IRC log started Fri Jul 26 21:51 We'll start in a few minutes. All right. We're ready to start ..... Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on "What does Science Studies Offer Science?", and will be moderated by Bill Capehart. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Go ahead, Bill. Thanks Pankaj... I'd like to keep this fairly open tonight... I have been looking into this topic for quite some time and I still am not satisfied as to the extent of the answers I've been getting on this... Recently NYU physics/mathematics professor Alan Sokal conducted an unorthodox experiment in "science studies," a examination of science from a "postmodern" perspective. He submitted the article"Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a transformative hermenuetics of quantum gravity" to the liberal arts journal Social Text. In it, Sokal presented such gems as ... and this is the quite that you've been seeing without the elipses... "It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical 'reality,' no less than social 'reality,' is at bottom a social and linguistic construct " not that he emphasises PHYSICAL reality. +e Needless to say, it was published in a special edition [aptly] called "Science Wars." Sokal recently presented his "findings" in the jounal "Lingua Franca" and since then all hell has broken loose between the science communities and the "science studies" communites. Rather than discuss that incident itself... I'd like to discuss the friction between the two groups. (And I appologize right now... I am having a bad technology and science evening with limited resources...) The deconstructionists have been rewriting the router software... I'd like to start by asking "What is Science Studies?" Good question. I'd like to have the answer. :) a sinecure And so would I :-) It is a very broad definiton. Obviously, this is a trick question ... the naive answer would be "the study of science" A meta-study of science from the point of view of its role in society? Things like science education, with some philosophy thrown in? so I'd like to restrict ot to the "post modernist" end of the field KPart: Perhaps you could indicate a few essentials about the nature of the "Science Studies" people ... where they're coming from philosophically I think they're trying to define the role science plays in society. like I said, I'm concentrating on the "pomo" end. But Sube has a good broad definition (which [unfortunatley] the pomos) +includes the pomos What is postmodernism? In essentials? Science as what in society... a moving influence... something that is good? bad? neutral? Kpart: "science studies" is supposed to be studying hoew the vocabulary and methodology of science changes in a community of "practitioners". So it's related to linguistic analysis? P2: I was about to ask the exact same. :-) That would be a good definition of the post modernist branch of it. (whichis what I'd like to cover) P2: indirectly, yes. P2: closer to Kuhn in spirit tho. How does L.A. relate to Postmodernism and deconstructionism? Postmodernism seems to vary as much as their definitions of reality from what I've seen. Phil & Brad ... LA = Liberal Arts? Ling. Analysis.. ah.. hi Betsy Is this the topic we were discussing last night, Tym? Kpart: yesh. So what's "postmodernism", anyway? Tym and I were talking about one of the responses to the sokal articule where Stanley Fish addressed Sokals "assertion" that physical reality was a "social construct" by compariung it to a basball game which is both real (read physically real) and a social construct (man made) Subetai: basically, an attempt to obliterate context. Isn't "postmodernism" what must logically arise in an academic culture that has rejected objectivity and values? Yes Brad. They take great attention to attacking the last two words in your sentence. Kpart - that doesn't make sense on the face of it Brad: but it has to be of a certain bent non-objectively. In this case it's subjectivism. E.g. in this case Fish completey ignored the fact that Sokal was clearly addressing Physical reality rather than something more hazy such as "reality of everyday life" or soimething of the sort. aaah So what is Science Studies? (I apologize if during my outage, this was defined). Okay. Are we going to consider if "Science Studies" can be objectively defined? Regardless of the definition used by the postmodernists. Sube, I think it is one of those terms that is kept so hazy that it cannot be clearly defined. I like chocolate ice-cream. "That may be true for you, but not for me." Man requires freedom. "That may be true for you, but not for us." As they use it, "Science Studies" appears to be the attempt to destroy objective science via postmodernism ... to replace scientific epistemology with subjectivism If I were to focus on a definition, I';d use something along yours... "Examining Science and it's place in society" They openly claim to be out to do that from the Social Text response, Phil. Could there be a valid field of study concerning the role of science in society? What would you call it? And to justify it they bring up examole of scientific racism , etc. KPart: Ya :\ and jkust what examples of that do they often bring up? Does it mean anything sensible like the philosophy of science or scientific epistemology -- or does it relate to real science like "Social Studies" does to rea; history? KPart: But that