Re: [Fis] Scientific communication
Caro Mark e cari tutti,
da "Il giudizio di valore" (1972) affermo che la scienza economica
"normale" doveva essere buttata alle ortiche o nell'immondezzaio, perchè
"La scienza non può non essere umana, civile, sociale, ECONOMI(C)A,
enigmatica, nobile, profetica" (2016). Quindi non mi viene facile leggere
taluni rilievi critici che non possono condividere perché non è giusto fare
di tutte le erbe un fascio.
Ho rispetto del pensiero degli altri, ma ritengo sempre opportuno mettere i
puntini sulle i.
Francesco
2016-10-21 14:33 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :
> Dear Mark and FIS colleagues,
>
> It was a pity that our previous replies just crossed in time, otherwise I
> would have continued along your thinking lines. However, your alternative
> focus on who has access to the "Brownian chamber motion" is pretty exciting
> too.
>
> Following our FIS colleague Howard Bloom ("The Global Brain", 2000),
> universities and the like are a social haven for a new type of personality
> that does not match very well within the social order of things. It is the
> "Faustian type" of mental explorers, dreamers, creators of thought, etc.
> Historically they have been extremely important but the way they are
> treated (even in those "havens" themselves!), well, usually is rather
> frustrating except for a few fortunate parties. A long list of arch-famous
> scientific figures ended very badly indeed.
>
> So, in this view, people "called to the box" are the Faustians of the
> locality... But of course, other essential factors impinge on the box
> composition and inner directions, often very rudely. SCIENTIA POTESTAS EST:
> it means that as the box's outcomes are so much influential in the
> technology, religion, culture, richness, prosperity, and military power,
> etc., a mixing of socio-political interests will impress a tough handling
> in the external guidance and inner contents of the poor box.
>
> And finally, the education --as you have implied-- that very often is
> deeply imbued with classist structures and class selection. The vitality of
> the Brownian box would most frequently hang from these educational
> structures --purses-- for both financing and arrival of new people. And
> that implies further administrative strings and been involved in frequent
> bureaucratic internecine conflicts. The book of Gregory Clark (2014, The
> Son also Raises) is an excellent reading on class "iron statistics"
> everywhere, particularly in education.
>
> E puor si muove! All those burdens have a balance of positive supporting
> and negative discouraging influences, different in each era. Perhaps far
> better in our times, but who knows... The good thing relating our
> discussion is that, from immemorial times, all those Brownian boxes around
> are wonderfully agitated and refreshed by the external communication flows
> of scientific publications via the multiple channels (explosive ones today,
> almost toxic for the Faustian).
>
> Maintaining a healthy, open-minded scientific system... easy said than
> done.
>
> Best regards
> --Pedro
>
>
>
>
>
> El 16/10/2016 a las 16:07, Mark Johnson escribió:
>
> Dear Pedro,
>
> Thank you for bringing this back down to earth again. I would like to
> challenge something in your first comment - partly because contained
> within it are issues which connect the science of information with the
> politics of publishing and elite education.
>
> Your 'bet' that "that oral exchange continues to be the central
> vehicle. It is the "Brownian Motion" that keeps running and infuses
> vitality to the entire edifice of science." is of course right.
> However, there is a political/critical issue as to who has ACCESS to
> the chamber with the Brownian motion.
>
> It is common for elite private schools in the UK (and I'm sure
> elsewhere) to say "exams aren't important to us. What matters are the
> things around the edges of formal education... character-building
> activities, contact with the elite, etc". What they mean is that they
> don't worry about exams because their processes of pre-selection and
> 'hot-housing' mean that all their students will do well in exams
> anyway. But nobody would argue that exams are not important for
> personal advancement in today's society, would they?
>
> Similarly, elite universities may say "published papers are not that
> important - what happens face-to-face is what matters!". Those
> universities do not have to worry so much about publishing in
> high-quality journals because (often) the editors of those journals
> are employed by those universities. But when, at least in the last 10
> years or so, did anybody get an academic job in a university with no
> publications?
