January 05, 2004

• It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics. Bzzzzt! Thanks for playing!
• I hope you don't dismiss the entire paper because of that one heresy.
• What about those people like me? I started out super interested in programming, and was quite capable. I got tired of it after my first year in college (maybe it was the switch to academia, who knows) but I've switched to searching for a liberal arts major now. I have a friend who did the same thing! Might it be that these things other than 'hard' science actually have value? My old english professor keeps tabs on developments in physics. In fact, he factors much of that into philosophy! Then there are also scienctists who dare not dabble outside their field! It swings both ways baby. There are smart people on both sides of the aisle. This article is a juvenile rambling piece of trash. I've only read the above quote from wolof but any article willing to make such an absurd and bigoted statement isn't worth further reading.
• Gyan, sorry, too late. I allready did, I suppose now I'll go back and read the entire article. :)
• I hope you don't dismiss the entire paper because of that one heresy. No, I dismiss it because it's woolgathering. The quote given is for purposes of illustration only.
• I've only read the above quote from wolof but any article willing to make such an absurd and bigoted statement isn't worth further reading. You have just illustrated the point the author made.
• If you can think things so outside the box that they'd make people's hair stand on end, you'll have no trouble with the small trips outside the box that people call innovative. He's "thinking outside the box". I would prefer him to "think" his way out of the "wet paper bag". No Nietzsche, this fellow.
• This essay hits home for me. I don't think people have a depth of appreciation for how vicious academia can be. We live under an illusion that we can say anything; that we have true freedom to air our opinions openly and honestly without repercussions. In reality, we're at the mercy of the entity in power, and often survival depends upon staying under the radar of those who would find themselves threatened by your opinions. This happens in academia more that people think; the tenure system is supposed to prevent this, yet in many situations in results in having just the opposite effect. If you're on a tenure track, sometimes survival is dependent upon keeping your mouth shut until you get tenure, at which point you've forgotten why you were fighting for tenure in the first place.
• That was no heresey. It was a simply disproven bit of weak philosophy. I'll get my lazy ass up and read the paper if you care to disprove me in a less cryptic fashion. I don't have all the time in the world to read some guy's multi-page rambling solution to all life(tm). Otherwise I'd be mired in blogland all day.
• You know, I'm really glad I matriculated at a time when a "liberal education" was ok. The fact that you had survived the "bridge of fools" by getting a degree meant that you could survive very well in the world. While completing my majors, I had plenty of time to love English courses, French literature, semantics, foreign languages that weren't specific to a degree program, history, physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy etc. It's my impression (correct me if I'm wrong)that it's all become so competive now that the only "valuable" studies are math, engineering and other hard sciences, and that there's less flexibility in the optional courses one can take. Sort a a moralistic view that taking "soft" subjects, which are really culturally important subjects, somehow makes one less able to cope with the world. I have to admit that, later in life, I wished I could go back and get an engineering education only because I like to know how things work, but I wouldn't give up my "soft" studies for anything. That other stuff is just a job without giving one knowledge that make life broader and more interesting than work, IMO.
• Path-- As a card-carrying though poorly-paid purveyor of all things Liberal Arts (college theatre professor, professional actor, wastrel) I applaud your choices. And I urge you to satisfy your hunger for things scientific by taking classes at local community colleges, reading up on some of the more digestible engineering books and magazines, and seeking out others of your yen for conversation. Lifelong learning--the sign of a well-exercised mind! I'm pleased to know you.
• "...WITH your yen...", or "...of your ILK..." or something better. And Dr. Z-- regarding tenure--truer words were never spoken. Academia is BRUTAL.
• What a tedious paper. I'll only gripe about this bit. When he asks, "Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?" Which peers and what does reluctant mean? If by "peers", he means the people I see on weekends, then no, it's hard to think of opinions I'd be reluctant to share with them. There are things I could say to these guys that they'd disagree with, maybe even violently, and this happens from time to time. But unless I didn't feel like arguing, I wouldn't be reluctant about doing so. However, if by peers he means the people I spend Monday through Friday with or the people I spent Christmas with, then absolutely. And here "reluctant" means "reluctant about losing my job" or "reluctant about making Grama worry I'm going to hell." It's an idiotic question and it ignores the very real possibility that you select at least some of your peers based on your compatibility with them. .
• I had an opinion but I'm afraid of speaking out about it.
• 'Think outside the box' has become the new box. For a refreshing antidote to the 'think outside the box' mentality, see this article .
• One must learn to read with patience something one may disagree strongly with when someone else offers it to you in an amicable manner, like Gyan did. After reading it state clearly what you didn't like and why. It's an insult to tell him that you stopped reading it because you didn't liked some comments. If you stopped reading because you didn't have the patience then keep your mouth shut about it. I may disagree with some opinions expressed in the article, especially what Wolof and CellarFloor pointed out, but I also agree with Dr. Zira. I believe there's an equal amount of closed minded people in hard and soft sciences. And there's a lot of social pressure on both sides to make things stay the same. It was an interesting read after all. By the way, Mackerel, you don't seem to have read the article carefully. The author clearly addresses your opinion.
