Of course, I don't expect anything tangled-up with government and academic bureaucracy to produce much practical. The gist was once that we should aim for praxis, a form of rational action. For some the guide was marxism, but most of us grew up with a form of Keynesian guide - the economics of full employment and FDR's never completed second Bill of Rights. More recently we have reverted to the control fraud of banksters and neo-classical economics. I was never much interested in the 'grand theory' - as a cop I was more interested in what people were hiding and lying about, as scientist the grand was excluded as rigorously as possible a the laboratory door and as a university teacher I was more interested in developing resourceful humans than daft, religious managerial theories. As a kid, my elder brother and sister always claimed I changed the goalposts in argument and as I grew up I discovered this was what argument was generally about - the goalposts changing name to root metaphor and paradigm. Experts in argument are bought like lawyers and have about the same ethics. When Socrates gestures at the Sophists claiming 'I know nothing, but even this is to know more than they' he is just being the smartest guy in the room. We say 'jaw-jaw' is better than 'war-war' - but there is no crucial experiment to decide in 'jaw-jaw'. The problem with argument is that it needs arbitration if human beings are involved in it and the seeds of its own destruction are laid in most people having no training in how it is constructed. If you get some training in this you can be bought like a lawyer as a mouthpiece. Machine knowledge bases and reasoning capacity potentially offer a democratisation of argument expertise, manufacturing capability, medicine, finance and much more - evidence-based practice for all. In practice, doing management information systems, one soon learns those currently in the know want to keep things that way. I believe the professions are currently preventing this as surely as those smashing machines in the industrial revolution. I believe this is the central issue of the moment - and my reasons concern the dream I have of the precipice of disgusting war,the dullness of politics, religion and literature. Economic growth is nearly all uninteresting - FlopBook and so on - and rarely about the growth of capital I would value. Would we could dream up something else - and why we cannot when 2% of labour can provide our food. I miss any sense of collective dreaming and find only the loneliness more 'primitive' people I've met would comment on in the first blush of their experience amongst us.
On Jan 21, 9:18 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Those who have contributed to the thread have shown me there isn't > much general awareness of the 'technology'. There are already > intelligent systems like Watson (IBM) doing a fair job on embodied > expert knowledge (medical in this case). The general idea is in this > from New Scientist: > > In your wildest dreams, could you imagine a government that builds its > policies on carefully gathered scientific evidence? One that publishes > the rationale behind its decisions, complete with data, analysis and > supporting arguments? Well, dream no longer: that's where the UK is > heading. > > It has been a long time coming, according to Chris Wormald, permanent > secretary at the Department for Education. The civil service is not > short of clever people, he points out, and there is no lack of desire > to use evidence properly. More than 20 years as a serving politician > has convinced him that they are as keen as anyone to create effective > policies. "I've never met a minister who didn't want to know what > worked," he says. What has changed now is that informed policy-making > is at last becoming a practical possibility. > > That is largely thanks to the abundance of accessible data and the > ease with which new, relevant data can be created. This has supported > a desire to move away from hunch-based politics. > > Last week, for instance, Rebecca Endean, chief scientific advisor and > director of analytical services at the Ministry of Justice, announced > that the UK government is planning to open up its data for analysis by > academics, accelerating the potential for use in policy planning. > > At the same meeting, hosted by innovation-promoting charity NESTA, > Wormald announced a plan to create teaching schools based on the model > of teaching hospitals. In education, he said, the biggest single > problem is a culture that often relies on anecdotal experience rather > than systematically reported data from practitioners, as happens in > medicine. "We want to move teacher training and research and practice > much more onto the health model," Wormald said. > > Test, learn, adapt > > In June last year the Cabinet Office published a paper called "Test, > Learn, Adapt: Developing public policy with randomised controlled > trials". One of its authors, the doctor and campaigning health > journalist Ben Goldacre, has also been working with the Department of > Education to compile a comparison of education and health research > practices, to be published in the BMJ. > > In education, the evidence-based revolution has already begun. A > charity called the Education Endowment Foundation is spending £1.4 > million on a randomised controlled trial of reading programmes in 50 > British schools. > > There are reservations though. The Ministry of Justice is more > circumspect about the role of such trials. Where it has carried out > randomised controlled trials, they often failed to change policy, or > even irked politicians with conclusions that were obvious. "It is not > a panacea," Endean says. > > Power of prediction > > The biggest need is perhaps foresight. Ministers often need instant > answers, and sometimes the data are simply not available. Bang goes > any hope of evidence-based policy. > > "The timescales of policy-making and evidence-gathering don't match," > says Paul Wiles, a criminologist at the University of Oxford and a > former chief scientific adviser to the Home Office. Wiles believes > that to get round this we need to predict the issues that the > government is likely to face over the next decade. "We can probably > come up with 90 per cent of them now," he says. > > Crucial to the process will be convincing the public about the value > and use of data, so