Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[BurntSynapse]

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

The relevance has been restated since this comment; if it needs another, I can do so again.

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

As a new, relatively robust tool in understanding scientific creativity, members of this narrow discipline can be considered "experts" whose judgement is to be one of the primary resources to work closely with management and administration according to the PMBOK, which defines such work as a project manager responsibility in Sec. 1.6 to work "closely and in collaboration with other roles, such as a business analyst, quality assurance manager, and subject matter experts."

Project team experts are described in Sec. 2.3 as "Supporting experts perform activities required to develop or execute the project management plan. These can include such roles as contracting, financial management, logistics, legal, safety, engineering, test, or quality control. Depending on the size of the project and level of support required, supporting experts may be assigned to work full time or may just participate on the team when their particular skills are required."

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.

As stated a number of times, the initial project is to modify admin standards, primarily definitions and assessment criteria for research proposals, portfolio performance, program alignment with high-level goals, etc.

Good project management avoids attempting exact definitions of downstream consequences in the manner you describe.

Even if the focus of the current effort were within a specific, non-trivially complex science project, early in planning, when uncertainty is high, the team should not try to define details very far...at all. To do so would conflict with the principle of progressive elaboration sketched in the video http://www.youtube.com....../watch?v=3Rt90u1a7Pc around 4:30.

This is not to say we cannot be fairly confident in some near-term modifications to administration guidelines that would be appropriate, as already explained. That explanation was previously ridiculed as merely "...changing some words". In a venue where criticism of this level merits no objection, investing much time in generating application scenarios would seem wasted. Your accurate perception of some reticence on my part stems from that.

To get back to your primary focus, I think organizations like NSF should revise their standards for consistency with HPS experts' models for, and conceptualizations of "transformative" and 'revolutionary" science - near term, specific changes.

As a thought experiment related to where transformation is explicitly called for, I propose to consider what structural and organizational support systems would be most helpful to successful research if the Earth faced destruction within a few decades, and reaching a habitable world some tens of light years away were our only available means of survival. This seems, IMO to offer a Nersessian Model "specific problem", motivation for Kuhn's "loosening" of "normal-science" rules that have seemed in the past to accompany theoretical changes "as dramatic as any that have come before" cited in the Quantum Universe report.

 

[The Man]

The relevance has been restated since this comment; if it needs another, I can do so again.

As a new, relatively robust tool in understanding scientific creativity, members of this narrow discipline can be considered "experts" whose judgement is to be one of the primary resources to work closely with management and administration according to the PMBOK, which defines such work as a project manager responsibility in Sec. 1.6 to work "closely and in collaboration with other roles, such as a business analyst, quality assurance manager, and subject matter experts."

Project team experts are described in Sec. 2.3 as "Supporting experts perform activities required to develop or execute the project management plan. These can include such roles as contracting, financial management, logistics, legal, safety, engineering, test, or quality control. Depending on the size of the project and level of support required, supporting experts may be assigned to work full time or may just participate on the team when their particular skills are required."

“a project manager responsibility” or ‘the project manager’s responsibility’? Which is to say, is it your contention that in this “Nersessian model” it is the responsibility of just any project manager to determine what experts should be consulted and what activities they should be required to perform? If not then some project managers are explicitly excluded from making those determinations in this “Nersessian model”.

As stated a number of times, the initial project is to modify admin standards, primarily definitions and assessment criteria for research proposals, portfolio performance, program alignment with high-level goals, etc.

Great, so ‘initially’ what would those proposed modifications be? If you just don’t know then perhaps your “initial project” should actually be trying to define the changes you do want to make and why.

As related to the topic of this thread a common tactic of crackpots is to "modify" "primarily definitions" as to be inclusive of their notions when initially they were not. Naturally that doesn't make the modification of all definitions exclusively the venue of the crackpots. Definitions change over time as a natural course of language which is why it is so important to understand how these other deliberately modified definitions might change things and why.

Good project management avoids attempting exact definitions of downstream consequences in the manner you describe.

Advantageous, since even “attempting exact definitions of downstream consequences” is rather difficult if one can’t define how they would “modify admin standards, primarily definitions and assessment criteria for research proposals, portfolio performance, program alignment with high-level goals, etc.” even if just initially.

