Re: obligation: sure. Get a background that provides you with a scientific basis for understanding whatever particular aspect of science you find especially fascinating at the moment, and I'm positive you will be able to find an expert to explain it to you.
Myself; I would not, for example, ask a cosmologist to explain general or special relativity to me in plain old American English (plus/minus had-waving) with any expectation that the answer will be meaningful. Sure, I'd probably get a limited, superficial understanding, but I don't have the math background to completely understand a robust, full explanation of either of those topic areas. Baby talk is the only answer I would expect to receive. If I ever wanted more than that, I'd just have to prepare myself by mastering the language of mathematics and physics in which a full answer would, by necessity, be supplied. That's my view of "the intellectual world". Does your view of same lead you to expect that one can obtain, or perhaps, even, is entitled to a full understanding of complex scientific systems without having provided oneself with a sufficiently rich, specialized scientific background? --Doug On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson < nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Ok. What follows from that? Only experts should speak? Only experts > should think Or, Nick should shut up and stop talking about it? ? Don’t e > xperts have the obligation to pull up their shorts and take the time to > explain it to the rest of us?I don’t understand the intellectual world that > would flow from your approach?**** > > ** ** > > Nick **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts > *Sent:* Monday, July 04, 2011 4:40 PM > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation**** > > ** ** > > There is *everything* to be learned from the phenomenon in question, if one > is just willing to buckle down and study the underlying science. Mechanical > engineering. Chemical Engineering. Physics. Fluid flow dynamics. > Mathematics. Kinematics. Statics. These sciences contain the language to > describe and/or explain the physics of vortex mechanics. English and hand > waving and/or philosophy <shudder> are not rich enough communications media > to carry that much information.**** > > ** ** > > --Doug**** > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Nicholas Thompson < > nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:**** > > Well, a couple of points. **** > > **** > > First, It says something kind of funny about physics … that it will never > explain anything that any of us are curious about. **** > > **** > > Second, it seems to say that there is no educational advantage to … nothing > to be learned from … trying to connect principle to vernatcular experience. > **** > > **** > > Nick **** > > **** > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts > *Sent:* Monday, July 04, 2011 3:02 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation**** > > **** > > Well, I guess all I can say is that I don't have the temperament to play > "thought experiments", or to spend endless cycles getting all hand wavy > about serious, complex physical systems behavior. Regarding the issue of > water flowing down the drain which originally started this thread, there are > approximately 1.27 x 10^26 molecules of water per gallon, all interacting > with each other, and the boundary layers that are defined by the air/water > interfaces and the water/vessel interfaces. The forces that define the > nature of these interactions are fairly well understood, and have been > modeled at some degree of resolution or another countless times. So, what's > the point of launching a hand-waving expedition about the phenomenon? I > just don't get it.**** > > **** > > --Doug**** > > **** > > -- > Doug Roberts > drobe...@rti.org > d...@parrot-farm.net**** > > http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins**** > > > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell**** > > **** > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:34 PM, <plissa...@comcast.net> wrote:**** > > Klowns like me are often misinterpreted, as noted by Yorick. I am ardently > in favor of experiment, carefully observed. It is the basis of all science. > But, but, the interpretation of observed phenomena must also be dealt with > carefully. Voodoo has a pernicious way of creeping in. After all, for two > thousand years we knew that malaria was caused by the bad air of the low, > swampy places where it was prevalent, and deadly. It was only in 1896, > after the Anopheles mosquitoes started reading the Annals of Tropical > Medicine in the Lancet (not by a Limey, but Dr. Ronald Ross, an admirable > Scots physician) that the little critters realized that they had the > God-given gift of spreading the disease by biting white people, and thus > helped the indigenous populations by keeping Europeans out of the “White > Man’s Grave”. **** > > **** > > I love observations, and it is not for me to challenge what people see. If > pious folks observe the image of the Virgin Mary on a half-baked tortilla, I > say, “Let it be”. She certainly has Power to do that, according to Those in > the Know, and it seems to me like a folksy, open-hearted gesture on Her > Part, that our president would do well to emulate.**** > > **** > > But, a little learning is a dangerous thing, and it is injudicious to draw > conclusions from phenomena that one does not understand the physics of. It > is certainly valid for an honest amateur to ask, “But how can I know if my > theory is Voodoo?” Here are some modest proposals: first, study as much as > you can about the subject, second, understand it well enough to use the > professional technical terms of the discipline and then, third, ask a few > knowledgeable folks privately for their opinions.**** > > **** > > So, follows some constructive suggestions. Read. Learn. The Picasso of > irrotational rotating viscous/inviscid flows was an amiable Top Brit, Sir > Geoffrey Ingram Taylor. He is probably now sitting on some Tiepolo cloud up > there watching with satisfaction the grand swirling vortical structure of > the firmament of the heavens. I knew him as a lofty figure, and was honored > to present the G I Taylor Memorial Lecture at a university far from here > some 20 years ago. There is lotsa stuff on GI on the internet that one can > read and learn from – in particular the Taylor-Proudman theorem that has a > special charm for me, since before his name was immortalized, I was a lowly > scholar in Dr. Proudman’s grad. fluid mechanics classes at Cambridge. He > would not remember, but I recall him, as I melted silently, respectfully, > into the woodwork of those 17 th century desks. Fer Gawd’s Sake, Newton sat > right there! I held my peace. Dumb questions (which were all I could muster > then, and even now) were not encouraged in the Old Maths Schools at the > University.**** > > **** > > As for asking folks, it is my modest guess that, for all their many fine > qualities, not too many Friam correspondents have that much background in > the very esoteric, and charmingly pointless, subject of pouring fluids outa > bottles – unless they be of a good vintage. But I will answer privately > things that folk may ask personally, to the extent I am capable.**** > > **** > > It is nice, and generous, for the blind to lead the blind, but the truth is > seldom approached by that sorta debate. It takes hard work, intelligence and > the learning of new ideas.**** > > **** > > Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low pressures > at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with stationary air as > the contiguous external fluid are at the same CONSTANT pressure. How could > they be otherwise? > > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures > > Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. > > 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA > tel:(505)983-7728 **** > > **** > ------------------------------ > > > ============================================================ > 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**** > > > > > > **** > > ============================================================ > 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 > -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================ 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