is, in itself, legitimate -- that would be part of anthropology or sociology, i.e., sciences that study culture. Phil: Fish's cop-out is he says he's not denying the objectivity of external events; he's just saying that the vocabulary and method of science is fluid and problematic. Tym: To attack reasoning, attack language, eh? Yes, Brad... I think it would more closely fit into sociology or history... Phil: yup. He says the DESCRIPTION of physical ophenomena is what is subjective. Scientific history? So an objective definition of "Science Studies" could be: "the study of the role played by science in shaping culture and history"? A controversial position paper was just recently issued on global warming... it was "based" on a number of scientific studies, omitting the largely critical and skeptical conclusions of the scientists re global warming. That's the problem ... as Dr. Peikoff noted recently, in a certain sense there are no "subjects" ... if you start to integrate pieces of information widely enough (as I understood him) Betsy: it embraces that, but also sociology and psychology. Subetai: no, it's supposed to study HOW scientist DO science. +s Sube: From what I've heard, it's more like "the role of culture and history in shaping science". Tym: yikes. that doesn't sound good To study "science in society" is to reprise the history of the industrial revolution Tym: a study of scientific methodology? Brad: it's rank subjectivism. Cf. Thomas Kuhn _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ :/ In that case, what differentiates it from epistemology? Sube: More like "a study of scientific opression." Subetai: right! Perhaps what _they_ mean is: How _scientists_ are socially affected (or how they may be.) Subetai: yr question is really the crux of the matter :) Besty that goes back to the beans on the skuls to prove that "whites" are superior (the straw men that Andrews and Ross used in this case) Phil: right. Betsy: Okay. That's the present definition of "Science Studies" then. So ... objectivist science is "oppressive" because it necessarily demands an uncompromising view of the world not open to human whim? objectivist=objective And it also moves to the questiuon of "Are they REALLY Studying Science? "] Phil: more accurately, objective science is oppressive because it claims to have a *vocabulary* with objective referents. ...so Fish's protestations are a cop-out. So what EXACTLY ARE they doing? Objective science oppresses backward cultures and makes them feel inferior. Tym: i.e. that language itself, if it possessed a firm identity, is "oppressive" because not open to subjective redefinitions at will? Phil: science studies wants to study all of the ways that scientific method "changes". Kpart: They're studying how "social injustices" happen because some people (scientists) claim to know objective reality and draw inescapable conclusions from it? Subetai: noo... Then what, Tym? So this all ties in with "multiculturalism" ... if you have some objective standards of any sort that contradict some culture, that's oppressing them Subetai: they want to show how "subjective" method really is, how it's dependent on culture and time and place, etc. Tym: Okay. Just method? Or do they also claim that there is no objective reality, and therefore there can be no "right" method? What's the "cash value" of the Science Studies people? What do they really want to accomplish? -Jasra- What lag? -JET-  Subetai: you hit right on it when you wondered if "science studies" wasn't simply *epistemology*. I see that some people are lagged. Join Chicago.IL if the lags get really bad. I see that some people are lagged. Join Chicago.IL if the lags get really bad. Okay ... ok am I back? What's next, Bill? Subetai: they protest, as Stanley Fish does, that they don't DENY the objectivity of physical reality... I was on the question of "Are they studing science?" I think they're studying how to _destroy_ science ...thye just say that the vocabulary can't have objective referents, because it's tied to context of time and place and culture and other "filters". ..sound familiar? I certaiunly get the idea of that, Phil... Sounds like metaphysical idealism. There is a book called the "Two Cultures" discussiung the rift between scientists and non scietists But I;m getting to the point where I think that there are three. This all, naturally, sounds just like Kant at work Phil: yup! Phil0: but these things are rarely explicit conspiracies -- it is the type of wilfull, petulant evasion evinced by James Taggart scientists, non-scientists, and anti-scientists? One Pro Science... One Science-illiterate(or ambivilant) and a thiurd that are Anti scientists. And of course an extreme dose of unoriginality and group-think. Exactly Lurch BradA: Well, there may be the explicit Tooheys around too :\ Phil: Reminds me of Plato a bit. There's a reality "out there somewhere", but we can't quite grasp it because our senses/language is imperfect. has it really changed since Gallileo? And I'd group the anti's in two groups... One that is openly hostile to it and the other well that... loves it. Rather (to use a horribly cheesy comparison) like Glenn Close loved Michael Douglass. Kpart: great simile :) you know what it sounds like to me? an adaptation of that "those who can, do.." Eg people that want science to invclude things like laylines, fen chuei (sp) and ... heaven forbid "Gravity