Much that I agree with in there John. Facts may be rather temporary - in some systems we 'black box' them off in order to explore further into explanation (actor-network theory is one - though I am not an affecionado). I like, when I can, to use the hard work of others in exploration and system building. The dark side of systems building is that in which facts are routinely denied, as in the Soviet Paradise and the extent to which we are mimicking this in religious economics (which is as false as anything Lysenco managed to do). We now have experiments that probe time (in pretty conventional senses) better than we have been able to manage before, and at least in biochemistry we are starting to see processes that challenge anything we have come up with in previous explanations. I can rarely explain even the science I have been involved with to non-scientists (or even the odd undergrad classes I still teach). I have not noticed that courts of law do much evidence weighing or even that cops are much good at collecting any. Science and maths generally proceed on the basis of assumptions - though this gets neglected in the language. There are some complex approaches to this - notably in Ludwig and Snell (not yet well known - but you can find them in 'structuralism in physics' in Stanford EP online). I have a feeling that science has tended to exclude too much from consideration - and that this has often been to keep political meddlers and religionists out for good reasons. Orn has some ideas I think could help to a degree here, but I haven't had time to chase him up. We lack a scientific world-view (Kuhn was miles off the mark) that accepts mystery (Penrose's Shadows of Mind does but fails) and the way in which much 'physical' and 'spiritual' (at least non- material) can influence rigourous explanation and mathematics. I would want a scientific world view so that we could better understand and use complex systems thinking and practice, rather than make physics better.
On 3 Sep, 20:25, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > True and yet false. > Specialisation is good at establishing facts. Let me take a worked example > from PLOS.org. > Nice to know about Plos though. The paper is "Do we need sleep" or something. > The article > presents the info that so far we have not, provably, found any animals that > don't sleep. BUT, > as confined to the material hypothesis no integration with other information > can be presented > at peril of that hidden agenda of waffle or pornography as this post mentions > and other > scientific syntax. What can we do with that info as a fact? In fact nothing > much at all except > to rehearse that fact. No cause, reason or info is looked into so none is > expressly stated, so > one is, scientifically, not permitted to go poaching in other specialists' > territory to do some > factoidal knitting. Wonderful. > > In any mereological or holistic sense the fact shown in the paper - it should > pass as a > universal one supposes? - is totally meaningless. There is other research > into other factoids > explored by other specialists yet another specialist is allowed to > theoretically assemble into > what approaches a theory. More wonderful. All peer reviewed so nobody commits > any scientific > heresy or smears an ego blasted reputation. Gehh I know how many hairs in tha > tail ofa dog, and > don't contradict me, I'm a specialist. Shall I adduce an anecdotal fact or > what shall I > nominalise it as? I cannot getr any more medical consultaion because one > specialists refuses to > allow me my medical consumer's right and unless I do as doctor says, go shit > yourself. The > omdudsman I complain to concurs and I cannot take him to court, he is legally > protected from that. > > Now there is no peer review for shall we call it journalism, making the > public acquainted etc > blahh. So any scientist, haha, will ipso auto reject it on those grounds if > not on the ground > that being specialist he is not interested ipso jure. The same silly thing > applies to Alain > Connes's non-commutative algebra. Given the universe is anisotropic and > anentropic OF COURSE, > dang it non-commutative events will and do occur, one of them evolution for > example and > anotherr that grass simply keeps on growing. IT IS ONLY because, for math, on > AXIOMATIC grounds > that commutation arises AND from that follows the typical commutability that, > theoretically, > all findings buttered up with math can be reversed or inverted or whatever > anti-synonym you > care to elect. > > So now I've presented that idea, or did I establish it, that specialisation > is one cause of > that Tower of Babel effect. If I took my time and gumbooted around in my > creative ability I'd > find more facts or is that factoids to confuse into a journalistic level > finding , because > oops, it's not been peer reviewed. There is, of course, no specialist on that > subject, so, Oh > dearie me, we'd have to do without an authoritative finding, bless me. The > situation is, of > course, more complicated by the factoid that education is arranged in a > pecking order system > where only those who manage to pass the hurdles called exams, etc blahh, > blahh, blahh. are > alowed to speak, not below the PH.D. level these days. > > So as self confined within a context, the learned gentleman is right and > otherwise I find it > spurious. Do you want jelly on your peanut butter sandwich? I hope all you > specialists enjoy > the hidden allusion in that metaphoric comment. Should I include such > perspective hopping under > relativity or not? Oh Yes, why does ex-dean of Harvard, I forget his name, of > Harvard, speak of > the Alleged scientific method, which of course requires more research to > bolster up, which I > did. "Richard Feynman, however, argued that "There is no such thing as 'the' > scientific method. > Science uses many methods. There will never be a pat answer to the question > 'what is science'. > from http://www.plasmacosmology.net/philosophy.html > """The evolution of the brain not only overshot the needs of prehistoric man, > it is the only > example of evolution providing a species with an organ which it does not know > how to use. > Arthur Koestler. > > OOPS, it is J.B. Conant, ex President of Harvard who used alleged, and > read:http://www.scientificmethod.com/ compiled by Norman W. Edmund > > PS, I can tell you what sleep is for, I've enquired into it, called lucid > dreaming. Between > wake and sleep are seven phases or levels, one can visit. It's not one thing > but quite complex, > with different purposes, etc blahh. The deepest is called goth by Lyall > Watson, it's not being > there at all and to all inspection dead. THat's why antiquity devised the > wake, just in case > it's a goth and the person wakes up. Cases of exhumed burials are known > showing evidence of a > disturbed dying inside a coffin. Inversely when awake that's called a deep > trance. At another > level it reharmonises our metabolism so we feel refreshed when waking up. > Dreaming does that > for our mental furniture. At yet another level we can model it as a sine wave > cycle of being in > the body and in the continuum. The Mayans were heavily into cycles; we are > not. Calendars are > about cycles. And, of course, my "opinions" don't count scientifically. So > what about taking > the legal attitude used in a Court of Law, by weight of evidence? Further if > one simply drops > language it gets more apparent. > > adrian > > > > archytas wrote: > > I didn't get much further than tweaking stuff on the bench. The maths > > in my thesis was wrong, though the mistakes led me to some modestly > > new techniques as I began to understand. Others found ways to express > > my findings in a coherent manner. In a way it was my incapacity to > > follow the normal rules that was my strength, leaving me with little > > option but to experiment, put the hours in in data collection (which > > includes devising the experiments) and then try and see if some > > mathematical nuggets could be extracted. I just became a massively > > over-qualified technician. This level of benchwork is not well > > understood in books for lay people (which have long been described as > > a kind of pornography-market for chattering classes). > > I'd recommend Alain Connes' website to all. Even if we can't > > understand all of what he is saying, he does put the material there > > for anyone to have a go at. This is still remarkably difficult in all > > kinds of academic areas because much of the work is hidden in the > > academic vanity press. Trying to start from scratch is a good idea - > > though in physics, chemistry and biology tends to lead to the same > > "old wheels and stub-axles". Plos.org is another good start and on a > > specific subject aidsonline.com - these at least allow one to get > > closer to what is actually being claimed rather than the > > "pornographic" hype. > > Most of us are likely to have been taught the billiard ball version of > > physics and chemistry - itself never more than a teaching vehicle for > > much more complex ideas. Biology is increasingly understood as > > something a bit like the old dip switches in electronics, with > > different things happening dependant on which switches are on and > > off. We were probably not taught much more than Mendel's peas. > > None of this should be about superiority in knowledge, but a wider > > education in which schools play a smaller part than they do now. > > Learning because you are around people who know stuff and are working > > experimentally or with the end of changing things is very different > > from hacking along to a few classes. This kind of learning is > > extremely difficult to find, just as virtually anyone born lucky > > enough could go to whatever the universities have become, whether one > > seeks skills or education as an aim in itself. > > I'd like some answers or facts that would help speculation on why our > > day-to-day world is so dud and just why we can perceive vastness, > > space moving beyond the speed of light in space, and feel very > > constrained we cannot reach out to more than a few specks away because > > we are constrained by 'light-speed physics', even though we know this > > is likely to be a small part of a physics of observation. Without > > going into old chestnuts on free speech I can only offer a metaphor. > > > A rain forest dweller shows you an old wall and begins to explain his > > religion. One may have the courtesy to listen, yet also start > > wondering and discover an ancient civilisation prior to the European > > invasion rather than his gods. One group has just establsihed this in > > the Amazon. One can always consider whether science and maths > > algorythms are this 'wrong'. > > > On 31 Aug, 15:20, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> My response praised your endeavor both, at the beginning > >> ("the enormous and apparently sincere endeavor") and at > >> the end, where I praise your drive saying that IMO > >> you could use it better standing on the shoulders of QFT > >> and be creative in avant-garde domains of fundamental > >> Physics such as trials of unification or singularity-free > >> mathematical field descriptions. > >> I got an off topic, ad hominem answer, which I shall > >> comment in-line in a few most typical places. > > >>> jr writes> > >>> As an American I "certainly" recognize your right > >>> to express your > >>> unsupported opinion. However, unsupported opinions are as > >>> common as > >>> the "tongues" that wag them. > >> ================ > >> G: > >> True. Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Maxwell, > >> Planck, Darwin, Einstein wagged unsupported opinions and > >> so do you, thus if I wag, I wag in good company. > >> Yet, as American, claiming in the following paragraph > >> an expertise in English, you know better than me that > >> (un)supported is a meaningless empty predicate unless > >> specified "by whom/what". In your context it is clearly > >> "by Inquisition" in the sense implied by Paul Marmet: > >> QUOTE > >> ...in recent years, the "purity" of science > >> has been ever more closely guarded by a self-imposed > >> inquisition called the peer review. [...] Like the > >> inquisition of the medieval church, it has teeth and can > >> wreck a career by > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
