Actually, Steve, despite spending 40 years doing what it was I did, I never felt an expert. One of my criteria for expertise, which I felt I never met, was the capacity to explain a difficult subject to an attentive, well-educated lay person. And the emperor's new clothes has always been one of my guiding myths.
So, I confess, these guys bemuse me a bit. "Frustrate" is way too strong. There is no place that I can stand to expect experts to answer lay questions about everyday phenonmena. However, for myself, I find curiosity intensely seductive, and, if I ever ran into somebody who was curious about what I did all those years, I would leap at the chance to explore it with them. So, I don't understand why another's curiosity doesn't delight them as much as it delights me. But, of course, that's stupid. People are just different. All the best, nIck From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 7:19 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation Nick - As usual, I'm of two minds. I appreciate your frustration, as I do those of those more educated/trained in the relative sciences of the problem under scrutiny. I do not think it is unreasonable for someone such as yourself to try to get a grasp on the phenomena of interest with a combination of observation, research of the existing underlying theory, and discussion with anyone who will engage with you on the topic (I bet your barber and grocery clerk are totally tired of hearing about swirlies!). On the other hand, you know from your own chosen field of expertise that a simplistic understanding of the complex phenomena that you have studied deeply is almost always lacking and sometimes listening to others attempt to (over)simplify the issues involved (which you spent years or decades coming to appreciate) can be extremely grating. Without speaking for anyone else here, I find myself in the middle. And of two minds! When I notice something counter-intuitive in the world, or which seems to contradict "conventional wisdom", my little brain's gears creak into engagement and things start whirling, clacking and grinding. Sometimes I open my mouth and let those sounds come out in the presence of others, sometimes I don't. I have a variety of friends and colleagues with a variety of expertise at a variety of depths which I tap in various ways. Some require that I buy them coffee or beer or even hard liquor before they will listen to me. Many require that I listen to them politely while they struggle with concepts *I* either find trivial or so complex as to be impossible to discuss with anyone except another with my level of understanding. Others require that I be entertaining in some other way before they will engage their clacking, grinding, creaking brains with mine. Yet others simply refuse... or throw me an ultimatum.. (e.g. "I will discuss with you Evolution of Form *only* after you have read D'Arcy Thompson's seminal work on the topic and *after* you forget everything that you have ever heard coming from the mouth, pen, typewriter, word processor or disciple of Rupert Sheldrake). Such usually leads me to go read D'arcy Thompson (and peek at Rupert Sheldrake) at which point I often don't bother to re-engage said friend, colleague, because I appreciate how complex/subtle/compromised the topic may be after all. As you can tell, I'm equally willing to ignore yours (and other's) variously idle to serious speculations about things as I am to jump up on the dinner table and wave my own hands wildly. Many (the list is 500 strong?) obviously are happy either ignoring us completely, musing silently as their tub drains, or grating their teeth and kicking their dog in response to our inanity. I myself have drained as many basins while staring at them intently as I'm likely to in my life. I think your questions are interesting, I think there are simple answers which have already been discussed and then there are arbitrarily complex answers which you've only heard people allude to (e.g. "this problem has been thoroughly studied", "why don't you get a PhD in fluid dynamics and a specialty in vortex watching?"). There is a reason that there is such a large market for popular science books, articles, videos, etc. Many of us are truly curious about the physical world around us but are unlikely to take the time (get a PhD and work a few years in the field?) to really understand the things we are curious about. So we are very happy when someone who has done this is willing to take the time to write the book, make the documentary, etc. I love Stephen Hawking, Fritjof Capra, James Gleick, Douglas Hofstadter, Michael Pollan, Henry Petrotski, Esther Dyson, Sherri Turkle, George Johnson, Jared Diamond, and all those other folks for taking the time not only to actually understand some of the things I'm curious about, but also take the time to put it in language that I have a chance of understanding. I say, don't let anyone stop you from asking the questions and even taking a layman's whack at some answers, but it is obvious that many will avoid diving in too deep with you. Those who have lived their lives in the trenches of the topic at hand (like Peter) would seem the most likely to be unwilling to go beyond the most superficial of explanations and engagements. Beyond that point, there be dragons! Only the very brave or very foolish venture further! I for one think foolhardiness is a good substitute for bravery, else why would any of us ever marry, have children, develop an expertise in anything, leave the safety and comfort of our homes (or bathtubs), etc. If it is any consolation, I spend huge amounts of my time doing things for myself that others (especially well defined systems) could do for me more "efficiently". When an expert (or just anyone steeped in the standard method) arrives on the scene, they are always appalled, and even moreso if I ask them (even for pay) to make sense of the mess I have. The propane man doesn't want to troubleshoot my homemade methane generator or the converted gas appliances that run off of it. The drywall guy nearly croaked when he saw the framing/blocking I left for him to try to make straight lines of in my new sunroom, but with enough happy cajoling and promises to pay him hourly, not by the square foot, I have a pretty damned nice looking ceiling. Any self-respecting