On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 22 May 2014, at 16:39, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:18 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 5/21/2014 3:44 PM, LizR wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, I was indeed thinking of the superhero Bicycle Repair Man when I >>>> wrote that. >>>> >>>> However I'm not so keen on deifying the Wright brothers when they were >>>> just two in a long line of people in many countries who gradually developed >>>> powered flight. They did make a significant improvement, of course, but >>>> there were plenty of others who helped pave the way to modern aeroplanes >>>> (including one somewhat dubious claim from New Zealand) >>>> >>> >>> Interestingly in the context of this thread, one of the Wright brother's >>> main contributions was their systematic (dare I say "scientific") approach >>> using a wind tunnel to study air foils. >>> >> >> It is perhaps good to make a distinction between "science: the method" >> and "science: the game". Although honest scientists will attempt to focus >> on the former and avoid the pitfalls of the latter, honest scientists are >> human beings with human emotions and bills to pay. So the end results is >> always some combination of the two. I think this is unavoidable, but good >> to be aware of, especially in times when the needle moves to much to the >> game side. >> >> "Science: the method" is all about generating hypothesis and testing >> them. Generating hypothesis is a creative process, and I don't think that >> academia was ever a particularly good environment for creativity. It's >> relationship to it is a bit bipolar: it eventually glorifies the successful >> creative thinkers, but it fights creativity every step of the way until >> then. Part of this behaviour is for good reasons, but part is pathological, >> I would say. This is also true of the relationship between academia and >> art, if you look at how the major artistic movements of the XX century were >> received at first. >> >> So it's not so surprising that academia is side-stepped to achieve >> invention, which doesn't mean at all that "science: the method" is thrown >> out of the window. In fact, academia tries very hard to create a monopoly >> on "science" but this is perverse. Anyone can apply the scientific method. >> It doesn't care about formal qualifications, institutions, or even >> scientific journals or peer-review. It will wield its results regardless -- >> and that is beautiful in my view. A bit like the hacker's ethos in the 80s >> that lead to a lot of the permission-free innovation in computer systems >> that we enjoy today. >> > > Coincidently, this just showed up on my facebook wall: > http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761 > > It's an exaggeration, but I think it illustrates the science as method / > science as game distinction. > > > > Of course the "the scientific method" in that diagram if what Deutch and > myself criticize. It uses a fuzzy "establish" which is already on the slope > for making science into pseudo-religion. > Ok, but we could interpret "establish" as a recommendation for betting on something. For engineering purposes, for example. > > The "actual method" is fun, but the idea that theory is not hypothesis > witness again a misunderstanding of what science can possibly (seen by > Plato in the Theaetetus and Parmenides). > I tend to assume that a theory is a hypothesis that yielded at least one valid prediction and survived falsification so far. > > Now with a comp, we have an arithmetical view of what the machine's > science can be and its difference with machine's knowledge, observation and > sensation. > > We have a bit the choice to start by observing a natural phenomenon or > start by introspecting oneself, but we have to observe the out-reality to > refute the theory (up to dream and emulation, cela va sans dire). > I suspect this is above the level of sophistication of the joke :) They use the term "natural phenomena", which already causes me to cringe a bit, for reasons already discussed. a+ Telmo. > > Bruno > > > > > > > Telmo. > > >> >> >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
