Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[W.D.Clinger]

I think we both know you heard something similar, and that the similarity is comparable to the similarity between "a lightning bolt" and "a lightning bug", which is to say: a substantial difference in meaning, however close the wording.

Bafflegab.

Someone sincerely interested in clear communication would have replied, "here's what I actually said, in writing to avoid mishearing. To avoid misunderstanding, here's what I meant by it..."

Every project manager I've ever worked with or been married to* has demonstrated an unswerving commitment to clarity, simplicity, and concrete statements. Your inability to demonstrate the same almost convinces me that you're not actually what you claim to be.

In fairness to Scott Adams, Dilbert's pointy-haired manager is not entirely without correlation to the real world. Not all project managers are excellent. Somewhere out there, you might even find a project manager who isn't above average.

Instead of bemoaning communication failures, let's celebrate a recent success: BurntSynapse has finally acknowledged he doesn't really believe faster-than-light travel can be achieved by applying the principles of project management.

Although I am still uncertain of what Buck Field was trying to say at 2:35 of his video, I suspect he would explain my confusion by saying his video was produced for an audience whose education and intellect lie well outside my everyday experience.

Had Buck Field been trying to communicate with those of my limited education and intellect, he would have followed his statement at 2:35 by saying something like

What I've just said could easily be misinterpreted to mean I believe faster-than-light travel can be achieved by applying the principles of project management, much as one would apply those principles to a home improvement project. Nothing could be further from the truth....

followed by a short series of statements that compare and contrast whatever he actually meant with what people like me might think he meant.

Had he done so, however, viewers (such as myself) who are too ignorant to have understood his meaning without those footnotes might be so foolish as to ask why he is promoting a project he does not really believe can succeed (when judged by its stated objective). To anticipate and to answer that question would have required still more video footnotes. Who knows where that should end?

Explaining your ideas is hard, so it's best not to start down that path...or something like that.

Since Buck Field and BurntSynapse have shown no desire to explain their ideas to people like me, I can only speculate.

Unlike Reality Check, I believe there is value to posing concrete problems in physics and related fields. When concrete problems are proposed as goals or objectives, those goals are usually believed to be achievable, but there are many examples of revolutionary discoveries that showed some concrete goal was not actually possible to achieve. Hilbert's 23 problems provide several well-known examples of this.

Discovering the impossibility of some goal that was widely believed to be possible is more likely to be revolutionary than discovering the impossibility of some goal that was already widely believed to be impossible, so Buck Field/BurntSynapse is going about this in an odd way. It's possible that Buck Field/BurntSynapse believes applying the principles of project management to the faster-than-light objective might result in the surprising discovery that faster-than-light travel is technologically feas...

No, strike that. I momentarily forgot that, just a day or two ago, BuckField/BurntSynapse said he does not believe faster-than-light travel can be achieved by applying the principles of PM. His reasons for selecting FTL travel as a concrete objective therefore remain a complete mystery to me.

The folly of applying the principles of PM to objectives that are likely to be impossible is illustrated by some of Hilbert's problems and, more broadly, Hilbert's program. Scope management is part of PM, and one of the principles of scope management that BurntSynapse/Buck Field has touted is the importance of eliminating all efforts that cannot possibly contribute toward the project's objective. Had BurntSynapse/Buck Field been managing Hilbert's program, Gödel would not have been allowed to work toward stating and proving his celebrated incompleteness theorems.

Gödel, of course, would have ignored project managers like BurntSynapse/Buck Field. Modern physicists could do worse than emulate Gödel.

 

[Reality Check]

Unlike Reality Check, I believe there is value to posing concrete problems in physics and related fields.

Actually I do believe in the value of posing concrete problems in physics and related fields. Been there, done that .

What I not believe in is the value of BurntSynapse's undefined phrase (Nersessian's "concrete problem") which is useless until defined.

godless dave interpreted this phrase as the English 'concrete problem', i.e. as a given, well defined problem. Obviously researchers are motivated by the wish to solve given, well defined problems. Why would they want to solve an unknown, undefined problem ?

