Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[The Man]

Hoisted on your own petard?

I ask you a serious question and you respond with this?

There is no possible way that Plato's cave has any relevance to our observations of space time.

Let me guess, you don't even know the history of astronomy and astrophysics?

Have you even read The Inflationary Universe by Guth?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Inflationary-Universe-Alan-Guth/dp/0201328402

Plato's cave? What bogus meta cognitive twaddle, I have a very hard time taking you ate face value anymore.

Well I expect that it is a loose analogy to the holographic conjecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Exemplifying the problem with analogies, if one just refers to the holographic conjecture of quantum mechanics and uses that as exemplary of the type of thing they are taking about you don't really need the analogy of Plato's cave, shadows on a wall, a painting that utilizes accurate perspective, 3D street art 3D TV/movies, optical illusions or any number of such. Some of which may only be slightly related, like say those involving just embedded information. Some analogies represent some aspects as others do, well, other aspects. None capture the whole concept (which is why they are just analogies) and all still might leave a lot lacking. Sure they are useful tools in helping people get a grip on some concepts but the risk is always that one will take the analogy, or analogies, as the concept and not just as a somewhat representative shadow on the wall in Plato's cave.

 

[Dancing David]

My point was that his assistant used spectroscopy to make a number of paradigm shifts.



Cave, cave , we don't need no stinking cave...

 

[The Man]

This whole thread reminds me of when I was a senior project manager during the 90's when my company was applying Managerialism as a management philosophy.

What this meant was that there was no requirement for managers to necessarily be competent in what it was that they were managing, as that's what the minions were for - you just had to manage.

Unfortunately, after several years a significant body of evidence had built up that projects that had sponsors and/or managers with no subject matter knowledge of the project at all, produce markedly inferior results compared to the others that were managed by people with some subject matter knowledge.

A couple of possible conclusions were inferred from the above result:
1. Project managers that took their jobs seriously took the time to understand the nature of the project, so that they could better understand the perspective of the subject matter experts and what it was that he/she was asking them to do, or
2. Some knowledge of the subject was necessary for the project to be properly framed and that pure "project management" per se was not enough.

On the second point, another related realisation that arose was that project management was primarily about managing people, not tasks or methods.

So, does that mean that I'm arguing for or against a particular position in this thread? I'm not sure.

I entirely agree with the second point and I'm going to tell a bit of a story here (one I've told on this forum before), so please bear with me.

Back in the late 80s to 90s I was working as a Senior Laboratory Technician in an engineering laboratory. Part of my job was automating the test equipment. In one particular set of standardized tests you had to take a significant number of readings at certain intervals, then let the test proceed or address issues with the monitoring equipment if there was a problem. Previously that involved test meters, calculations and writing the reading down on a log sheet but I had designed and implemented a computer controlled data acquisition system where you only had to look at the reading and verify (with a mouse click) that things were still ok. It didn't matter how many bells, whistles, flashing red warnings I put on it. After a number of click/accept, click/accept, click/accept, click/accept, click/accept.... actions. The tendency was just to click past the problem readings and not investigate if there was an issue with the sensing equipment. Unfortunately, once you let the test proceed again the chance to address problems with the last data set were lost. I even found myself doing it at times. What we determined was that you still had to have the tech write the reading down. Even though making the lab more paper free was one of the goals of the automation project. This became what I called a 'cognitive check point'. You become more aware of the value and perhaps some discrepancy when you have to write it down.

To your point, Kid Eager, that became the time I realized that even in a primarily instrumentally driven application, managing people (even one's self) is still critical.

To BurntSynapse's apparent points, cognition is indeed a relevant factor but just replicating the cognitive surroundings of previous paradigm shifts smacks more of just cargo cult thinking than any concerted and direct approach to resolve identified problems.

 

[BurntSynapse]

With my highlighting:
The evidence you've provided thus far undermines your claim.

You highlight my asssertion that I claim the Nersessian Model specificity is new and enables improvements.

Is your objection that I do not claim this? Do you assert her model's specificity is not new? Do you assert it's specificity is unusable or unusable for improvement?

Any of these? All? ...or some combination?

Objecting by reference to "evidence [I've] provided" in a discussion that's gone on this long makes it difficult to guess what you take as relevant to undermining. If you could help narrow it down for me, I may be able to understand your objection(s) better.

 

[steenkh]

You highlight my asssertion that I claim the Nersessian Model specificity is new and enables improvements.

