Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Reality Check]

...snipped yet another non-reply....

What I wrote was:

But at least we are getting closer to this mysterious "The Nersessian Model", BurntSynapse .
Unfortunately absolutely no citations to any of Nersessian 's accessible work, just comments by the "Patrick Suppes prize committee". It seems to be exactly what she says that she is doing - a model of how scientists currently do (and previously did) science.

So is the Patrick Suppes prize committee giving prizes for project management or improvements in scientific research methodology or anything really to do with this thread?
Whoops, BurntSynapse: Patrick Suppes Prize

No project management there and thus no support for your assertions, BurntSynapse.

Nancy J. Nersessian won the prize in 2011 in recognition of her book Creating Scientific Concepts.

No mention of new methodologies to improve scientific research and thus no support for your assertions, BurntSynapse.

Our conclusion: Nancy J. Nersessian's work is irrelevant.

The point being that you have still after several days not provided any citations to Nancy J. Nersessian's work on
* project management or
* new methodologies to improve scientific research.

What you do not seem to understand is that Nancy J. Nersessian's stated field of research is
* not project management and
* not new methodologies to improve scientific research.

It is getting to the point that we have to conclude that you are lying about read any of her work that is relevant to this thread, BurntSynapse. The inability to cite or quote anything relevant from her is damning.

 

[Reality Check]

P.S. BurntSynapse, Please define Nersessian's "concrete problem"
First asked 29 January 2014.
Then you can tell us how this relates to the thread.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Cooperation, much?

I recognize the sarcastic structure, but I'm afraid I don't understand...since I am trying to cooperate in a dialog.

You have been criticized for having a blurry understanding of what scientists do, a nonexistent idea of what scientists should be doing differently, and an extremely dodgy idea of how to use "management" to change the former into the latter.

True, there had been a great deal of criticism of me, and I have many more flaws, but what is of more interest and relevance to me is specific criticism of my theory. When specific criticism of that comes with evidence that checks out, it offers an opportunity for which I'm grateful.

Regrettably, something other than my opinions are attributed to me and addressing those are more difficult.

You rejected this criticism by hawking The Nersessian Model

I've been "hawking" her work for years, and for reasons previously explained: it seems to provide sufficient detail to support standard planning processes in ways previously unavailable to us.

The term hawking suggests this use is illegitimate. If that is your meaning and you can explain why you think this the case, perhaps I can explain, or learn something new.

---you made it sound, repeatedly, like your key beliefs all came straight out of this well-known and uncontrovertible history-of-science work...

My apologies for giving anyone that impression.

---you made it sound...as though no one could question your beliefs without also contradicting the great Nersessian, and

My apologies again - Please question my beliefs! I only ask that my beliefs are questioned rather than many that have been attributed to be but are far from anything I'd agree with.

---you made it sound you provided this book as the source of The Nersessian Model.

Yes, it was my original source, although it uses alot of concepts from elsewhere in the HPS field.

And now---what? You're telling me that this book is only about X and not about Y?

No, the opposite: I'm asking if we agree that the fact that Nersessian studies history of scientists' activity should not be taken as evidence that she does not elsewhere in the book "draw distinctions between thinking that generates IMPORTANT PARADIGM SHIFTS and boring stuck-in-a-rut science".

Do we agree this inference would be invalid?

 

[ben m]

Here is how you used "citations" of Nancy Nersessian's work in the past few pages of thread.

This appears to me (at the moment) consistent with long established history and philosophy of scientific revolutions, the Nersessian Model,

If you say history of physics, chemistry, and biology research supports that the Nersessian model is invalid, and lack of a concrete problem is superior, it would seem to be your obligation to demonstrate these exemplars support your interpretation, especially in light of general acceptance of Nersessian's theory.

I assume Nancy Nersessian and her level of geniuses will always be far more current and robust in their field than I'll ever be, so I try to just stay relatively current with their top-line findings on scientific creativity and revolutions.

Let's point out what is here: a name-drop, a mention of how awesome the cited person is, and an avowal that your interlocutor must be disagreeing with the awesome person.

