In practice scientists don't spend much time doing the stuff 'reported for the intelligent layperson' Nom. Most of it is just media pornography. Applications for the common good could be much more if economics was less nonsensical. For that matter, long training as a physicist, chemist or biologist seems wasted when the individuals take jobs as quants in finance houses. It's much more likely that someone footling about with rust as a potential solar power gatherer will do something for the common good (this weeks New Scientist I think) than someone writing equations for high frequency trading. Scientists as social inadequates is probably a literature myth - though you could count me and a few mates in. We have trouble giving a flying bout of generate sexual intercourse about what most people talk about, including multiple universe theories. If any of that was related to how water bonds in concrete (say) or ears would prick up.
We can't even measure the radius on the proton - though when we get near we find it smaller than models predict (we'll have replaced hydrogen's electron with a muon to do this) - and from being able to do this we might find a new way to tap energy that would turn the social world upside down. As a body, scientists dislike politics, especially right wing politics - and this may say something about what working with facts does. This said, the old Soviet Block once had 25% of the world's scientists. You have it wrong - but it's easy to see why someone outside the circle would. I am thoroughly bored with the science I see reported in the general media and even New Scientist rarely publishes much I will read. Doing social science research I always found the data I wanted hidden rather than available - the UK ONS is clearly written-up under bureaucrat rules designed to say nothing in vast quantity. But even interviewing witnesses is a minefield needing special techniques (cognitive interviewing and so on). Before long you realise people's opinions need a quadri-hermeneutic interpretation - and then that the whole process is quasi-religious bunk. The obvious fact that most of the world lives up shit creek and is waiting for the invention of the paddle is denied. On 29 Jan, 19:21, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Most of my former science > colleagues didn't do the philosophy Nom - but they did learn the > language of the investigation paradigm. As Socratus points out in > another thread this breaks down somewhere. Human genetics is > influenced by the bacteria we carry and so we expand to the > hologenome. Epigenetic transfer between generations appears in > epidemiology but we thought methylation didn't survive - but now more > accurate experiments show about 250 survivals in 25,000. The work is > not do by philosophers or even part-timers in it like me (as a rule). ? > Archytas > > Archytas.... I am far from being a "scientific" - minded person...I do not > have the expertise or the training. However, I do not see this as a > one-sided lack or failing, on my part...I also find myself very often of > the opinion the those "bright or trained" enough to be scientifically > literate or competent... are themselves often quite lacking in "human > interaction" knowledge even knowledge of the level of the mundane physical > or real affairs.....You say the "scientists" don't do philosophy... maybe > they should do it... a bit... My own bugaboo against them is their > penchant or attraction for the "speculative" ponderings as to the "unknown" > or the "unknowable" in their theories.... I would prefer that they > (scientists) tried to keep track of or investigate their "unknows" wioth an > eye to discovering what they are or resolving them.... instead of just > spinning out ... deductive or hypothetical logical fantasies or what may be > "out there".....As to what is already "known".....maybe putting "that" into > practice or effect, for the common good or for the betterment of some or > all would be an preferable alternative (IMO) for them to occupy at least > some of their time..... > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 27, 2013 3:53:13 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > Much to agree with in terms of who truth machines get used on Nom. I > > often found myself looking for the truth and then having to work out > > what I was procedurally supposed to have done and what I was allowed > > to say. Sometimes I had to point out the defendant to cops I worked > > with because they couldn't remember faces after a few weeks and quite > > a few of them had very different recollections of what did happen an > > hour later - courts demand all sorts of certainty we don't find > > amongst real witnesses. The real machine does seem fairly accurate - > > but I'm more interested in the thought experiment of a real-time > > bullshit detector. > > Tend to agree on the H paper - but then I don't think this kind of > > stuff resolves much - though may help teach us we talk at cross > > purposes with unshared assumptions. Most of my former science > > colleagues didn't do the philosophy Nom - but they did learn the > > language of the investigation paradigm. As Socratus points out in > > another thread this breaks down somewhere. Human genetics is > > influenced by the bacteria we carry and so we expand to the > > hologenome. Epigenetic transfer between generations appears in > > epidemiology but we thought methylation didn't survive - but now more > > accurate experiments show about 250 survivals in 25,000. The work is > > not do by philosophers or even part-timers in it like me (as a rule). > > > On 26 Jan, 18:13, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Hello Archytas.... I've been reading your referenced article by Mr. > > > Hjorsland....it is a bit disappointing and maybe does not do justice to > > the > > > "realism" topic.... due to the fact that it is related to information > > > science....As usual, I found the use of the terms "subjective" and > > > "objective" to be.... well.....removed from reality.... Basically Mr. H > > > spoke of the "real or objective" content of books (language information) > > > depending upon the expertise or specialization of the source ... use of > > > primary sources, etc....Personally, I have a "hands on" problem whenever > > > anyone replaces the actual physical object with a language (word) > > > product.....I call the word, per se, abstract and subjective.... > > > communicating more than the actual "objective" res... but also the > > "would > > > be" subjective albeit perhaps quite fitting explanatory "concept or > > > thoughts" about that physical object furnished by an "author"...In > > short... > > > I think that there's a lot more going on in this "realism"... that's > > > ideas....I prefer my own approach.... Conceptus / Res (according to > > > Ockham)... first intention and second intention.....Also, I don't get > > the > > > whole criticism of "empiricism" that Mr. H engages in... calling > > > "empiricism" idealism, as he does....I mean.... what does Mr H or this > > > brand of "realists" propose to substitute for "empirical" experience.... > > > some sort of "unthinking osmosis" with an outside physical object... > > > os·mo·sis > > > /äzˈmōsis/ > > > Noun > > > > 1. The tendency of molecules of a solvent to pass through a > > > semipermeable membrane from a less concentrated solution into a more > > > concentrat... > > > 2. The process of gradual or unconscious assimilation of ideas, > > > knowledge, etc. > > > > whereby the physical Object passes it's physical components directly > > into > > > the observing person?.....What's the alternative for the sensory > > -to-mind > > > connection that empiricism entails? > > > > well.. that's for starters....But also please keep in mind that > > "modern-day > > > materialists"... like Marx and the communists, generally... they got > > their > > > "epistemology" from Hegel.... Idealist.....at a fundamental level.... > > these > > > modern materialists never lost or rethought the "idealist" > > > fundamentals.....I suggest you will find..... > > > > I like your work with "truth detectors"..... here in the U.S. (most > > likely > > > in Britain, too) there are laws protecting against legal > > > self-incrimination...It sure would make "things" easier (unless I happen > > to > > > be the "criminal" I suppose)... I'm still having my troubles with the > > > "official criminals".....There's a thought....have all people in law > > > enforcement make it a part of their legal duty and professional > > > responsibility to themselves undergo truth-machine testing for all > > > testimony and facts that they present against their "defendants" in > > courts > > > of law.... do the same for the lawyers and judges......I mean, it is > > part > > > of their professional responsibility to always be fair and honest in > > their > > > legal dealings, isn't it.... Push for that Archytas... (sure, like that > > > would ever happen... especially with the judges.... Corrupt > > Bastards..... > > > NO HAR....) > > > > On Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:31:21 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > Pay no heed to the dung beetle swipe Nom - I read you with interest. > > > > I've been reading Eskimo humour. I can't really read Ornstein without > > > > colour from old days with ethics committees and bars on my work on the > > > > dark side of human nature by well-meaning humanities duffers who can't > > > > tell an axiom from an ideology of politesse. Much elephant dung under > > > > the bridge ... > > > > My current thought experiment concerns real,-time machine discourse > > > > analysis - the real part is lie detection using thermal imaging in > > > > criminal interrogation - but I find myself pondering what would happen > > > > if we could turn a more sophisticated machine on the politicians. > > > > Watching Obama and our Eton-brat PM Cameron spouting on bringing > > > > democracy to every country in the world (doesn't history say we > > > > actually prevent this) and tax-dodging (Cameron's father deeply > > > > implicated, London still the centre of off-shore looting) makes me > > > > wonder what would happen to human language if a machine could read > > > > political elephant dung and give us factual language including > > > > behavioural cues and rhetorical dodges 'live'. > > > > We have more or less the opposite of this in practice - society is > > > > being run on Gresham's Law (SEP has an explanation of this). I can > > > > get funding to point 'my' machine at crooks (with their permission) > > > > but I'd never get ethics permission to point it at politicians on > > > > banksters. Orn's point about 'scientifically aware' politicians is a > > > > bit like the general thought of an educated populace making decisions > > > > in democracy. An alternative to teaching the lawyers and other > > > > mouthpieces of politics about science would be to replace them with > > > > scientists and my imaginary alternative of 'educating the masses' is > > > > machine intelligence. Quite whether we could cope with such a > > > > transparent society I don't know - even science is not fully > > > > transparent and practitioners use highly esoteric languages. I think > > > > we are closer to this situation technically than we know and further > > > > away in the reality of the present than we can imagine. > > > > > Not sure yet we use the same HAR - we could exercise some very > > > > expensive lawyers over the copyright! > > > > > If we could do a survey I guess we'd find a lot of fear about my > > > > 'machine truth-giver' - but personally I'm more scared of the lying > > > > and cheating going on and the role a machines in this (like high > > > > frequency trading and such matters as CCTV being more likely to end us > > > > up with a parking ticket than protecting us from muggers. > > > > > On Jan 25, 4:26 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm not sure how to value dung-beetle droppings Nom - but ... HAR. / > > > > > Archytas > > > > > > what do you refer to and mean by that.... Archytas?... don't swipe > > my > > > > > HAR... HAR > > > > > > Getting back to dung > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