Even if the focus of the current effort were within a specific, non-trivially complex science project, early in planning, when uncertainty is high, the team should not try to define details very far...at all. To do so would conflict with the principle of progressive elaboration sketched in the video http://www.youtube.com....../watch?v=3Rt90u1a7Pc around 4:30.

Sorry, I'm still not interested in argument via youtube, if you do in fact have a point you should make it here.

This is not to say we cannot be fairly confident in some near-term modifications to administration guidelines that would be appropriate, as already explained.

So why not say ‘fairly, we shouldn't be confident that some near-term modifications to administration guidelines would be appropriate until those modifications are better defined, examined and understood’? Particularly if one is intentionally avoiding defining both those “near-term modifications to administration guidelines” and “downstream consequences”, then a lack of confidence seems a fairly reasonable approach.

That explanation was previously ridiculed as merely "...changing some words". In a venue where criticism of this level merits no objection, investing much time in generating application scenarios would seem wasted. Your accurate perception of some reticence on my part stems from that.

“merits no objection” you say? So the "...changing some words" criticism was valid in such a “venue”? No wonder you’re reticent. Perhaps you meant to assert that you feel it merited some objections (by others) but just didn’t get any. In any case one way to show that you’re not just "...changing some words" might be to actually invest at least some “time in generating application scenarios”. As your reticence in that regard has indeed garnered some criticism even just in this, well, venue.

To get back to your primary focus, I think organizations like NSF should revise their standards for consistency with HPS experts' models for, and conceptualizations of "transformative" and 'revolutionary" science - near term, specific changes.

Great, which just comes back to what seems to be your singular compliant that “organizations like NSF” aren’t relying on certain experts as much as you or they would like.

As a thought experiment related to where transformation is explicitly called for, I propose to consider what structural and organizational support systems would be most helpful to successful research if the Earth faced destruction within a few decades, and reaching a habitable world some tens of light years away were our only available means of survival. This seems, IMO to offer a Nersessian Model "specific problem", motivation for Kuhn's "loosening" of "normal-science" rules that have seemed in the past to accompany theoretical changes "as dramatic as any that have come before" cited in the Quantum Universe report.

Well what “structural and organizational support systems would be most helpful to” any research? Where exactly do you see that “transformation is explicitly called for” other than narrowing the scope of research and application of resources to focus just on your “specific problem"? By all means please list these “"normal-science" rules”, what ones you think would undergo some “"loosening"”, how they would change and why.

 

[Reality Check]

Still waiting for:
BurntSynapse, please cite, quote or describe the "Nersessian Model"
First asked 5th February 2014.

BurntSynapse, Please define Nersessian's "concrete problem"
First asked 29 January 2014.

 

[ben m]

As a new, relatively robust tool in understanding scientific creativity, members of this narrow discipline can be considered "experts" ...

Project team experts are described in Sec. 2.3 as ...

You were asked for quotations or information about the Nersessian model, i.e. by people seeking to understand what, if anything you've learned about scientific thought and revolutions. You responded by citing PMBOK telling us that it's OK for management to bring in experts.

Your inability to understand the difference between these two is stunning.

As a thought experiment related to where transformation is explicitly called for, I propose to consider what structural and organizational support systems would be most helpful to successful research if the Earth faced destruction within a few decades, and reaching a habitable world some tens of light years away were our only available means of survival. This seems, IMO to offer a Nersessian Model "specific problem", motivation for Kuhn's "loosening" of "normal-science" rules that have seemed in the past to accompany theoretical changes "as dramatic as any that have come before" cited in the Quantum Universe report.

Wow. Just----wow.

Once again, I see the signs of complete and utter ignorance of what scientists have already done (and are doing) to understand spacetime, and a bizarre sci-fi-saturated misreading of the HPS literature.

No, I don't think that offers a "Nersessian Model specific problem". Dude. I don't think it's even close. I think you failed to understand Nersessian's use of "problem" and substituted---I dunno, maybe Jeff Probst's. "The slowest scientist to finish the race will be voted off the island!"

 

[Dancing David]

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.

