Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[tsig]

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

I'm sure that as soon as he gets his priorities prioritized, his objects objectified and studies studied we will get an approach to the beginning on the entrance of the road to a possible solution provided that we can comfortably consensus on the methodology.

 

[tsig]

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


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



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.

I do that too except sometimes I don't catch myself and fall into a conflicting morass of cliches that clings to the mind like ghostly remembrances of sales meetings past.

 

[tsig]

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.")

"That's against the rules"

"What are the rules?"

"I don't know but that's agin 'em"
:

 

[BurntSynapse]

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

I'm not sure about "primarily", but modeling certainly seems a major focus.

As she appears to be engaged in science in the course of HPS, it seems fair to conclude her model of scientific cognition would, if correct, apply to her own work as well.

 

[BurntSynapse]

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.

This suggests "world-historic revolutions" are not within the larger category of "conceptual change". This is an unusual interpretation, running against what seems the generally accepted framework in HPS.

 

[BurntSynapse]

And so again, how would this apply to any of the current or potential research...take any field that borders ob FTL and explain how specifically this model would be applied.

Plenty of examples and explanations are given, but the reason they are not registering as such is because of an apparent misconception that specific impacts can be predicted for general administrative changes.

If we get a more intelligent, better manager, it does not enable us to predict any specific ways in which that will impact our work activity or output. This should not lead us to reject the idea that obtaining a better manager is a good idea.

I advocate improving the quality of management & administration of research. The objection is repeated raised that I've not provided specific research results improvements that should be expected moving forward, but this would be an improper standard for policy. We can only measure improved/degraded performance in aggregate, and can provide specific impacts only after the fact.

Ship analogy: navigation does not help a specific ship go any faster, in fact: any resources that otherwise go into nav tend to make it go slower. If one only focuses on speed, the idea of stopping to upgrade the nav gear seems crazy; Even if new gear was much better (as advocates had claimed it would be), it still wouldn't be worth stopping for the upgrade based on speed.

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.

Improving the specific research project consequences is not the role of policy, nor a goal of policy recommendations, just as increasing speed is not the job of navigation. The case for better navigation is not bafflegab simply because a nav advocate is always been unable to explain how it will improve speed.

Management & admin policy improvement has worked in the past, and is inferred on that basis to be worthwhile. Forward application of how specific research will be impacted, with the sort of detail your request implies is very uncertain - and the widespread opinion in many fields (including business and science) seems to be that detailed speculation at some level of uncertainty becomes unwise.

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.

Documenting potential representations and/or analogies seem plausible additions to a standard work breakdown structure template for research project planning. This could provide teams exposure to new ways of representing and thinking about their research question. Generally, availability of such resources tends to be a plus.

 

[steenkh]

I advocate improving the quality of management & administration of research. The objection is repeated raised that I've not provided specific research results improvements that should be expected moving forward, but this would be an improper standard for policy. We can only measure improved/degraded performance in aggregate, and can provide specific impacts only after the fact.

Improvement is always a good thing, but can you point to specifically where the present management & administration of research needs improvement?

 

[Cuddles]

If we get a more intelligent, better manager, it does not enable us to predict any specific ways in which that will impact our work activity or output. This should not lead us to reject the idea that obtaining a better manager is a good idea.

I think just about everyone in this thread would agree that obtaining a more intelligent, better manager would be a good idea.

 

[The Man]

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

AFAIR as well. Just having some fun until the next load of jello splatters against the wall.


Oh wait, look^^^

 

[ben m]

I advocate improving the quality of management & administration of research. The objection is repeated raised that I've not provided specific research results improvements that should be expected moving forward,

Can I be totally blunt? No it hasn't.

The objection has been raised that you are a charlatan who doesn't know what you're talking about. We have attempted to prompt you to rebut that in any way whatsoever.

Examples of "improvements that should be expected" might have been part of a general rebuttal---but, ah, I see, that's a no.

Can you rebut it by relating your ideas clearly to their scholarly foundation?
Nope. Can you rebut it by providing evidence that you've read and understood any relevant document other than PMBOK? "read" maybe, "understood" no. Can you rebut it by showing that there exists a category of scientific activity which is a candidate for management? Nope. Can you rebut it by war-gaming the management of past revolutions? Noooope. Can you rebut it by writing a sci-fi-style story showing a hypothetical illustration of what science management could look like, with of course the caveat that the real world details need to be determined procedurally etc.? Not that either, of course not.

Can you rebut it by providing any evidence at all that you've applied any brainpower whatsoever to any aspect of the middle part of the problem---the part that lies between the brain-dead starting point "management boilerplate applies to everything" and the wish-fulfillment-based endpoint "starships need new physics"? NOPE.

You had a million chances to rebut, and you couldn't. I conclude that you are a charlatan who doesn't know what you are talking about.

 

[The Man]

I'm not sure about "primarily", but modeling certainly seems a major focus.

Nor was I sure, hence the "Sounds like" preference.

As she appears to be engaged in science in the course of HPS, it seems fair to conclude her model of scientific cognition would, if correct, apply to her own work as well.

Well even if she didn’t consider her work to be a “model” per se, the cognitive and scientific aspects would still seem applicable.

How about, instead of just remarking to both the explicitly and implicitly obvious you actually speak to and of the "specificity" you referenced earlier with at least just some amount of specificity as opposed to just by metaphor. That shouldn't be hard, as specificity tends to be, you know, specific.


As this…

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

…tends to indicate that “the Nersessian Model” is just an ascription of your own choosing that wasn't referenced in the work with any, well, specificity.

 

[The Man]

Plenty of examples and explanations are given, but the reason they are not registering as such is because of an apparent misconception that specific impacts can be predicted for general administrative changes.

That misconception is entirely yours. What you have been asked for first are the specific administrative changes you want. If you just don’t know then the specific impact is that you just don’t know what you want.

If we get a more intelligent, better manager, it does not enable us to predict any specific ways in which that will impact our work activity or output. This should not lead us to reject the idea that obtaining a better manager is a good idea.

Sure it does. If the problem is poor management, if it isn’t then “a more intelligent, better manager” won’t be much of a solution. Say how would you know if you had gotten “a more intelligent, better manager” if you can’t predict “any specific ways in which that will impact our work activity or output”?

I advocate improving the quality of management & administration of research. The objection is repeated raised that I've not provided specific research results improvements that should be expected moving forward, but this would be an improper standard for policy. We can only measure improved/degraded performance in aggregate, and can provide specific impacts only after the fact.

No the objection remains that you have not provided specific problems that need to be resolved or action that you would take to rectify said problems. Advocating “improving the quality of management & administration of research” and strawmaning will not help you redress that objection.

Ship analogy: navigation does not help a specific ship go any faster, in fact: any resources that otherwise go into nav tend to make it go slower. If one only focuses on speed, the idea of stopping to upgrade the nav gear seems crazy; Even if new gear was much better (as advocates had claimed it would be), it still wouldn't be worth stopping for the upgrade based on speed.

Bad analogy, navigation can have a significant impact on speed. Not just by the effect of currents and altering available routes but improved navigation can make increasing speed safer.

Improving the specific research project consequences is not the role of policy, nor a goal of policy recommendations, just as increasing speed is not the job of navigation. The case for better navigation is not bafflegab simply because a nav advocate is always been unable to explain how it will improve speed.

Increasing speed may not be the job of navigation but with specific increases in navigation ability will come specific potential for increased speed. That you simply don’t seem to understand what you are talking about (in your analogy or otherwise), the problems you want to resolve or how you would correct them with any specificity whatsoever demonstrates that it is just bafflegab

Management & admin policy improvement has worked in the past, and is inferred on that basis to be worthwhile. Forward application of how specific research will be impacted, with the sort of detail your request implies is very uncertain - and the widespread opinion in many fields (including business and science) seems to be that detailed speculation at some level of uncertainty becomes unwise.

