On originality I would refer to Peter Medawar, Popper and Lakatos who had said more by 1980. I can also remember actual scientists wishing to impose long prison sentences on the 'informed' bureaucrats and politicians deciding funding - after which they would be hung in public (Juao Mageurio was one). My last university tried to 'seize' 60% of my research grant as 'overhead' under so-called full economic costing - a method that put the cost of a PhD student at £98K a year! Most of my colleagues had given up on research because they were still expected to teach full-time and do the research without pay with the hours billed out to as many projects as possible. Much is missing on Orn's account of 'scientific practice' - much as there is much missing in his account of 'religious practice'. On his references to 'common language' I would point to banks using various frequency distribution (Gaussian copula etc) stuff standardised to allow communication and wrong. Stenhouse (1985) was more informative (common assumption paradigms) and pointed out even scientists have no general common language. As for scientists showing their hearts on their sleeves - we'd just lose our jobs.
My own approach would be to gather information rather than work with idealised forms and see if we could describe the system found in non- formal or perhaps paraconsistent logics. In short I doubt Orn's axiomatics but would expect to find sign of them in properly observed practice - especially in what people say other than as face-work for publication - this face-work being as reliable as politicians promises. On Jan 22, 5:53 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > "If democratic ships of state are to be navigated, safely and > effectively, this is why it’s essential > for populations and their leaders to be educated to a broad > understanding of how to use > science to manage risks and uncertainty – and of how science fits > within the spectrum of > belief" - Ornstein. > > You have to agree - but only 6% of US scientists are registered > Republicans. In the UK the vast majority of scientists are Labour - > probably voting for the lesser of three evils (this is just from > experience - the US had a mega-survey - Pel I think). How do we get > politicians into this 'state' ? Some glib training courses - you > won't believe the dross they get to to 'understand management' (High > right-wing, financial bankster bias). Maybe learning science does > more to the individual than whatever we can teach of a broad > understanding? > > I'm not sure on the 'axiomatic belief' stuff at all - most of us > learned Euclid as a set of tricks - I can still remember the 'shock' > of trying to draw a triangle on a sphere and later anger I wasn't > taught what matters earlier. In my lab time there were plenty of > exchanges on the lines of 'what if you've got the basic models all > wrong or what underlies them?' - usually followed with friendly > comment like 'fuck face' or 'cock-sucker'. Replies might be such as > telling the people concerned to 'go get sucked by the talking snake' - > perhaps the vice chancellor's mistress working as head of > 'poisonnel'. A few of my friends did the religious weekend stuff - > but none of them, Jew, Catholic, Muslim believed the clown, sacred > axiomatic stuff. They were in it for the community and fellowship - > and graciously extended the hospitality to atheist me (some > spectacular drinking amongst all groups). What is axiomatic about > turning 'thou shall not kill' to Jihad and Crusade or the Pope's > infallibility to birth control in Italy? Who would want to be in the > same room as clowns who believe in the genocidal war criminal of > Numbers 31 without an armed guard? > > Orn's view of science is essentially process philosophy. Religion is > a control fraud - as is neo-classical economics which pretends to be a > science. 90% right - but missing anything important maybe? I've met > many utterly decent religious people who don't see blind faith as much > to do with how they live and see their holy book stories as > instructive myths. I don't think we should let politicians think hey > can make informed decisions about science - we need a religious > kicking over of the temple tables to get rid of the lawyers and other > spivs who practice politics through spin. I suspect Orn is typically > academic in choosing a problematic that is uncontentious and harmless > to the powers that be - it's a bit like the sums I might set a 101 > economics class - the more careful will get 90% right but not know the > basis of the calculations is as useless as plotting a trip to Mars n a > flat-sheet celestial atlas with Euclid. > > A more measured analysis under critical eye would first look to > immanent critique (90% right in its assumed 'genre' - near zero on > originality) and then turn to analytic critique that starts with other > assumptions (failure I'd guess). I'm reminded of company accounting > that leaves out 'externalities' such as the pollution of the river > starving and killing a tribe local to the oil exploitation. My guess > on this problem in academic vanity publishing is that the form of > publication is inadequate to the real problematic. "Paradigms" in so- > called social sciences are more like religious cults than science and > more similarly constrained than they admit. On Orn's contention that > most scientists would recognise his outline of science I'm doubtful. > We could poll them - but in my experience most scientists do Boyd's > 'tropical fish realism'. I haven't seen a politician for years with > much understanding of economics beyond 101 neo-classical - let alone > science. Thatcher did chemistry rather well and yet turned out 'There > is no alternative' drivel. > > Anyone want to turn a critical eye n Orn's 'dark matter' fable? > > On Jan 21, 5:40 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Sciences differ from ideologies, from most mathematics and from > > religions. The latter > > require undiluted, absolute faith/belief in the ‘truth’ of their > > axiomatics" - from Ornstein's paper (early). > > > Can we really believe this? It seems right, and yet do people really > > believe in the 'absolute' way at all? They may say so - yet I don't > > see much evidence in the actual world. Do people really bow to god/s > > or in performance to people around them to be part of the club? > > > On Jan 21, 4:51 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure how to value dung-beetle droppings Nom - but ... HAR. > > > Much to agree with in Ornstein's papers - the one referenced at the > > > end of the latest one is much to my own view. The problem I have is I > > > don't believe most people enter into the lists of argument, clinging > > > instead to a world-view more or less immutable and that most > > > 'argument' is, in any case, a performance aimed at succor to ideology. > > > 'Evidence- based decision-making' has been around a long time, as have > > > assertions we should get our politicians and others in power to > > > involve themselves and be capable of it. I see very little sign of > > > any of it. Even most scientists are no good at it. In a western from > > > years back Dean Martin says 'I never got much by arguing' - he's > > > feeling his gun. Most people are so poor in argument they know it's > > > not much use to them and they won't give up to its arbitration. So > > > Ornstein is 90% right, and much as I agree, not much help in shifting > > > education and politics to somewhere more sensible. Good to see the > > > stuff though. > > > > On Jan 15, 7:33 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > PS... Archytas, et al... have you read the article? Apart from my > > > > picayune > > > > "epistemological" points of disagreement....It is very, very good. I > > > > agree > > > > with it... 90% I'd say......... for whatever my opinion is > > > > worth.....HAR. > > > > > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:26:22 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > Mr. Ornstein, > > > > > I read your abstract and liked it....agreed with it, largely, as to > > > > > its > > > > > content. > > > > > You asked for comments and corrections, so I offer a possible > > > > > grammatical > > > > > correction (or maybe I misunderstood the structure of your sentence). > > > > > On > > > > > page 8 of your essay you wrote the following: > > > > > > "Since it is only such formulations [that axiomatically define a word > > > > > (all) in a way that logically conflicts with what can be observed] > > > > > might insure the kind of falsification that Karl Popper > > > > > proposed to be so important in science, his arguments about > > > > > falsification > > > > > are trivial and unhelpful." > > > > > > As you should see (if the writing program represented it properly), I > > > > > left > > > > > a gap mid-sentence. This is where there may be a grammatical error. I > > > > > wonder if a conjunctive pronoun such as "that" or "which" is lacking > > > > > to > > > > > make this sentence more clear? I point this out not to be a stickler > > > > > but as > > > > > a "proofing" of your essay that is intended for publication. > > > > > > As to your content, again, I agreed "largely" with what your essay > > > > > says. > > > > > it was well written and very understandable, as well. I particularly > > > > > agreed > > > > > with your summation of the scientific method... the "model / empirical > > > > > experiment" approach... I also liked your references to other current > > > > > "philosophical (?)" approaches to these questions such as the > > > > > distinction > > > > > between Post Modernists and Positivists. I would say that you have > > > > > much > > > > > less to criticize about the Positivists than you have to criticize > > > > > about > > > > > the Post Modernists. As an aside, this would seem to favor more my > > > > > view > > > > > than the view of my friend Archytas (HAR)... which, of course tickles > > > > > me > > > > > pink... Also, I noted that you referred in your essay to Ockham's > > > > > Razor.... > > > > > I like Ockham, myself, but much more than for his "razor"... I like > > > > > Ockham > > > > > for his of VOX... separated and composite- composed of Conceptus > > > > > (Concept) > > > > > directed at Res(physical thing)... Ockham'c First Intention VOX are > > > > > very > > > > > much like the initial observational stage of the "scientific" > > > > > method"... > > > > > observing empirical physical things to arrive at a conceptual model > > > > > ... > > > > > subsequently verified by further physical experiments to establish > > > > > recurring reliability.....Ockham also suggested Second Intention VOX > > > > > which > > > > > continue within the thinking mind "abstractly" and formulate all > > > > > sorts of > > > > > other "thought-up" relations within and among both the Conceptus side > > > > > and > > > > > the Res side of "things".... > > > > > > Anyway, I think that "scientific method" has much in common with and > > > > > relies a lot on the basic framework supplied by William Of Ockham (and > > > > > others)... > > > > > > Now, I have one question as to your terminology... would you define > > > > > your > > > > > terms "subjective" and "objective" as they are to be understood > > > > > within your > > > > > "thinking"? Let me put it this way....It appeared to me that around > > > > > page > > > > > five, mostly, you rendered the division (or separation) between: 1) > > > > > the > > > > > actual (out-of-mind) physical entity; 2) the sense experience > > > > > (inside-mind) mental image and 3) the eventual (inside-mind) > > > > > explanatory > > > > > model. Now this "model" as you call it was then communicated as the > > > > > "theory > > > > > in progress of ongoing verification" that is communicated to others > > > > > and > > > > > understood as shared meaning....you conclude then by getting to the > > > > > following statement: > > > > > "The more precise the communication > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