However Nersessian's "concrete problem" is likely to be Kuhn's exemplar, i.e. paradigmatic problem solutions.

 

[ben m]

This would seem fairly chancy in light of how commonly HPS provides explanations in terms like:

Einstein: "I only began to wonder about space and time when I was already grown up. In consequence I probed deeper into the problem than an ordinary child would have done."

"Rutherford, who had a few years earlier, discovered the planetary model of the atom asked Bohr to work on it because there were some problems with the model."

One of Curie's problems: discrepancy between uranium radiation and phosphoresent stuff.

Wallace and Darwin: Numerous problems with transmutation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmutation_of_species#Opposition_to_transmutation

...and with critics able to offer nothing much in contrast but accusations of "bafflegab", et al., it seems most conservative to stick with experts in the HPS field for findings in their specialty.

Here is a question.

What do you think today's scientists are already doing? The point of project management (as has been said many times) has to be to change, or improve, or optimize actual actions taken on the ground. So far, what little you have described about the Nersessian Model is stuff we're already doing---choosing concrete problems, applying problem-solving techniques, looking for paradigm-shifts that work. Your descriptions of Curie, Rutherford, Einstein, etc., sounds like a description of how modern scientists work.

This is unsurprising, to me, given that Nersessian, like all historians-of-science that I know, appears to be in the business of studying what scientists actually do---not in the business of finding things scientists ought to be doing but aren't.

 

[BurntSynapse]

There are 2 sentences in that post by godless dave:
* The (suggestion for) evidence: "I think the history of physics, chemistry, and biology research supports it."

If I read correctly that you believe the proper interpretation of the claim that GD's justification for rejecting Nersessian's theory (because he thinks assertion X) is in fact a request for evidence of a positive claim, we will simply agree to disagree.

 

[Cuddles]

I think (or hope) you know

"your claim that combining verbal diarrhoea with word salad will somehow result in science."

...is factually inaccurate, and intellectually dishonest.

No, it's entirely correct, which is exactly the problem everyone has been trying to explain to you. I think (or hope) you know that, but it's painfully obvious that you are too intellectually dishonest to ever admit it. Speaking of which, perhaps it would be more honest to make your posts in the thread they belong instead of trying to hide your snide accusations in PMs.

If one is unwilling to put forward the mental effort necessary for good skepticism, critical thinking, to foster reasonable inquiry, one should either remain silent

Indeed. Feel free to start any time.

and/or not be a JREF moderator.

Don't worry, I don't think there's any possibility you will ever be one.

 

[Reality Check]

If I read correctly ...

No, BurntSynapse.
If you read correctly then you will see that I believe that you are mistaken about the existence of Nersessian's "concrete problem".

If you read correctly then you will see that I believe that

godless dave interpreted this phrase as the English 'concrete problem', i.e. as a given, well defined problem. Obviously researchers are motivated by the wish to solve given, well defined problems. Why would they want to solve an unknown, undefined problem ?

If you read correctly then you will see that I believe that it is useless to refer to something and not define it . And once again you have done that with "Nersessian's theory", BurntSynapse.

Nancy J Nersessian

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.

If you read this correctly then you see that Nancy J Nersessian's work has nothing to do with your "some undefined project management processes will further scientific research" idea.

 

[BurntSynapse]

No, BurntSynapse.
If you read correctly then you will see that I believe that you are mistaken about the existence of Nersessian's "concrete problem".

This seems an immaterial diversion from the question of whether "I think..." and/or asking a question are properly regarded as presenting supporting evidence, as was your claim.

 

[ben m]

BS, RC, I have no idea what either of you are talking about at this point. RC, you're trying to browbeat BS for the sake of winning, not for the sake of resolving a point worth resolving. BS, you're doing some sort of bizarre procedure where you pick the least-informative detail of RC's posts and give the least-informative response that even qualifies as a response.