Changing the battery in a car has worked in the past as well. Except of course when the battery just isn’t the problem. Now not knowing what the problem is, just changing the battery might not be that costly an option and, heck, even if it doesn’t work you still got a new battery. Changing “Management & admin policy” can have serious consequences particularly when you just don’t know what the actual problem is or what specific changes you want to make.

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.

Documenting potential representations and/or analogies seem plausible additions to a standard work breakdown structure template for research project planning. This could provide teams exposure to new ways of representing and thinking about their research question. Generally, availability of such resources tends to be a plus.

So the bafflegab just rolls on and on and on and….



ETA: I should at least note that the last part seemed finally to be a recommendation with some specificity. Namely “documenting potential representational analogies” unfortunately, for BurntSynapse but fortunately for others, science doesn’t work by analogy and, more to the point of this thread, over application (often exclusive application) of analogies is the basis for a heck of a lot of crackpot physics. So quite to the contrary, I see that as exacerbating an existing problem (more fuel for the crackpots) while trying to address one that just doesn’t seem to exist (scientists not thinking about things in different ways).

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not sure about "primarily", but modeling certainly seems a major focus.

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

One objective of this research is to extend my analysis of model-based reasoning from conceptual models to physical and computational models."

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".

 

[BurntSynapse]

It says something new and specific about paradigm shifts in particular (not just about model-building as a scientific habit of thought)?

In terms of the spectrum of cognitive change, I think her references do recategorize what is commonly called "paradigm shifts" by placing them at one end of a spectrum of cognitive change in a manner that is new and specific, yes.

Whether this is "about" paradigm shift specifically seems less certain, and I think both yes/no positions defensible.

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?

I'm uncertain what referent is meant by "that".

Nobody believes this claim of yours...

Within an infinitesimally small corner of the internet chosen for it's potential for hostility? That's partially correct.

Many claims did receive support which seemed as irrational and poorly-informed as most of the criticism. The support seemed about average for criticism in this venue regarding interest in accuracy for my position. This level of interest is far below any with which I've previously interacted. One of the Starship Vlog episodes has the head of NASA education asking me to put the presentation online for later reference. Being invited to present and JSC and in Huntsville, you'll understand my taking your assertion with a grain of salt.

...you've provided no convincing arguments that the claim is correct,

You yourself simultaneously seem to claim that my position is unexplained and without merit - an obvious fallacy.

This is like skeptics who claim pseudo-scientists' propositions are both unfalsifiable and proven to be wrong - when they clearly can't be both.

My available evidence (starting with the thread title) is that participants in this group are interested in coming up with narratives in which others are inferior "crackpots"...thus their crackpot ideas. There is an obvious psychological payoff of being "in the know" and having "special knowledge" common to any conspiracy theorist community.

Investing time in understanding claims runs at cross purpose to such priorities, so I disagree with your presumption that in this venue "convincing" is a reasonable expectation. I wouldn't go to a 9/11 conspiracy thread and try to convince members of improvements to structural engineering for example.

If we can summarize what we think someone claims, in a manner they agree communicates their intent, then I think our criticism has some minimal level of credibility.

Want me to take criticism seriously? Either get lucky (which has happened here) or state a position I endorse as accurate and criticize that.

...scraps of concrete proposals that were flatly counterproductive...

I'm having a house built right now. Workers taking time to do taxes is flatly counterproductive and costly to me, but I don't have a choice between production with admin overhead and production without it. Production without administrative overhead simply can't get done. The choice is between progress incurring "counterproductive" overhead vs. no progress. For the house to get built, loads of time, money, and effort go into other things. That's life in the real world where we have to accomplish stuff.

At the Sloan school, they call this overhead "facilitating processes", and every MBA has to demonstrate familiarity with them prior to graduating.

Physics research is not only disembodied minds working to tease out the mysteries of the universe, (which it includes) it's also facilities, budgets, schedules, office politics, taxes, personalities, and dealing with management and administrative facilitating processes to keep the science going.

We would have to be extremely provincial and naive not to see that facilitating processes are needed, and I tend to doubt this is not understood on some level. Might this be enough to provide a foundation for finding my claims "convincing"? Doubtful.

