What's the big deal about the bibblegonk, that part I figured out - looked it up on ebay and got some at a discount... But then I tried desperately to agitate the mixture, and couldn't find anything to say that it truly found insulting!
Again, this conversation about "modeling minds" is weirdly high-end. Even the most trivial understanding of the words in context (e.g., "agitate") requires something of a model of the writer. Eric On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 10:41 AM, "glen e. p. ropella" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 09/16/2009 06:49 AM: >> Miles Parker wrote: >> What is different about scientific discourse? Is it intent? Context? >> >> Scientific writing aims to facilitate the reader in understanding how to >> reproduce a result. It must be subject neutral. > >"Must" is too strong. Here's an (obviously contrived) >example. Let's >say a document says something like: "Next, add 500 mL of gel to a >BIBBLEGONK, agitate for 30 seconds, and sluice into 5 250 mL petri dishes." > >How do we determine what a BIBBLEGONK is? Can we do it in an entirely >subject neutral way? True, we can infer many of the properties of a >BIBBLEGONK from the usage, here. It must be able to be agitated and we >have to be able to sluice from it either with something built into it or >with an attachment. But a better way would be to find out precisely >what it is, which involves thinking at least enough about the subject to >do an internet search or to ask someone local who might know something >about these experiments, the equipment required, and the people who >conduct them. > >I.e. it's not entirely subject neutral. > >This sort of thing happens all the time when one lab reproduces the >experiments of another lab, especially when the experiments are >spatially or temporally distant. > >In that sense, I posit that easily reproducible scientific discourse is >most definitely NOT subject neutral. Ideally, you'd want to record >_everything_ about not just the non-subject elements of the experiment, >but about the people executing the experiment and the conditions under >which they executed it. 99.999...% of that data would be unnecessary. >But in the situation where reproduction proves elusive, it can be mined >for salient differences that will help the new lab reproduce the result. > >Again, as long as the simpler model is adequate for the use, you use it. > If it's not, you extend it. > >-- >glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
