As can be seen from my actual highlighting, which you snipped, I highlighted your claim that Nersessian's "specificity enables more targeted, intelligent management of research programs".
We have to pick our battles. It seems appropriate to snip things which seem uncontroversial or not worth introducing distractions.
I assert that the evidence you have been providing within this thread (in the form of your own posts) has not supported, and has in fact undermined, your claim that Nersessian specificity enables more intelligent management of research programs.
The description of my opinion seems a sufficiently abbreviated summary as to be a useful shorthand, but would be too high level for criticism of underlying processes, intermediate steps, etc., which are omitted for practical reasons.
In responding to Ben earlier for example, I had to decide whether to launch into a distinction of HPS use of paradigm shift in noun or verb uses, and particulars within them. Sometimes we have to guess from context, and in this case: an estimation of the audience level of familiarity with the material.
This last factor is why I even use the term paradigm shift instead of cognitive frame recategorization or some such.
So far as I can tell, the only person here whose thinking has been greatly influenced by Nersessian's model is you, BurntSynapse, Buck Field.
I love agreement, however small!
When speculating about the possible impact of Nersessian's model on management of research,
If we're going to criticize details, please criticize an accurate version of my actual position. I claim that Nersessian's model offers policy developers a resource they previously lacked during the last major round of transformative research support guideline development. I believe a start to that project can be considered to have begun at a workshop in 2004 (I think) in Sante Fe, and completion could plausibly be claimed with the 2012 website updates explaining transformative research.
it seems reasonable to use your own posts as a guide.
As a guide is reasonable - so is consideration of context which seems a recurring problem.
That may be unfair to Nersessian, but it is not unfair to you.
In my recollection, use of one's posts as a guide to that person's opinions has never been unfair to a 3rd party. YMMV.
The evidence you have presented so far, in the form of your own posts, tells us the specificity of Nersessian's model does not guarantee specificity of recommendations made by those who claim to have been influenced by Nersessian's model.
Good. I would not want to present anything to be taken as guaranteeing specificity of recommendations, especially when the context appears to change.
Your posts also tell us Nersessian's influence will not necessarily lead to more intelligent management of research programs.
I don't think I've ever said anything about Nersessian's influence in terms of changing research management. I would say that's not her role or goal. If she advises policy development teams, is she influencing research management? Depends on how direct we feel a consequence needs to be linked to an action in order to qualify as "changing" something.
You resisted repeated requests for specificity,
It seems sensible for anyone to resist "Have you stopped beating your wife?" inquiries. Asserting underlying problems can be to avoid substantive problems, but I think I'm pretty inviting of not only well-informed criticism, but even criticism that despite deep flaws, has value.
I found an interview in which Buck Field (aka BurntSynapse) said he wanted to hire a bunch of quaternions experts.
Yes.
There's nothing wrong with quaternions, but the reasons you gave for thinking further research into quaternions would be beneficial appeared to have been derived from the crackpot idea that quaternion formulations of Maxwell's equations are inequivalent to vector formulations.
This criticism was previously covered. I claim that processes matter in the real world, giving the example of binary math. While all the equations may be equivalent, what we can actually do in the real world given real world constraints makes a huge difference that it would be very foolish to ignore.
Pressed for specifics, you began to speak of Euler angles. When experts explained that Euler angles are just a particular representation that happens to use vectors, and that the problem with Euler angles is a mere coordinate singularity
It may be a "mere singularity", but that seems valid counter-evidence to the claim that there is "no difference" in using the different systems. I took math experts at their word that it did matter, as well as other claims they made which I'm not in a position to argue with them, any more than I can argue with Nersessian.
akin to the meaninglessness of "east" at the North Pole, you retreated into vague claims of risk in vector mathematics.
The histories I read of the Heaviside-Tait debates claimed this was an issue, and I've no problem admitting that I've virtually no ability to assess the reliability of those accounts, so yeah: I'm vague. Nevertheless the accounts seem reliable, so like everything else, I'm going with them (like Dirty Harry) until someone comes along with changes that make sense.
Pressed for specific examples of serious risk within any mathematics used by physicists, you resorted to name-dropping...
Name-dropping is normally used to position oneself within a social hierarchy which members of this group could consider my purpose. It is often used to create a sense of superiority by raising one's status in the group.
By implying (or directly asserting) a connection to people of high status, the name-dropper hopes to raise his or her own social status to a level closer to that of those whose names he or she has dropped, and thus elevate himself or herself above, or into, present company. When people are from a very privileged position, from time to time it seems appropriate to give clues to others who seem to be speaking to a very different sort of person. If they don't get the hint, it shows.
Name-dropping can also be used to identify people with a common bond. By indicating the names of people one knows, one makes known his or her social circle, providing an opportunity for others with similar connections to relate.
As a form of appeal to authority, name-dropping can be an important form of informal argumentation, as long as the name being dropped is of someone who is an expert on the subject of the argument and that person's views are accurately represented. My citations are intended to be of this type.
mentioning Gödel several times (while misspelling his name)...
To me, focus on umlauts more than the point of what was intended smacked of desperation to
avoid seeing the point.
Gödel himself did not perceive any serious risks within mathematics,
Correct: it was the appropriateness or certainty of reliable application to which his Incompleteness Theorem speaks.
...so we suspected your name-dropping was nothing more than a crackpot misinterpretation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
Yes, undoubtedly. Exactly what one might expect from 9/11 conspiracists' reactions to recommendations by an architectural engineer for improving skyscraper designs to withstand jet collision.
Subsequent discussion confirmed that suspicion. You then resorted to mentioning Quine and other names, even though you understood Quine's research no better than Gödel's.
Useless. If there is some specific attribute to the Incompleteness Theorem's relevance to certainty of a system upon which I've erred, critics must state what that is. Hand waving toward a mere implication of deficient understanding is only intelligible with regard to the person expressing such vacuous objections.
