Steve Clarke has JUDGED you all!

[wags]

Luis,

More on the progression of rational thinking as it relates to these discussions. It is written by others but is a useful guide.


"One way confusion can enter a scientist's thinking involves disruption of the natural conceptual progression through four categories of ideas, ranked in decreasing order of surprisal. For convenience, we can refer to these as the paradigm's four Ps:


•The possible comprises all ideas that do not violate the most basic and global principles of science (e.g., the second law of thermodynamics; fundamental conservation laws).


•The plausible describes ideas that are clearly possible and would be tenable if we could envision circumstances under which they could be tested. (In the case of "polywater" or polymerized H2O molecules, discussed in more detail below, there was no a priori reason why a chemical reaction yielding such a substance could not occur and move downhill in potential energy, as any reaction must; the idea was implausible but not impossible.)


•The probable describes "normal science" as Kuhn used the term: incremental explorations that apply a paradigm and may extend its scope but do not threaten to overturn it. Science regularly makes orderly incursions into the realm of the unknown, expanding what is known without raising an eyebrow over the probability of the results.


•The proven applies to unsurprising exercises in puzzle-solving, te routine application of known principles, working firmly within a stable paradigm. Much of scientific education takes place here, though student work is fully capable of venturing into the other areas.


"The borders separating these ideas--particularly the line between the first two--are not as clear in practice as in theory, especially when a result is of interest to two or more distinct specialties. A high-surprisal hypothesis may appear impossible from one vantage point, while a different field's paradigm makes it clear that the hypothesis is well within the realm of the possible and merely stretches the limits of plausibility or probability. But only after an idea has run the scientific community's gauntlet--surviving rigorous experimental and interpretive efforts to falsify it--can it be said to move from questions of possibility to a probable or proven status. Pathological science occurs when an investigator cuts this process short, prematurely trading in scrutiny for advocacy.

[re-rose]

A high-surprisal hypothesis may appear impossible from one vantage point, while a different field's paradigm makes it clear that the hypothesis is well within the realm of the possible and merely stretches the limits of plausibility or probability. But only after an idea has run the scientific community's gauntlet--surviving rigorous experimental and interpretive efforts to falsify it--can it be said to move from questions of possibility to a probable or proven status. Pathological science occurs when an investigator cuts this process short, prematurely trading in scrutiny for advocacy.

I fully understand what you are saying, WAGS. You know I do. Social scientists love data. But when I see the term pathogical science, I can't help but feel that it also applies to those who forget the wholeness of things.

Recently I read that the open data movement can "change the landscape of education," and took a mental step back. While It is true that more data leads to better policy...the System the policy supports still places the the student at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Personally, I think that the 'landscape' is about to be overturned by the introduction of affordable, personalized and miniature AI devices, soon to be available, in the form of hand held cubes that learn our interests and emotional states and respond accordingly, fetching and presenting relevant materials and media. These deviceswill put learners in charge of their own learning process, connecting them to places, material, and groups that match specific abilities and interests. (yeah, yeah, I know, games and porn. But in an ideal world....)

Thanks, Wags, for the post. Just what I needed to give me an opportunity to vent, about a subject near to my heart.The point of all this is that if educational policy makers want more useful data to plan for the future....they need to think, first about what that future is going to be like.

rose

[Mikado14]

Rose,

I have an issue as to:

"Personally, I think that the 'landscape' is about to be overturned by the introduction of affordable, personalized and miniature AI devices, soon to be available, in the form of hand held cubes that learn our interests and emotional states and respond accordingly, fetching and presenting relevant materials and media. These deviceswill put learners in charge of their own learning process, connecting them to places, material, and groups that match specific abilities and interests. (yeah, yeah, I know, games and porn. But in an ideal world....)"

I see that if that is employed in an educational setting that would be like, currently, having a student set the course curriculum without having the knowledge of the curriculum they are studying.

Not too sure if I am saying what I mean here.

Mikado

[StarCat]

I know of a school that sets curriculum with no idea of what needs to happen. Fortunately, other schools are available and students can transfer.

Cat

[LuisP]

Seems you riled a nerve, Wags.
Strangely - or not - around the same sequence of postulation.

Here goes my two bits, after due consideration of your post.

