-->
In my never ending search for knowledge
and my recent studies in Anthropology I am finding something very
interesting out about science in general.
Often the “big-picture” theories
are easily contested while the technical details are not.
Working with some technologies I found
that the most common “mistake” in working with a new technology
was an inaccurate assessment of the variability in the output of the
technology.
Manufacturing engineering is pretty
simple, find out where the largest variability in time or results are
and make that part of the process less variable. Mis-characterizing
a technology as being less variable that it really is makes the
technology more marketable. We often read about similar things
concerning the drug industry. A drug is thought to be consistent and
when it is released to the public the variability is actually so
great that people end up dead.
In Anthropology the same thing is true.
Often those studying a specific group of people create an
ethnography which is later refined by later researchers. The
technical details of the group are refined to become less variable
over time.
In humanistic studies the technical
details are less specific and not as easily quantifiable as they are
in a more technical avocations such as engineering and manufacturing.
All groups attempting comparative studies between groups will
attempt to develop quantitative data which can be used to compare
these groups. In humanistic sciences such as psychology and
anthropology this quantitative data is subjective rather than
objective. Bottom line, quantifying subjective data is different from
quantifying objective data.
If we can agree on the subjective
classification of details, and a lot of the time people don't, the
technical details accumulated in any science are “facts” and can
not be argued with.
As our data grows and we develop
conclusions from the data and then use deductive or inductive
reasoning to develop theories based on these conclusions we get
farther and farther from facts.
My anthropological theory, “the world
according to Jack”, is a high level theory on the development of
culture. In most cases, like Aristotle and Aristarchus, it is the
theory resulting from conclusions after reviewing the technical data
which result in conflict between scientists.
Okay, in anthropology and psychology
the data is pretty much all subjective so we can argue the technical
data also. In this case we will ignore that, mostly because while I
am smart enough to question the big-picture theories I do not have
the technical expertise to question the subjective data collection.
I don't have to be an expert on cars to tell that a car needs work
done, there are lots of indicators. I do have to be a technical
expert to determine exactly what details must be addressed to
accomplish that work.
To give you an idea of how stupid and
unreasonable debates about technical theories and detailed data
acquisition are I will once again turn to the laughable geocentric vs
heliocentric argument which our hero Aristotle won, proving once and
for all (or almost two thousand years) that the earth is motionless
and the sun revolves around it.
Aristotle put a ball on a string. He
placed an object on the ball and then swung the ball around in a
circle over his head, using the string. The object flew off the
ball.
This was stupid, even for people who
had no concept of gravity. Aristotle knew that there was some force
which prevented him from jumping off the earth. He attributed it to
gravitas or heaviness. Essentially people were too heavy to jump off
the earth, but, if subjected to centrifugal force they would fly off
the planet. Yeah, planet because Aristotle knew that the Earth was a
sphere and that water will find it's own level.
How does water find it's own level on a
sphere? This is actually one of the reasons people believed in a
flat earth. Not anyone who understood geometry, just people with a
very basic understanding of how things work. Imagine trying to
explain how water at the bottom of the sphere didn't fall off to a
person.
Aristotle knew, from studying shadows
(even at sea) that the surface of the Earth was curved and that the
surface of the Mediterranean sea curved with it. Why?
There are actually some interesting
explanations for this, but, Aristotle was an expert showman so he
ignored the things he didn't know in order to supply a culturally
acceptable theory based on conclusions from factual data.
Like most scientists Aristotle knew
there was stuff missing which he ignored and during debates used
ridiculous “experiments” that made crowds laugh in support of him
while ridiculing his opponents.
A politician once accused his opponent
of monogamous heterosexuality during a debate, asking, “Do you deny
that you are a monogamous heterosexual?” The opponent admitted he
was and lost the election. This was one of William Randolph Hearst's
favorite yellow sheet tricks, “Do you deny that you were ever in a
mental institution?” or “Do you deny having sex with a
prostitute?” Even today people fall for similar political
propaganda.
The technical details are typically
ignored in the debate surrounding the conclusions and theories
developed from those conclusions.
It is the big-picture stuff that is fun
and entertaining. However, developing an opinion on the conclusions
from which a theory is developed without understanding the technical
basics is the development of an uneducated opinion. Most of us
gladly develop uneducated opinions.
On an Internet message board I was
discussing evolution and one of the posters explained that he had
minored in evolution. I explained that universities didn't give
degrees in evolution, either majors or minors. Evolution was an
anthropological theory and someone studying evolution would have
taken classes in anthropology. Someone else posted a link to a small
private college catalog which included a course on “evolution and
natural science”. Sometimes I just want to puke at how hard people
work at being ignorant.
How many of us develop political
opinions without ever reading a single political party platform?
Most people I discuss political party platforms with don't know what
they are any more than my anonymous debater knew what evolution
actually was. These are the basic technical details that I believe
are required to develop an opinion.
Personally I would never hazard an
opinion on a subject about which I have not studied the basics. This
was not always true, in my twenties I was just as ignorant and opinion
prone as most people.
I once told someone that the universe
had to be either open constantly or intermittently open. He asked
why it had to be. I considered this Hearstian question and refused
to answer. A technically oriented question seeking a legitimate
answer might be “how do you know that?”
One of the laws of physics tells us
that a closed system will not gain or lose energy. Here we have a
universe with energy in it. How did it get there? The system, like
all systems with any energy in it, has to have been open at one
point. Since we don't know if the universe is an open or closed
system we can only say that the universe must be either
intermittently or constantly open.
Open to what? Being religious I would
say God. As a scientist I can say that I don't know what our system
is open to.
All theories of the universe start with
a miracle, here we have stuff. The technical details of physics and
matter can't be argued. Okay, the subjective ones can, but, the
objective data cannot be argued which is why so many scientists try
to make subjective data look objective.
People need classes in statistics to
get a B.S. In psychology or anthropology because they have to be able
to convert subjective data into something that looks objective. This
makes the conclusions look more substantive.
The bottom line is that science is
filled with Hearstian stunts like the one Aristotle pulled that are
used to argue conclusions and theories, but, properly collected data
cannot be argued. Data can be supplemented and conclusions based on
the data can change. Those conclusions can change theories.
Properly collected data never changes.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment