Answering to myself --- just need to clarify one little detail:
By Popper's view of the scientific method, science is not "doomed to fall short of a complete answer", but rather, it simply "cannot be ever certain of an answer".
Of course, this does not address the argument from Incompleteness Theorem (which is a more serious objection). In this matter my view is similar, but different from bh_doc, in the sense that I would not go as far as to say that the purpose of science is to "(make) testable hypotheses and demonstrating them beyond reasonable doubt".
If there will always be unprovable truths, is science always doomed to fall short of a complete answer?
Since you know the Incompleteness Theorem I assume you are also familiar with Popperian thoughts, so I'll save the rhetorics.
Personally I think that the (Popperian) scientific method is the best that human can ever achieve. Other methods (e.g. truth through revelation) are simply intellectually dishonest, besides being inconsistent and having absolutely no sense of objectivity. I would also like my hypotheses to pass some measure of parsimony, but that's just my preference.
So that's "flamebait"? I was expecting an "off-topic" mod. So maybe the person who made that moderation knew very well about how bad the current economic system is and just can't bear another discussion on it? So maybe the moderator is Ben Bernanke? (Or someone from Countrywide)
Good point. The last time I inherited* codes (together with tons of useless class diagrams) from a "software engineering guru" I almost choked. I had to waste a month removing 90% of his codes to see how wrong some of his loops were constructed, and how the same can be achieved with just a little hard-core CS stuff. *The "software engineering guru", apparently not satisfied with his meager salary as a software engineer, moved on to a more self-aggrandizing title, with more subordinates to hurt.
So much for a discipline which is supposed to be practical.
They used to debate whether Software Engineering (together with all the fundings it carries) should go to CS or ENG. The answer is clear to me. The abomination known as Software Engineering needs to be expelled from both disciplines --- IMMEDIATELY. Period.
There are some real geniuses working on Wall Street, in VCs, Consulting, and yes, even marketing.
The same geniuses who thunk up "derivatives"? the sub-prime scam? The Bear Stearns bailout? The rising prices of commodities? The Ponzi Scheme and Musical Chair based economy which is about to collapse? I hope the IMF goes easy on Uncle Sam.
I was going to complain to your parent post but you did it for me. I will just a little.
In computer science, "USENIX Annual Technical Conference" has much higher impact factor than, say, "FOCS". The only thing I take it to mean is that it takes 5, 6 times the time to read a paper in "FOCS" than one in "USENIX Annual Technical Conference". (c.f. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/impact.html)
Now compare that to publications in mathematics. It appears that the citation index depends at least as much to the importance of the discovery as
1. the immediate usefulness of the subject matter, and
2. the difficulty of the subject (=> less researchers, less accessible)
3. the completeness of the study (if a work is very complete it is very difficult to improve upon)
If you had given (not necessarily accurate) reference to every piece of your information you would've sounded exactly like one of my favorite pseudo-fiction writers --- the ever bewildering Lyall Watson.
...mathematical people who struggle with arts or literature courses (or anything involving an essay).
I'll let you in on a little secret. Consider this situation: you draw better than your girlfriend --- who's an artist. And you, honest to god, just can't refrain from telling her that. Question: who's not going to get some?
Most of the time, math people not able to do art is simply that. Act like a fool so that you can get some.
I usually play my cards very carefully, but today I have to stand up for the math profs because you had a bad attitude. And besides, what am I losing?;)
Don't underestimate peoples' sense of personal responsibility, or their curiosity, or their passion.
I hope I share your optimism, but today, science/engineering schools are having problem with student enrollment. Some had to downsize, some closed, and overall the "market sentiments" are not good.
And what about the few who had a "sense of personal responsibility" and studies science/engineering? They become trapped in a program that in the end gave them limited jobs in the university (since schools shrunk), and low paying jobs in the private sector, typically a fraction of what people in the financial sector earn (by driving up an economic bubbles).
I used to believe in the free market. Not anymore. You should wise up too.
The difficulty in most fields, in my opinion, is learning how to "think" fluently within them. A good math student is one who has learned the art of problem solving and proofs. A good student in many arts subjects (say, fine art, sociology, philosophy, film history, english...) will have an ability to connect diverse concepts and synthesize something interesting from them.