Meanwhile: BS, you keep mentioning Nancy Nersessian's work, but her papers cover a wide range of topics, while it sounds like you have one particular theory in mind. Please cite a paper that allows me to locate the particular Nercessian theory you're referring to.

 

[Reality Check]

This seems an immaterial diversion from the question of whether "I think..." and/or asking a question are properly regarded as presenting supporting evidence, as was your claim.

What is irrelevant is a discussion of reading comprehension. To me it is clear that godless dave proposed evidence with "I think..." and asked a question. To you, who knows .

What is remains relevant is that
* You still have not defined Nersessian's "concrete problem", BurntSynapse as I emphasized on 29 January 2014:

I will emphasize the point you missed, BurntSynapse : You still have no citation about or definition of Nersessian's "concrete problem".

* You have still not cited any of Nersessian's work on project management or alternately acknowledged that whatever Nersessian's "theory" is has nothing to do with your idea. A citation to this theory and explanation of its relevance to this thread would be good.

As far as I can find out part of Nancy J Nersessian's work is modeling current cognitive processes in science. No mention of a theory of how to create new, better cognitive processes in science.

 

[Reality Check]

BS, RC, I have no idea what either of you are talking about at this point. RC, you're trying to browbeat BS for the sake of winning,

I am trying to get BurntSynapse to actually define Nersessian's "concrete problem", hopefully with a citation to Nersessian's work. He has been ignoring the question thus the "browbeating".

 

[Perpetual Student]

I am trying to get BurntSynapse to actually define Nersessian's "concrete problem", hopefully with a citation to Nersessian's work. He has been ignoring the question thus the "browbeating".

How many references to obscure quotes, theories and speculations have we seen from BurntSynapse? Nersessian references are merely another in a plethora of such vague attempts to sound learned instead of communicating with plain language, providing evidence and making a logical point. I'm afraid this is his prime modus operandi -- seducing the weak minded with educationese and fluff, which may have some traction in the business world, but has had little success here!

 

[BurntSynapse]

BurntSynapse, please cite a particular paper of Nersessian's that describes what you refer to "Nersessian's theory".

My usual term is "The Nersessian Model" as shorthand for the overall schema outlined in 2010 with "Creating Scientific Concepts", mentioned by members of the Patrick Suppes prize committee as a factor in her inaugural win.

Deviating from strict adherence to her terms often seems a good idea when addressing non-HPS audiences, and I do this...obviously with very poor success with intelligibility in some cases.

Currently working through Westman's "The Copenican Question" involves "non-trival" effort reminiscent of reading Nersessian. It takes real dedication and interest in the author's ideas to spend 15-20 minutes on paragraphs that make no obvious sense, IMO.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Currently working through Westman's "The Copenican Question" involves "non-trival" effort reminiscent of reading Nersessian. It takes real dedication and interest in the author's ideas to spend 15-20 minutes on paragraphs that make no obvious sense, IMO.

That's wonderful! You're acquiring more ammunition for your obfuscation arsenal. Shortly, we should be hearing about the "Westman celestial conjecture."

 

[BurntSynapse]

What is irrelevant is a discussion of reading comprehension.

If one is absolutely certain of the correctness of one's own interpretation and implausibility of any alternative, including that of the author or addressee, this would be nothing more than stating common sense.

To me it is clear that godless dave proposed evidence with "I think..."

Not an opinion or level of certainty many in HPS or skepticism seem likely to adopt, but if it's unproblematic for you, OK.

 

[ben m]

My usual term is "The Nersessian Model" as shorthand for the overall schema outlined in 2010 with "Creating Scientific Concepts", mentioned by members of the Patrick Suppes prize committee as a factor in her inaugural win.

Great. Let me point out first that I have not read this book completely and don't have time to.