Excuse me, but I have not seen or understood that Nersessian has a model. The descriptions you have given, seemed to indicate that Nersessian does not herself claim to have a model, and that the model you are referring to is actually your own model, based on Nersessian's findings.

Is that correct?

 

[BurntSynapse]

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

Generally no...depending on how we use the word creativity.

What makes you think so?

Physicists work on research projects.

These projects typically lie within administrative portfolios that are managed (hopefully) by consciously developed guidelines.

What physicists and other researchers can possess and exhibit in terms of creativity in the cognitive sense does not apply to an administrative thing like a portfolio.

A portfolio can have paradigm changing attributes compared to other portfolios just as a physics theory can have paradigm changing attributes compared to prior theories.

My guess is that you mean to ask a different question or I'm missing something in what you are asking.

I disagree that commonalities-identified-by-a-historian are anything whatsoever like "critical success factors" or "key performance indicators" identified by a consultant.

Historical analysis of project performance is, AFAIK, the most reliable method of obtaining such things.

In HPS, the nonsense of armchair philosophizing (the alternative to historical analysis) from people like Hegel & Hans Reichenbach motivated the development of logical positivism. That movement started the trend that philosophy of science should answer to real-world data. This was similar to the motivation for project management, and historical performance has always been the gold standard for assessing project management quality and value.

The trend toward looking to history for what makes good science has only grown in the past 150 years, with Feyerabend's work a notable (& valuable IMO) exception

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".

Good point. I'd agree that they seem pretty different, especially when considering the domains to which their applied, how they're used. Most historical research seems inapplicable to project performance, much less engineering portfolio, program, and project management guidelines.

The similarity I draw starts with the similarity of motivation for the historical study: in both cases ...

Actually, I just was about to draw an overbroad characterization on identifying commonalities, but in most HPS research, more analysis is sought with practically no forward application specifically targeted.

I should be very clear on the subset of HPS which seems to map to KPI's: only those ideas which help distinguish good practices in science or medicine. This is the focus of people like the very tiny SPSP community, a fraction of whom are interested in putting philosophy of science to work improving scientific practice.

Anyway, this last of yours was a very helpful objection. Note to self: precision on that point.

Thanks!

 

[Dancing David]

Historical analysis of project performance is, AFAIK, the most reliable method of obtaining such things.

This just demonstrates that you really don't have a grasp of what causes paradigm shifts in science and technology.

Are you seriously going to tell me that project management could do anything about paradigm shifts?

Do you really think it would have helped in the production of graphene?

Or in Bose concluding about Bose-Eisenstein Condensate as a possibility?

What do you really know of the history of paradigm shifts is technology and science?

 

[ben m]

A portfolio can have paradigm changing attributes compared to other portfolios just as a physics theory can have paradigm changing attributes compared to prior theories.

This is really nonsense.

a) I do not accept the statement that "paradigm changing attributes" are recognizable at all. Any line of research may turn out to be paradigm-changing, depending on how surprising its results turn out to be, which no one knows ahead of time.

b) At DOE and NSF, the research portfolio is just the collection of ideas submitted by physicists. The ideas come from the physicists, not from some portfolio-defining manager. It's very different at DARPA, and notably different at NASA, but at DOE and NSF the distinction between "our research portfolio" and "the set of physics theories people want to study" is ... well, it's very close to being no distinction at all.

If there are aspects of spacetime that, right now, are not being studied carefully, this is happening because no physicist wants to study them. It is not because "management" failed to put those ideas in a "portfolio".

There are of course edge cases---interdisciplinary proposals can be tough to get reviewed well, funding migrates away from unpopular theories (which is usually right but maybe sometimes wrong?)---but those are well-known problems, people other than you are worrying about them and as far as I can tell you are not.

Historical analysis of project performance is, AFAIK, the most reliable method of obtaining such things.

No, because physics (and science) changes as it goes along. That's the point. In 1900-ish, Einstein had to make a tremendous creative leap to construct the theory of relativity---but the methods he used to do so are nowadays routinely taught to undergrads. Historical analysis tells you what revolutions looked like given the methods available before Einstein. Historical analysis doesn't tell you what revolutions will look like given the methods available now, which include Einstein's methods and many more.

I should be very clear on the subset of HPS which seems to map to KPI's: only those ideas which help distinguish good practices in science or medicine. This is the focus of people like the very tiny SPSP community, a fraction of whom are interested in putting philosophy of science to work improving scientific practice.