that everyone is on-board. This is not going to be > easy. When the government launched its Administrative Data Taskforce, > which set out to look at data in all departments and opening it up so > that it could be used for evidence-based policy, it attracted minimal > media interest. > > The taskforce's remit includes finding ways to increase trust in data > security. Then there is the problem of whether different departments > are legally allowed to exchange data. There are other practical > issues: many departments format data in incompatible ways. "At the > moment it's incredibly difficult," says Jonathan Breckon, manager of > the Alliance for Useful Evidence, a collaboration between NESTA and > the Economic and Social Research Council. > > Hearts, minds and funding > > There are economic issues. Most of the predictable areas where data > and evidence would be useful span different departments, and funding > for research that involves multiple government departments is near- > impossible to come by at the moment. "Only counter-terrorism gets > cross-departmental funding," Wiles says. > > And those at the frontline of all this may also need convincing. Some > teachers have already expressed reservations. There may be problems > with parents not wanting their children to take part in education > trials. For instance, in a control group they will feel left out of > innovation; in the experimental arm they will worry that the old ways > were better. What's more, teachers may be tempted to halt a trial > early if they feel it is not helping students. > > Nevertheless, the government is working with NESTA and a range of > backers to create a set of institutions dedicated to gathering > evidence that will impact on public policy. One example is the Early > Intervention Foundation, which helps local government evaluate schemes > that help preschool learning amongst children who would otherwise > enter standard education at a disadvantage. > > There will be announcements of more initiatives in the next few weeks, > says Geoff Mulgan, NESTA's chief executive . "We're hoping this year > the UK will jump a step ahead of every other country in the world in > having a set of institutions dedicated to generating evidence and > helping it to be used in day-to-day decisions." > > My own view is that intelligent systems could affect politics and our > attitudes towards work and wealth distribution. It could even be the > machines will give us rationality we are incapable of. > > On 21 Jan, 08:59, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with that now Don - though I once did. 'Grand > > democratic socialism' never appealed much to me and in reality the > > nearest to examples we have of it are in the West anyway. What I've > > lost is any faith in the financial system and the politics of the > > vote. I was in Bucharest in the late 80's with a Saul Bellow book > > describing an academic finding the same corruption there as in his > > home Chicago. Never liked Bellow much - but thought his description > > of people who had read the great literature wandering around in the > > freezing moral climate of the Soviet Block rang true for me - and what > > bothers me is I feel the same in our system. I've eaten well on the > > academic drivel Don and once believed it had some point beyond feeding > > those who utter it - move from science to economics and business (even > > from cop) has led me to disillusion with 'theorists'. Most of it is > > palpable drivel. I will probably shuffle off a dog-walking hermit. > > > Sorry to hear of the episode Allan - hope you recover as quickly as > > usual. Science is plodding along telling a different tale of what it > > is to be human. I take some solace in that and perhaps the ludicrous > > state in which RT (Russia Today) and Al Jazeera offer more accurate > > news than the BBC (though one detects propaganda as surely as > > listening to Radio Moscow in the 60's). The madness is we have no > > need to organise as we do. I doubt this will change. > > > On Jan 21, 3:46 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Interesting thread. I agree with Rigs, as usual. I have no problem > > > with democracy as long as the voters are sane and reasonably > > > intelligent and self-reliant. Therefore I disagree with democracy. > > > Long live the Republic! But seriously, if we had a global democracy > > > all us advanced nations would suffer without a corresponding lift in > > > poorer cultures advancement. People will vote themselves > > > money/benefits/stuff now at the expense of future consequences. Kick > > > that can. Observe last USA presidential election. > > > > 'Nuff said. > > > > dj > > > > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:38 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Coffee stains are the new physics -http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/7 > > > > > Allan's opinion is similar to my own - but there's a big 'but' - and > > > > this concerns how we could get something radically different to work. > > > > The usual dismissal of what many of us agree on in terms of fairness > > > > and decency is 'this is a dirty old world and we need to play by the > > > > rules of the bad guys or be swamped by them - our bad guys can't be > > > > hampered by rules their competitors don't face and so on'. On top of > > > > this the whole history of modern imperialism is written in legend. > > > > Unions become not defenders of worker conditions and pay but enemies > > > > etc. > > > > > On Jan 20, 3:57 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> The function of mayonnaise is to teach us about negative vacuum energy > > > >> Gabby! What the banksters are doing is controlling a global wage/food/ > > > >> energy arbitrage that should be in local hands (ours). The Pirates > > > >> had/have something going - but even 'socialist' France has boots on > > > >> the ground - even if we had political revolution how would we deal > > > >> with the inevitable foreign policy junk when whoever represents us has > > > >> the military and secret services in their ears suggesting the policies > > > >> we want will lead to Islamic-Chinese empires that will come looking > > > >> for us? > > > > >> On 20 Jan, 03:30, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > If I say something like 'you have never heard a true word about > > ... > > read more » --
