Digest urth.v019.n018

Kieran Mullen · 14 Oct 1998, 23:59 · from urth-v0020.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: Kieran Mullen <kieran at phyast.nhn.ou.edu>
Subject: (urth) Re:  Digest urth.v019.n018
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:59:19
Message-ID: <urth-v0020-0002 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0020/0002.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>From: m.driussi at genie.com
>Subject: (urth) Science, Her Methods

>Re: Science, scientists, and the Scientific Method.  I thought that
>Science proceeded by way of cutting edge experiments;=20

  Sometimes.

>said
>experiments derived from hyptotheses (by definition based upon
>guesses),

  Hmm.  Latest Nobel prize in physics (fractional quantum Hall effect)
was not based on theoretical predictions, but pushing the experiments
to a different regime of parameters.  The one before (Bose-Einstein
condensation) *was* based on a hypothesis.

> and by definition these experiments are "successful" less
>than one hundred percent of the time. =20

  Only if you know what you're looking for ahead of time (i.e. BEC).

>In fact, the failures usually
>=3Doutnumber=3D the successes.  In any event, it is a =3Dguessing=3D game.

   I know that failures outnumber successes.  I've had a lot of the
form and few of the latter.  But one skill one has to teach student's
is the proper tweaking of the "bogo-meter":  the ability to tell when
a discussion or hypothesis has gone beyond the evidence.  Feynman,
who was not known for being an orthodox stick-in-the-mud, wrote=20
about this as ``playing by the rules of the game''.  To paraphrase
him, You can be as inventive as you want - as long as you play by=20
the rules. =20

   I admit the rules of discourse are a bit blurry, especially in
literary criticism.  But surely there must be *some* bounds on=20
hermeneutics?

>Am I wrong?  Did all that intellectual labor go out with the
>alchemists?=20

   No, I think my point is that part of the intellectual labor is
being critical.  As you point out, ideas are a dime a dozen.  *Good*
ideas are a bit more dear. =20

> Has Science become some sort of orthodoxy of divine
>transmission? =20

   Of course not.  I'm not sure how this follows logically from the
above discussion. =20

>Have scientists become a species of cargo cult,
>waiting for the next Truth to come tumbling out the cornucopia of the
>vast complex?

   This is weird, a complete inverse of how I see the discussion.
I view some of the postings here as "Cargo cult exegesis" since they
follow the *form* of interpreting a work, but don't seem to understand
the standards that apply.  How can a demand for a bit more rigor be
turned into an exhortation to meaningless ritual?

>(Here, let me hook up my 1989 cold fusion reactor to my mid-century
>Dean Drive.  Quick trip to see the canals of Mars.)

   Interesting allusions:  cold fusion and Dean drives both were=20
extraordinary claims that required extraordinary proof.  Their=20
eventual discrediting is a tribute to rational science and the danger
of not being properly self-critical.  Cold fusion is an especially
interesting case of an "us vs. them" mentality developing in a=20
research group.

   Sorry to go on at such length, but the issue of science and=20
pseudo-science is one about which I feel strongly.

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net