Hi Glenn, Jon and Platt
I was going to bow out until I'd managed to get a copy of lila to
read.... I am in contravention of the rules of the group but I wanted
to make a few comments in reply to glenn...
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:21:31 -0400, you wrote:
>Ian,
>Sorry about the long lines. Hope this helps.
That is much better for me. :) It is hard to tell when your own reader
automagically does this for you...
<snip>
>I don't know about *many* cases, but it's a good point nonetheless.
>There's the famous fight or flight syndrome where you have to act
>before you can think. I'm sure police officers and combat troops
>would concur that this is an important ability.
This is specifically the point I was looking at needing a reply.
You have raised a question mark on the "many". I would suggest that
this is one of the most pertininent aspects of life that we need to
learn. It's important in love, investment, job hunting, property
purchase and (in my experience) all the major areas of life.
Many things in this world are *unique*. That is any indivual person
(for love) economic situation (in investment), role (in job hunting)
house (in job hunting) is unique. Knowing that there is a *window of
oppertunity* and that the scientific illusion that other chances will
occur is important. This is not to say that understanding what you are
getting into (rational investigation) is unimportant. It is simply not
the *most* important factor in these the key areas of <a> life.
Please not that these are truths that resound through the ages. This
has *always* been the case. If you don't woo the girl whom your gut
tells you that you want to know you are consigned to her being your
friend/brother/enemies spouse. If you don't buy that share at the
right time the fluctuation is missed, the game is over. If you don't
buy the property you have different neighbours...
It's not just about fight or flight. These things are of far more
impact in our <life> that the notional question of if Relativity or
Quantum mechanics are in effect in a particular situation...
<snip>
>I think if you bring in somebody new to look at a problem with "fresh
>eyes" then that's a good idea but I would want it to be somebody who
>was an expert in the domain of the problem, not a beginner. If a
>beginner gets something right I'd call it "beginner's luck".
>
This is not how I see it. I am reminded of the story of Airbus
Industries taking the efforts to ensure that the "fly by wire" systems
in their new computerised aircraft we sufficiently safe. To this end
the <scientific> decision was taken to ensure that each system had
redudancy. Two groups of programmers were employed to develop the
software required. The premise being that by having two groups of
programmers any mistakes made by one group would be absent in the
other groups work. The programmers were, allegedly, separated and went
to work. The designs were as near to identical as if the people had
been sitting side by side.
The point is that by being an "expert" you have already bought into
much of the analysis of the problem. This can be a fatal flaw in some
situations. Which is where the "beginners" eyes come in...
> GLENN:
> Such conclusions are usually wrong.
>
> IAN:
> Would you care to substantiate that? I can accept the above with the
> precursor "In my experience ..."
>
>Actually it's more persuasive if I can find evidence outside my own
>experience.
Yes but I was not agreeing with the conclusion though I would not
choose to say that anyone is not entitled to such an opinion based
upon personal experience.
> All you have to do is read a good book on the history of
>science that details all the wrong ideas about how the physical
>universe works, before they got straightened out. The ancient greeks
>were great thinkers, but they were lousy scientists. Aristotle and
>others speculated a lot on physical nature but rarely got it right. In
>those days it wasn't fashionable to get your hands dirty and test your
>ideas. Consequently they didn't even know they were wrong. For example,
>[
>The Greeks believed that plants derived their nourishment from the soil
>only. Not until the 17th century did the Belgian scientist Jan Baptista
>van Helmont show that, although only water was added to a potted willow,
>it gained nearly 75 kg (165 lb), whereas the soil it stood in lost only
>about 60 g (about 2 oz) of weight over a period of five years.
>"Botany," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft
>Corporation. All rights reserved.
>]
Well, I think that these things are formed in a lattice. That is we
are "standing upon the shoulders of giants". The basic strucure of
*how* to think was laid before the ideas of science *could* be
constructed.
You cannot build cannons if you do not have the knowledge of how to
machine metal...
> IAN:
> Take an historical belief that our world was infested by demons, imps,
> sprites and all sorts of malevolent beings. Along comes Copernicus,
> our modern scientific rational emerges (with it's obvious benefits)
> and such beliefs are laughed at. To the point where Lister was
> ridiculed for the idea of bacteria.
>
>I hadn't heard of Lister so thanks for bringing him up cos I
>learned some things. For the benefit of others, Lister was a
>British surgeon who lived in the mid-1800s. The mortality rate
>due to operations (which was usually an amputation in those
>days) was 50% and most of that was due to infections started
>around the wound. No one knew what caused infections, so he
>investigated. He developed a hypothesis that it was due to
>some contaminant in airborne dust particles. It was a good
>guess, but it was wrong. He tried spraying carbolic acid into
>the air but patients still died at the same rate.
>Then he read about Pasteur's work on microorganisms that cause
>putrefacation of animal matter, and this gave him the idea to
>apply carbolic acid directly to surgical instruments, the
>dressings, and the wound itself. Mortality rates dropped to 12%.
