Roger/Glen -
Good stuff... I find both topics very compelling:
1. How do we define/recognize valid measures of evidence?
2. Is the current "exponential" growth in tech divergent or convergent?
1. I have worked on several projects involving the formal management of
evidence and belief which makes me cynical when people suggest that
there is "one true form of evidence". Most of it ended up off in
high dimensional pareto fronts with multiple measures of
confidence. The underlying theory (much just beyond my grasp to
regurgitate) is based in variants of Dempster-Shaffer and Fuzzy
Sets/Intervals. There is always a Bayesian in the crowd that
starts "Baying" (sorry) about how "Bayesian Methods are the *only*
thing anyone ever needs". This specific example in statistics and
probability theory is but one. Similarly, it took a long time for
anyone to accept far-from-equilibrium systems as being worth
studying simply because their tools didn't work there. Like
looking for your lost keys under the streetlamp because the "light
is too bad in the alley where you dropped them".
2. I'm not a Singularian myself but I *am* fascinated by the same
phenomena most of them are. I would liken the recent past, current
present, and near future to the Cambrian Explosion. It as if
thresholds on many technological fronts have lowered and innovation
is gushing everywhere, compounding itself, etc. I agree with
Glen's judgement that (my paraphrase) "an explosion doth not a
singularity make". What I'm equally interested in is if there is a
similar divergence in thinking. We've been rattling on here about
religion (including Science and Woo and Science v Woo) and implying
(for the most part I think) that the (arbitrary) constraints it puts
on thinking is harmful. Of course, many here will agree that
"constraint provides form" and acknowledge that constraints can also
be useful, and not *just* to contain the otherwise unruly. I had
*more* hope for immediate results from the Arab Spring (does anyone
*else* besides me keep up with former FRIAMite Mohammed El-Beltagy
and his Whispers from a Seeker
<http://perfectionatic.blogspot.com/>blog, out of Cairo?) I believe
that humans have a natural time constant around belief (and as a
consequence, understanding, knowledge, paradigms?) on the order of
years if not decades or a full lifetime. That time-constant may be
shrinking, but I rarely believe someone when they claim during or
after an arguement to have "changed their mind"... at best, they are
acknowledging that a seed has sprouted which in a few years or
decades might grow into a garden.
-Steve
Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/05/2013 08:23 AM:
And given exponential growth in science, who knows first hand what the
variance in accepted scientific evidence actually is?
That's a great point. It may help me articulate my objection to the
concept of "the singularity", the sense that technology will soon (has)
outstrip(ped) purely human intelligence/understanding.
It seems more like an explosion of effect[ors] than a "super
intelligence" or anything cognitive, thought-based like that. Even if
we constrain ourselves to the maker community (3d printers, arduino,
etc.) and the recent pressure for open access to publications, it's
difficult for me to imagine any kind of convergence, to "science" or
anything else. It just feels more like a divergence to me.
I wonder if there is a way to measure this? In absolute terms, we can't
really use a "count the people who participate in domain X" measure.
The ratio of the poor and starving to those who have their basic needs
met well enough to participate is too high. It would swamp that
absolute measure. We'd have to normalize it. To some extent,
exploratory science has always been pursued most effectively by the 1%
and those they patronize. Perhaps a measure of the variation in
standards of evidence would correlate fairly well with the waxing and
waning of the middle class?
Any claims to know what science "is" and what scientists "do", for the
purposes of distinguishing between science and non-science, are claims
to a revealed truth, not something that anyone has established
empirically. Ouch.
Absolutely! (Sorry, I had to slip in a contradictory affirmation.) This
goes directly back to Popper, I think. There is no entry exam for
science. Every speculation is welcome.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
