Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Give one example of how that would work, in cold fusion research.
Why is there so much crackpot physics?
- Thread starter Perpetual Student
- Start date
Give one example of how that would work, in cold fusion research.
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
This statement sounds like something management people say to members of the board when trying to justify their funding. Mumbo-Jumbo.
Don't get me wrong; if you can actually do it, at a rate significantly better than chance, then that's absolutely tremendous. But it seems a pretty big 'if' to me.
Well, you keep saying that. I think that you're wrong. If you tried to put it into practice, you'd get:
a) An attempt to assess current research ideas according to inherently-vague social science terms like "object vs. process concepts". This would give basically random, coin-flip-like results. I predict outcomes like "Ed Witten, we are defunding your string-theory research because, um, Walter Wegner's black-hole-danger proposal came out higher on the process-concept mumbo-jumbo index."
b) You're only attempting to assess existing research paths. Meaning: people were sitting around coming up with "transformative" ideas before you ever hear of them. Which is what they're doing now. Meaning that you're stepping and proposing to manage (or mismanage) the easy part of the discovery process (promoting embryonic good ideas), letting the hard part (ideas and testing) proceed as it does today. And, indeed, the current next step ("see if the idea works or not") is a much more relevant one than your proposed next step ("submit the idea to management consultant for rating by the coin-flip-like mumbo-jumbo index.")
c) In short I disagree with your "appears plausible" claim, which seems to rest on methodologies which are questionable even in retrospect, bizarre extrapolation of those methodologies, and a generally hyper-Kuhnian misunderstanding of the relationship between "normal" and "revolutionary" science.
Last edited:
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
I have to agree with ben m on this one.
You seem confused by people asking you to be more exact, provide detail, or be more clear. Let me try to put this into a business/project management perspective and see if it helps you understand what we're asking.
The statement you've posted above sounds like it says something. And it does. But it's not specific. In business terms, this is like a company's mission statement. That's all well and good, but the employees, managers, and so forth are all looking at it going "okay, so what do we do different now?" What you've given is a broad, generalized answer. There's no detail in your suggestion that could help us create new policies or change procedures. If I gave you my company's mission statement, it's a pretty sure bet you couldn't tell me much about what policies we have (beyond the standards everyone has) just based on that.
Your statement is a vague statement of intent, not a plan of action.
OR for another anaology, it would be like someone saying "I think healthcare needs to change. We should focus on accurate diagnostics and provide low-cost care to the patient, with a focus on improved treatment." Sounds great, but what actions would be taken to achieve the goal? Just that statement above doesn't really tell us anything. The main reason it doesn't tell us anything is because there's a lot of disagreement on the terms. For example, accurate diagnostics is great, but this conflicts with low-cost care. Do you run every reelvent test to make sure of what's wrong? Give treatment for the most probable cause based on symptoms and have them come back for tests if it doesn't fix it to save money? What exactly is improved treatment?
Likewise with your statement.What improvements in management are you asking for, specifically? Because I bet you can get a room full of ten managers, ask them all for improvements in management, and get 15 different answers, many mutually exclusive.
What is "potentially transformative" research? Right now, scientists all try to research things they feel are important. It's not like they go out of their way to find research that won't change anything. They are trying to find the next big discovery that will transform our understanding, especially in physics where it's absolutely known that our current understanding is incomplete.
"Taking advantage of the latest findings". What are the latest findings you refer to, specifically, and how would be take advantage of them? SHould we start a multi-millenia plan to create a super collider in in Neptune's orbit? Because right now that's one of the big hold-ups to going further in our research, we don't have the capacity to test some of the new theories. Theoretical physicists are spending their lives, right now, tryign to find testable consequences of various GUTs that could well provide that transformative research. So what are they not doing right? How should it be different?
In short, what it sounds like to me (and, from comments, to others as well) is that you're simply saying something to sound like you know what you're talking about. You've given a lot of marketing-speak, what I'd equate to PR soundbites from a corporation, and not only failed to identify any specifics about what you actually mean by it, but patronized those who asked you for specifics (including, using the business analogy, your own employees). You seem to be typing just so you can use a lot of jargon and sound smart, even though you have nothing to say.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the questions directed at you are asking for very simple things. Your apparent inability to understand what they are asking can lead to one of two conclusions:
1) You are the only one that sees clearly, everyone else involved in this discussion is unable to understand due to some sort of mental failure.
2) If everyone else is understanding each other, but you aren't understanding anyone, then perhaps the more likely scenario is that the problem is yours.
I think just about everyone would agree with that. So, as one of the participants, do you plan on ever actually doing so?
BurntSynapse
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 247
The issues were identified by experts in the field of physics, not I. A misstatement corrected many times now.
Before addressing the many other topics, do we agree dialogs are when both participants ask and answer reasonable questions?
Last edited:
BurntSynapse
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 247
There is evidence of confusion when it is claimed:
"this is a dialogue, so I ask you a question and you give an answer."
>"do you plan on ever actually doing so?"
I plan to.
Do you see how an average reader might see such wording as disrespectfully sarcastic and at odds with productive dialog?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I have asked you very reasonable questions, such as how would your alleged cognitive tool apply to cold fusion research, I have asked that about three times, no answer from you.
And just to remind you what you are dodging the "issues were identified by experts" are in reference to this:
You are not stating what the actual experts have described as 'long term mysteries'.
That was your statement, not the experts.
Now was it?
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
That reading would have been even more plausible had there been productive dialog for it to be at odds with.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
I'm still waiting for you to tell us how improved management techniques will lead to FTL travel.
What do you think is the root cause for our inability to solve problems in exobiology? After 40+ years of Mars landings, we don't know if aliens use DNA or not!