Oh really? HPS actually has ideas which "distinguish good practices in science or medicine"? I feel like I should ask you to share some of those ideas, but I feel like a broken record asking that so many times.

Of course, if you were to post some idea or methodology for distinguishing "good practices" in "science or medicine", I'd probably ask you whether you can apply that methodology and tell me whether or not various research projects look like "good practice" to you or not. Say:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0412103
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0412105

and

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v28/i1/p66_1
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v28/i5/p318_1

Finally:

SPSP? Standard Poodle Shaving Patterns? Soluble Protein Sterilizing Pouch? Some Penguins See Prawns?

 

[AlBell]

So you still seem to have no idea what Nancy J. Nersessian is working on, BurntSynapse !

No "modeling as a major focus" except as usual scientific activity.
No "HPS". ETA: But you mean history and philosophy of science which has nothing to do with your little idea about project management magically doing stuff.
No "model of scientific cognition".

The link clearly demonstrates why this ongoing Nersessian discussion is philosophy and not SMM&T.

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.

ROFL.

eta: I'll guess Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice (SPSP) not Society for Personality and Social Psychology(SPSP).

 

[theprestige]

FWIW: I think the links between a specific TR project and the Nersessian Model might involve planning the project with conscious, focused activities on documenting potential representational analogies, for example: listing Plato's Cave shadow as a potential metaphor for our observations of space-time.

Actually, I like this a lot. This is the first specific, concrete recommendation you have made, based on your idea. Hopefully we won't have to wait another 58 pages to see another!

In mean time, if I were to make a table recording your specific, concrete recommendations so far, it would look something like this:

Burnt Synapse Specific and Concrete Recommendations
planning the project with conscious, focused activities on documenting potential representational analogies

And while we're hoping to improve [the project management of] science, by brainstorming possible analogies, here are two more that spring immediately to my mind:

Nailing jello to a wall.

The Fable of the Scorpion and the Toad.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Improvement is always a good thing,...

Not for those who only see the cost, surely.

 

[BurntSynapse]

This just demonstrates that you really don't have a grasp of what causes paradigm shifts in science and technology.

This suggests that you believe research scope, budgets, facilities, and support structures for research play no role. I, the NSF, NASA, DOE, and every major scientific and business organization in the world disagree.

 

[BurntSynapse]

This is really nonsense.

a) I do not accept the statement that "paradigm changing attributes" are recognizable at all. Any line of research may turn out to be paradigm-changing, depending on how surprising its results turn out to be, which no one knows ahead of time.

Ben, we need to pick a side: Either paradigm change can be characterized in advance as having the attribute of some minimal level of surprise, or it is undefinable a priori.

We can't have it both ways.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Imagine if you were having a house built, and a manager showed up, waving a copy of John Stuart Mill's "Utilitarianism" (an accepted authority on utilities, right? Like plumbing?), and directs your workers to (a) fill out a form documenting any damaged/wasted tool, joist, screw, or nail; (b) save wood by putting structural loads onto the plumbing and electrical conduits; and (c) Avoid the use of solder or adhesives for pipe joints, and (d) Suspend all landscaping-related work in order to devote more resources to window-cleaning.

Some management results in useful activities. Do you think that people here are denying that?

No.

(Do you realize that physics is already subject to management, which results in useful activities?)

(Yes.)

Some management results in objectively wasted time and effort. Do you deny that this is possible?

No.

(I've certainly been forced, by management, to waste time.)

Suppose someone came to your house, bearing PMBOK in one hand and Mill's "Utilitarianism" in the other, ignorantly claiming that it's a useful book on utility construction. This person proposes to revamp your house-construction project but refuses to give any details. Do you put him in charge?

No.

This is, after all, life in the real world where we have to accomplish stuff.

 

[BurntSynapse]

So there is no "model" just a "representation", BurntSynapse?

Not sure what you're asking.

You now have to describe the "Nersessian Representation":

Surely you must be joking, Mr Reality!

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

It is a term I use to refer to what I take to be the main thrust of Creating Scientific Concepts. YMMV.

Remember to add her extensive application of project management .

Apparently I've not explained the relationship between project management and the application areas where it is used enough times, but don't think increased repetition is likely to succeed either. Your request seems like insisting that a doctor explain how a fever includes diagnostic procedures.

Not really sure how a doc can answer that.

And to quote where this "representation" somehow makes scientific research much more effective (to the point that it can find faster than light travel even if FTL is physically impossible ).

