Scientist vs. Engineer

This really speaks to me:

---

Sad Truth: Most "mad scientists" are actually just mad engineers

---

Same goes for confusing science with technology....

:-Dan

Defining science

I just started reading: The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul by Douglas R. Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennett. It has been on the shelf for a while and really needs reading.

In the Introduction on page six we have (in my opinion) both a good and a bad use of the word "science" (it really does not matter what the surrounding text says):

Good: "It took science to discover the answer."
Bad: "Science teaches us that there are no such things as souls."

It is best to viewed science as a method, that can be used to discover answers. Once we start talking about what science teaches we are heading for trouble (and a possible accusation of scientism).

We might say that there has been no evidence for souls that the methods of science can work on. Or that science has been used to disprove every testable theory for how something like a soul might work (I'm thinking of things like Descartes' suggestion that the pineal gland was the seat of the soul).

Typing this (AKA: Thinking with my Fingers), reminds me that defining "science" is a non-trivial topic and even if I were qualified to pursue it, I would not produce anything both simple and generally agreed upon. Take this as personal preference.

:-Dan

Note: I so dislike reading the word "science" in proper case that I reworded every sentence where I started with "science", just to avoid the capital "S". Maybe I have issues :-).

Understanding Evolution, the Daniel Dennett Way

From Daniel C. Dennett's: Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

I'm sure he does it just as well other places, it is actually kind of fun the way he drops this whole well crafted paragraph completely parenthetically at the bottom of page 120:

(Evolution it's all about processes that almost never happened. Every birth in every lineage is a potential speciation event, but speciation almost never happens, not once in a million births. Mutation in DNA almost never happens--not once in a trillion copyings-- but evolution depends on it. Take the set of infrequent accidents--things that almost never happen--and sort them into the happy accidents, the neutral accidents, and the fatal accidents; amplify the effects of the happy accidents--which happens automatically when you have replication and competition--and you get evolution.)

Evolution and reverence for Scientists

The other night while I was bathing my two small children my six year old little girl start telling her five year old little brother: "we were once monkeys." I chimed in with the typical parental correction "we were never monkeys, humans share a common ancestor with monkeys." Correcting any six year old is problematic, they are on the cusp of knowing everything and corrections just get in the way. A small intellectual scuffle ensues:

Girl6: Yes we were monkeys
Daddy: Its OK sweetheart lots of adults get that wrong, it is a tricky thing
Girl6: I'm not wrong!
Daddy: Everyone is wrong sometime, nobody knows everything...
Boy5: Scientists know everything!
Daddy: (in his best sweet Daddy voice), Oh no.... The first thing scientists have to do is figure out what they don't know so they will know what to research. And then when they think they know something they write papers and books and create experiments for their friends to check and see if they got it right.

I would have gone on here, but I have noticed that bath time lectures on the philosophy of science are best if kept short. I think it settled in a bit, won't know for sure until later. Meanwhile Jimmy Neutron and his cartoon ilk keeps confusing "science" with magic and technology. Don't know where we would be without Bill Nye the science guy.

I have a constant worry that we really should be teaching the philosophy of science first, and then facts and wonder and awe at what we have been able to learn using the method later (see my previous language rant post). Sort of like teaching children to admire calligraphy and bookbinding before teaching them to read.

:-Dan

Substitution phrases for "Science" and "Energy"

This is a language rant, but I hope to be concise:

Two of the most consistently abused words I see are "Science" and "Energy". I propose when you encounter these words in conversation or the media just substitute the phrases below and see if it still makes sense:

Science: "Fallible individuals interacting in an evaluating community"

Energy: "The ability to do work"

:-Dan

Note: the science substitution was pulled from an audible.com book I recently listened to:
William James, Charles Peirce, and American Pragmatism by James Campbell

Note: The energy substitution was suggested in the podcast quoted below:

From: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4002

Energy is a measurement of some thing's ability to perform work. Given this context, when spiritualists talk about your body's energy fields, they're really saying nothing that's even remotely meaningful. Yet this kind of talk has become so pervasive in our society that the vast majority of Americans accept that energy exists as a self-contained force, floating around in glowing clouds, and can be commanded by spiritualist adepts to do just about anything.

Reading Greg Egan

This is not the only great passage out of Mr. Egan's collection, just one in keeping with my theme for this blog:

We thought we were passing on everything that mattered to our children; science, history, literature, art. Vast libraries of information lay at their fingertips. But we hadn't fought hard enough to pass on the hardest-won truth of all: Morality comes only from within. Meaning comes only from within. Outside our own skulls, the universe is indifferent.

-- From Greg Egan's short story Silver Fire collected in Luminous

:-Dan

A Cognitive Science Dialogue

I just heard a podcast with Dr. Wallace and I have heard/read many thing by Dr. Searle. I'm very excited about this debate, but I cannot stay up all night! More later....

A Cognitive Science Dialogue

This debate between Wallace and Searle will focus on a question at the foundation of Cognitive Science -- how can human consciousness be understood? The roots of contemporary scientific approaches to this question lie firmly in western philosophical traditions. The philosophical approach of attempting to understand human experience via pure reason is now accompanied by a wealth of empirical approaches in cognitive science aimed at understanding the various forces that shape human thought and perception. Observations of the brain in action are sometimes used to explore the underpinnings of subjective experience as well.

A central concern with understanding the human mind is also evident in Buddhism. Meditation has become quite popular in the west and is often used as a method of stress reduction. However, contemplative methods for training the mind were developed in Tibetan Buddhist traditions over many centuries as a strategy for understanding the nature of human experience. Insights derived in this way also involve an empirical approach, but one that is based on introspective experiences rather than objective measurements. Extensive training in meditation can lead to keen abilities to control and monitor one's attention, and ultimately, to expert observations of the human mind in action. This expertise can provide a novel perspective on human consciousness with important