However, my very strong impression is that Nersessian has studied (and continues to study) what scientists already do. She is not drawing a distinction between "the sort of thinking that generates IMPORTANT PARADIGM SHIFTS" and "the sort of thinking that generates boring stuck-in-a-rut science". She is studying scientists (and nonscientists!) in their everyday thought processes and watching what they do with their brains. In fact , she studied this process by both (a) looking at historical records from Maxwell's work and (b) putting test-subjects in some sort of problem-solving situation and watching them reason their way out. Let me quote from the intro (my bold)

I argued that the historical records support the claim that conceptual change is a problem-solving process ... what stands out from this research is that in numerous instances of conceptual innovation across the sciences, the practices of analogy, visually representing, and thought-experimenting are employed ... there is an abundance of research across the sciences to support the claim that these practices are especially widespread in addressing conceptual problems. I have taken the ubiquity of these practices to indicate their significance ...

This comes back to my asking about the apparent uselessness of your revolution-management plan. Nersessian wrote a book about ubiquitous, widespread cognitive tools that scientists are already using.

I think that axes my last hope for a sensible "management" discussion from you. Geez, I was expecting you to cite an study identifying things that did happen prior to historic-paradigm-shifts, and identify that those things are not happening now; and that your management proposal would try to make those things happen. I think Anderson, Barker, and Chen may have had a fragment of such an identification, but not a useful one.

But Nersessian is miles from the mark, management-wise. This is a book about things that are already happening, all the time, as a basic definition of how scientists think.

 

[Reality Check]

...sniped irrelevant semantic stuff....

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

In 2005 Patrick Suppes, a member of the American Philosophical Society since 1991, established and funded a set of prizes to honor accomplishments in three very different and deeply significant scholarly fields that reflect the spectacular scope of his own interests. The Patrick Suppes Prize will be awarded annually, with a cycle of three years rotating each of the three subject matter areas – a prize in Philosophy with special consideration for the Philosophy of Science, a prize in Psychology, and a prize in the History of Science.

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.

...
Her analysis in this book of the complicated process Maxwell went through in finally moving away from a mechanical conception of electromagnetic phenomena to the discovery of his fundamental electromagnetic equations is probably the best work of this kind to be found in the recent literature. Dr. Nersessian’s work in this field draws from an incredible array of sources, from concepts and analyses in cognitive science to the extensive body of literature on scientific practices available in the social science field, and from her own theoretical analysis of problems to empirical data including historical documents and interviews with scholars.

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

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

 

[Perpetual Student]

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 researcha nd thus no support for your assertions, BurntSynapse.

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

As anticipated, just another Buck Field snow-job!

 

[BurntSynapse]

However, my very strong impression is that Nersessian has studied (and continues to study) what scientists already do.

We agree on this.

She is not drawing a distinction...

While I agree with the factual claim of her position, I disagree that it tells us anything about whether her lexical work extends to any particular topic, and linking them appears to be a non-sequitur.

Do we agree that the fact she studies X generally tells us nothing about whether she also does Y?

 

[BurntSynapse]

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 researcha nd thus no support for your assertions, BurntSynapse.

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

From a certain standpoint, if a no baseball analysis references physics, it could be said that physics is irrelevant to baseball.

It's not a view I'd support without lots of caveats, although it is an understandable point of view.

 

[ben m]

Do we agree that the fact she studies X generally tells us nothing about whether she also does Y?

Cooperation, much?

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.

You rejected this criticism by hawking The Nersessian Model---you made it sound, repeatedly, like your key beliefs all came straight out of this well-known and uncontrovertible history-of-science work, as though no one could question your beliefs without also contradicting the great Nersessian, and you provided this book as the source of The Nersessian Model.

And now---what? You're telling me that this book is only about X and not about Y? "The Nersessian Model", when push comes to shove, is not a well-known and uncontrovertible study of what scientists could be doing differently?

If you wanted me to continue thinking you're a crackpot whose superficially-expert/scholarly talk is all just misdirection (aka bafflegab), you just did a great job.