IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Reply
Old 13th February 2014, 06:44 AM   #2321
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
With my highlighting:

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Ben m has made it very clear that he is interested in what Nersessian has to say about paradigm shifts, and specifically how project management can be used to make changes in how actual scientists do science in order to bring about future paradigm shifts. You have failed to offer that, while implying that you are basing you own ideas on her model of exactly this.

So, Burnt Synapse: your conversation on the Nersessian Model is cordially invited.
Her model speaks to paradigm shifts as a type of cognitive change in the way lactation in mammals speaks to cows nursing calves.

Once again for those who repeatedly miss it: the relevance of the model is that its specificity is new, and I claim this specificity enables more targeted, intelligent management of research programs, projects, and portfolios.
The evidence you've provided thus far undermines your claim.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
You highlight my asssertion that I claim the Nersessian Model specificity is new and enables improvements.
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".

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Is your objection that I do not claim this? Do you assert her model's specificity is not new? Do you assert it's specificity is unusable or unusable for improvement?

Any of these? All? ...or some combination?
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Objecting by reference to "evidence [I've] provided" in a discussion that's gone on this long makes it difficult to guess what you take as relevant to undermining. If you could help narrow it down for me, I may be able to understand your objection(s) better.
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:

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
This is not to say we cannot be fairly confident in some near-term modifications to administration guidelines that would be appropriate, as already explained. That explanation was previously ridiculed as merely "...changing some words". In a venue where criticism of this level merits no objection, investing much time in generating application scenarios would seem wasted. Your accurate perception of some reticence on my part stems from that.

To get back to your primary focus, I think organizations like NSF should revise their standards for consistency with HPS experts' models for, and conceptualizations of "transformative" and 'revolutionary" science - near term, specific changes.
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:

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
As a thought experiment related to where transformation is explicitly called for, I propose to consider what structural and organizational support systems would be most helpful to successful research if the Earth faced destruction within a few decades, and reaching a habitable world some tens of light years away were our only available means of survival. This seems, IMO to offer a Nersessian Model "specific problem", motivation for Kuhn's "loosening" of "normal-science" rules that have seemed in the past to accompany theoretical changes "as dramatic as any that have come before" cited in the Quantum Universe report.
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.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2014, 09:02 AM   #2322
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post

Apparently I've not explained the relationship between project management and the application areas where it is used enough times, but don't think increased repetition is likely to succeed either. Your request seems like insisting that a doctor explain how a fever includes diagnostic procedures.

Not really sure how a doc can answer that.

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

Last edited by The Man; 13th February 2014 at 09:41 AM. Reason: typo
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2014, 09:35 AM   #2323
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Definition: A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share" (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself" (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, reject the germ theory of disease to posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or reject modern physics and optics to posit that aether carries light. In contrast, a critic in the humanities can choose to adopt an array of stances (e.g., Marxist criticism, Freudian criticism, Deconstruction, 19th-century-style literary criticism), which may be more or less fashionable during any given period but all regarded as legitimate. Since the 1960s, the term has also been used in numerous non-scientific contexts to describe a profound change in a fundamental model or perception of events, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences.

If you see anything in that or any other generally accepted definition which includes a "past-only" restriction, please cite it.

Really?!?! It’s the very distinction you and apparently Kuhn are citing, “Once a paradigm shift is complete”.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Positions staked out with "always", "never", and tied with claims of how X is impossible tend to be mistakes.

We may not be able to specify exactly any particular feature of the world's next tallest building, but we can probably say a lot about it, even if all current examples are historical. Perhaps that would be a controversial claim with 9/11 conspiracy groups, but it doesn't seem we should take that sort of objection too seriously.

You could be right from a very narrow view of what a specific paradigm shift will feature, and this is entirely consistent with the principle of progressive elaboration for projects - but that is very different than being able to say the kinds of cognitive change a cognitive framework will feature that would cause us to want to refer to it as revolutionary, transformative, or a paradigm shift.
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
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2014, 11:04 AM   #2324
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
This suggests that you believe research scope, budgets, facilities, and support structures for research play no role. I, the NSF, NASA, DOE, and every major scientific and business organization in the world disagree.
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2014, 11:08 AM   #2325
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Next time I'm skiing with Lisa Randall in Aspen (where I got the metaphor) I'll mention your feedback.


