An interesting article in Wired on the neurological biases imposed upon everyone, generally, and scientists in particular.
|
|||||
Hot MicBloggers in Arms
BlogrollContinuous WavePaid to BlogReciprocating EnginesSmarter'n MeWingmen
OmakaseAmazon Search |
Top 9? » No Success Like FailureBy lex, on December 30th, 2009
29 comments to No Success Like Failure |
Targets of Opportunityblog advertising is good for you Credo"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones "Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra" "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche "A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier "Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas "Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex Amazon AssociateFor the Effort!Winnar! Subscribe CategoriesPagesTagsacademy
afghanistan
Araby
Blogging
buffoonery
culture
Defense Industry
economy
Flying
Friday Musings
geopol
Gratuitous slap
GWOT
Headlines
health care
History
iran
iraq
issues
libya
Media
Memory Lane
Military
Navy
norks
Oz
pakistan
piracy
politicians
politics
Politics and Culture
prc
pundits
science
sea stories
silliness
Small Stuff
SoCal
Tech Lust
technology
UAVs
UK
usaf
usmc
weapons
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2013 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
I’ve always called it, “being married to an idea”. I’ve learned to seek outside opinions, having learned that some of these “marriages” result in a very messy divorce. In my field, it comes from reading drawings or creating them. You have to start with a concept, then in your mind you have to start building the “idea”. As you add more and more pieces to the “idea”, the more convinced that you are on the right path. Somewhere in that process you “get married, till death do you part”. My process says that at any point things don’t pass the smell test (“hey, this don’t make sense!”) I go full stop and re-examine. If I get to the end and don’t have a warm fuzzy, I’ll bring someone else in who has not used my thought process. This tends to filter out the dumb things you can do in a bad “marriage”
It’s not perfect but it has dragged us up from huts and gross ignorance at a breath taking and ever accelerating pace. And it will continue to do so unless it is thwarted by imposing non-scientific axioms such as Creationism. Them we’ll be like science in the Muslim world .. “It is so because Allah wills it.”
Paul,
The article had more to do with cognitive dissonance theory IMO than the science vs. creationism straw man you mention. Byron is right to say the more you become invested in an idea, the more you will want it to succeed despite glaring factual weaknesses.
BTW: There are scientists who suggest the “act of creation” is compatible with science but would be an exhaustive threadjack.
I was just defending the scientific method despite the human flaws of some its practitioners. That’s what the method helps protect against. A scientist can believe in creationism, its a belief, but it isn’t science because it can’t be tested.
Paul, you just said Cosmology, or more correctly Cosmogeny, isn’t a science because, like faith, it can’t be tested. We have some math and models about what we think happened, but those are just well reasoned guesses, and belief that the math and models are correct. But ain’t no one yet managed to recreate that 1 x 10^-infinity before the Big Bang happened.
Same for evolution – good guesses and a belief that we know what happened.
It isn’t just those closed minded fundi creationists who exhibit closed minds.
Of course it can be tested. Go get a history of Cosmology and see for yourself. Hoyle believed in the Steady State Theory … now proved wrong by observation of the universe. Conversely the Big Bang was widely doubted. Now it has been confirmed down to the fist millionth of a second
Paul, can you post links to the experiments that have confirmed the Big Bang? Not just the mathematical models, but the actual tests that recreated that infinitely small, infinitely dense, dimensionless point and exploded it? Also, 1/1,000,000,000 of a second, or less, after the Big Bang started is NOT the same thing as that instant before it started.
Again, all we have is a belief that the models are correct, with no way to test them. Comes down to what you put your faith in.
I’m not saying that the currently accepted cosmogeny is incorrect, I believe it is. What I am asking is why it is so hard to believe that Someone set everything in motion?
Lord, would it ever. Oops, sorry. Gosh, would it ever.
Lordy, I hate the almost de rigure (sp?) slams at belief in some form or creation in almost every discussion about science and how it is sometimes wrong. Tell us all, Paul, what cause that infinitely small, infinitely dense, dimensionless point to be? And what caused it to explode?
It takes as much faith to believe that everything “just happened” as it does to believe “In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram
terra autem erat inanis et vacua et tenebrae super faciem abyssi et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas
dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux” (or, if you like the Septuagint: εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος τον ουρανον και την γην η δε γη ην αορατος και ακατασκευαστος και σκοτος επανω της αβυσσου και πνευμα θεου επεφερετο επανω του υδατος και ειπεν ο θεος γενηθητω φως και εγενετο φως).
Joe, the short-form of that argument is labeled
the “unmoved mover” problem…as in..who/what he/it?
PS: Joe, probably the best intellectual treatment of this problem I’ve ever read is in a work (book) by a West German Catholic priest named Wetter entitled “Dialectical Materialism” in which analyzes the philosophical under-pinings of Marxist theory.
