15th February 2014, 03:34 PM | #2352 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
|
Perhaps - but I think the edits for concision altered the meaning more.
True, if readers were concerned mainly with the source of each idea in the narrative, which is an unusual focus, but not problematic unless we intend to focus on the person making the argument rather than the merit of the argument, as in: ...which tells us nothing about whether the rejection killed the dichotomy or whether the distinction survived despite that rejection, being regarded as useful for, well: drawing distinctions. Carnap was aware of Quine's objections, but justified maintaining the dichotomy on utilitarian grounds - which seem more in line with my work. In my work, an idea or guideline doesn't need to be correct so much as effective. Although SEP claims Quine "doubted" the distinction http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/, your reference makes a very good case for outright rejection. I think the logical case supports skepticism at the very least, while empirical evidence suggests there is something going on if ordinary people can easily can distinguish the 2 types of statements. Perhaps. I learned about it from Kassler's Teaching Company course in the lecture on positivism, where it sounded like it came from Hume, under the label "relations of ideas", SEP also explains Kant's early work as related to Hume also. It would be very helpful to know what "the ambiguity" is, and some hint about what you'd like me to do about it? On this point, (being concerned with utilitarian application), I'd seem to be more aligned with Carnap's thinking described at http://www.iep.utm.edu/quine-an/#H2 Thus, I think "notoriously unhelpful" seems a bit much, but what sort of reliance on that . The examples they give of each category do seem different, so clearly something is going on. To me, he's talking about arguments with regard to mathematics which attack it as unreliable. I don't recognize any of those arguments as opinions I share. I'm reading your references with care, but still don't know what this "misinterpretation" is, unless it is the argument in the above link where it seems quite easy to see a substitution of "math" for my claim about "physicists' use of math". I regard uses of math different than math. Risky use does not mean the math is risky in and of itself in any way, and should not be taken as such. My read of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, (first learned from Gödel, Escher, Bach and as described therein) is that the incompleteness he describes in dialog form is analogous to the project management principles of inherently incomplete documentation, and the issue that PM standards are limited in their ability to define when to apply any particular guideline. That claim doesn't seem mathematical to me, and if it does to others, help in rewording the claim is welcome. A) It's not pretending, and B) it's not my objection. It's more that the specifics seem to attack opinions that I don't hold. Admittedly if the goal is to attack more, time involved in understanding my opinions would detract, and offering anything actually helpful would seem to run counter to that goal. Avoiding to offer any helpful comment can simply be optimizing one's time. In contrast, I found your references to Quine refreshing and informative, and I'm grateful you shared them because I learned from them. It seems rare to see assertions like "Management can do nothing about X", an instance where I do hold the contrary position that management can, and even has an obligation to do something about X. I honestly don't think the vast majority of characterizations attacked reflect opinions I've presented or would agree with. |
15th February 2014, 04:26 PM | #2353 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
|
|
15th February 2014, 06:47 PM | #2354 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
|
|
15th February 2014, 06:57 PM | #2355 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Ha ha! I see. Instead of using the standard, universally-understood, highly-efficient approach to utilizing academic sources, you decided to invent your own approach! Great.
I see that your approach specifies that we're allowed to ask questions, but doesn't mention your willingness to answer them. For example, after I-don't-know how many requests, you still haven't provided the must-requested page citation or quote showing Nersessian's purported statements about identifiable characteristics of revolution-promoting science. Between the no-citations and the reluctant-follow-up: it's funny that you picked an approach that's so easily confused with the approach the approach commonly taken by actual charlatans---remember them? We know a thing or two about charlatans, this being a skeptics' forum. |
15th February 2014, 08:49 PM | #2356 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Sure, why not? Who cares?
Likewise, we should consider striking gold to be a subspecies of geological exploration. We should consider discovering a supernova to be a subspecies of pointing a telescope at the sky. We should consider billion-dollar startups founded in garages to be a subspecies of entrepreneurship. Seriously, who cares? Was this sort of definition under dispute? It doesn't follow that knowledge of the larger category grants you knowledge of how to distinguish the special cases a priori. It follows even less that your knowledge (or have a method for developing a method for finding a method etc. for doing so) improves on the status quo. ETA: Moreover, given that your attempts at identifying conceptual-change opportunities have led you to (a) quaternions, (b) "dimensional analysis", and (c) the "concrete problem" of an approaching world-killing meteor, I don't think that you need to clarify these abstractions. It's like: if you meet a guy who wants to talk about (a) the conceptual distinctions between "orbital mechanics" and "ballistics" in light of GR, and (b) his conclusion that the Moon is a CIA-controlled aerostat that's following him around the world---well, we don't need lots of GR abstractions in order to declare this person's methods unsound. |
16th February 2014, 06:06 AM | #2357 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
|
We all are experts in something. Perhaps you, most certainly Clinger have more knowledge, experience, and skill in utilizing academic resources.