Let's point out what is not here: actual citations, actual explanation of what the Nersessian model tells you, why you believe it, how exactly you think the interlocutor is disagreeing with it; details that would move the conversation forward. So although you say:

I recognize the sarcastic structure, but I'm afraid I don't understand...since I am trying to cooperate in a dialog.

you sound a lot like you're trying to stop the conversation by winning the appeal-to-authority wars. There is nothing in your posts that invites, or allows, conversation about the "Nersessian model", and indeed there still hasn't been.

No, the opposite: I'm asking if we agree that the fact that Nersessian studies history of scientists' activity should not be taken as evidence that she does not elsewhere in the book "draw distinctions between thinking that generates IMPORTANT PARADIGM SHIFTS and boring stuck-in-a-rut science".

I found no evidence that it draws such a distinction. Now, if you were a normal person making a normal citation, your goal (which would not, normally, need to be stated explicitly) would be to help me find what Nersessian actually said and understand why that supports you. Instead, you chose to argue about the logical consequences of my failure-to-find-evidence. Huh.

 

[BurntSynapse]

There is nothing in your posts that invites, or allows, conversation about the "Nersessian model", and indeed there still hasn't been.

Reports of my posts power to prevent conversation apparently have been greatly exaggerated.

To all: your conversation on the Nersessian Model is cordially invited.

 

[Roboramma]

Ben m has made it very clear that he is interested in what Nersessian has to say about paradigm shifts, and specifically how project management can be used to make changes in how actual scientists do science in order to bring about future paradigm shifts. You have failed to offer that, while implying that you are basing you own ideas on her model of exactly this.

So, Burnt Synapse: your conversation on the Nersessian Model is cordially invited.

 

[Perpetual Student]

To all: your conversation on the Nersessian Model is cordially invited.

Do you really not understand? You attempted to use the Nersessian Model (Whatever that means) as a basis to make a point about your claims concerning the efficacy of PM in dealing with science research. You have been asked numerous times to explain what the Nersessian Model is and how it supports your position.
Is that not clear? How can anyone who communicates so poorly manage any project -- even one involving boiling an egg. Do you really expect participants here to immerse themselves in the writings of Nersessian in order to glean your meaning? Isn't this just more obfuscation and bluffing?

 

[AlBell]

Could we get the posts re Nersessian Model (Whatever that means) which is as yet fully undefined moved to Philosophy?

 

[Dancing David]

Reports of my posts power to prevent conversation apparently have been greatly exaggerated.

To all: your conversation on the Nersessian Model is cordially invited.

How about you actually state in specifics why it is relevant, you have failed to do so.

Please cite exact quotes and explanations of the Nersessian model and how exactly it would apply.

In specific and with examples, this appears to be you again avoiding actually explaining how exactly this would do anything to change the nature of research and experimentation.

So please state exactly what you think will be different.

 

[Reality Check]

BurntSynapse, please cite, quote or describe the "Nersessian Model"

To all: your conversation on the Nersessian Model is cordially invited.

To BurntSynapse: An cordial invitation to cite, quote or describe the "Nersessian Model" so that a discussion is possible.
Or for that matter: BurntSynapse, Please define Nersessian's "concrete problem"
First asked 29 January 2014.

So far this "Nersessian Model" does not exist. You might be confused about the term "model-based reasoning" used in her work. The models there belong to scientists not her !
Nancy J. Nersessian does not mention this "Nersessian Model" on her web page:

My research focuses on creativity, innovation and conceptual change in science. I try to understand the cognitive and cultural mechanisms that lead up to scientific innovation, both theoretical and experimental.

The practice of science involves sophisticated cognition, which only rich social, cultural, and material environments can enable. But most accounts of creativity and innovative practices tend to focus on either "cognitive" or "cultural" factors. In contrast, I seek to develop an account of how a dynamic and evolving interplay of cognition and culture support and sustain creative and innovative scientific practices.

The account I am developing brings together and integrates methodologies and conceptual frameworks from cognitive science, philosophy of science, and history of science. I draw upon four sources: 1) a range of empirical data, including historical documents pertaining to past science, ethnographic observations, and interviews relating to "science-in-action"; 2) concepts and analyses from cognitive science; 3) an extensive body of literature on scientific practices in the science studies fields; and 4) my own theoretical analysis of problems and issues, developed over the past decades. To bring together this wide range of theory, data, and methodologies, I work with a very diverse research team that has over the years consisted of cognitive scientists, theoretical psychologists, computer scientists, philosophers, historians of science, and ethnographers.

Currently, with funding from NSF, I am investigating computational modeling practices in two integrative systems biology research laboratories, and how such models contribute to scientific breakthroughs. Using a combination of ethnography, cognitive-historical analysis and theoretical frameworks from cognitive science, this research examines: 1) How researchers construct computational models and use them to reverse engineer biological phenomena, 2) How learning proceeds in such labs, and 3) How investigative and collaboration practices support research and innovation in such transdisciplinary settings. For information on our research group and publications, visit the Cognition and Learning in Interdisciplinary Cultures (CLIC) website.

One objective of this research is to extend my analysis of model-based reasoning from conceptual models to physical and computational models. Another major objective is to design and develop a new undergraduate and graduate courses and learning environments that encourage and support creativity and innovation in interdisciplinary science and engineering. A third major theme of my research is conceptual innovation and change in physics, engineering sciences, and learning, specifically by means of analogical, visual, and simulative modeling.

Also look at Mental Modeling in Conceptual Change (PDF)

 

[The Man]

To BurntSynapse: An cordial invitation to cite, quote or describe the "Nersessian Model" so that a discussion is possible.
Or for that matter: BurntSynapse, Please define Nersessian's "concrete problem"
First asked 29 January 2014.

So far this "Nersessian Model" does not exist. You might be confused about the term "model-based reasoning" used in her work. The models there belong to scientists not her !
Nancy J. Nersessian does not mention this "Nersessian Model" on her web page:


Also look at Mental Modeling in Conceptual Change (PDF)

Sounds like the "Nersessian Model" is primarily focused on, well, modeling.

 

[ben m]

I want to emphasize that when Nersessian says "conceptual change", it seems to me that she's referring to all scientists' learning process, not "world-historic revolutions".

Like, if you're debugging some crashy data-analysis software, and you start with the idea that the error is in your own code, but later you realize that you should look for bad data in an input file instead.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Ben m has made it very clear that he is interested in what Nersessian has to say about paradigm shifts, and specifically how project management can be used to make changes in how actual scientists do science in order to bring about future paradigm shifts. You have failed to offer that, while implying that you are basing you own ideas on her model of exactly this.

So, Burnt Synapse: your conversation on the Nersessian Model is cordially invited.

Her model speaks to paradigm shifts as a type of cognitive change in the way lactation in mammals speaks to cows nursing calves.

Once again for those who repeatedly miss it: the relevance of the model is that its specificity is new, and I claim this specificity enables more targeted, intelligent management of research programs, projects, and portfolios.

 

[Dancing David]

Her model speaks to paradigm shifts as a type of cognitive change in the way lactation in mammals speaks to cows nursing calves.

Once again for those who repeatedly miss it: the relevance of the model is that its specificity is new, and I claim this specificity enables more targeted, intelligent management of research programs, projects, and portfolios.

And so again, how would this apply to any of the current or potential research.

You sling some great words but they have no meaning without an examples.

So take any field that borders ob FTL and explain how specifically this model would be applied.

I believe you have always been unable to explain how these great ideas of yours have an practical application, now would be a great time to explain how it works.

 

[ben m]

the relevance of the model is that its specificity is new,

It says something new and specific about paradigm shifts in particular (not just about model-building as a scientific habit of thought)? If so, are you quoting that as a claim of Nersessian's, made more or less explicit in "Creating Scientific Concepts", or is that your synthesis of what you read?

