Sokol again, Drat!

[Andrew Dinn]

Greg Montalbano writes:

> Andrew Dinn writes:
> "...to use such terms where there is no underlying model, merely an analogy
> or metaphor stretched well beyond its elastic limit."

> --- Oh, PLEASE tell me we're not going back into that science terminology
> vs. metaphor debate;  I believe it's been covered.

Just a nagging tooth I keep picking at. Sorry to bore.

> Listening to all these gripes about scientists writing & talking as if they
> & they alone had the passkey to Dame Truth's bedchamber, I have to wonder why
> this is so much more upsetting to you-all than when Christians, Republicans,
> Vegetarians or Flat-Earthers behave the same way;  could it be that YOU ALSO,
> deep down inside, think that science is the ONE TRUE ANSWER, and are hurt or
> embarrassed when its representatives act in a less-than-exemplary manner?

Uhh, how about professional pride - seeing as how I am (wearing one of
my hats) a scientist myself. Also sour grapes, seeing as how I am also
(wearing a slightly grubbier hat - that's the one with the honest toil
logo) an engineer. And sourer still grapes, are you listening A
Fortiori, that the science which gets rewarded does not do so on its
scientific merits even though the review system is supposed to deliver
a meritocracy - add extra tartness to the concoction by noting that we
scientists are the ones who crow loudest about the rigour with which
our review process is applied, not like those social science saps and
don't even think about all the artsy feebs for whom straight answers
are excluded by the nature of the beast they ride.

But if you *really* want to know why the stakes are so much higher for
scientists and mathematicians it is because of two things i) power and
ii) philosophy. Power because hard science is accorded so much more
significance and value than other breeds of learning and discourse.
For example, in software development, to take a field in which I have
intimate experience of the worst and best practice, programmers and
programming concerns still rule the roost. Yet most programming
projects stand in desperate need of a social scientist or several to
ensure that the fruits of the programmers labour are i) necessary ii)
functionally adequate iii) usable, let alone iv) graceful and
aesthetically interesting. So far the techniques behind the technology
are just about in place to address goal ii, the rest is down to luck.

But actually, the root problem is philosophy. In fact this accounts
for the power relations which are in place today and hence the amount
of screaming from scientists when such power relations are challenged.
Hard science has it easy because it deals with determinacy. Oh, sure
QM, for example, is all indeterminacy but actually QM is just another
calculus with its own set of rules and lots of room for reasoning in a
pretty much clear cut way. There is no attempt to deal with questions
of value - significance, effectiveness, suitability, relevance etc. A
scientist will tell you that these are non-scientific concerns, that
first you have to get the science sorted out and then address these
questions from your position of strength.

Well, that's the problem, innit. And as a technologist who has seen a
lot of technological initiatives fail - although to be more precise, I
should probably say something like exercise their redundancy to the
fullest stage of perfection - from such a position I can vouch for the
fact that science cannot be separated from such concerns without
prejudicing the results of the scientific enquiry.

> ... There ARE some good science writers;
> there are a lot of crummy ones.  How is this different from anything else?

I think I said that.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.