Do exobiology theorists need a management coach in order to come up with a consistent picture of alien genetics, physiology and evolution?
No, they need non-Earth-life data. Likewise, physicists need non-Standard-Model data---specific data, with more details than "some sort of dark matter exists" which could mean any of a thousand things. The lack of such data is the root cause of the current problems.
BurntSynapse
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 247
It is true that you have asked many questions and I have responded to many of yours, if not providing many "answers" in a manner you find acceptable or intelligible.
You have stated that in a dialogue you ask questions while I answer. I would like to know if this was a misstatement.
Do actually we agree dialogs are when both participants ask and answer reasonable questions?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I see you actually don'y want to discuss things but have some set piece of semantics. If ask you 'how would this tool apply' and your answer is not a discussion of how the tool would be applied, then that is a non-answer. If you ask me how to apply CBT to the treatment of anxiety, i can tell you in exact steps, if you ask me how the data packets get from my machine to your machine in this dialog, I can give you the exact steps, if you ask me how I think the Theory of Evolution and natural selection applies to a particular trait, I will give you the course of events I find most likely.
That would be me giving examples of direct answers to direct questions about ideas and concepts that I have, and have engaged in on this forum.
Saying, "well just read this book", that is not a direct answer to a direct question.
So again I ask you, how does you alleged tool apply, how would it work in researching cold fusion.
I am asking you how it would work, so saying 'read this book', is not an answer.
I am asking you, how in the research of cold fusion would your alleged cognitive tool be applied.
I am becoming fairly certain that you don't actually know how your alleged cognitive tool would be applied, as you can't describe how it would be applied.
If you want to debate the meaning of the words dialogue or discussion it just reinforces the notion that you don't actually know how your alleged cognitive tool would be applied.
But your inability to answer direct questions reflects on you, not me.
Last edited:
Given that the average reader is capable of comprehending simple English, I certainly hope that is how they would see it. The confusion only arises on your part because you seem to be labouring under the delusion that you are actually engaging in productive dialogue rather than simply endlessly repeating the same meaningless management-waffle. Hence my question - since a productive dialogue can only take place when both participants answer reasonable questions, do you ever actually plan on doing so so that a productive dialogue can actually take place?
In case you've forgotten, here are some of the questions you've completely failed to address in any meaningful manner:
What actual tools do you think should be used that aren't already in use?
How exactly would this affect outcomes, or indeed have any effect at all?
What specifically are you actually trying to say? Not some vague waffle about "improvements in management functions like identifying and assessing potentially transformative research identification appear plausible". If you were put in charge of world science today, you would walk into your first meeting to determine how science will be run from now on and you would say "We should do X". What is X?
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Synergize our core scientific practices to leverage the developing knowledge into practical solutions that promote the human welfare.
BurntSynapse
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 247
Here is an example of why I don't think much dialog takes place. Insults which don't even count as rational criticism (i.e.: "you really have no idea how utterly absurd that comment is") are considered acceptable in opposition to an unpopular thesis.
When asking for evidence the comment was absurd, the response received was to ignore the respectful question designed to improve my understanding of his view, change the topic...and ask more questions of me. This seems irrational.
Cuddles the moderator appears to find these dynamics not only unproblematic, but worth encouraging and even lending a helping hand.
I tend to side with the view rational skepticism is a form of inquiry rather than nay-saying, and am happy and willing to learn, if there's any commitment to follow respectful dialog necessary for productive interaction.
Last edited:
Note that you have, yet again, completely failed to actually answer any of the relevant questions. Respect is earned. You cannot whine about the lack of productive dialogue while completely failing to meet your own definition of engaging in productive dialogue. Well, you can, but it certainly doesn't reflect well on you. As long as you continue to disrespect us by refusing to give any sensible answers, there is absolutely no reason for us to be respectful towards you. If you want to engage in productive dialogue, the only way that can happen is if you actually engage in productive dialogue.
All very interesting.
BurntSynapse
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 247
Personally, I tend to have caution judging opinions I don't understand well.
If the Project Management Institute, whose glossary of "management-waffle" you had worked on for years, universities on 4 continents where you'd taught grad school info systems PM, and your clients, (one with the most successful implementation in history), were all happy with your work, I'd probably be more hesitant to disregard your opinion in that management specialty than you are regarding mine.
My hesitancy for such leaps is based on my concept of skepticism as rational inquiry which is reliable and brings people to new understandings, new agreement and disagreement, but I accept that others in the community don't share this concept.
Last edited:
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Quite frankly, from your performance here, I suspect your success happened the same way it does for project managers here. The people who actually do the work ignore the PM and get things done, giving enough lip service to whatever management-flavor-of-the-week the PM is promoting. Every project I've worked with, in over twenty years in the industry (info systems, just in case you're wondering), the PM has either been a coordinator (i.e.-he takes our information and does the task of distributing it to the project team, updating schedules, and so forth) or he's an obstacle (if they decide to get "proactive", and get involved beyond management by thinking they know more than the subject matter experts).
Additionally, the patronizing tone of posts exactly like yours (quoted above) seems at odds with your stated desire for rational inquiry. Passive-aggressive is still aggressive. At least some of us are up front about it.
The fact that you still have avoided all the pertinent questions, to instead complain that (paraphrased) "you're all being meanies, and you're stupid-heads compared to me" doesn't win you any points either.
The reason you're getting nothing but insults is because after repeated requests for details of your "plan", and repeated explanations about what we're asking for, and repeated attempts to get you to explain anything using something other than management-speak, you've still failed to provide anything but a jumble of words whose precision is nearly as good as WWII carpet-bombing tactics.
ETA: To put it a bit closer to PM-speak, you've yet to give us anything that's actionable, and that's what we're asking for and have been asking for.
Last edited: