Frontier Science vs Consensus Science

[samiam]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Nov 7 2007, 04:27 PM) [snapback]535923[/snapback]</div>

How about Representing and Intervening? Do you have any literary suggestions for further edification?
[/b]

The title reminds me of MacCorquodale & Meehl's classic (& I mean classic, 1948)
"On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables"

But maybe that's not the sort of thing you were after.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 7 2007, 04:39 PM) [snapback]535927[/snapback]</div>

the lecturer then suggested a number of ways to assure that your point is carried across correctly. i think it's good that he is getting that message across to scientists.

i'm not afraid to say that i'm not all that good at breaking complex ideas down into simple building blocks for the general public.
[/b]

I'm glad you went to that lecture. It is SO important! I work hard to make sure I've got the right "sound bites" that will be interpreted the way I want them to when I go to an interview. If it takes a paragraph to explain it, they will cut it out, cut it up or just use the cool video. Even then, I'm pretty apprehensive when the interview is over, you just have no idea what this reporter is going to do with what you've said. (I even prepare for radio interviews where they can't edit what you've said) I know some of my freinds & colleagues think that preparing for interviews is beneath them, the science should speak for itself. I don't see it too much different than a lecture or a scientific address, just another format with different rules. And if you believe in an educated society, they are at least as important as anything else we do. Look at Carl Sagan and Stephen Gould, good science and public science!

[samiam]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Nov 7 2007, 04:54 PM) [snapback]535933[/snapback]</div>

Would you say frontier science has at least the beginnings of a paradigm shift?
[/b]

Oh, definitely
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Nov 7 2007, 04:54 PM) [snapback]535933[/snapback]</div>

The Kuhnian 'break', as I understand it, isn't necessarily a sudden thing, but one who's roots extend over a significant time period.
It's easier to see in hindsight, of course.
[/b]

I agree again. Although interestingly, at the time it often looks like a *revolution*, a brand new way of thinking about things, but in hindsight it can look much more evolutionary (rather than revolutionary). You can see where all the threads leading up to it came from.

I guess I was picking up on your point about what is newsworthy, just because its novel doesn't mean its newsworthy (or even bad science vs good science). I think there are "hotbutton" issues and words that will draw reporters like (pick your favourite fly attractant here) and they can't discriminate between sound and unsound science and it all gets thrown out there in front of the public. Frontier science, even when its sound, can be oversold or overhyped by media (and poor practitioners) and that can come back to bite us (think about all the hooha over artificial intelligence in the 80s)

[hyo silver]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ 2007 11 06 19:39) [snapback]535927[/snapback]</div>

...i'm not afraid to say that i'm not all that good at breaking complex ideas down into simple building blocks for the general public...
[/b]

Oh, just you wait until you have kids.
There's nothing quite like the intoxicating combination of insatiable intellect, enthusiastic imagination, and an utter lack of respect for authority. 'Course, you could always stick 'em in front of the TV instead.

[hyo silver]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ 2007 11 06 19:57) [snapback]535934[/snapback]</div>

..."On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables"

But maybe that's not the sort of thing you were after...
[/b]

Doesn't sound quite like it, but I'll have a look. Ian Hacking's treatise is an exploration of the nature of reality. The 'representing' part of the title, if I remember it correctly, refers to how we model reality, and the 'intervening' part is about getting right in there and playing with it, like moving electrons around. Can you tell Philosophy of Science was my favourite course at University?

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Nov 6 2007, 07:27 PM) [snapback]535923[/snapback]</div>

Well, it's about time. Instead of dividing knowledge up into smaller and smaller pieces, where we know more and more about less and less, it's good to hear we're putting things back together again. Whatever year it was we dissected frogs, I argued against the futility of it all. I accepted the teacher's explanation of what could be learned, but only to a point, because I replied "Yeah, but you don't have a frog anymore."

OK, your turn F8L. How about Representing and Intervening: Did you read that? Do you have any literary suggestions for further edification?
[/b]

That is exactly the point of systemic thinking. I do not mean to belittle Descartes, yet I do recognize the limitations in reductionism even this early in my biological education. Unfortunately we are not taught much of this in the lower division classes and the only reason I even know what "reductionism", "Cartesien", "Mechanistic", "Cybernetics" and "Julia Sets" are is because of books/papers by Fritjof Capra and Humberto Maturana/Francisco Varela.

I'm doing genetics homework right now and don't have time to properly respond to these thoughtful posts but I wanted to say thank you for the contributions.

Ohh, I have not read that book (Representing and Intervening). You recommend it? If so I'll read it!

[hyo silver]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ 2007 11 06 20:52) [snapback]535959[/snapback]</div>

...I'm doing genetics homework right now and don't have time to properly respond to these thoughtful posts but I wanted to say thank you for the contributions.

Ohh, I have not read that book (Representing and Intervening). You recommend it? If so I'll read it!
[/b]

Genetics! Ah, drosophilia, I hardly knew you. Far better that you get your homework done, my friend. We'll have plenty of time to philosophise later. Before and after you've read Ian Hacking.