This is very far from any opinion I hold - not sure how I can help.

 

[BurntSynapse]

This is really nonsense.

b) At DOE and NSF, the research portfolio is just the collection of ideas submitted by physicists.

More accurately we could say its just a collection of words - a reduction of meaning that seems to deliberately avoid understanding.

Again: management standards are different than the domain to which they are applied. You are addressing the content of the portfolio, I'm addressing the rules by which some submissions are selected to become "just the collection of ideas" being supported by NSF.

Project Portfolio Management (PPM) is the centralized management of processes, methods, and technologies used by project managers and project management offices (PMOs) to analyze and collectively manage a group of current or proposed projects based on key characteristics.

The objectives of PPM are to determine the optimal resource mix for delivery and to schedule activities to best achieve an organization’s operational and financial goals ― while honouring constraints imposed by customers, strategic objectives, or external real-world factors.

Given your background, you may be interested to know: different open source and commercial technology software can provide a critical, enabling platform for PPM.

Even if the portfolio was a patternless collection of ideas as your post suggests, that fact would tell us nothing about potential PPM standard changes. It might tell us current standards should be better applied.

 

[ben m]

Ben, we need to pick a side: Either paradigm change can be characterized in advance as having the attribute of some minimal level of surprise, or it is undefinable a priori.

We can't have it both ways.

Of course it's not definable a priori. I've been criticizing that idea of yours for this entire thread. Paradigm shifts are always identified after-the-fact, by people who can use a-posteriori knowledge of what physics is actually doing to clarify differences between that and what people previously thought it was doing. If Nancy Nersessian (or Andersen or Chen or whoever) claim otherwise ... well, I don't think they do, and if you feel like proving me wrong with a citation you can do so on your own time.

Hahn, Meitner, and Frisch doggedly chased down some confusing reports of the state of uranium/neutron bombardment experiments. At exactly the same time, George Chauncey and others were debating---with heroic experimental efforts, creativity, and openness to new physics ideas---the equally-baffling contemporary data showing differences between nuclear beta-rays and cathode rays, previously assumed to be the same particle. We know, in hindsight, that Hahn and Meitner's studies would turn out to reveal new physics, that their speculative guesses about new phenomena would turn out to be true---while Chauncey's speculative guesses would turn out to be wrong.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Hoisted on your own petard?

I ask you a serious question and you respond with this?

There is no possible way that Plato's cave has any relevance to our observations of space time.

Next time I'm skiing with Lisa Randall in Aspen (where I got the metaphor) I'll mention your feedback.

Plato's cave? What bogus meta cognitive twaddle, I have a very hard time taking you ate face value anymore.

Noted.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Of course it's not definable a priori. I've been criticizing that idea of yours for this entire thread.

Definition: A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share" (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself" (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, reject the germ theory of disease to posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or reject modern physics and optics to posit that aether carries light. In contrast, a critic in the humanities can choose to adopt an array of stances (e.g., Marxist criticism, Freudian criticism, Deconstruction, 19th-century-style literary criticism), which may be more or less fashionable during any given period but all regarded as legitimate. Since the 1960s, the term has also been used in numerous non-scientific contexts to describe a profound change in a fundamental model or perception of events, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences.

If you see anything in that or any other generally accepted definition which includes a "past-only" restriction, please cite it.

Paradigm shifts are always identified after-the-fact, by people who can use a-posteriori knowledge of what physics is actually doing to clarify differences between that and what people previously thought it was doing.

Positions staked out with "always", "never", and tied with claims of how X is impossible tend to be mistakes.

We may not be able to specify exactly any particular feature of the world's next tallest building, but we can probably say a lot about it, even if all current examples are historical. Perhaps that would be a controversial claim with 9/11 conspiracy groups, but it doesn't seem we should take that sort of objection too seriously.

You could be right from a very narrow view of what a specific paradigm shift will feature, and this is entirely consistent with the principle of progressive elaboration for projects - but that is very different than being able to say the kinds of cognitive change a cognitive framework will feature that would cause us to want to refer to it as revolutionary, transformative, or a paradigm shift.

 

[ben m]

Definition: A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, ,

I waffled briefly on whether to interpret your question as using "definable" in the dictionary-entry sense, or definable in the sense of determinable. I thought I resolved this in favor of "determinable" because (I thought) it was the only interpretation under which the question made any sense at all.

I withdraw my reply. I misunderstood the question. Your actual question, now that I understand it, made no sense.