I am just now skimming a book, _Shop Class as Soulcraft_ by Matthew B.
Crawford. It relates to the (meta) discussion(s) at hand in the
following manner:
Crawford has a BS in Physics and a PhD in Philosophy yet chooses to make
his living as a Motorcycle Mechanic (supplemented by writing books like
this one). He apprenticed as an electrician starting at age 14 and
between his BS and his PhD worked as an electrician (residential), under
his own shingle. His voice is more like that of Henry Petrotski,
Michael Pollan, or Bill McKibben than Robert Persig, but the motorcycle
tie-in is powerful. Especially if you ride and maintain motorcycles.
Crawford is erudite and astute in his writing and apparently in his
life. He would likely support Glen's regular assertions that *doing*
matters more than *thinking* or maybe more pointedly: *doing* is what
matters, and *thinking* is another matter altogether. And this is a man
who obviously spent a lot of years training his *thinker*, despite also
having spent his time working with his hands and choosing to continue to
do so on a daily basis.
I believe that some of the discontent being expressed on this list,
perhaps most acutely attributed to Doug, aka TrollBoi (grin), is
roughly predicated on the assumption that there is a whole lot of
*talking* going on and not (necessarily) a whole lot of *doing* even
(perhaps?) in the form of *careful* thought, which in my book is a form
of *doing*. (more on this on Glen's thread maybe).
I share Nick's hope (more a belief) that there is in fact a dialectic
ongoing within these frayed and tangled threads... I certainly will
claim to have been informed by others' perspectives and persuaded by
their reasoned arguments. I very much appreciate Nick's attempts to
nudge various threads back into some form of dialectic. I don't know
that my own efforts are as effective, though I do have plenty of
off-list communication amongst some of the folks I know here independent
of FRIAM that tells me that I do at least provide entertainment or it's
weak cousin, distraction.
Doug alluded to there being no shortage of *pontification* here, and
while I think I *do* feel that from time to time, here and there, what I
suppose I feel I hear more of is *speculation* which I happen to hold in
high esteem... following my own round-n-round-the-mulberry-bush with
Glen on "Scientific Method" and in particular "Hypothesis Generation".
Speculation is either part of or one mechanism of hypothesis generation
(in my experience).
There are a number of topics of discussion here which do little to move
me. It is within the context of *those* discussions that I find myself
judging others' contribution as being possibly idle or worse,
vainglorious. (Just to pontificate and tangent, did anyone here know
that "vainglory" was once it's own deadly sin independent of "vanity"
which is just an expression of "pride"?).
I am, despite being a programmer by trade (once full time, now only
incidentally) and a computer scientist (partly by training, much by
practice), not terribly interested in the details of the latest nuances
of programming languages whether that be JavaScript, Python, or
Haskell. Nor of the latest details of network security or cryptography.
Or the best cell phone coverage/plan/device/snafu. But I mostly just
skim over them, see if there is a gem I can learn from and go on. Gawd
knows I have enough things to have opinions on without including
detailed nuances of these bits of tradecraft.
I am, at best, an armchair Cosmologist. I've been around (BS Physics in
the 70's, 30 years at LANL) deep physics and the cosmology that it
supports to feel that I've "heard it all". I *love* the many things
that evolved through the 80's and 90's in this arena but I have ceased
to keep up... so again, I just read on through and look for nuggets
without getting my knickers in a twist if I hear something that sounds
wrong to me or if I simply get bored. I am not easily bored, but some
of the talk here (probably a near perfect complement to what bores Doug)
bores *me* to distraction.
But I *love* learning. I love my own process of learning by doing, but
more to the point, many acts along the continuum of learning by
hypothesis generation and testing (with iteration). I *love* watching
others exercising their curiosity and get rewarded in many ways. And
this is the very best part of FRIAM... when someone reports or shares a
new discovery they just made (themselves more than in the popular press)
or insight they had. And when a discussion yields a new understanding
of a given problem, of a given situation, even better.
I also love language. Not just the sound of my own "voice" but the many
truly erudite voices here that rise up above the babble from time to
time. There are several here who regularly teach me new words, or
better yet, a more nuanced understanding of words I thought I already
knew inside and out.
Sadly these processes are messy. Many mistakes must be made. People
must make silly declarations which they might have to retract or modify
later. Others will have to snark at them to get them to notice.
Darwinian evolution is tragically inefficient by any *engineering*
standard and so is this form of sharing the curiosity, wonder and
occasionally, aha! that comes about.
I find Doug's "Trolling" affectionate... just as Marcus called him out
on checking in on his (love to hate) Nexus4 to harangue us when he
should be enjoying his Rosarita (is that a type of Margarita?) at the
Dragon (is that in Austin?) and the company of a world much less
(obviously) self-involved than the discussions on this list. I found
the image of Doug and Pamela sitting side by side in Adirondack chairs
sharing a tub of popcorn while the rest of us cavort in front of them,
endearing. Obviously our thrashing entertains them, and I take that to
be "just enough" encouragement to continue.
just my $US.02
- Steve
============================================================
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
