Eric, I think a difference between psychology, for example, and physics is that a much larger number of people have opinions about psychology. Most people don't venture opinions about string theory but if a psychologist tells a "layman" a psychological finding the response is often "that's obvious" or "that's not true".
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, 10:40 PM David Eric Smith <desm...@santafe.edu> wrote: > I wonder If some part of this is a wish for methods that allowed one to > put things to rest, so that a subject can “build”. > > When people I run across talk about how they wish their work were more > like the work they think goes on in physics, they often invoke work that > has been settled for so long that we take it as very reliable, but that was > still unknown recently enough that we can remember the difference. That is > the subset selected by survival. But I never hear them saying they wish > their work were more like string theory. I imagine that, if they knew what > the endless churning around string theory were like for the people involved > (the string theorists, and against them people like Peter Woit (sp?), > Smolin (though less seriously), Sabine Hossenfelder, or other critics who > try to address substance), they would say that their work is already much > too much the same as all that, and they wish it were less so. > > I am also aware of this from the reputation of linguistics, or the various > communities of it I saw in action over the decade+ that it was active at > SFI. The less reliable the methods are, the more scope there is for just > ugly power competitions, and the kinds of ugly people who succeed in those > games. You wind up with fields distorted by cults, as linguistics was in > large measure by Chomsky for decades. That too is probably something many > academics didn’t mean to sign up for, and find disappointing when they find > that it is responsible for a large part of their daily situation. > > ?? > > What I just wrote above sounds like I didn’t hear (or totally missed) > Glen’s point, but I actually did hear, and I agree with it. There are also > the people who _like_ the power competitions, and just wish they had some > kind of magic wand that enabled them to win more of those competitions. > The styles of presentation Gen describes sound to me more like that second > kind of people. I also imagine they contribute to irritating DaveW out of > proportion to their significance in other respects. > > Eric > > > > > On Jul 8, 2020, at 11:49 AM, ∄ uǝlƃ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Yes, "physics envy" is VERY far off. 1) As I tried to claim before, > physicists don't speak with authority in that way. The way these people > speak is very different from the way physicists speak. 2) While Firestein > knows some physics, my graphic artist friend has NO idea what quantum > mechanics actually is, probably doesn't even know classical mechanics. So, > even if they're envious of something, it's neither physicists' ways of > being, nor the physics that physicists do. > > > > But I'd go even further that they're not *envious* of anything. What > they want is something, anything, to justify their rhetoric, which is > basically that there's stuff we don't know (explicitly in Firestein's book > on "Ignorance" and implicitly in my friend's claim that a good attitude > mysteriously helps one recover from cancer). That's not envy. It's > justificationism. > > > > Now, when Nick and Frank talk about psychologists having physics envy > (neither Firestein nor my friend fit that bill), *envy* does seem to come > close. But I'd argue the same way with (1) and (2) above. They're not > envious of physicists or physics. But they might be envious of ready access > to plentiful DATA. And you can get that from some types of biology. In any > case, that's not what I was talking about when I complained about everyone > pulling woowoo quantum mechanics out of their hat everytime they want to > say something about stuff we don't know. > > > > Many people accused Penrose of the same thing, conflating quantum theory > with consciousness merely BECAUSE they're both mysterious. And I sincerely > doubt Penrose has "physics envy". > > > > > > On 7/7/20 7:00 PM, Eric Charles wrote: > >> "Envy" might not be the exact right word, but it isn't far off, is it? > There is an inferiority complex of some sort, and a wish that you had > whatever thing those specific other people /seem /to have. > > > > -- > > ☣ uǝlƃ > > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,NQrQSM0EWpwYVyDMF5kX9WPEYI7DBJzug_kWOg5eNFZE0mUI-G3mMZQNqtm9UvpNs8CX-MmgsSKNwB7jTD79o6L8sExg2JWNPkrsxaR9oGI_eA,,&typo=1 > > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,8wvXPCo7VZEppjHnerH_9D82dQT4IzCyTAh_tDHlEcvZZtL3ED-Yp23Ra8a1BlEntmUloXGwet4VF0G_SLrh0Kwa53rrimj4fCoT_QOoGP_vdMa8G4ZoaPW8wU1X&typo=1 > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/