Units" Kpart: feng sui :) and those who cannot smash? teach and teach badly Phil0: Oh, yes. They are inevitably the theoreticians. How prevalent are these Social Studies departments? Are they well funded? Who pays them? these sound like the hippie wdannabe's in the 60s.. talking a line of unadulterated BS, but their friends think they're cool, so they get away with it I assume the neh, and the general educatuoin funds... the soc, sci and tech course here is listed as a generael ed elective Sube: very well funded, lots o influence. Fish is one of the deans of postmodernism, teaches at Duke. Okay. A caller to the Leonard Peikoff Show -- an engineering student -- said the engineering and science students think that humanities professors view of science is a big joke. Only the humanites majors take that junk seriously. Betsy: well, then you have _The Dancing Wu-Li Masters_ :/ I've been hearing that cutbacks in the universities are being felt first in philosophy and other humanities depts because they live with its results daily in their work, besty. Betsy - that sounds about how we viewed things, yeah. Phil - I don't doubt it. At the schoole where my dad taught, the sciences felt it first SO to go back to the question IS science studies acutally studying science or is it out to get it, undermine it or leech off of it. Betsy: Unfortunately, in my experience, such rational people end up dismissing Humanities as useless, and never come to explicitly understand the relation between that "nonsense" and the events and phenomena of their culture. I attended a few classes at Loyola University in their Liberal Arts program. It's scary, the nonsense they taught there about science. Brad, I had that very attitude in undergrad Brad: It's OUR job to reach -- and teach -- them. Given the people involved, there's no doubt that the "Science Studies" loons are out to totally undermine science and objectivity Sube - it's not restricted to Loyola Phil: I am all for promoting fiscal restraint -- it has important consequences, such as removing funding from social sciences and modern-art practioners. Kpart: I think it needs to be emphasised that when you say yr method and vocabulary are subjective, then to deny that you think physical reality is subjective is plain silly. I agree, Phill. I really don't see them seriuously studing it, as much as they are trying to smash it or leech off of it.... Kelly:" Do you realize economics is classified as a social science? Lurch: Right, of course not. That's where I happened to be. They had a very one-sided syllabus in the science course, full of writers like Bronowsky and Bohm who present reality as indeterminate. Phil: Philosophy departments are losing students. If you couldn't meet the math requirement by taking a logic course in the Phil. Dept. they would have disappeared decades ago. I'd rather see the universities be devoid of supporting these lunatics and have people pick up their philosophies via Atlas Shrugged in their spare time .. Betsy: This is why I see Dr. Peikoff's radio show as such a potential breakthrough. There is a "meta" barrier which needs to be broken... I think Sci Stud is really adding fuel to the fire between scientists and non scientists. ...and if rational adults can come to see the relevance and importance of a rational approach to humanities, they will really start challenging the "nonsense". Should we also not study political science? Or linguistics? These are also social sciences. (Kelly says) Betsy: Any news on the latest ratings? DavidB was being hush hush ;) Kpart: Peikoff really hit it right when he identified words/concepts as something of necessity born of both consciousness AND existence. Jason: Economics *is* a social science. I can see where linguistics may be a science... but politicl science??? I dunno Yes, that's right, Brad. So why are you saying we should get rid of funding the social sciences? Phil: As far as I know, they won't be out until after the end of August. Betsy: Ok ... indeed, Tym. Like I was telling you last night, I think that Fish was divoricing man (not just baseball) form reality to somie extent)( Kpart: yup. Tym: I seem to remember an earlier philosophy espousing that notion as well. ;-) ANd with such a divorce, how can you study science (or much else?) Kpart: Is there an indication that Sokal is explicitly aware of the philosophic connections to his spoof? i.e. does he know about Kant? Okay, so we've established that the Science Studies people are undermining science by declaring it as subjetive. What's next? Linguistics is definitely a science, and a marvelously fascinating one. I took 2 intro courses in University -- they were among my favorites. +c I got the impressiom that he had some idea that he had Also, political science is certainly a science -- it subject matter, political systems, are numerous, but display many regularities and significant differences, and the operations can be analyzed, and proper principles adduced. Sube with that noted "What Sci Stud has to offer science?" (Ashes) Sube: People like us pull more Sokol-style stunts and expose how silly the humanities have become. what does Science have to offer Science Studies? Betsy: I like it :) :) Greetings Kelly: I am saying we should get rid of *taxpayer* funded social science. Absent government financing, I guarantee that exactly as much social science services as is needed by the economy will be