Either way, get started explaining. Citations, quotes, page numbers would be a big help.

and I claim this specificity enables more targeted, intelligent management of research programs, projects, and portfolios.

Yep. The whole topic of the sub-thread. Nobody believes this claim of yours, because you've provided no convincing arguments that the claim is correct, and scraps of concrete proposals that were flatly counterproductive, a waste of resources, and likely to delay the advance of physics knowledge rather than promote it.

Either way, get started explaining. Concrete examples would be a big help.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

With my highlighting:

Ben m has made it very clear that he is interested in what Nersessian has to say about paradigm shifts, and specifically how project management can be used to make changes in how actual scientists do science in order to bring about future paradigm shifts. You have failed to offer that, while implying that you are basing you own ideas on her model of exactly this.

So, Burnt Synapse: your conversation on the Nersessian Model is cordially invited.

Her model speaks to paradigm shifts as a type of cognitive change in the way lactation in mammals speaks to cows nursing calves.

Once again for those who repeatedly miss it: the relevance of the model is that its specificity is new, and I claim this specificity enables more targeted, intelligent management of research programs, projects, and portfolios.

The evidence you've provided thus far undermines your claim.

Specific objections to your claim have been provided. Specific evidence in support of your claim has not been provided.

Please note that repeating variations of your claim does not count as specific evidence for it. Note also that complaining about how no one here understands your claim does count as evidence that you have done a remarkably poor job of explaining and supporting your claim.

Yep. The whole topic of the sub-thread. Nobody believes this claim of yours, because you've provided no convincing arguments that the claim is correct, and scraps of concrete proposals that were flatly counterproductive, a waste of resources, and likely to delay the advance of physics knowledge rather than promote it.

Either way, get started explaining. Concrete examples would be a big help.

 

[BurntSynapse]

You sound a lot like you're trying to stop the conversation by winning the appeal-to-authority wars.

As stated many times, if there is anyone in this particular field who offers a better theory, idea, or model, I would be delighted to learn of them. I don't think I pay overmuch attention to who does the work relative to the value of that work, but I do admit (properly IMO) to some swaying based on empirical inference. If that is not sufficiently open to reliable new information, your (or anyone else's) recommendation is invited.

If you're simply trying to point out that I'm a poor advocate for the value of her or anyone's model, that point has been proven many times already.

Now, if you were a normal person making a normal citation, your goal (which would not, normally, need to be stated explicitly) would be to help me find what Nersessian actually said and understand why that supports you.

This is quite true. Assuming my intent was a normal citation then my response would seem bizarre indeed. The "huh factor" comes from mistaking my reply (criticizing non-sequitur support for your claim) for a criticism of the claim itself - for which a refuting citation would be appropriate, as you say.

Instead, you chose to argue about the logical consequences of my failure-to-find-evidence. Huh.

My objection wasn't about consequences, nor even claiming that you were wrong in point of fact, since I don't think you were. My objection only spoke to the justification presented having no bearing on the claim, for or against. The ability for us to agree on the existence of such an error seems like it would be progress. Do we agree that the ability to perceive and admit errors pointed out by skeptics indicates something better than flame wars?

As for the topic: that Nersessian does not separate paradigm-changing creativity as distinct seems most likely IMO due to the fact that she is arguing for a new model of common processes. She presents revolutionary creativity as only one extreme of a spectrum of problem solving activity that ranges from deciding how to get to work in the morning to solving retrograde motion with heliocentrism. Her distinction is only (again: IMO) to place paradigm-changing creativity on the map she draws.

Creating Scientific Concepts appears to develop what the HPS community commonly calls a "rational reconstruction" of scientific practice. CSC emphasize commonalities, in business these are called critical success factors, key performance indicators, etc., but their function is the same in either discipline: to provide guidance, clarity, and we hope: understanding.

I claim the guidance in this model meets minimum management and administrative standards in new ways that offer help and potential value for the extreme, paradigm-changing end of that problem-solving spectrum, and should be incorporated into scientific problem-solving plans. Attacking the challenges listed in the Quantum Universe report appears to be a reasonable use case for application.