You wrote (or quoted, with assumed agreement)
“More on the progression of rational thinking as it relates to these discussions :
… only after an idea has run the scientific community's gauntlet - surviving rigorous experimental and interpretive efforts to falsify it - can it be said to move from questions of possibility to a probable or proven status. Pathological science occurs when an investigator cuts this process short, prematurely trading in scrutiny for advocacy.”


From Webster’s
- Pathological : extreme in a way that is not normal or that shows an illness or mental problem.
- Investigator : (he/she who) tries to find out the facts about something (and) observes or studies by close examination and systematic inquiry.

Wags
Essentially, I am the foremost advocate of “rigorous experimental and interpretative efforts” when up against a strictly “rational thinking” process. Meaning, inside a set of known rules and precise objectives, when and if, challenged by opposing “questions of possibility” put forward by outsiders of a “community’s gauntlet”, such as, for instance, the one I make a living by following.

But those are problems of a very simple nature.

Anyone who is equipped with a minimum of knowledge, prudence, mental courage and independence, will tackle and run along its specific challenges from “possibility to a probable or proven status”, eliminating along the way all surplus data and “falsifications” designed to “prematurely cut processes short” instead of subjecting them to a customary and essential, in that context, “scrutiny”.

Again, small potatoes.
The work of mental dwarfs, really … definitely not of “progressive rational thinkers”.

For when up against fracturing questions, such as those put forward - just to cite 2 examples from many available – by the conclusions of Pricenton’s thirty years PEAR study or from John Hutchison’s more than 4 decades long “experimental anomalies”, what Science has come up with is either Silence or Pathology as an explanation.

Do you ask Accountants to define Strategic Marketing or Commercial Products ? No, you don’t. You ask them to analyze the “books”, not to write them. Those tasks are left – by respective order of the cited domains – to long haired lunatics with no sense of Economics and razor cut greedy ignorants with no notion of Morals.

Where are the “Investigators” ? where are the peers of lonely pioneers ? Where is the effort to “find out the facts about something” by a “close examination and systematic inquiry” of “an idea” presented to the “scientific community” ?

Nowhere, you will have to agree, when it comes to "New Ideas". And why ? well, far as I grasp it, maybe because it is such a pile of bullcrap that no one worthy of being called a scientist will get near it. Or maybe – just maybe - because they have already gotten too close already, as so many individual examples demonstrate by a common result : silence.

To get back on track,
How to reconcile something New to the “survival” of a “method” which was designed to experiment and interpret Old questions ? How to avoid label “advocacy” what may simply be the conclusions of a “unique sentient being” ?

This is - from where I stand - The Question.
And not one to be left to Accountants.
Ever.

A new method has to be designed, a new set of rules written and a new process of scrutiny devised outside of previously considered ones.
Unless - that is - all one wishes to achieve is a verdict of Pathological Science from Mentally Ill Investigators … a thing which, truth be said, seems many are happy with leaving as such.

Me ? I came up with a simple solution - tackle “it” with pluridisciplinary teams, with expertise from several fields, and push them all onwards towards defining a New Gauntlet where - at long last - these New Ideas may be subjected to New Experimental and Interpretative Efforts.

But, alas, these are problems of a very complex nature. Big potatoes. And the work of mental giants.
In a couple of words, the work of “Progressive Thinkers”.

So, Wags
It is not “Us” or “Them”, or about “linear thinking” versus whatever other form of doing it, but perhaps just a question of “Where do You Want to Be” ?
- among the comfortably marooned … or the uncomfortably adrift ? the judicious pencil sharpeners and paper pushers of the established status … or the outlawed - but unscrutinized – breachers of that “proven status” ?

Is this stupid and illiterate romanticism ?
Perhaps, but No, I fear it isn’t.
It is just what is required.

That is why I volunteered, once I understood it.
Insignificant as my contribution unquestionably is, I will not turn back. Ever.

Way I see it inside my (ahem) “Progressive Thinking”, it is now up to You – and many like You – who only have parts of the Knowledge and parts of the Science, to realize that you will never leave your shores unless you sail together and are ready to accept 3rd Class passengers into your posh 1st Class quarters, if I may use this imagery to convey a message.

I’m just a guy, I think (but I don’t even know that !) trying to point the way to the gangplank.

Then again, I may just be a simple fool with delusions of grandeur, a very common disease among stupid men.

You pick. I really don’t care which way, for both are terribly burdensome and regardless of which is true, have already derailed what was a “normal, settled and certain” walk.