More handwriting, where is your exact citation and quote and notably lacking is of course any reference by you of a specific example as to how this would work.

So it seems to me to be just rhetorical posturing without substance.

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.

Again you have drifted in more rhetorical wool gathering (seemingly), you lack any specifics of implementation and its seems to me to be all just magical thinking.

When do you plant to state how any of this would be implemented, in a specific example?

 

[Dancing David]

The relevance has been restated since this comment; if it needs another, I can do so again.



As a new, relatively robust tool in understanding scientific creativity, members of this narrow discipline can be considered "experts" whose judgement is to be one of the primary resources to work closely with management and administration according to the PMBOK, which defines such work as a project manager responsibility in Sec. 1.6 to work "closely and in collaboration with other roles, such as a business analyst, quality assurance manager, and subject matter experts."

Project team experts are described in Sec. 2.3 as "Supporting experts perform activities required to develop or execute the project management plan. These can include such roles as contracting, financial management, logistics, legal, safety, engineering, test, or quality control. Depending on the size of the project and level of support required, supporting experts may be assigned to work full time or may just participate on the team when their particular skills are required."


As stated a number of times, the initial project is to modify admin standards, primarily definitions and assessment criteria for research proposals, portfolio performance, program alignment with high-level goals, etc.

Good project management avoids attempting exact definitions of downstream consequences in the manner you describe.

Even if the focus of the current effort were within a specific, non-trivially complex science project, early in planning, when uncertainty is high, the team should not try to define details very far...at all. To do so would conflict with the principle of progressive elaboration sketched in the video http://www.youtube.com....../watch?v=3Rt90u1a7Pc around 4:30.

This is not to say we cannot be fairly confident in some near-term modifications to administration guidelines that would be appropriate, as already explained. That explanation was previously ridiculed as merely "...changing some words". In a venue where criticism of this level merits no objection, investing much time in generating application scenarios would seem wasted. Your accurate perception of some reticence on my part stems from that.

To get back to your primary focus, I think organizations like NSF should revise their standards for consistency with HPS experts' models for, and conceptualizations of "transformative" and 'revolutionary" science - near term, specific changes.

As a thought experiment related to where transformation is explicitly called for, I propose to consider what structural and organizational support systems would be most helpful to successful research if the Earth faced destruction within a few decades, and reaching a habitable world some tens of light years away were our only available means of survival. This seems, IMO to offer a Nersessian Model "specific problem", motivation for Kuhn's "loosening" of "normal-science" rules that have seemed in the past to accompany theoretical changes "as dramatic as any that have come before" cited in the Quantum Universe report.

Notably lacking is any attempt at specifics, instead you engage in rhetoric, I begin to feel that is all you have.

So provide an example of how this might be implemented, no points for more rhetoric, how exactly in any problem would this happen.

It seems to be loose associations and magical thinking to me, I hope you can change your response and provide an imaginary example of what any of your proposal would mean in concrete specific terms.

 

[Perpetual Student]

It seems to be loose associations and magical thinking to me, ...

BINGO!

 

[AlBell]

Still waiting for:
BurntSynapse, please cite, quote or describe the "Nersessian Model"
First asked 5th February 2014.

BurntSynapse, Please define Nersessian's "concrete problem"
First asked 29 January 2014.

BS is probably waiting to assign a project manager to answer those questions.

 

[AlBell]

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.

That might make sense once you tell us what the model is and why you find it relevant.

Bye. I'm off to nail jello to the wall.

 

[The Man]

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.

That might make sense once you tell us what the model is and why you find it relevant.

Bye. I'm off to nail jello to the wall.

Wait, what?

He just told you, "its specificity"!

What?!?!

You want some specificity on that specificity?!?!?



(somehow that sounds a bit familiar, needing specificity on the specificity)



Of course the previous assertion that “Her model speaks to paradigm shifts as a type of cognitive change in the way lactation in mammals speaks to cows nursing calves” speaks to specificity in the way a bug zapper speaks to mosquitoes…










BZZZZZZZZT

 

[AlBell]

Wait, what?

He just told you, "its specificity"!

What?!?!

You want some specificity on that specificity?!?!?