Good stuff…
As I originally said there is nothing wrong with a BELIEF in Creationism. It isn’t irrational because religion is by definition outside of reason, it is a belief system. How are you going to provide a way to test the existence of God, not to mention his role in creating us? Newton was a devout believer but he didn’t just say the apple falls because God made it. He believed that, but wanted to know more you he looked into it rationally and gave us Newtonian Physics. He was satisfied to say yes, God does it, but this is the way he does it.
Paul, I submit to you that when you wrote:
you had not
but rather heaped scorn on the belief that God got it all started.
“Dumb question are unlimited in scope”. VADM Fowler at an Aegis SPY 1 CEB. He had a gift for drilling thru the crap and focusing on the “this doesn’t make sense” part of the equation.
As Byron says, the good VADM caused a lot of messy divorces.
Reading the Wired article made me reflect on the posting Lex made earlier where he lamented the “PC” path we are on now. Perhaps the problem(?) illustrated in the article extends beyond the scope of scientific discovery.
Could it be true that human brains are wired to “discount as fallacy” anything that doesn’t fit their preconceived notions of what’s “true” and what is “false?”
I know it happens in the cockpits of aircraft at times, occasionally leading to very bad results. Even when “reality” screams for corrections to be applied (whether indicated on instruments or as related by outside observers, i.e., wingmen), the pilot’s “sense” overrides his thinking to the point that he loses control of the situation. I imagine the pilot thinking, “This can’t be happening to me!”
How many times have “social experiments” performed with the best of intentions produced errant results which are then discounted as anomalies, even though casual observers could have predicted those results with a degree of certainty. The “PC” mindset forces unfortunate results to be discounted, because, apparently, the “experiment” must succeed, at all costs.
Continuing with the flying analogy, how many of us have encountered individuals whose impression of their skills in the air didn’t quite measure up to the impression held by other observers? They are particularly dangerous if they refuse to listen to those outside observations, or to suggestions that they seek additional training (or an ego check).
The second point I took from the article was that too often the inputs or observations of “non experts in the field” are discounted outright. This leads to “groupthink” because only authorized members of the “club” are allowed to participate. I realize that uninformed comments from “outsiders” can be annoying, but sometimes it takes an outsider to see the forest for the trees.
As Byron noted, asking for the input of a good “second set of eyes” (or more) to look over the plan (or results) can’t hurt, unless, of course, the second opinion doesn’t fit with the requester’s bias.
Cheers,
Mitch
Mitch you have inadvertently stumbled onto one of the arguments for the re-introduction of the draft–the exposure of a closed society to outside, irreverent eyes, thoughts and ideas. Not saying it’s dispositive, but there are some good sociological studies that support the view that the draft provides a real valuable service in this dimension, at least, whatever it’s other demerits.
Excellent example, however (as you noted) there would need to be informed debate regarding the pros vs. cons before such a change was implemented.
A larger aspect of the Wired article that stood out for me was the whole human notion that we can somehow predict and control outcomes, all the time, by following some “process” or “procedure.” One goal of scientific discovery seems to be the pursuit of the explanation of “why things happen.”
Scientists “verify” other scientists’ findings by carefully repeating the steps taken to reach the original finding. If they come up up with a different outcome, then the original finding is called into question (assuming all of the steps were followed exactly under the same conditions as the original). Key to the success of such a process is knowing and controlling as many variables as possible, to reduce “randomness.”
Unfortunately, some people pursue social engineering experiments to achieve arguably positive outcomes, but without applying a reasonable understanding of complex uncontrollable variables (or ignoring those variables altogether). Such variables include human nature, unless one is prone to believe (as the PC world does) that everyone is the same, with similar beliefs, hopes, priorities, backgrounds, education, etc.
Some people believe that banning guns will reduce crime. I haven’t seen much evidence that supports such a postulation, and I have seen lots of evidence to the contrary, yet gun bans exist and seem to be proliferating. Why?
Thanks for letting me rant a bit.
Cheers,
Mitch
If the second set of eyes gives me a worse case of “itchy-spot-between-the-shoulders” then I ask someone else above my paygrade. I’ve had the reverse (asking my opinion) done to me as well. Just ask anyone who’s had to interpret Navy structural drawings, I’m sure they’ll know what I mean
The ACC and the DLPFC seem to be hardwire linked in full power mode in a lot of people I know, generally officers one grade senior and socialists.
But Mitch asked about the role of these brain structures in leading us to mishaps by discarding that which contradicts what we expect. It’s worth noting that the brain is wired for belief. If every situation calls for me to carefully examine all the observables, to create and test hypotheses, then the bear will eat me. But if I believe the bear will eat me, I can react and save myself. Likewise, the child must believe in scary things–if he doesn’t believe there’s a bear in the woods that will eat him, he’s not likely to make it to adulthood. I’m not going to split hairs here on belief and knowledge, the important thing is that in most situations acting according to what we know keeps us alive. Then we do things like build airplanes and instruments and fly them in disorienting situations, and the same thing that works to keep us alive in most situations works against us.
This guy Lex is an expert at throwing a bit of chum in the water, and them watching the sharks.