But I wouldn’t go back.
And that notion is quite interesting. And a bit frightening.


PS : Just for the record, I have meanwhile (since last August, to be exact) become familiar with the fact that I had not discovered anything by this proposal ….(as if I needed that confirmation, truth be said).
The ubiquitous USofA DoD has, since 2003, created at least 4 “pluridisciplinary teams” directed at tackling some very serious issues, as I’ve already mentioned and linked to about a different subject on another thread inside this forum.

[wags]

I fear I can not really add more to what has been written. I think that it is sufficient and makes perfect sense when related to a scientific claim. In the case you site there is no evidence of any proper science, no data ergo not science. It was 'advocacy' not 'scrutiny', that is the whole point.

PS. Pathological in this context is not related in any way to individual mental illness. It is a term that is unfortunate but it relates to fringe science. A fringe subject can become accepted. One example would be continental drift.

[LuisP]

"snip"
I fear I can not really add more to what has been written. I think that it is sufficient and makes perfect sense when related to a scientific claim. In the case you site there is no evidence of any proper science, no data ergo not science. It was 'advocacy' not 'scrutiny', that is the whole point.

I cited not one, but two "cases". One of which has 30 something years of data.

Strangely - or not - you saw only one. Precisely the one where "no data" is available and therefore only "advocacy" may be a "point" from where you see it, or wish to see regardless of your own assumption that "sciece is not the only way to interpret reality" or words to that effect.

I wonder why.


And I have several other "cases" which I could cite ... that I already posted around here. Take a look at John Keely or Ciba-Geigy or Ed Leedskalnin or Peter Garaiev, or try and explain what the Chinese Space Program found (they can't, only say they found something !).

It is I who fears that nothing more can be said. Reality is plain enough, examples abound where no "scientific claim" got an answer, again, except silence or impotence.

That should be enough to make one question its reliability.

And yes, it is enough for some.

But it is views such as Yours that drive Others onward.
And I, for one, give thanks to that.

[re-rose]

Rose,

I have an issue as to:

"Personally, I think that the 'landscape' is about to be overturned by the introduction of affordable, personalized and miniature AI devices, soon to be available, in the form of hand held cubes that learn our interests and emotional states and respond accordingly, fetching and presenting relevant materials and media. These deviceswill put learners in charge of their own learning process, connecting them to places, material, and groups that match specific abilities and interests. (yeah, yeah, I know, games and porn. But in an ideal world....)"

I see that if that is employed in an educational setting that would be like, currently, having a student set the course curriculum without having the knowledge of the curriculum they are studying.

Not too sure if I am saying what I mean here.

Mikado

But if you think about it, M, in the schools today, the curriculum parses the education out over a set timeframe and administers it in thirty students at a shot doses.

But imagine that every student has an edcational AI cube linked to media rich learning materials, and activities in at different levels, in the basic subject areas. It should be possible to embed adaptive testing within those same activities. This system would be able to notify both the student and teacher when each individual student is ready for an advancement test in a particular subject.

That's the broad picture of what could be around the corner for education, I think, if the system can ever bring itself to flip its top down view how education is transmitted.

rose

[wags]

Luis,

Science does cannot explain everything, but the method outlined can help progress from an idea / anecdotal towards the proven end of the 4 p's spectrum. It is the dis/proven end that is the goal.

There is no disgrace in being proved wrong, but respect to one that has a theory and however wonderful the theory, is able to throw it away and start again.

I am not able to say much about the specific cases you mention, I feel to uninformed in general to reach any conclusion or make a material contribution.

[LuisP]

Luis,
"snip"
Science does cannot explain everything, but the method outlined can help progress from an idea / anecdotal towards the proven end of the 4 p's spectrum. It is the dis/proven end that is the goal.

There is no disgrace in being proved wrong, but respect to one that has a theory and however wonderful the theory, is able to throw it away and start again.

Absolutely, Wags.

Thing is,
How to "prove" something New ... using Old "methods" ? a method which - to some degree - we all find insufficient ? I mean, if it doesn't "fit" the railway widht, the carriage does not exist ? .... FFS !!

It took many people to devise a train ... from the machine itself first to the engineers to fathom a usage for it to the factory to build to the men to set the rails.

Nothing is given birth, complete by itself.

AND that is the question !