>
> I draw attention to this not because it seems like a stitch-up
> (although it is). It is because it skews what you call the "Brownian
> motion". At worst we end up with the kind of prejudice that was
> expressed by Professor Tim Hunt last year
> (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/nobel-scien
Re: [Fis] Scientific communication
Dear Mark and FIS colleagues,
It was a pity that our previous replies just crossed in time, otherwise
I would have continued along your thinking lines. However, your
alternative focus on who has access to the "Brownian chamber motion" is
pretty exciting too.
Following our FIS colleague Howard Bloom ("The Global Brain", 2000),
universities and the like are a social haven for a new type of
personality that does not match very well within the social order of
things. It is the "Faustian type" of mental explorers, dreamers,
creators of thought, etc. Historically they have been extremely
important but the way they are treated (even in those "havens"
themselves!), well, usually is rather frustrating except for a few
fortunate parties. A long list of arch-famous scientific figures ended
very badly indeed.
So, in this view, people "called to the box" are the Faustians of the
locality... But of course, other essential factors impinge on the box
composition and inner directions, often very rudely. SCIENTIA POTESTAS
EST: it means that as the box's outcomes are so much influential in the
technology, religion, culture, richness, prosperity, and military power,
etc., a mixing of socio-political interests will impress a tough
handling in the external guidance and inner contents of the poor box.
And finally, the education --as you have implied-- that very often is
deeply imbued with classist structures and class selection. The vitality
of the Brownian box would most frequently hang from these educational
structures --purses-- for both financing and arrival of new people. And
that implies further administrative strings and been involved in
frequent bureaucratic internecine conflicts. The book of Gregory Clark
(2014, The Son also Raises) is an excellent reading on class "iron
statistics" everywhere, particularly in education.
E puor si muove! All those burdens have a balance of positive supporting
and negative discouraging influences, different in each era. Perhaps far
better in our times, but who knows... The good thing relating our
discussion is that, from immemorial times, all those Brownian boxes
around are wonderfully agitated and refreshed by the external
communication flows of scientific publications via the multiple channels
(explosive ones today, almost toxic for the Faustian).
Maintaining a healthy, open-minded scientific system... easy said than done.
Best regards
--Pedro
El 16/10/2016 a las 16:07, Mark Johnson escribió:
Dear Pedro,
Thank you for bringing this back down to earth again. I would like to
challenge something in your first comment - partly because contained
within it are issues which connect the science of information with the
politics of publishing and elite education.
Your 'bet' that "that oral exchange continues to be the central
vehicle. It is the "Brownian Motion" that keeps running and infuses
vitality to the entire edifice of science." is of course right.
However, there is a political/critical issue as to who has ACCESS to
the chamber with the Brownian motion.
It is common for elite private schools in the UK (and I'm sure
elsewhere) to say "exams aren't important to us. What matters are the
things around the edges of formal education... character-building
activities, contact with the elite, etc". What they mean is that they
don't worry about exams because their processes of pre-selection and
'hot-housing' mean that all their students will do well in exams
anyway. But nobody would argue that exams are not important for
personal advancement in today's society, would they?
Similarly, elite universities may say "published papers are not that
important - what happens face-to-face is what matters!". Those
universities do not have to worry so much about publishing in
high-quality journals because (often) the editors of those journals
are employed by those universities. But when, at least in the last 10
years or so, did anybody get an academic job in a university with no
publications?
I draw attention to this not because it seems like a stitch-up
(although it is). It is because it skews what you call the "Brownian
motion". At worst we end up with the kind of prejudice that was
expressed by Professor Tim Hunt last year
(https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/nobel-scientist-tim-hunt-female-scientists-cause-trouble-for-men-in-labs).
More fundamentally, the doubts and uncertainties of the many are very
important, and in this system, they are not only not heard, but in the
increasingly rarefied and and specialised exchanges in the "Brownian
motion chamber", as the elite scholars endlessly discuss ontological
arguments for the existence of information (!), everyone else is
effectively locked-out.
The economic crisis and the economists is a good example of this kind
of pathology. It was pretty obvious that the economic system was
heading for trouble quite some time before 2008; it was also obvious
to a few economists on the fringes (who became ve