On the contrary, a good math student is the one who have to connect diverse concepts and synthesize something interesting from them... and he/she will have to actually PROVE the relation, instead of just stating them as analogy.
Whatever you said about art, it is the same with math, except that math is just way more difficult. I am not saying that what you do is worthless --- I read a lot of fine art, sociology, philosophy, film history myself. They're very interesting, but I have to be honest about this: they're not at all difficult (except for some modern philosophy), especially not when compared to subjects like math. Why can't you just accept that?
To me, this belief is justified simply by watching many CS students attempt to write documentation.
This is true. But it has nothing to do with difficulty. It has more to do with experience: understanding the target audience and writing cohesively. Nothing that a little training cannot do.
It is the reason that courses like "English for math students" exist: many would fail an actual English/Lit course.
Good question. Why is there an "English for math students" course? Do you know how much time you need to spend on a math subject? You don't want to burden these poor souls.
Or maybe I should just give you the Wittgenstein treatment.
Perhaps this will answer all your questions: I was about to enter art school before I realized that the place is dominated by people who actually can't draw (meaning that they don't even have the techniques, which I actually consider easy). My personal conviction is that art is about connecting hearts -> if there is no recipient it is not art (at least not yet). This also has the horrible implication that anyone can bullsh*t their way in art school.
And guess what? Turns out that science requires a lot more creativity than art! And whether your stuffs are good or not are all objectively verifiable (well, almost)!
I'm going to assume you've never studied art. Since I have studied art and computer science (at the Univeristy level -- and get excellent grades in both), I probably have more perspective on the issue than someone who has only studied one of these. The people who excel in either field generally have a keen interest in it, and the majority of them would not excel in the other field. So to say that one is more difficult than the other presumes a standard of difficulty that is the same across all people. I.e., a standard that does not exist.
When I was in undergrad/grad schools, I had friends in arts/business come to me to help them read their papers. I could read those papers easily. Trust me when I tell you that maths papers requires many more days of thinking (the theoretical ones a lot lot more, the more practical not as much, but significantly more). "How about I read your papers, and you read mine?" -- this I call the acid test of subject difficulty. Are you up to it?
If you are studying philosophy or linguistics, some of the stuffs are just as hard as mathematics --- but usually maths profs consider those mathematics anyway.
I see this in University as well -- at U of Waterloo, many people in Math, Computer Science, Engineering, etc exist in a hilariously blind culture of superiority. I notice this particularly because I am doing a CS major with a minor in Fine Art, so I am not couped up inside the Math faculty. You can easily tell both students and profs with a narrow view of the world simply by their opinions of "art" students and faculty.
Your "profs with a narrow view of the world" knows that math is much more difficult than art, and if they don't keep a straight policy against people who choose the "easy way to CS degree" soon there won't be anybody doing maths. It's really that simple. Believe me, it's much more enjoyable to be "nice to the students" than to be "nasty" in this particular case --- but somebody has to keep the spirit alive.
the same fondness for weird change-the-world schemes, and the same ignorance of real-world economics.
I would like to hear more of your interpretation of real-world economics. Let's talk Keynesian, Reaganism, or Krugmanism.:)
Whatever it is, I think we are a long way from Eric Raymonds' "Bazaar" theory. In my humble opinion, liberal ideals are sometimes counter to laissez-faire economic liberalism.
I have mod points and wanted to mod you down, but I thought I should reply instead -- just in case the less well informed take the grandparent post to be christian in nature.
I hope you realize the Gospel of Thomas is not in the bible and was just making a joke.
Elsewhere, people make comments that show that they know zilt about biology (and get modded way up nonetheless!). I wonder where all the more mature readers of slashdot are.
mortgage crisis is probably better explained by the Fed's interest rates, regulatory changes, people's inexperience with ARMS, etc.
I don't think this is true. The finger-pointing (at sub-prime mortgage) only shows that people are unwilling to reform a system which favors bubble. Feds bailing out the "innocent ones" out (again!) is only going to make things worse. Looking at the past we know this will happen: those who wants to join the ranks will continue to pretend that nothing is wrong and play along. Those who doesn't... well, they suffer.