Good thing I'm not depending on convincing anyone my claims are correct. I do hope I can convince critics to attack with well-informed objections to accurate understanding of my ideas, however. That holds the potential for both me and my critic to learn and improve.

 

[ben m]

I'm having a house built right now. Workers taking time to do taxes is flatly counterproductive and costly to me, but I don't have a choice between production with admin overhead and production without it. Production without administrative overhead simply can't get done. The choice is between progress incurring "counterproductive" overhead vs. no progress. For the house to get built, loads of time, money, and effort go into other things. That's life in the real world where we have to accomplish stuff.

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

Some management results in objectively wasted time and effort. Do you deny that this is possible? (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? This is, after all, life in the real world where we have to accomplish stuff.

 

[Kid Eager]

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.

 

[Dancing David]

Plenty of examples and explanations are given, but the reason they are not registering as such is because of an apparent misconception that specific impacts can be predicted for general administrative changes.

If we get a more intelligent, better manager, it does not enable us to predict any specific ways in which that will impact our work activity or output. This should not lead us to reject the idea that obtaining a better manager is a good idea.

I advocate improving the quality of management & administration of research. The objection is repeated raised that I've not provided specific research results improvements that should be expected moving forward, but this would be an improper standard for policy. We can only measure improved/degraded performance in aggregate, and can provide specific impacts only after the fact.

Ship analogy: navigation does not help a specific ship go any faster, in fact: any resources that otherwise go into nav tend to make it go slower. If one only focuses on speed, the idea of stopping to upgrade the nav gear seems crazy; Even if new gear was much better (as advocates had claimed it would be), it still wouldn't be worth stopping for the upgrade based on speed.



Improving the specific research project consequences is not the role of policy, nor a goal of policy recommendations, just as increasing speed is not the job of navigation. The case for better navigation is not bafflegab simply because a nav advocate is always been unable to explain how it will improve speed.

Management & admin policy improvement has worked in the past, and is inferred on that basis to be worthwhile. Forward application of how specific research will be impacted, with the sort of detail your request implies is very uncertain - and the widespread opinion in many fields (including business and science) seems to be that detailed speculation at some level of uncertainty becomes unwise.

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.

Documenting potential representations and/or analogies seem plausible additions to a standard work breakdown structure template for research project planning. This could provide teams exposure to new ways of representing and thinking about their research question. Generally, availability of such resources tends to be a plus.

And once again, your ideas mean nothing practically, you are just spinning words.

I read your post, and I read it again.

You have nothing but empty words.

Just moonbeams and lollipops dressed up in business speak.

I once again sugegst you read Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century by Kragh,
(http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Generations-History-Physics-Twentieth/dp/0691095523)
seriously your understanding of what makes for research and progress is so flawed as to be based on a real lack of knowledge. Then read
Strange Beauty: Murray Gell-Mann and the Revolution in Twentieth-Century by Johnson
(http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Beauty-Gell-Mann-Revolution-Twentieth-Century/dp/0679756884).

I can recommend any number of such works about science and paradigm shifts , and I challenge you to read them and then come back and say exactly how your 'project management' solutions has any relevance whatsoever.

Thew first book discusses at least five major shifts that occurred in a very short period,(Rutherford, Pauli, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Fermi, Bohr and Yukawa) I think you lack knowledge. I challenge you again to read them and then say how your ideas would apply in any way.


seriously, read Kragh's books and find where you think you could have made a singe change to improve the events.

 

[Dancing David]

for example: listing Plato's Cave shadow as a potential metaphor for our observations of space-time.

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.

 

[GlennB]

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.

Is this a parody of post-modernism as applied to actual science? If so, I'll nominate it

 

[GlennB]

Plato's cave? What bogus meta cognitive twaddle,
.....

Damn. Post-modernistic piffle (or some similar poop), just as you say. Ninja'd already, and nobody even knew what was being said

eta: I suspect reading all of BS's stuff might burn out any remaining functional synapses I have ... but has he mentioned the square root of -1 yet?