>
>Pasteur himself disproved a well-entrenched idea called
>"spontaneous generation". This was the wrong idea that new
>life springs up spontaneously in animal matter (think maggots
>around a carcass). He was able to show through some elegant
>experiments that the life was instead introduced through the
>environment (flies laid eggs).
>
>Before Darwin's ideas took hold many scientists believed in
>Lamarckism, [the idea that living things could consciously strive
>to accumulate modifications during a lifetime and could pass
>these traits on to their offspring.
>"Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999
>Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]
>
>Before Galileo got it straight, people believed heavy objects fell
>faster than light ones, and legend has it that he dropped stuff
>off the tower at Piza to prove otherwise.
>
> IAN:
> Now, perhaps I'm leaping to an irrational conclusion but, I do not see
> that there is much difference in the conclusion. We label these things
> bacteria and now keep our operating theaters clean but I do not really
> see that the underlying reality has changed. Any "shamen" or herbalist
> in the past whom used a compound "to ward off sprites" on an open
> wound would achieve success if that compound were, what we now call,
> antibacterial. The only difference is the label which we have attached
> to these organisms.
>
>There's an important difference. In Lister's case it turned out
>carbolic acid worked OK, but it wasn't very efficient and it
>was irritating, so this led to better antiseptics. Scientists
>found them by studying carbolic acid and trying other compounds
>with similar but not identical chemical properties.
>
>When scientists discovered insulin could treat diabetes, they needed
>a cheaper way than extracting it from the pancreas of dogs. This
>led to the analysis of the moleculer composition of insulin by
>Sanger so that it could be artificially synthesized.
>
>Galileo wasn't through when he showed light and heavy objects fell
>at the same speed. He went on to discover the laws of motion and
>with these you can calculate the speed at which they hit the ground
>given the height of the tower.
>
>The point is that science is able to build on prior knowledge to
>gain further insights and a deeper understanding of phenomena.
>The shamen or herbalist you speak of lacks a deep understanding of
>the herb or for that matter the sprite and is unlikely to make
>further progress except through trial and error.
>
> IAN:
> The virus follows a similar path. It seems to me that often we can
> observe the same phenomenon, with the same result. One is scientific,
> the other is folklore.
>
>Are you suggesting that viruses are understood through folklore?
>I'd be more impressed with folklore if it came up with things like
>global telecommunications, air conditioning, photocopy machines,
>and space craft.
>
> GLENN:
> It's a common occurrence and nothing to be truly ashamed of,
> especially because getting something exactly right is incredibly
> difficult. The hallmarks of wrong or dubious conclusions are
> inconsistency (the conclusion contradicts the pertinent data) and
> incompleteness (not as bad as inconsistency but here not all the
> pertinent data is explained).
>
> IAN:
> This differs from the scientific method in which way?
>
>Uhhh, say again?? Oh, you say the scientific method itself is irrational
>but I think you mean the initial wrong-headed scientific conclusions.
>
> IAN:
> To my knowledge
> there have been no major leaps forward in a universal field theory
> since Quantum Theory and Relativity were introduced.
>
>It's not enough to be impressed by quantum mechanics and relativity
>in the first place? Now you want a UFT? You're a tough customer, Ian!
>
> IAN:
> Which, as I'm sure we all know, display this " inconsistency
> (the conclusion contradicts the pertinent data) and incompleteness".
> Yet we accept quite happily that we can use one in the macro-scale
> and the other in the micro scale.
>
>As far as I know both theories work in either scale. It's just that
>physicists will use simpler equations on scales where quantum and
>relativistic effects are not pronounced.
>
> GLENN:
> Irrational arguments are based on false premises, bad logic,and
> misdirected logic (suddenly the problem changes in mid-argument).
> There might be more but that's all I can think of at the moment.
>
> IAN:
> The key words are, I guess "pertinent" "false premises" and
> "misdirected logic". These change over time I've found. Sadly a very
> great number of people hold their opinion and their identity to be
> near the same thing and "emotionality" causes the scientist the same
> problems of refusing to let go it's progeny as the mother.
>
>You mean old ideas die hard? Agreed. It took Lister's work 15-20 years
>to be accepted, for example.
>
> IAN:
> The case of "inspiration" is where ZAMM explores this. In the
> multiplicity of possibility the scientist must choose what to look
> for.
>
>In the course of a scientist's career he might spend years on a single
>problem or theory and suffer many wrong turns and false starts and
>other auto metaphors (sorry, I'm tired). But when he finally succeeds
>and gets famous and is written up in history books these experiences
>are left out or skimmed over because these are boring and we go
>straight to hearing about his "aha" experience. To the uninitiated
>reader it seems as if the scientist was hit by a bolt of inspiration
>at that moment and everything came to him, but he's really been thinking about the problem so long and so hard that when the solution comes he
>immediately knows it's right.
>
>Glenn
>
>I also used Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000 to learn about
>Lister and verify facts about diabetes and spontaneous generation.
>Direct quotes from this reference are bracketed in the text.
>
>
>
>----------
>Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://home.netscape.com/webmail/
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:45 BST