produced. EXACTLY as much. ask not what sci stud has to offer science, but rather, what does science have to offer sci stud? Besty, what worries me there is that it may sour more people towards the humanities, the way it did me a long while back yeah - that thing argh KPart: For _this_ stuff, that's good .. naturally I assuume that such expiosiure would include a rational alternative would it not ? That doesn't sound exactly like what you were saying. I agree there should be no funding of universities, but while there is, it should be fair, and I don't understand why you want to get rid of funding to the social sciences. To what extent does "Science Studies" _actually_ constitute a study of humanities, now? Kpart: it can show *concrete* instances of the objectivity of science, but really it's up to philosophy to debunk science studies. Kpart: It will sour thinking people against what the humanites have become. Some of us remember -- or have read about -- a better time. The entire field of philosophy is a big pit of patho-psychology moreso than the study if fundamental ideas ... Kpart: Objectivists have cornered the martket in rational alternatives. ;-) Modern philosophy.. Kelly: that's an implicitly pragmatist attitude. If we can get rid of public funding for anything, do it. Phil, Betsy: But of course with positive alternatives being always at hand to promote. We wouldn't want to get in the trap of merely "deconstructing" our enemies, would we? ;-) oh god. . . IOf there were only more if us... Actually, I think SS turns a lot of people against science. Not everyone makes a career out of science. Those who don't take science courses in Liberal Arts department that authoritatively deny objectivity, by selectively quoting famous scienti +sts 50 or so Americans too over Nicaragua in the 1850's, Kpart ;) too=took I just want to know why Brad is focusing on getting rid of the social sciences. Kpart: If only the people who know what's what do more of the good stuff. One good person can have a tremendous influence. Look at Ayn Rand. WHen non scientists want look toward the "deffieniencies" of science, what do they often call out? defficiencies Kelly: I did not say that. I said that government cutbacks tend to have the consequence of especially squeezing our worst enemies. Remember, things that are actually *necessary* and important, will get produced and consumed, subsidies or not. Kelly: maybe he sees it as more politically doable. So I don't worry overly about legitimate science and disciplines. Voluntary financing will fill the gap. Look at the trends towards increasing numbers of private schools ("technical" schools) ... that will probably continue I'd like to see Social Studies and Liberal Arts programs get the budget squeeze first. Are you saying that social sciences are not legitimate then? Why are you focusing on this area? KPart: YIKES! A good idea may be shared by infinitely many people. Please memorize this. The arts aren't any less important than sciences. Kelly: The "social sciences" today in the public universities are a horror story. Better that they die off and get replaced by more logical people. Whereas engineers and scientists actually have something sensible to do in the world I'd like to see the sports programs get hammered first Brad, huh? The way the social sciences are practiced today, they promote irrationality at taxpayer expense. Sorry, Phil, but the social sciences have a place in the world, too. And while a lot of bad things are going on, there is some good research going on as well. Just what are we talking about as "social sciences"? Lurch, at least the sports programs promote excellence in their fields some of the more "detatched" sciences as well, high energy physics, etc Economics is a "social science" Kelly: I think I grasp the importance of philosophy ... but what _they're_ promoting is anti-philosophy As is Psychology Clay - do they? or do they promote "win at all costs" If (god forbid!) my son decides to study the humanities, I's NEVER sent him to a modern college. I'd buy him the Great Books. Lurch, some do, some don't. Betsy: do it. S'what I raised myself on. the DWEMs, betsy? Some of the research in the social sciences IS good. It's obviously not all bad. Even in psychology. Clay - I can speak only from experience, but at every school I've visited the sports program was heavy on winning (as opposed to excelling) Kpart: Them DWEMS are cool! DWEM? :) I have a friend who helps his kids' schools raise money and sponsorships. You have no idea of how much money can be raised. But of course this has never been demonstrated, when the public purse is ever open. Phil: Dead White European Male :) Phil: Dead White European Males. Ha ... never heard that before I've thought for some time about putting the Harvard Classics circa 1900 onto CDROM .. What do people "expect" k for when they look to s cience Kelly: The Humanities are *more* important than the sciences -- that is precisely why it is important that BAD humanities be minimized. You can't equivocate between the *concept* "humanities", and the *existent* humanities, meaning the sum of today's studies in the humanities. and then get "let down" Phil: We could market it to concerned parents. What a moneymaker! Let's get back to the moderated discussion, folks. This is Bill's show. Hi Paul Could you be more specific, Bill? In what context? Phil: Find some old books on: logic, writing, and grammar! brb For example there is a book now out on the shelves called "The end of science" where the author discusses how people are getting disenchanted with it. Bill: I've seen a similar work entitled "Voltaire's Bastards". Kpart: Or is it really how the _intellectuals_ are getting disenchanted with science. though science studes hasn't been on the scene long enough to do such damage their complaints mirror many of the things they hve to say about say... Objectivists. can you give an example of one of the "disappiointments?" That science doesn't solve "world hunger"? good... anymore... Betsy: I dunno. It's been a long time since the public romance with science at the '34 World's Fair :/ Keeps turning up neat new ways to kill people, etc. Tym: The Discovery Channel seems to be pretty popular :) there's a problem that I get hit with in my field "you can't predict everythying" Phil: hrmm, true :) any others? Tym: Then why are young students opting for science and avoiding the humanities? Kpart: You mean they're disenchanted by the fact that science isn't magic? (aliong that line?) close... I'm looking for an O-word Which is? Are you saying that the humanities are losing students? Betsy: cuz the humanities are a Hobson's choice ;) Kpart: Omnipotent? actually two that have the same prefix that's one... the other? Please, folks .... this is a MODERATED discussion. Let's stick to Bill's questions. We can talk about other things later. hi! Kelly: They sure are. As a result there are a lot of out-of-work philosophy professors -- 400 for every job opening. Kpart: Omniscent? Yes, Jet... People have expected science to be able to solve everytying, know everytying..;' consider the "implications " of Chaos theory Are their documented stats on this? I haven't heard any such thing about the universities here. And obviously, these out of work profs were students in the first place. back I don't take too much stock in chaos theory. What implications are those, Bill? WHat is the commoin conception of chaos? That you cannot predict anything competely Kpart: That's just stupid modern intellectuals who don't understand science or pistemology. Real people don't feel that way -- at least the ones I meet. once again the omiscience thread Disappointment turning to rage? I don't see it that way. "real people" have little background in science unfortuatly. at least the more complicated things are diffucult to explain, eg chaos. I woiuld n't call it rage they aren;t lashing out at scientists. Kpart: The real people I meet are educated scientists, engineers, and computer scientists. How about "blame"? I don't think it's "disappointment". People who expect something of science are interested enough in it to study it a bit. It's the people who have an antipathy towards objectivity who claim to be "disappointed" in the limitations of science. But is it me, or are there more and more phychic friends networls out ther. I love working with computer people. People who are really interested are... Kpart: If the "psychic friends" are the enemy, we've won! I'm a computer geek-dude! ;-) Kpart: Apparently, interest in mysticism and all matters new-age has exploded in Russia since the fall of the SU eg.. I hate to use him for an example... but Liddy always goes gaga over the science articles. Who's Liddy? BradA: The Russians have ALWAYS been mystical. Read Hedrick Smith. some people who are ambivilent toward science and find it "deficient": move towards the crystal world so to speak. But this could be overemphasized -- I mean think about all the whacky movements that have gripped the popular attention in the last two centuries. Yeah. Russia was the haven of orthodox catholicism. They were mystics before communism. ooooh! we can make a ton of money - build little pyramids, sell them to russians who want to keep their potatoes fresh, or their razors sharp "People" sure expect miracles of modern medical "science" and are very disappointed when they don't get them. but the people who go mysical are often not "really": science literate Well, of course. Anyone who understands science understands where knowledge comes from, and doesn't expect miracles. I wonder if psychic friends knows how to use the internet to dig into the personal databases (like the credit bases) no, that's not what chaos theory is. unfortunately, chaos theory (lie some other legit scientific things like relativity)is used to argue for non-identity and non causality. What Chaos thry really says is that certain phenomena are not predictable, not because they lack identity, but because the their behavior exhibits wild fluctuation. note that the equatins governing these phenomena are completely known - unfortunately, their solution is difficult and i hat would easily account for "I can't believe how much my psychic friend KNEW about me on my first call!!!" Oh boy, I made it finally! I think so too Jet... like Sube said earlier.... I think that science has been assiciated by non scientists (compared to sciuence literates and anti scientists) with magic simply out of a lack of interests in learning about it the lay person emotionally equates science with witchcraft and alchemy joe, Lorenz was quoted here at PSU as saying that he believe that all physical phenomia were causal in that they were not "random" happening without cause kpart. yes, that's good. Got to go. Thanks. See you next week. Okay, the discussion's officially over. Feel free to continue talking about anything interesting. Floyd Ferris was the archetype of scientists and popularizers who intellectually rape legitimate theories like Quantum Mechanics and Chaos theory bye Jet Brad: Also Bohm. And Bronowski. Pop scientiests tend to annoy me as well. Something really excited me today: Otis Corporation has announced a brand new high-rise transportation system, that works horizontally, as well as vertically, and allows multiple cars to traverse the shafts simultaneously! fuzzy logic, chaos, relativity, quantum mech, etc. are typical examples. Though Bronowski said some pretty good things. He just sounds so ambivalent saying them that the liberal arts people have a field day interpreting away his work any way they please. Kpart: Stephen Jay Gould :/ Brad - hey, I think there were little plaques on the Enterprise that said "Otis" They begin testing it next year, and if all goes well, it will start appearing in new buildings in a few years. L Ron Hubbard it is terribly hard to describe something lile that "for the genreal puiblic." My candidacy had a quesiton to describe the "greenhouse effect" in under 100 words so anyine could understand it. It was hell! Brad: THey must run on rails then eh? Kpart: "Certain gases have a higher thermal capacity than air and a rise in their levels leads to a global warmind trend"? warming Subetai: I must read him. I have heard and read so many intriguing things about his interpretation of QM. I don't have a problem with QM, unlike many Objectivist intellectuals, who seem to dismiss it. 8-{) its' a radiative property really, but the job of explaining it has passed to the next batch of phd canididates/masochists Phil: maddeningly, the article I read did not cover this. Such an important new development deserved to be treated in more detail, especially since I read it in the business section. . . . What are we talking about? Brad: I don't have a problem with Qm myself. I do have a problem with people who promote uncertainty as a metaphysical rather than epistemological fact. Brad, do you mean elevators that could pass each other in a sihg le shaft? The problem with bronowski's book is that at the end, the only thing he has to offer againts dogmatism (nazis) is skepticism! (misusing 20th century science as a justification for skepticism) Unfortunately this undercuts everythig he says earlier about the greatness of science. Phil: I would think large rubber wheels more likely, as the kind on the Paris and Montreal subways. KPart: No, but two can be in the same shaft, because they load and unload external to the shaft. and the same thing with gaia and other easily hippie and skeptic -hijacjkable theories Anyone into QM should look up Lewis Little's paper in, ah, Physics Essays (I think is the name), a Canadian publication. Not super-mathematical and explains his theory clearly subetai: does this mean that you believe that the universe is essentially determnistic, in the sense that any (non-volitional) system can only have one ooutput for any given input? It will be really cool. But I predict: first, they will design buildings with conventional hallways, AND these "Transitors"... Paul_H: it has to be detrministic. Then, designers will realize hallways are silly, and the transitors will just take you directly to the suite. Phil.. I showed that paper to a physicist I know. His comment was that it appeared to have been written by an engineer. 8-{) afk Paul: I wouldn't put it that way, because I don't understand the implications of what you said fully. I'd say that nothing happens in the universe without a cause. no firepoles? Lurch: A compliment as far as I'm concerned ;) Lurch, that;'s good right? KPart: Gaia is a most interesting hypothesis, it is very similar in formulating methodology to Paterson's theory of political economy. Bill, no. it means the person writing it has only a superficial grasp of what's going on Just a bit too much metaphor and arm-waving to be hard science, but intriguing nonetheless. subetai: for instance, the Copenhagen people say that if you have an electron in a superpostion of states, and run it through a stern-gerlach system, it really could end up in one of two possible ways. folks like bohm (and other hidden-variable advocates) say that it can only have one outcome, just that we don't know which until it happens. subetai: I assume you are in the latter camp? My husband is a scientist and Little's paper blew him away! He couldn't sleep for 2 days. Brad, you can model some of the aspects of it at the canopy scale but upscaling it to the glibakl scale gets complicated Betsy: is Little actually an O'ist? as an aside - nothing I can find on the Otis pages about that new elevator Paul: I'd say that the electron never contradicts the law of identity, without specifying *what* that identity is, because I don't think it's understood well enough. The beauty of his approach is that he changes just one thing: the direction of movement of waves, decoupling waves and particles inherently, without substantially changing Schroedinger's equation trying to tie the biosphere to the deep lithosphere via the carboin cycle is a far stretch. interesting to be sure but a stretch all the same Kpart: What I like best, is his emphasis on the role of life itself in maintaining the conditions needed for life; this is not widely held -- the last article in SciAmer I