Scientific Rationalization

On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 4:58:56 PM UTC-6, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 08:42:09 -0800 (PST), jerry kraus > wrote: > > >One of the myths perpetrated by the scientific bureaucracy is that > there exists a "scientific method" guaranteeing progress in science > if followed --- i.e. systematic experimentation and "falsifiability" > inevitably lead to progress in science and technology, in a > systematic, incremental fashion. This is pure nonsense of course. > Systematic experimentation is little more than the same trial and > error approach a dog would engage in when looking for food or shelter. > It works up to a point, but, often fails. We have great bursts of > progress in science and technology, such as the period between 1880 > and 1950, and then comparative droughts, such as the one we are > currently experiencing. And, no one knows exactly why. > > Well, no. It is not guaranteed, and I do not recall anyone ever > claiming that it is. Many scientists do claim that it's guaranteed. Simply fund me for my experiments, and I guarantee results in a reasonable period of time. > > >Of course, when pressed on the issue, honest scientists will > > More like, if asked. > > acknowledge the role of talent, intuition, genius and art in science. > The point on the scientific method is that those are not enough. My point is that the "methodology" of science is really no methodology at all, beyond that employed by any sane, sentient human being in attempting to practically deal with the environment around him. And, that much of scientific training consists more in rationalizing and dissembling failure to obtain results, than in finding new and better methods to obtain results. > > Effectively acknowledging that the "scientific method" is actually > little different from the "artistic method", or the "religious method" > -- praying to the Gods for inspiration. > > False. It gives a methodology to use in working for those > results. Not really. It encourages the rationalization of failure to obtain useful results. So, rather than simply saying "no, it doesn't work, and we have no idea why," scientists say "further research is required." Thus, they may continue their current employment, whether they are making any progress, or not. > > >So, what if we really had a scientific method that resulted in > systematic progress in science whenever it was applied. What does > the world look like, then? > > We do have a scientific method. You have just mischaracterised > it. There are no guarantees, but if you check your hunches, ideas, > etc. properly, you can get good results. > Gene, with all due respect, aren't the two statements in this sentence a an implied, logical contradiction? 1. There are no guarantees 2. But if you check your hunches, ideas, etc, properly, you can get good results. True, you say "can get good results", not "will get good results." That would be a direct contradiction. If you "will get good results", then that WOULD be a guarantee! You are hedging your bets. Of course anyone "can get good results." Whatever they do, or don't do. So, either the statement, "There are no guarantees, but if you check your hunches, ideas, etc. properly, you can get good results", is a contradiction, or it conveys absolutely no information whatsoever. That's exactly what I mean by scientific rationalization of failure. A totally meaningless, and/or contradictory statement, that attempts to justify the continuation of the current scientific bureaucracy. Actually, it's a superb example. Thank-you very much, Gene! > Sincerely, > > Gene Wirchenko

Fermi stays in Italy in 1938

You know, Horny, what might have been very interesting indeed, is if, rather than taking off to New York, Fermi had simply returned to Rome following his trip to Stockholm to accept the Nobel Prize in Physics, in 1938. Because, as you know, the Nobel Prizes are always awarded with political intent. And, I very much doubt it was the intent of the Swedes, at that time, for Fermi to defect to the U.S. Because Sweden was rather pro-fascist in the 1930's, seeing the Soviets, right on their border, as much more of a direct threat than the Nazis. So, I suspect, the award to Fermi, whose wife was a Jew, might have been made with some very specific objectives in mind. It is conceivable that the Swedes were actually attempting to get Mussolini, and possibly Hitler, to modify their antisemitic policies. After all, Italians were traditionally very tolerant of Jews, and had been for many centuries. And, given Italian "philosemitism", and an Italian Nobel Prize winner in Physics with a Jewish wife, Mussolini might, actually, have found it convenient to reverse his newfound antisemitism, if Enrico Fermi had chosen to stick around in Italy, rather than defecting to the U.S. Who knows? Maybe Fermi might have become Mussolini's new Minister of Science and Technology? While Mussolini was not permanently, and existentially under Hitler's thumb until after he belatedly and unsuccessfully invaded France, in 1940, Hitler's influence on Mussolini was immense, by 1938. Thus, the "currying of favor" you describe. But, with Fermi as Minister of Science and Technology, a very clear message would be sent to Hitler. And, Mussolini would have a voice in his cabinet that would not tolerate Hitler's eccentricities. That might have changed Mussolini's attitude, and, that might have changed history a great deal indeed.

WI: Richard Strauss becomes German Fuhrer in 1942

One of the nice things about the Nazis was their comparative tolerance of freedom of speech. You could actually walk right up to Hitler, tell him he was totally insane, and, he'd probably just laugh, and walk away with a dismissive wave of his hand. As long as you weren't actively plotting his overthrow or destruction, he really didn't give a damn. Stalin, of course, would have you shot just because you looked suspicious. An excellent illustration of this point is Richard Strauss' final opera, Capriccio, produced in 1942. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capriccio_(opera) The plot revolves around a capricious woman who can't decide whether she prefers poetry or opera, or prefers the love of poets or composers. She simply can't make up her mind. She really wants to marry both, at once, which is impossible. She also speaks regularly of "going to Paris", which, you will remember, was annexed to the German Reich at this time. The opera concludes on a note of uncertainty, regarding the absurdity of the whole situation. It seems pretty clear, in context, that this has satirical implications for the absurdity of Nazi war policies. Richard Strauss was, of course, the most loyal German of loyal Germans. He would never have thought of violently overcoming any German regime, Nazi or otherwise. At the same time, he was a brilliantly practical survivor, as illustrated by his casual surrender to the advancing American armies. He simply walked out of his country estate, announcing to them "I am Richard Strauss, composer of Der Rosenkavalier," his most popular opera. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Strauss So, let's suppose, that in 1942, the German generals actually get their act together now that the Russians are fighting back effectively, and the Americans are in the War. They successfully assassinate Adolf Hitler, and imprison the senior Nazi leadership. How about Richard Strauss for German Fuhrer/Chancellor? He was the greatest German composer of the time, the aesthetic minded Soviets would certainly be interested in meeting him. American and British opera lovers loved Der Rosenkavalier as much as Germans did. Presumably, Richard Strauss would have seen the impossibility of the German war aims, as indicated in Capriccio, and would have sought a reasonable, and a practical peace. And, with elimination of the senior Nazis, the allies would have every reason to believe in the sincerity and reasonableness of the new regime. So, what happens next? Thoughts?

Belladonna, Konstantin Balmont, from Russian

Ecstasy's purgatory -- Silent and alone: A flowery delivery, Midst the turmoil of home. Starlight unshining, All knowings unknown, Quietly enjoying A forbidden dream. Belladonna's blissful twilight -- The kiss of death. She's dreamy eyed, Loving her days to forget. Blossoming moonlight, Tender moons meeting, A quiet wind rustling, A loving death. Beloved, we linger. Beloved, my Delight! A joyful complaining, Midst flowers -- a snake! Whose spirit downtrodden Desire's stench besotten, Whose Belladonna blossom -- Yours, or mine?