(somehow that sounds a bit familiar, needing specificity on the specificity)



Of course the previous assertion that “Her model speaks to paradigm shifts as a type of cognitive change in the way lactation in mammals speaks to cows nursing calves” speaks to specificity in the way a bug zapper speaks to mosquitoes…










BZZZZZZZZT

Want to hold the jello up?

 

[The Man]

Want to hold the jello up?

Naw, I'd give myself hernia tying to heave that much jello off the floor.

 

[AlBell]

Naw, I'd give myself hernia tying to heave that much jello off the floor.

I intend to start with a 1" cube.

 

[The Man]

I intend to start with a 1" cube.

Well, given that initial specificity, count me in. Though I expect only a near-term jello to wall retention.

 

[AlBell]

Well, given that initial specificity, count me in. Though I expect only a near-term jello to wall retention.

I expect no retention time. Maybe a 16 penny nail is needed?

 

[The Man]

16 pennies for a nail!!! Dang, that must be some nail.

 

[BurntSynapse]

To BurntSynapse: An cordial invitation to cite, quote or describe the "Nersessian Model" so that a discussion is possible.

What I call the Nersessian Model is her representation of scientific creativity presented in the book Creating Scientific Concepts.

Or for that matter: BurntSynapse, Please define Nersessian's "concrete problem"
First asked 29 January 2014.

Not sure its defined in CSC, but she does reference her use of "problem" by citing "Gentner & Stevens, 1983", "Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2002" and others.

To my knowledge, no one in the field has invested much effort (yet) in developing the sorts of detailed definitions that start new philosophical arguments, but maybe they have.

Lack of rigorous definition is not generally regarded as an obstacle to doing valuable work. For example: "gene" was used for about 50 years before any plausible DNA links were posited seriously. Quarks are still only empirically linked via extremely torturous webs of synthetic theoretical statements. Most famous: "Pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

I admit don't know her precise meaning, or even if she has one. My understanding of her use was more or less problem

Also look at Mental Modeling in Conceptual Change (PDF)

Interesting citation. My use of the problem concept is relatively peripheral, especially when compared to its centrality in "Mental Modeling in Conceptual Change". That paper uses the undefined term "problem" over 50 times and is a core concept of the work. If lack of explicit definition is a problem in peripheral cases, it would seem a much greater problem with a very great deal of academia.

Since no evidence supporting the existence of such a problem has been presented, the repeated insistence on the objection seems to speak more to a priority of finding objections, regardless of merit. Something I catch myself doing several times a week despite a hope (and efforts) to avoid such things as much as I can.

 

[Reality Check]

What I call the Nersessian Model is her representation of scientific creativity presented in the book Creating Scientific Concepts.

So there is no "model" just a "representation", BurntSynapse?
You now have to describe the "Nersessian Representation":
BurntSynapse, please cite, quote or describe the "Nersessian Model Representation"
Remember to add her extensive application of project management .
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 ).

Not sure its defined in CSC, but she does reference her use of "problem" by ...

And "problem" is also referred to and even defined in dictionaries !
The question is

BurntSynapse, Please define Nersessian's "concrete problem"
First asked 29 January 2014.

I did the reasonable thing which I mentioned before and found a (maybe the actual) definition of "concrete problem" in her book.

 

[AlBell]

16 pennies for a nail!!! Dang, that must be some nail.

IIRC 'penny' was a measure from long ago and likely was the cost then of what was, and is, a large nail.

 

[ben m]

What I call the Nersessian Model is her representation of scientific creativity presented in the book Creating Scientific Concepts.

Which consists of ... what?

(Have you ever run into the thing where people refer to a specification but nobody know what it means? "How are we going to test that material?" "Oh, just use MIL spec G-99823." "I'm not familiar with that. It consists of what?" "It calls for ASTM 323B and NSF 99.7a." "I mean, can you walk me through the test procedure?" "The test procedure is to read MIL-G-99823, start at the beginning and follow the steps." "Yes, yes, but ... what IS it? Don't you know?" "MIL specs are specifications documents defined by US military procurement officers. Does that help? They are written and refined by experts, so you are acting very strangely to question them.")