Noted.
Be sure to ask here what the practical application is! You don't know the difference. Please ask her do, and ask her the difference between poetic metaphor and practical applications while you are at it.

I am waiting for whatever you bring back, please do ask her.

__________________
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2014, 11:10 AM   #2326
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Definition: A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science.
Sigh, and would your baby theory do to help Fermi, Pauli, Guth, Einstein or Hubble.

Do you even know what Fermi's big shift was? Or Guth's? How about Gell-Mann?
__________________
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2014, 01:07 PM   #2327
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
You yourself simultaneously seem to claim that my position is unexplained and without merit - an obvious fallacy.
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:
Want me to take criticism seriously? Either get lucky (which has happened here) or state a position I endorse as accurate and criticize that.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2014, 02:35 PM   #2328
BurntSynapse
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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".
We have to pick our battles. It seems appropriate to snip things which seem uncontroversial or not worth introducing distractions.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
I love agreement, however small!

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
When speculating about the possible impact of Nersessian's model on management of research,
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
it seems reasonable to use your own posts as a guide.
As a guide is reasonable - so is consideration of context which seems a recurring problem.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
That may be unfair to Nersessian, but it is not unfair to you.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
Good. I would not want to present anything to be taken as guaranteeing specificity of recommendations, especially when the context appears to change.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Your posts also tell us Nersessian's influence will not necessarily lead to more intelligent management of research programs.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
You resisted repeated requests for specificity,
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I found an interview in which Buck Field (aka BurntSynapse) said he wanted to hire a bunch of quaternions experts.
Yes.
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
akin to the meaninglessness of "east" at the North Pole, you retreated into vague claims of risk in vector mathematics.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Pressed for specific examples of serious risk within any mathematics used by physicists, you resorted to name-dropping...
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
mentioning Gödel several times (while misspelling his name)...
To me, focus on umlauts more than the point of what was intended smacked of desperation to avoid seeing the point.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Gödel himself did not perceive any serious risks within mathematics,
Correct: it was the appropriateness or certainty of reliable application to which his Incompleteness Theorem speaks.
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
...so we suspected your name-dropping was nothing more than a crackpot misinterpretation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
I'd have to say that at a first approximation, this is accurate - but only to a first approximation.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
You apparently were not aware that Einstein's general theory of relativity is based upon non-Euclidean geometry.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
In every one of those cases, you resisted correction by domain experts.
Hm. I can see how it might seem that way, but obviously my view differs.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Elevating your own uninformed judgment above that of domain experts is not the hallmark of intelligent project management.
This judgment assumes agreement on the appropriate domain which it seems clear is absent.
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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...
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
You also misrepresented the Rational Unified Process by claiming it recommends revision of NSF's definition of transformative research.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Unfamiliarity with prominent standards (and/or dishonest misrepresentation of such standards) is not a hallmark of intelligent project management.
OK.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Speaking of NSF's definitions, you are still pretending you were criticized just for suggesting those definitions should be revised.
"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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
You were criticized for the vagueness of your suggestion that NSF's definition of transformative research should be revised.
That is one of the criticisms raised, ignoring the merit of such criticisms.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
That definition is pretty short.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Which specific words, phrases, or sentences do you believe to be inconsistent with "HPS experts' models for, and conceptualizations of" etc?
That's a good question which I think should be answered by the kind of process used which produced the first version.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
What specific words, phrases, or sentences would you use instead?
I will probably drop offline for a time to answer that.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Refusing to answer such specific questions is not a hallmark of intelligent project management.
A valuable observation, true in more ways than you know.
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Complaining about how no one understands what you mean is not a hallmark of intelligent project management.
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.
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
When no one understands, good project managers explain themselves more clearly and specifically.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Poor communication, bafflegab, and name-dropping are not hallmarks of intelligent project management.
True.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Advocacy of expensive projects that are almost certain to fail is not a hallmark of intelligent project management.
An infinite number of things are not intelligent PM, project advocacy like that included.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Summary: You have not presented specific evidence that Nersessian's model enables more intelligent management of research.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
To repeat: that I'm a poor representative of her genius seems beyond doubt.

Last edited by BurntSynapse; 13th February 2014 at 03:01 PM.
BurntSynapse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2014, 04:41 PM   #2329
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Surely you must be joking, Mr Reality!
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Apparently I've not explained ...
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.

