I think that "being trained" as a scientist starts in 6th year science class, when one is 11 (I.e. Upon formal exposure to the scientific method), and continues from then on.
~~James Turtlezero.com On 3/23/10, Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Both Eric and Nick use the phrase "I was trained". I would like to know > more about the intention here. Normally one talks about training an animal, > e.g., to sit or roll over, etc. One also talks about training people to do > relatively formalizable jobs or to obey fairly well understood rules, e.g., > train someone to run a piece of machinery or to be a police officer. It > strikes me as strange to say that someone was trained to be a scientist. > Would you be willing to elaborate on that. > > > -- Russ Abbott > ______________________________________ > > Professor, Computer Science > California State University, Los Angeles > > cell: 310-621-3805 > blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ > vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ > ______________________________________ > > > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Nicholas Thompson < > nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Eric, Steve, >> >> I am trying to reconcile my agreement with the spirit of your >> correspondence with my largely failed attempts to work toward a common >> language in our conversations about complexity on this list and on Friday >> mornings. I, too, was trained in many traditions.... comparative >> psychology, ethology, zoology, some physical anthropology, quite a lot of >> english literature, and even a little meteorology. And some of my best >> friends are mathematicians. But perhaps unlike Eric (?) (who was my last >> [postdoctoral] student, by the way, and my great intellectual benefactor) >> I >> am convinced that the effort to communicate amongst perspectives is >> valuable. And I cannot see how communication is possible without some >> attention to and adjustments of the use of specialized languages. It >> bothers me still, for instance, that two members of our community can use >> words like "system" or "information" in entirely contradictory ways and >> yet >> fancy that they are communicating with one another. >> >> I think this is where an analogy to the paradox of mathematics that Byers >> highlights might be useful. The struggle over language is worthwhile >> but >> only because it fails. No man struggles in order to fail, but still, >> failure is the wet edge of science. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Nick >> >> PS, to Eric: *"The wonderful feature of the New Realism’s metaphor is >> that it honors our separate points of view without giving up on finding a >> point of view that integrates them. Two blind New Realists groping an >> elephant: “OK, I’ll follow the snake toward the sound of your voice and >> you >> follow the tree toward the sound of my voice and we’ll see what we feel >> along the way.” PAUSE. Together; * >> * “My God, it’s an ELEPHANT!”" ** * >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >> Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* ERIC P. CHARLES <e...@psu.edu> >> *To: *Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> >> *Cc: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee >> Group<friam@redfish.com> >> *Sent:* 3/23/2010 6:20:41 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] multiple tool kits [was (advice needed!)] >> >> Steve, >> As a partial endorsement of your argument, I was trained as a comparative >> psychologist (comparing between species) and an ethologist (the European >> branch of animal behavior that showed we could treat behaviors as evolved >> phenomenon in the same way we treat anatomy). I was specifically trained >> in >> these as two separate, but related traditions. When I arrived at at U.C. >> Davis, which has (or at least had) the premier graduate training program >> in >> Animal Behavior in the country, and as I started attending more of the >> Animal Behavior Society national conferences, I noticed a disturbing >> trend: >> >> There was a conscious attempt to create a generic study of animal behavior >> in which everyone did basically the same thing from the same perspective >> (though with variation in species studied and behavior focused on). I kept >> trying to explain to people, most forcibly to the grad students, as I >> thought I had a chance with them, that this was bad. They were trading in >> several hard-won and highly-specialized tool kits (those of comparative >> psych, ethology, behavioral ecology, biological anthropology, etc.) for a >> 101 piece toolkit from Walmart. >> >> If they were trying to encourage collaboration, I would have been all for >> it, but instead they were trying to create a shared language by destroying >> the uniqueness of the distinct approaches. Yuck! >> >> Anyway, just an endorsement of your project from a very different context, >> >> Eric >> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 08:26 PM, *Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com>* wrote: >> >> siddharth wrote: >> > >> > you're right about the language issue - even a basic word in the >> > complexity debate- eg. 'modeling'- is interpreted/understood slightly >> > differently in architecture..its easier when they mean things totally >> > different, like your example- its really tricky when they mean things >> > almost the same, yet not - these micro-shifts in meaning make things, >> > well, complex-er! >> > thanks! >> >> For what it is worth, I've been working with Dr. Deana Pennington of UNM >> on this very topic... a joint UNM/Santa Fe Complex proposal to the NSF >> was just declined, but had it been funded, we would have been extending >> work done on a related NSF grant just ending this month on the topic of >> "the Science of Collaboration". Central to this work is the notion >> that each discipline (and subdiscipline and individual) has a >> distinct >> but complementary set of concept and terms that they use to understand >> and share their work. One of the tools to be developed is a >> collaborative tool for eliciting and resolving the terms and concepts >> across cross-disciplinary teams and projects. >> >> We are still seeking funding and opportunities to continue this work and >> it is an obvious project to carry forth at the Santa Fe Complex (in >> collaboration with UNM, etc.) if possible. >> >> We (Santa Fe Complex) just hosted a workshop for this team on Agent >> Based and Cellular Automata Modeling. It did not address the problem >> of language directly but indirectly did by providing a variety of >> practitioners with a common working vocabulary (to whit, NetLogo) for >> expressing and exploring simulations. Of course, within the context >> of this course, we immediately encountered terminology conflicts (when >> is a "patch" a "cell"? etc.) >> >> Seconding the spirit of Nick's point, it is this very ambiguity that >> provides the expressiveness and the leverage. If you constrained >> everyone to a controlled vocabulary, you would have nothing more useful >> than an efficient bureaucracy within a fascist government. Things >> would generally be unambiguous, but rarely useful! >> >> - Steve >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 >> > ============================================================ 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
