Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/05/2013 08:23 AM: > And given exponential growth in science, who knows first hand what the > variance in accepted scientific evidence actually is?
That's a great point. It may help me articulate my objection to the concept of "the singularity", the sense that technology will soon (has) outstrip(ped) purely human intelligence/understanding. It seems more like an explosion of effect[ors] than a "super intelligence" or anything cognitive, thought-based like that. Even if we constrain ourselves to the maker community (3d printers, arduino, etc.) and the recent pressure for open access to publications, it's difficult for me to imagine any kind of convergence, to "science" or anything else. It just feels more like a divergence to me. I wonder if there is a way to measure this? In absolute terms, we can't really use a "count the people who participate in domain X" measure. The ratio of the poor and starving to those who have their basic needs met well enough to participate is too high. It would swamp that absolute measure. We'd have to normalize it. To some extent, exploratory science has always been pursued most effectively by the 1% and those they patronize. Perhaps a measure of the variation in standards of evidence would correlate fairly well with the waxing and waning of the middle class? > Any claims to know what science "is" and what scientists "do", for the > purposes of distinguishing between science and non-science, are claims > to a revealed truth, not something that anyone has established > empirically. Ouch. Absolutely! (Sorry, I had to slip in a contradictory affirmation.) This goes directly back to Popper, I think. There is no entry exam for science. Every speculation is welcome. -- =><= glen e. p. ropella Me and myself got a world to save ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