 

[ben m]

She presents revolutionary creativity as only one extreme of a spectrum of problem solving activity that ranges from deciding how to get to work in the morning to solving retrograde motion with heliocentrism. Her distinction is only (again: IMO) to place paradigm-changing creativity on the map she draws.

So: consider what physicists are doing now. Does this portfolio include paradigm-changing creativity, or not? What makes you think so?

Creating Scientific Concepts appears to develop what the HPS community commonly calls a "rational reconstruction" of scientific practice. CSC emphasize commonalities, in business these are called critical success factors, key performance indicators, etc., but their function is the same in either discipline: to provide guidance, clarity, and we hope: understanding.

I disagree that commonalities-identified-by-a-historian are anything whatsoever like "critical success factors" or "key performance indicators" identified by a consultantbot. I disagree that their functions are the same in either discipline. I know a lot of historians, including historians of science and medicine, and there is absolutely nothing in their discipline that maps onto what I think of as "key performance indicators".

 

[BurntSynapse]

Do you really not understand?

I really did not understand "Cooperate much?"

You attempted to use the Nersessian Model (Whatever that means) as a basis to make a point about your claims concerning the efficacy of PM in dealing with science research. You have been asked numerous times to explain what the Nersessian Model is and how it supports your position. Is that not clear?

From "cooperate much?" No...I doubt I'll ever have the skill to get all that from those 2 words in sarcastic form, and honestly: I don't think it's reasonable for anyone.

How can anyone who communicates so poorly manage any project -- even one involving boiling an egg.

If the egg were fossilized, for example, boiling it could be all-but impossible regardless of the skill of the chef (or PM).

Should we conclude that if the world's best structural engineers get little traction for their claims when interacting with 9-11 implosion enthusiasts, their engineering knowledge is defective?

Do you really expect participants here to immerse themselves in the writings of Nersessian in order to glean your meaning?

Not at all, but when explanations are rejected even from cursory review for consideration based on format rather than actual content or clarity, it seems fair to judge the person presenting the rejection as failing to meet a minimal standards of willingness to engage in reasonable discussion.

Isn't this just more obfuscation and bluffing?

I've little doubt there exists unshakable certainly this is the case by some, especially in the case of very strong accusations against me would be too horrible to contemplate. We don't like to think of ourselves as mistaken in the best of times, but evidence that we've been mistaken AND aggressors AND in a social environment where our reputation is at stake is not evidence many of us we're willing to follow, even if we are able to perceive it.

As for the key points of the Nersessian Model: She argues that the common conception of new ideas created via flashes of genius is inaccurate. Rather, she postulates 3 main forces: working to solve a specific problem, resources surrounding that problem, and types of reasoning that makes what we think of as ordinary conceptualization more robust. She claims scientific and ordinary thinking occupy a spectrum, and that solving problems is common and key to both, especially the role of analogy, visualization, and thought experiments. Science, she notes: uses experiments and math more than everyday thinking.

Personally, I don't think the details of her model have much to say about the validity of applying it's general principles, but more details provide almost a limitless source of potential objections on the basis that the overall hypothesis has not been sufficiently explained in a manner that would prove beyond any reasonable doubt of its correctness in every detail.

The fact that I yield to her general principles as an expert and that I trust she knows what she's talking about far more than I'm ever likely has been criticized as "name-dropping" - as if there's something shady about considering the opinions of apparent experts.

 

[ben m]

The fact that I yield to her general principles as an expert and that I trust she knows what she's talking about far more than I'm ever likely has been criticized as "name-dropping" - as if there's something shady about considering the opinions of apparent experts.

Not at all. You were accused of name dropping because for a long time the only thing you would say about Nersessian was that she was an expert whose work, according to you, supported you somehow.

It would not have been name dropping if you had, five pages ago, posted something more like this morning's post:

As for the key points of the Nersessian Model: She argues that ... She claims ...

That is not name-dropping, that is using an expert source to help support an argument. Everything prior to this post was basically just name-dropping.