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th February 2014 at 04:42 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2014, 05:37 PM   #2330
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
When speculating about the possible impact of Nersessian's model on management of research,
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.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
akin to the meaninglessness of "east" at the North Pole, you retreated into vague claims of risk in vector mathematics.
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.
This is an example of your resistance to correction by domain experts.

With my highlighting:
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Pressed for specific examples of serious risk within any mathematics used by physicists, you resorted to name-dropping...
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.
Yes, we realize your name-dropping was intended to
  • create a sense of superiority
  • imply a connection to people of high status
  • suggest you hold a privileged position
  • appeal to authority
Had you shown genuine familiarity with Gödel's results, your name-dropping might have had at least some of the effects you desired.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
mentioning Gödel several times (while misspelling his name)...
To me, focus on umlauts more than the point of what was intended smacked of desperation to avoid seeing the point.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Gödel himself did not perceive any serious risks within mathematics,
Correct: it was the appropriateness or certainty of reliable application to which his Incompleteness Theorem speaks.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
...so we suspected your name-dropping was nothing more than a crackpot misinterpretation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
You apparently were not aware that Einstein's general theory of relativity is based upon non-Euclidean geometry.
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.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
In every one of those cases, you resisted correction by domain experts.
Hm. I can see how it might seem that way, but obviously my view differs.
Obviously. This phenomenon has been studied by social psychologists such as David Dunning and Jeffrey Kruger.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
I'm going to assume "FTL" was intended for the middle (2nd) use of "project management" in that sentence.
Yes. I noticed that mistake too late to correct my post.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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 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.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2014, 08:44 PM   #2331
xtifr
Graduate Poster
 
xtifr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,299
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
That one's going in my quotes file!
__________________
"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
xtifr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2014, 07:15 AM   #2332
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2014, 07:56 AM   #2333
BurntSynapse
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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 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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
This is an example of your resistance to correction by domain experts.
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.


Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
With my highlighting:

Yes, we realize your name-dropping was intended to
  • create a sense of superiority
  • imply a connection to people of high status
  • suggest you hold a privileged position
  • appeal to authority
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Had you shown genuine familiarity with Gödel's results, your name-dropping might have had at least some of the effects you desired.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Incorrect. Gödel's incompleteness theorems (note the plural) are not about certainty of reliable application.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
Presented as if I would disagree...indicating inaccurate understanding.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
You ignored that detailed criticism, and you now refer to that detailed criticism as "Hand waving toward a mere implication of deficient 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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
On 22 November 2013, I noted [url=http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9645163#post9645163]your grotesque distortion of Quine's underdetermination theory.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by BurntSynapse; 14th February 2014 at 08:17 AM.
BurntSynapse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2014, 08:10 AM   #2334
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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.

You do realize the ironic hyperbole of this statement at a sceptics forum?

How about presenting those practical applications?
__________________
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2014, 02:38 PM   #2335
BurntSynapse
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
You do realize the ironic hyperbole of this statement at a sceptics forum?
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.

Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
How about presenting those practical applications?
"Those practical applications"?

Last edited by BurntSynapse; 14th February 2014 at 02:54 PM.
BurntSynapse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2014, 03:03 PM   #2336
ben m
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:
  • Chapter 1. Critiques of dark matter experiments are misinformed.
  • Chapter 2. Do not listen to people who get "hypothesis" and "model" mixed up. A famous philosopher-of-language had this all figured out.
  • Chapter 2a. OK, not famous-famous, but well-respected in her subfield.
  • Chapter 2b. Sub-sub-field, which makes it all the less likely that you are enough of an expert to criticize.
  • Chapter 3. Why you shouldn't refuse to read this report.
  • Chapter 4. Other people have read reports in the past, are you calling them stupid?
  • Chapter 5. Some people who criticize the Dark Energy Survey have misread one sentence in our previous report, but I can't tell you which one. I guess we should have phrased it better. But we will not actually do so. Not in this chapter.
  • Chapter 6. The case for funding Dark Matter and Dark Energy science should be obvious by now and I will say no more. We look forward to the arrival of your tax dollars.

Last edited by ben m; 14th February 2014 at 04:01 PM. Reason: typo
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2014, 03:57 PM   #2337
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post

"Those practical applications"?

The ones where you show how your pet theory could have actually have benefited any of the paradigm shifts in the last 150 years?