remember on... Kpart: Certainly life has changed earth geologically over geologic time periods (limestone, chalk, oil deposits, O2 and CO2 ratios etc.) But the ecologists are sure to totally distort any objective use of such an idea Tym: Little is a long-time Objectivist. I remember him lecturing Objectivist on scientific epistemology in 1967. ...this subject dealt with the issue as if it was the distance from the Sun to Earth that was critical, not life as a feedback moderator. Betsy: gah. subetai: i agree that we don't understand the identity of particles as well as we'd like. I tend to be cautioous about "armchair philosophers" who say that particles must behave always like macroscopic entities. all that we can know for sure is that they have *some* identity and that they follow *some* rules. Well, brad, it's homeostasis just extended "outside" the relm of the organism. let me comb the office for what he wanted to call it I doubt that physicists are going to take Little's paper very seriously until they do some experiments to substantiate it. He assumes a lot of things which seem to make sense. KPart: Did he misrepresent the facts? Subetai: He proposes at least one experiment -- a modification of the Aspect experiment. The usual one predicts the same results as his theory, which is true for most of QM (necessarily, given experimental evidence) I really don't think he does, I think he went a little too far with upscaling the effect. Bonjour all... Paul: Yeah, that's about as far as I'd go. to the ppoit of explainging plate tectonics philo2: so do you believe that there are "hidden variables"? Phil: Right. As I understand it, no one's going to do that experiment anytime soon because it would be complicated and expensive. philo2: if so, they must (apparently) exhibit a very peculiar non-locality. At least that's my current understanding. (brad I can;t find the book here, i have acopy at home but it was somehting likle "Biosphere Universal Systemic Homeostatic Tendency" but it doesn;'t make a catchy acronym. PaulH: I don't fully grasp the QM implications, except that I know that in some respect they are mathematically irreconcilable with experiments done and current QM theory. Little's theory proposes "elementary waves" decoupled but interacting with elementary particles. S. equation changes wave direction but squared amplitudes are the same Sube: My husband quotes a famous physicist -- forget who -- saying that you can't have a new idea accepted in physics until all advocates of the old ideas die off. Kpart: "gaia" runs into the same problems as the Great Red Spot of Jupiter. Sube: Steve says the scientist was planck Tym--to which gaia are you refereing to? Frisco: the Gaia Hypothesis. philo2: hmm. In either case, it seems that the micro world operates under rules that don't have a direct corelate to our everyday macroscopic experience. It still has its own identity, but one that we will find just plain weird. Or as Feynman said, "you can push the weirdness around, but you can't make it go away!" Ah...have you read lovelock? yes] Betsy: so then there are "ways" to accelerate the acceptance of new physics ideas? ;-) Betsy: was that perhaps also Richard Feynman? PaulH: Little's theory explains the aspect experiment -- predicts Cos^2 theta dependence of polarizer angles -- completely locally Kpart--and your opinion? Betsy: There's that too. I like his theory in that it explains certain things more reasonably than they've been explained before. But in doing so, he requires that you accept some new assumptions. joe: yes, commercialize them ;-) Philo2: interesting! can you repeat the reference/citation? Feynman was wonderful. PaulH: Just a sec philo2: i'd like to go look it up for myself. Betsy: Most scientists look for experimental evidence that they can't deny before accepting new assumptions. subetai: do you think they are too cautious or conservative then? or merely practicing good epistemology, and holding off on multiplying theories without necessity? Hello... PaulH: -Physics Essays- (March) - $20+$5(s/h) - (819)770-0477, fax (819)770-3862. PaulH: I'm not entirely sure it's March issue tho Re: Gaia Hypothesis...what is the general opinion of those here who have read the book. PaulH: His name is Dr. Lewis Little .. -. +? philo2: that should be enough for me to find it -- thanks! Paul: Sure Paul: I think they're not too far off. I like seeing incontrovertible evidence too. However, there are a lot of assumptions made in regular QM that have no more evidence than Little has, yet people are comfortable with them simply because ... they've been around longer. I don't dismiss entirely, you can see it at small scales in plant canopies and such. subetai: in other words, familiarity breeds comfort. where are you from Subetai: that's one of the things that Kuhn talks about. Kpart--his most valuable piece of evidece was the Daisyworld Model. Feynman was high on my list of "favorite people". Who's Kuhn, Tym? Feynman is my favorite physics writer. :) was I really enjoyed reading "Surely you're joing Mr. Feynman" and "What do you care what other people think?" betsy: did you and your husband ever socialize with him when he was still alive? joking I loved "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman". Boy, spieler that was a short visit!!1 Subetai: Thomas Kuhn, _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_. He anticipated the science