As a lurker, I love it.
No offense, Skip, but most times I can just sit back and enjoy the amazing prose I get to read. When the Muse is upon Lex, as she usually is, it’s a pure joy to just sit back and read.
Paul B…”It’s not perfect but it has dragged us up from huts and gross ignorance at a breath taking and ever accelerating pace. And it will continue to do so unless it is thwarted by imposing non-scientific axioms such as Creationism.”
Try reflecting on some of the factors *other* than religion that might cause science to go awry. For exa mple, the Soviet emphasis on Lysenkoist vs Mendelian genetics, as edicted by Stalin–who was most likely not a creationist. Or Nazi teachings about “Aryan” mathematics and “Aryan” science. Or simply the desire to produce results that will get the researcher more funding, visibility, and promotional opportunities.
Byron
I have been ‘flyng’ with the Capt., laughing til tears at his ‘sea stories’ for a long time.
You are entirely correct sir.
One of the best writers out there. If only we can get him to write ‘the book’.
Lex
Thank you.
What is particularly interesting is how the author
1. has demonstrated that upwards to 75% of all scientific data is f—-ed up
2. somehow, however the author accepts that neuroscience and its discoveries is blessedly free of these problems
3. has produced an explanation that fits with our societies current assumptions about diversity and the value of teamwork – i.e. this is in print form a bit like the wonder pets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxlWvE2U0nw (if you listen to the whole song you will realize that the article is a kind of transcription and reworking of the meanings and tropes found in the article). So, Holy Groupthink on a socio-cultural scale, batfans….
Science obviously works (or else I would be trying to send transcontinental semaphore signals to participate in this conversation), but it is striking how easily the author presumes to reduce the problems of scientific anomalies to social/cognitive issues/neuroscience even after he has asserted how any hope of objectivity already has been proven to be illusory (and how he quickly eliminates the possibility of individual genius in scientific discovery and produces an alternative theory).
Prof Curp, are you suggesting he needs a diverse committee to meet and review his observations? But I thought his example of the proteins was self-selecting, and wonder how many problems that would have stumped the diverse group would have had self-evident solutions to the narrowly focused group, that is, they never rose to the level of a problem to solve.
For all my adult life I have been told that the biological revolution will be next, that computers of living cells will blow away our existing technological infrastructure. However, biology–that is life, which is an end in itself–seems to remarkably uncooperative when it comes to revealing its secrets, no matter how we torture it. When it comes to bending nature to our will, physics seems to be the field of overwhelming success.
Dear Zane,
Yes, that was the first thing that struck me – how someone could wax so eloquent about how much white noise a lab produces and yet he quickly found THE ONE TRUE ANSWER for what separates the achievers from those who are less capable (that strangely enough comports with a certain kind of cultural group think on the importance of diversity – not that I don’t think diversity does have value, but I don’t think it is the skeleton key that unlocks every door).
And even further, I have deeper problems with the biological revolution – first, the last time it was tried we had eugenics and scientific racism that was much, much more pervasive than many think (and this was a scientific enterprise – I would highly recommend G.K. Chesterton’s Eugenics and Other Evils as a good place to start to understand the atmosphere of those times).
Even more importantly, I have both moral/philosophical problems with treating people as lab rats, practical objections as to whether it is possible to develop a “biological science” that would not be riddled with unprovable (and likely poisonous) assumptions about the aims of such a revolution, and plenty of historical examples of why, in the immortal words of Rocky, “that trick never works” even if the siren-Bullwinkles of science tell me “this time for sure.”
Happy new year to you – less than two hours to go in Warszawa.
And a Happy New Year to you, too! Take note, the solver of the riddle of the static wasn’t a diversity committee. If anything, the lesson seems to be to get the information to as many people as possible, and someone else will have the right answer. That seems to be one of the great powers of the internet, and what was that BBC series, Circles? That showed how stray pieces of knowledge gained here or there suddenly took on new value in a different context, opening whole new branches of scientific inquiry and technological development to better the human condition–all dependent on some sort of scientific process that documented and published results, even failures, and exposed them for others to examine. Which is maybe the most disconcerting part of the article, all the failures and missteps locked away in notebooks that will never be seen again. Then again, when it comes to torturing yeast (I have a friend who’s a Harvard biochemist), maybe it’s for the best that so much stays in notebooks.
That was a really great, fascinating series, wasn’t it, Zane? Not sure if that was the title, tho. And what was the name of that narrator? He was great–MADE the series. Unfortunately I think he’s now deceased, iirc.
Hope the New Year finds you and yours well and happy–if that’s at all possible in this gloomy day in the Age of Obama.. Ah well, I guess it’s up to us to try to carve out our own personal slice of heaven nevertheless. Cheers.
Connections was the name of it, I’ve got one of the books as well but it’s not nearly as interesting as the series was.
And the same to you for this New Year, and I’ll down a pint for you at the local pub, real locally made ales–the basic makings of my personal slice of heaven.