If anyone can point me to good resources for newbies, it would be very welcome. There are 2 reason for that: the first is that my copy of CSC is packed for a move, with unpacking complete probably around April 15th. Second: the only specific characteristics of paradigm-changing science I'm reasonably sure about is her placement of it within a framework. As for description of past requests: demands for "exactly" how her view applies to some unknowable future application seems quite different that the characterization of quite reasonable requests. It was asserted either her model was being used in NSF guidelines already (no evidence ever provided) or I "must explain" my use of "specific problems" after quoting the jacket cover of the book. http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Scien.../dp/0262515075 This is very different than a very reasonable citation request you describe. I think the first sentence of http://logica.ugent.be/philosophica/fulltexts/45-3.pdf provides an answer of some degree. My reply: Hanlon's Razor. |
16th February 2014, 07:47 AM | #2358 |
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
|
Try this…
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct...citations.html ...many people learn this in grade school doing book reports. Of course it is different, as asking you to explain what changes you would what make and why is not asking you to cite the work of others. Unless it is your contention that those others made such recommendations, which of course would be easy for you to cite in that case. Heck, it doesn’t even look like you could cite her as even just asserting her work as “her model”. Say, given that “the only specific characteristics of paradigm-changing science” your “reasonably sure about is her placement of it within a framework” how would you determine that “her model was being used in NSF guidelines already” or not? My reply to that is that it doesn’t take malicious intent to really screw the pooch. Not knowing what one is doing, specifically wants to do or why, while asserting that they just want to experiment and will figure it out (‘expand extrapolation’ was the phrase I think you tried to use) as they go can have just as detrimental effects even lacking malice. Perhaps even worse as one acting with malicious intent at least knows what they want to damage while someone working from just ignorance, though perhaps good intents, may be unaware of the damage they may cause. |
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ |
|
16th February 2014, 08:51 AM | #2359 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
|
Because I interpret:
...to mean that you regard her general view of creativity not applicable to the subset on which I focus. People trying to develop standards which support researchers progress as well as it is feasible for us to. I obviously do not claim physics needs *my* "new, cog-sci-informed management to get it to identify and focus on paradigm-shifting research", since this focus exists and has been developed for years. I do claim the effectiveness of existing guidelines and processes can be improved, based on work like Nersessian's. There exists a persistent misperception I'm not sure how to correct, since I think I correct it often enough. Most arguments seem to keep attacking a phantom position not mine, not of my creation in any other venue, and which simply won't die. To quote Picard: "What he might say with irony, I say with conviction..." Here: we should consider striking gold to be a subspecies of geological exploration. Especially if we are trying to improve gold mining efficiency and effectiveness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_geophysics explains how valuable this transdisciplinary linking is. ...and obviously: if we are trying to improve supernova discovery, our recommendations for improvement seem like they ought to include new discoveries that seem promising in telescope pointing. ...and the same sort of application would seem sensible. It seems to be, especially when supported by a belief that runs counter to my understanding of logic: True, especially when using post-hoc criteria for distinguishing successful transformative research, meaning community accepted. But historically distinctive, post-hoc commonalities seem like the best guidelines for helping improve the future success with lessons we can learn. Kassler's TTC course offers that logic enables "rock solid" inferences. even if we don't know what they're about: He says If no Blonks are Cronks, and Nufu is a Cronk, then we can know Nufu is not a Blonk, without any idea what we just said, and we don't need to. My knowledge improving on the status quo of physics? Hardly, unless someone really wanted to go through a very complex network of relations from information system standards and development to some eventual discovery only identifiable after the fact as improvement. This is perfectly true. Updating guidelines to reflect new research in order to help researchers answer updated questions from physicists, however seems like it should be completely uncontroversial. I think we agree that some updates will be developed at some point, and to me, it seems that there is overwhelming hostility (here) to the idea that incorporating new developments in HPS into those future updates. Research administration is a facilitating process would seem to benefit from greater specificity for example treating scientific models as "hybrid objects, serving as intermediaries between targets and analogical sources in bootstrapping processes" (from CSC dust-jacket/Amazon summary) Perhaps the responses above change whether this applicable. I don't don't see these a. b. & c. illustrations as abstractions, but rather as examples to help explain some concepts. If the conclusion "Incorporating HPS findings like Nersessian's in subsequent revisions of research administration standards and guidelines is a good idea" is of equal plausibility to the conclusion that "the Moon is a CIA-controlled aerostat" I would agree. Obviously, they don't seem that way to me. |
16th February 2014, 10:53 AM | #2360 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
|
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|