The fact is that I've been and continue to be quite open about my lack of knowledge of Gödel, but this stands in sharp contrast with my exposure to Quine, who is on a par with Popper in my personal HPS pantheon.
You have also advocated "dimensional analysis", which appears to have been a phrase you invented without realizing it's a common name for sanity-checking units.
False. I had realized the compound term was in use in math, but so far it has only proven to be an obstacle within environments where there is an all-but-inerrant instinct to misinterpret, which is to say: here.
If presenting to mathematicians however, I would feel uncomfortable using the term due to audience considerations.
Your advocacy of "dimensional analysis" appears to have been motivated by your belief that physicists have not been paying enough attention to non-Euclidean geometries.
I'd have to say that at a first approximation, this is accurate - but only to a first approximation.
You apparently were not aware that Einstein's general theory of relativity is based upon non-Euclidean geometry.
True. I consider GR to be a generalization of special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime.
I regard GR as concomitant with the notion that spacetime curvature depends on the energy and momentum of whatever matter and energy are present, but that could be mistaken. I haven't researched the specifics.
In every one of those cases, you resisted correction by domain experts.
Hm. I can see how it might seem that way, but obviously my view differs.
Elevating your own uninformed judgment above that of domain experts is not the hallmark of intelligent project management.
This judgment assumes agreement on the appropriate domain which it seems clear is absent.
The fact that someone who claims to have been influenced by Nersessian's model has been recommending so many specific examples of unintelligent project management...
If you perceive many examples of this type, your condemnation is rational with the available information you have. Absent suspicion that there might be contextual factors which change the calculus of one's reasoning, it seems difficult to alert one to the uncertainty of their opinion.
You also
misrepresented the Rational Unified Process by claiming it recommends revision of NSF's definition of transformative research.
Of course it does not. Application of interpretations by some people of some specific principles of the Rational Unified Process within discipline appropriate translations in support of very narrow, specialist goals as understood within some specific cognitive framework about which the average scientist had never heard, etc., etc.,... with ad infinitum empiricist objections as are well known in HPS.
We can always object on the basis that X isn't empirically and completely defined for every term and for each term used in each definition.
Unfamiliarity with prominent standards (and/or dishonest misrepresentation of such standards) is not a hallmark of intelligent project management.
OK.
Speaking of NSF's definitions, you are still pretending you were criticized just for suggesting those definitions should be revised.
"Just" seems the operative word here. I don't think I ever suggested, nor to I believe criticism of me was only motivated by revising NSF definition.
You were criticized for the vagueness of your suggestion that NSF's definition of transformative research should be revised.
That is one of the criticisms raised, ignoring the merit of such criticisms.
That definition is pretty short.
Agreed.
Which specific words, phrases, or sentences do you believe to be inconsistent with "HPS experts' models for, and conceptualizations of" etc?
That's a good question which I think should be answered by the kind of process used which produced the first version.
What specific words, phrases, or sentences would you use instead?
I will probably drop offline for a time to answer that.
Refusing to answer such specific questions is not a hallmark of intelligent project management.
A valuable observation, true in more ways than you know.
Complaining about how no one understands what you mean is not a hallmark of intelligent project management.
Since I've no trouble being understood with military, policy, HPS, PM, NGO, and other audiences, I'm fairly certain I've not complained about a global situation which doesn't exist outside this tiny thread.
When no one understands, good project managers explain themselves more clearly and specifically.
Depends. I'd say good project managers weigh the costs & benefits for investing in developing and presenting more clear and specific explanations to those who indicate contempt for understanding their opinion, then make a decision based on the context.
Poor communication, bafflegab, and name-dropping are not hallmarks of intelligent project management.
True.
Because "real belief" (meaning high certainty) in a successful FTL outcome is unwarranted, (as in the YouTube graph) while cautious optimism regarding unparalleled related advantages appears to me, well-justifiable.
Even so, you continue to write as though you believe the principles of project management have something to do with your advocacy of a faster-than-light project
It would be more accurate to say that project management could be valuable for a successful FTL project. I don't think my advocacy
per se relates to PM, in that I don't think I'd ever describe it that way, no.
You have ignored repeated requests to explain why you continue to write as though project management were relevant to faster-than-light travel even after you have emphatically denied any belief that project management can be achieved by applying the principles of project management to scientific research.
I'm going to assume "FTL" was intended for the middle (2nd) use of "project management" in that sentence.
On that assumption, it would be more accurate to say that if FTL were achievable, better project management (defined as designed for this application to the degree possible) in support of the scientists would make the likelihood of creating enabling discoveries more likely, over reduced durations, at lower overall cost, and of better final quality than if we do not improve the current standards, which are in many cases: first drafts.
I hope this is not taken as ignoring another request, since if its not a typo, I don't know what it means.
Advocacy of expensive projects that are almost certain to fail is not a hallmark of intelligent project management.
An infinite number of things are not intelligent PM, project advocacy like that included.
Summary: You have not presented specific evidence that Nersessian's model enables more intelligent management of research.
If specific (empirical) evidence existed, there would be no need to recommend the change.
I'm advocating an experimental approach based on inference from disciplines which are not traditionally associated. I think I've been competent in identifying potential risks of transdisciplinary, non-traditional application, and more than fair in admitting the limitations of myself and my judgments.
True, but since that's an inappropriate standard for anyone proposing a recommendation to do something new, it seems inappropriate here.
If we were to judge the impact of Nersessian's model by reading what has been written by the one person in this thread whose thinking has been influenced by Nersessian's model, we would conclude that Nersessian's model is more likely to enable unintelligent management of research.
To repeat: that I'm a poor representative of her genius seems beyond doubt.
!
:
