Two points: First, what are you doing up answering email in the wee hours of the AM? My excuse is that I am in India and it is midday here.
Second, I did say "in terms of the preceding paragraph ... I see no difference." And, behaviorally, I really do not see any difference. In semi-hard sciences like software engineering, the described behaviors are even more evident - aspect-oriented programming being a prime example. Statistics may very well be in this category as well - visualization of quantative information definitely is. I heard once, that newly graduated particle physicists could look forward to doing ONE major experiment in their career - because of the cost of such experiments and the lack of places to conduct them. The only chance they have of even getting the opportunity for that one experiment is to conform to the prevailing "core theory" - thereby making it more and more "core." AND, it is the conformance that counts not the merits of the experiment or the core theory. In the "soft sciences" the experiments cost far far less and almost anyone can do them. So you can have multiple theories in play simultaneously and no economic motive to force convergence to a single core. Comparing economics and anthropology might be interesting. Econ aspires to be as hard a science as physics (sociology does as well - Harry Seldon is alive and well in that discipline) but anthropology is more content (barring the odd Marvin Harris) with "descriptive" theory with only statistical predictive capabilities. Econ makes predictions that are, more often than not, wrong - precise but wrong. Anthro makes predictions but expects them to be ballpark, not precise. Does this mean that economists have real theories and anthros do not? davew On Monday, November 14, 2011 12:54 AM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote: Dave, I hate to bite the hand that feeds me, but I think there really IS a difference. It’s not that hard scientists are less venal than soft ones; Something in the state of play of the soft sciences themselves just does not reward rigor and head down, bull ahead normal science, in the way that it is rewarded in the hard sciences. I think being superficially uninteresting to the public goes a long way to protecting one from the kind of crap that goes on in the social sciences. By the way, statistics itself is one of those tortured fields. If you look at its history, you find that the statistics we were all taught in graduate school is an incoherent mélange of Spearman and Pearson (I think). From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 12:02 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One On Monday, November 14, 2011 12:43 AM, "ERIC P. CHARLES" <[1][email protected]> wrote: "It is the behavior of a group that is not working towards consensus, and that is not clear on what the value of specific replicable results would be. It is the behavior of a group that vies for prestige through popularity contests and through bean counting publications regardless of replicability or actual progress being made. It is self-serving behavior, well adapted to the landscape of a field that lacks a core theory." At the risk of annoying everyone (except perhaps Nick) - I would suggest that, with regard to the preceding paragraph, physics is no different from psychology. Feyeraband, Knorr-Certina, Christopher Alexander ("self conscious process") and many other observers of how science is really done as opposed to self serving reports of how it is supposed to be done. How fast a discipline's thinking ossifies to a consensual theory is a function of the need to protect one's research funding and repelling challengers with outre ideas - not the substantiveness of the "core theory." dave west ============================================================ 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 References 1. mailto:[email protected]
============================================================ 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