Maybe Rutherford, Hubble or Guth?
__________________
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2014, 03:59 PM   #2338
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
Perhaps that is your best, but we would have a meager approach to communication indeed if it were true.
Your approach may be the best you can do. I concede that.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.
"Limited to" was my inference. I concede that.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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 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.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.
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.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2014, 04:12 PM   #2339
xtifr
Graduate Poster
 
xtifr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,299
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
*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 Star Wars convention Doctor Who convention My Little Pony convention.
__________________
"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
xtifr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2014, 04:30 PM   #2340
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by xtifr View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
*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 Star Wars convention Doctor Who convention My Little Pony convention.
I concede your point.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2014, 06:32 PM   #2341
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I concede your point.
/thread
AlBell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2014, 07:20 PM   #2342
BurntSynapse
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Your approach may be the best you can do. I concede that.
Yes, I try for my best, and try not to change the subject or resort to snarky attacks when my errors are pointed out.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
"Limited to" was my inference. I concede that.
But not willing to show an inch of willingness extend a hand of rational understanding? That's a shame, I think.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Some readers may not bother to click on the link I provided for your grotesque distortion of Quine's underdetermination theory. I concede that.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I concede that your advocacy of FTL projects is analogous to Arthur Conan Doyle's belief in fairies.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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?

Last edited by BurntSynapse; 14th February 2014 at 07:44 PM.
BurntSynapse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2014, 08:10 PM   #2343
BurntSynapse
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
The ones where you show how your pet theory could have actually have benefited any of the paradigm shifts in the last 150 years?

Maybe Rutherford, Hubble or Guth?
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?
BurntSynapse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2014, 09:27 PM   #2344
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I concede that your advocacy of FTL projects is analogous to Arthur Conan Doyle's belief in fairies.
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.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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?
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".
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2014, 02:22 AM   #2345
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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?
It means he has a dog named "theory".

"Show" means a movie so he's talking about a movie about his pet dog.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2014, 05:30 AM   #2346
Roboramma
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
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2014, 06:10 AM   #2347
BurntSynapse
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.

Last edited by BurntSynapse; 15th February 2014 at 07:24 AM.
BurntSynapse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2014, 06:25 AM   #2348
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
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
Paulhoff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2014, 07:40 AM   #2349
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.

One example considered the traditional philosophical picture that all truths could be proved by self-evident steps from self-evident truths and observation. It was then 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 partivular 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).
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
To object meaningfully, some fact about these claims or my use of them should be shown as defective in some specific way. Simply calling my opinion a grotesque distortion and casting other (apparently angry) aspersions does not, and should not suffice for actual criticism.
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.

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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.
Of course you would. That earns 20 points on John Baez's crackpot index.

Speaking of which:
  • 1. A -5 point starting credit.
  • 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
  • 5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
  • 24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
  • 26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
Those 2- and 5-pointers add up fast.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2014, 08:45 AM   #2350
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
explaining the joke

Compare

Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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).

with

Originally Posted by Panu Raatikainen
6.2 Self-evident and analytical truths

One can also give more general epistemological interpretations of Gödel's theorems. Quine and Ullian (1978), for example, consider the traditional philosophical picture that all truths could be proved by self-evident steps from self-evident truths and observation. They then point out that even the truths of elementary number theory are presumably not in general derivable by self-evident steps from self-evident truths (Quine & Ullian 1978: 64–65.) Hilary Putnam (1975) in turn submits that, under a certain natural understanding of “analytic”, there must be, by Gödel's theorems, synthetic truths in mathematics. In fact, Gödel himself made remarks in a very similar spirit that even the theory of integers is demonstrably non-analytic (Gödel 1944).
That's from the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's current article on Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Section 6 is titled "Philosophical Implications—Real and Alleged".

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
Gödel’s theorem is often thought to support some form of skepticism with regard to mathematics: it is contended that we cannot, strictly speaking, prove anything or that the consistency of our fundamental theories (such as ZFC) is shown to be doubtful. Franzén argues against such claims that nothing in Gödel’s theorem in any way contradicts the view that we have absolutely certain knowledge about the truth of the axioms of the system and, consequently, of their consistency. We don’t need Gödel’s theorem to tell us that we must adopt some basic principles without proof. If we have no doubts about the consistency of, say, ZFC, there is nothing in the second incompleteness theorem to give rise to any such doubts. And if we do have doubts about the consistency of ZFC, we have no reason to believe that a consistency proof of ZFC given in ZFC itself would do anything to remove those doubts.
That's what I was saying, more verbosely, in my own discussion of BurntSynapse's misinterpretation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. BurntSynapse didn't listen to me, but he tried to counter my argument by plagiarizing Raatikainen. Will BurntSynapse pay any more attention to Raatikainen's words above than he did to mine?