• Aliens Cause Global Warming That is a speech given by Michael Crichton about how scientific consensus is bs. An excerpt: Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. Although the speech is quite weighty and bogged down by really scientific examples, I felt it was appropos to this discussion because it's about the inherent lack of innovation in scientific process. Although a bit long and overwritten, I found Gyan's article interesting in that it calls upon people to really think about beliefs and ideas that they have and come across in the future. I think it's very telling that the monkeys here are having such a visceral reaction to it.
• Interesting - I always thought the hard sciences had "it" easier because they can point to empirical data, but I appreciate the point about science/consensus. Someday I'll build the perfect study to prove beyond doubt that robots are, in fact, stealing my luggage.
• petebest Upto a point. What typically happens in hard sciences is that you have some empirical data, but not all. Hence you have try to interpret that limited empirical data and fit it within the overall puzzle. Until more empirical data comes in, the resulting hypotheses are stabilized by consensus. I doubt there's much you can change.
• Covering for those theiving robots eh Gyan? Well, it still seems "easier" than to force numbers out of opinion or other socially based methodology. To me that is. Qualitative study might be more honest or even accurate but it's still got the stigma of being "created". In other news, Schroedinger's cat was found alive and well, and was given a rubber mouse with a bell inside of it, along with some "fancy feast".
• Qualitative and quantitative studies address different things. A smaller, more in-depth study may be appropriate for studying the experience of a phenomenon, but not for defining its boundaries or searching for trends. Likewise, a large statistical study may miss important details and may not be the best way to determine individual interaction with the subject. Great news about the cat though.
• The advantage of hard science as a lot of monkeys have pointed out already is that scientists can verify empirically whatever hypothesis they got. The problem is with everything that goes behind science: Politics, funding (from all sources), pressure groups, dishonesty, bad design of experiments. Everything can work up against good science, and most of the time it's the scientist's fault. So, hard science is no real advantage position over social science. At least academicians of social sciences can go without too much funding and have a lot more of different options regarding faculties with various ideological inclinations. The prestige is another matter.
• The competing news source to petebest's informs me that the same scientists had found the cat quite dead and instead gave the rubber mouse to Laika which miracously returned from space after being believed as dead for 47 years but instead quantum-leaped and returned via a wormhole. No informs about any "fancy feast" whatsoever.
• I KNEW there were robots involved! KNEW IT!
• Not that hard vs soft science debate isn't interesting, but I don't think it has much to do with the gist of the article. I found it to have a lot of insightful comments, including the point about the importance of 'glossed over' cracks in accepted views, and how subject to intellectual trendyness we really are. Speaking of which, could somebody please explain why 'thinking outside the box' is so uncool these days? I personally think understanding the how and why behind your thoughts is very important. (and I feel like this article is a useful tool for this understanding)
• Oh yeah, make sure you didn't miss the comments on this article at mefi. I would assume most mofi'ers wouldn't have, but then, I don't see many cross posts either.
• Languagehat put it best for mine.
• As for languagehat comment. Yeah! I thought the very same think. But does that invalidates his arguments any more that any other reasonable argument is invalidated by the source of if? Ad Hominen anyone?
• By "his" I was referring to Paul Graham's.
• stripe: I don't think that actually "thinking outside the box" has lost favor. I think that it's just saturated popular culture so much that there are a lot of people who use the words without practicing the concept, so the words are met with skeptisism.
• "thinking outside the box" is so mainstream now...
• Zemat: Nah - same box, slight remodeling job; didn't even add windows, just mirrors.
• And if you must put me in a box Make sure it's a big box With lots of windows And a door to walk through And a nice high chimney So we can burn burn burn Everything that we don't like And watch the ashes Fly up to Heaven Maybe all the way to India I'd like that Dan Bern, "Jerusalem"
• Apparently, Dr. Lame-o just can't help himself from further expanding the limits of what was previously conceived of as pure thought. Back in your box, I say, and don't forget your de Bono coloured hat and an envelpoe for pushing.
• I think I pushed that "envelpoe" a bit too hard.
• But it will do nicely to send my note-crad.
• There's no such thing as pure thought Wolof. Every idea, as abstract as it may be, is inspired directly or indirectly by very real personal concerns, as ridiculous as they could have been. So, your comments, and those of languagehat in the blue, over the article are still based upon a fallacy. Even worse, you pitfalled in the very trap that the writer set by trying to ridicule him over his thoughts instead of addressing them directly. Not matter how much of an asshat Paul Graham is you are still wrong about they way you are dismissing this.
• they way... No matter how much I spellcheck I'm still an ass.
• There's no such thing as pure thought (Satirical licence called for.)
• Heh
• I'm still contemplating "woolgathering" versus "gather ye rosebuds while ye may" *idly daydreams (*ironically)