studies crowd in his concern for "non-objective" factors at play. Plus his physics lectures and essays are excellent Was he a scientist, Tym? What was his field of study? Subetai: philosophy of science. As I said, his conclusions were rank subjectivism. Ah. Okay. How thick is that Little paper? Subetai: that's a subtle aspect that we didn't bring out earlier... Tym: same for penrose and hofstader: subjectivism and outright mysticism. Kpart: How _big_ is the Little paper? ;) As I recall it's on order of 30-40 pages Tym: which is? Kpart: Except for his discussion of Feynman diagrams and how their interpretation changes with his theory, it's mostly not mathematical He's a grad student, Phil. Reading is measured in inches. Was a graduate student. ...the science studies crowd will claim, as the postmodernists do, that they're only interested in *the extent* that subjective factors are at play among scientists. But is that REALLY true? Tym: Could be ... so they can _increase_ the subjectivism ... Phil: well, if postmodernist deconstruction of texts is any guide, yes :) What's the woman's name that Sokal mentioned who claimed that fluid mechanics was sexist? Subetai: You're kidding. No, I guess not .. I'm not kidding. Subetai: Uh, what was her "reasoning"? subetai: what?!?!? LOL! I don't know. I never did read her original paper. Sokal quotes her. Tell me when you read this, somebody and solid mechanics is what? racist? (heh) I'm looking it up now. joe: well, that's the "innocuous" view of science studies... What was the URL again, Bill? ...for example, the ss crowd would be interested in how views of racial inferiority conditioned scientific worldviews of the 18th C.... ...thus "rendering" those views untenable. Subetai: one "sokal" URL is: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jwalsh/sokal/plain.html Okay, thanks, Paul. However, in the past decade, under the impetus of the feminist critique, some mathematicians have given renewed attention to the theory of ``manifolds with boundary'' [Fr. variitis ` bord]. gif Perhaps not coincidentally, it is precisely these manifolds that arise in the new physics of conformal field theory, superstring theory and quantum gravity. It was Luce Irigaray Easlea, Brian. 1981. Science and Sexual Oppression: Patriarchy's Confrontation with Women and Nature. London: Weidenfeld and Irigaray, Luce. 1985. The `mechanics' of fluids. In This Sex Which IS Not One. Translated by Catherine Porter with Carolyn Burke. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. And there's SO MUCH of that crap nowadays :/ At least until tax funding goes away :) Yeah. That class I took at Loyola was really enlightening. I'd like to argue that the PostModernists are intelectual parasites on the order of an Ellsworth Toohey. The proper repsponse of real scientists should be to just ignore them, just as Roark ignored Toohey and didn't waste any mental energy giving him any though. "though" -> "thought" They're fooling too many people to ignore them, Paul. PaulH: Actually, it's the job of guys like Sokal to blast them occasionally ... just to let world know how loony they are subetai: Toohey also fooled a lot of people. Yet I would never picture Roark bothering to debate aesthetics with him. Or is this situation different? Roark wasn't politically active in any sense that I can recall. That doesn't mean someone can't be. philo2: sokal did a good thing with his expose. It's too bad that such a thing was even necessary. Depends on where your interests lie. What your priorities are. Paul: I think maybe the distinction is that Roark was an architect and not an intellectual. These ideas DO need to be countered vigorously. Rand spent much of her time exposing the likes of Toohey in real life. subetai: for instance, as an MD, I run across all sorts of quack medical ideas. Mostly i ignore them, rather than waste time trying to attack aromatherapy or psychic healing. Should I be trying to oppose those ideas on an intellectual level? Or am I more like a practicing architect? Paul: Qua radiologist, not necessarily ... qua philosopher, these are virulently bad ideas that need to be exposed. They represent subjectivism elevated to a philosophy, which was Kant's thing.. Welcome back Paul: It's not your responsibility to do anything more than make your position on quack cures known when there's need to. But some MD's might find it interesting to do. hey Mark subetai: ok. so it's an "optional value" if one's priorities lead one to spend one's energies in that direction. Later Paul: But obviously, to people who have rejected objectivity and reason, a demonstration like Sokal's is irrelevant. Paul: I think so. I don't see a difference of principles between someone who spends time on it and someone who doesn't (if they're rational). It's a question of personal values. brad: true. Sokal's value was in bringing such irrationality to the awarenes fo those who didn't realize that it existed. oops Paul: Exactly. I predict that the Social Text people will be successful in portraying themselves as innocent victims eventually. but it grapevined to the people teh people who didn;t know that theyre wer succh peiopole as fish and ross et al. well, i've got to get some sleep. I have to report to work in 6 hours. good night all! he publkushed his" announcement: it in a pedagogical journal KPart: becalm thoust typing :) thoust ? IRC log ended Sat Jul 27 00:16