farmer/gardener giggles when they see what passes with me for growing food. My mechanic cringes when I bring him any of the vehicles I don't normally let him maintain (my 1949 Dumptruck being the scariest of all). I personally do not care to spend my life studying the conventional topics from the conventional texts, accepting the conventional hypotheses, sitting at Jiffy Lube while the 17 year old kid lectures me on why my 2 month old air filter "really needs replacing" at $40 when I just did it myself for $12, or paying an architect and crew of professionals (or not) to spend $80K of my hard earned money to add $50K value to my home. I have the luxury to make a lot of mistakes, so I do. I suppose I could spend my free time watching TV, shopping or taking cruises instead. That is not to say that I don't understand that all of these people (experts) can get rather irritated at me for doing things my own way, figuring things out for myself, avoiding the presumed "truths" of the masses. Nor is it to say that I don't consult the manuals (after my first major faux pas) or study the theory of something before I dove in over my head. Sorry for the tangential rant... I think your frustration triggered some resonance for me both about "experts" and about "amateurs" which I find myself playing both from time to time. Carry on, - Steve Well, a couple of points. First, It says something kind of funny about physics . that it will never explain anything that any of us are curious about. Second, it seems to say that there is no educational advantage to . nothing to be learned from . trying to connect principle to vernatcular experience. Nick From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:02 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation Well, I guess all I can say is that I don't have the temperament to play "thought experiments", or to spend endless cycles getting all hand wavy about serious, complex physical systems behavior. Regarding the issue of water flowing down the drain which originally started this thread, there are approximately 1.27 x 10^26 molecules of water per gallon, all interacting with each other, and the boundary layers that are defined by the air/water interfaces and the water/vessel interfaces. The forces that define the nature of these interactions are fairly well understood, and have been modeled at some degree of resolution or another countless times. So, what's the point of launching a hand-waving expedition about the phenomenon? I just don't get it. --Doug -- Doug Roberts [email protected] [email protected] http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:34 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: Klowns like me are often misinterpreted, as noted by Yorick. I am ardently in favor of experiment, carefully observed. It is the basis of all science. But, but, the interpretation of observed phenomena must also be dealt with carefully. Voodoo has a pernicious way of creeping in. After all, for two thousand years we knew that malaria was caused by the bad air of the low, swampy places where it was prevalent, and deadly. It was only in 1896, after the Anopheles mosquitoes started reading the Annals of Tropical Medicine in the Lancet (not by a Limey, but Dr. Ronald Ross, an admirable Scots physician) that the little critters realized that they had the God-given gift of spreading the disease by biting white people, and thus helped the indigenous populations by keeping Europeans out of the "White Man's Grave". I love observations, and it is not for me to challenge what people see. If pious folks observe the image of the Virgin Mary on a half-baked tortilla, I say, "Let it be". She certainly has Power to do that, according to Those in the Know, and it seems to me like a folksy, open-hearted gesture on Her Part, that our president would do well to emulate. But, a little learning is a dangerous thing, and it is injudicious to draw conclusions from phenomena that one does not understand the physics of. It is certainly valid for an honest amateur to ask, "But how can I know if my theory is Voodoo?" Here are some modest proposals: first, study as much as you can about the subject, second, understand it well enough to use the professional technical terms of the discipline and then, third, ask a few knowledgeable folks privately for their opinions. So, follows some constructive suggestions. Read. Learn. The Picasso of irrotational rotating viscous/inviscid flows was an amiable Top Brit, Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor. He is probably now sitting on some Tiepolo cloud up there watching with satisfaction the grand swirling vortical structure of the firmament of the heavens. I knew him as a lofty figure, and was honored to present the G I Taylor Memorial Lecture at a university far from here some 20 years ago. There is lotsa stuff on GI on the internet that one can read and learn from - in particular the Taylor-Proudman theorem that has a special charm for me, since before his name was immortalized, I was a lowly scholar in Dr. Proudman's grad. fluid mechanics classes at Cambridge. He would not remember, but I recall him, as I melted silently, respectfully, into the woodwork of those 17 th century desks. Fer Gawd's Sake, Newton sat right there! I held my peace. Dumb questions (which were all I could muster then, and even now) were not encouraged in the Old Maths Schools at the University. As for asking folks, it is my modest guess that, for all their many fine qualities, not too many Friam correspondents have that much background in the very esoteric, and charmingly pointless, subject of pouring fluids outa bottles - unless they be of a good vintage. But I will answer privately things that folk may ask personally, to the extent I am capable. It is nice, and generous, for the blind to lead the blind, but the truth is seldom approached by that sorta debate. It takes hard work, intelligence and the learning of new ideas. Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low pressures at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with stationary air as the contiguous external fluid are at the same CONSTANT pressure. How could they be otherwise? Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA tel:(505)983-7728 <tel:%28505%29983-7728> _____ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