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 15th February 2014 at 10:14 AM. Reason: added ETA section
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2014, 11:37 AM   #2351
ben m
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.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2014, 03:34 PM   #2352
BurntSynapse
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Compare
By suppressing the philosophers' names, BurntSynapse muddled the paragraph.
Perhaps - but I think the edits for concision altered the meaning more.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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".
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:
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Putnam's claim actually depends upon a dichotomy Quine had rejected.
...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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View 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.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
My objections to BurntSynapse's paragraph (beyond its plagiarism) therefore boil down to the ambiguity BurntSynapse introduced
It would be very helpful to know what "the ambiguity" is, and some hint about what you'd like me to do about it?

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
...and to its reliance upon the notoriously unhelpful analytic/synthetic dichotomy
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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:
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
That's what I was saying, more verbosely, in my own discussion of BurntSynapse's misinterpretation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. BurntSynapse didn't listen to me, but he tried to counter my argument by plagiarizing Raatikainen.
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.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by BurntSynapse; 15th February 2014 at 04:18 PM.
BurntSynapse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2014, 04:26 PM   #2353
BurntSynapse
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
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.
Not confused, nor do I think it funny, nor do I think including a name leaves a person unable to ask for any details about which they have any question.
BurntSynapse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2014, 06:47 PM   #2354
BurntSynapse
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
I want to emphasize that when Nersessian says "conceptual change", it seems to me that she's referring to all scientists' learning process, not "world-historic revolutions".
Should we or should we not consider development of revolutionary paradigms developed by scientists a subspecies of scientific conceptual change?
BurntSynapse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2014, 06:57 PM   #2355
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Not confused, nor do I think it funny, nor do I think including a name leaves a person unable to ask for any details about which they have any question.
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.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2014, 08:49 PM   #2356
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
Should we or should we not consider development of revolutionary paradigms developed by scientists a subspecies of scientific conceptual change?
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.

Last edited by ben m; 15th February 2014 at 08:59 PM.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2014, 06:06 AM   #2357
BurntSynapse
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
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.
My reply: Hanlon's Razor.

Last edited by BurntSynapse; 16th February 2014 at 06:10 AM.
BurntSynapse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2014, 07:47 AM   #2358
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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.
Try this…

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct...citations.html

...many people learn this in grade school doing book reports.


Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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.
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?


Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
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.
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
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2014, 08:51 AM   #2359
BurntSynapse
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Sure, why not?
Because I interpret:
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
I want to emphasize that when Nersessian says "conceptual change", it seems to me that she's referring to all scientists' learning process, not "world-historic revolutions".
...to mean that you regard her general view of creativity not applicable to the subset on which I focus.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Who cares?
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.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Likewise, we should consider striking gold to be a subspecies of geological exploration.
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.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
We should consider discovering a supernova to be a subspecies of pointing a telescope at the sky.
...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.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
We should consider billion-dollar startups founded in garages to be a subspecies of entrepreneurship.
...and the same sort of application would seem sensible.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Was this sort of definition under dispute?
It seems to be, especially when supported by a belief that runs counter to my understanding of logic:
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
It doesn't follow that knowledge of the larger category grants you knowledge of how to distinguish the special cases a priori.
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.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
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.
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)

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by BurntSynapse; 16th February 2014 at 08:58 AM.
BurntSynapse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2014, 10:53 AM   #2360
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
Originally Posted by BurntSynapse View Post
.. using post-hoc criteria for distinguishing successful transformative research... historically distinctive, post-hoc commonalities...

Research administration is a facilitating process would seem to benefit from greater specificity... ...scientific models as "hybrid objects, serving as intermediaries between targets and analogical sources in bootstrapping processes"...
Wow, excellent obfuscating jargon!

Although jargon can also be used to concisely express complex technical ideas...
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

Last edited by dlorde; 16th February 2014 at 11:10 AM.
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.