Quick answers: The exchange of goods and services between people. How much people are willing to trade for a given item or service.
You mean "the real economy", as they generally call it these days (as in "the effects is spilling over to the real economy").
"Fair" is too complex a subject, it would probably take a whole post just to properly describe what "fair" means in this context.
Indeed "fair" is a very complex issue. But we can draw some conclusions from the current absurd situation:
1. schools have to downsize their science/engineering faculties, or even close them down, while business schools flourish. (Don't say "well, schools should be subjected to free market ideologies, too" unless you want to get me started again. Quick answer: science doesn't draw profit in one generation!)
2. financial professions draw better salaries than scientists/engineers these days, often by 2 to 3 times.
Anyway I hope I am not talking to one of those students who chose business over science. (In which case I don't know how to appeal to your existential or objectivist philosophy.)
speculators force prices to reflect things as they really are.
Do they? Explain the mortgage crisis to me then. Who suffers from the greedy acts of a few? Or was it really the acts of only a few? Or is everyone playing the system guilty? (Which'll explain a lot.)
You need to ask a few very basic questions seriously: What is economy? What is value? Who contributes in absolute terms to the economy? Is the market anything more than a game involving investors psychology? Who is doing work which should be properly rewarded? What is fair reward?
If you can't see why he was modded up, and you got ignored, you need help.
The post was responding to, and trying to counter the argument an original post that states a real problem with the current society: nobody wants to work the difficult jobs that pay little, and going for the not as difficult, glamorous jobs that pay very well. A trend which I want to see reversed. As for his claim of "demonizing a profession", I think "restoring balance" is more my position. If everyone puts their eyes on the easy money, nobody is going to contribute anything.
(BTW I don't mind being ignored, since the world doesn't like a spoil sport to tell them that they can't have the cake and eat it too.)
No, the current system rewards those who perform services that the economy at large values.
I read this as: today's financial system rewards those who perform the most value to the financial system. Does it really benefit mankind? Who knows? I do, however, see the gini index rising in many places.
As to the claim that scientists a priori add more value, I've never found that an easy claim to swallow as it invariably requires special pleadings to make the case.
Exactly! requires special pleadings to make the case. Science works on a long-term basis, with achievements built on earlier achievements. For example your computers today depend on researches done in the 40s to 70s. The scientific system does not reward very well since nobody knows who's works will matter the most in the long term, and scientists (with a few exceptions) also typically do not speak so loud about what they have done.
Do you see the problem now? Science requires a culture and atmosphere quite the opposite of the finance market. We cannot put to the development of science the same forces that you use to drive today's economy (which with all the bubbles emerging again these days, I will need some convincing to buy that it is actually working).
I suspect you've never tried to sell real estate then - because somebody that is 'nothing but a salesman' will fail. Selling real estate not only involves the sales- but managing the interaction between seller & buyer, working with mortgage brokers, dealing with city/county/state authorities on a variety of matters (inspections, codes, taxes), working with building inspectors (and understanding their reports)... It's a fairly complex job.
More complex than having to solve diophantine equations? Your scientists don't seem to be getting six digits salaries --- and they face fierce competitions from the world. Granted the grant-parent post's tone is exaggerated, but you reply simply muddles the situation --- which is that:
works are not rewarded appropriately under the current economy structure.
The whole problem can be summed up in this sentence: Who decides who gets what? The current system gives more power to whoever has more contact with the financial system. Note that I am not claiming that people working in finance do not add value, but think about this, who adds more value?
Speculators are people who take risks in the expectation of profits. The term for the behavior you describe is "rent-seeking".
The situation is not rent-seeking. It's unfair distribution of wealth due to control of profit in the chain of transactions. Think: if you are the boss, would you reward yourself more or your workers? If you are near the end of the chain, tough luck, people in the middle are more likely to reward themselves more than they reward you.
Slashdot Mirror
Answering to myself --- just need to clarify one little detail:
By Popper's view of the scientific method, science is not "doomed to fall short of a complete answer", but rather, it simply "cannot be ever certain of an answer".
Of course, this does not address the argument from Incompleteness Theorem (which is a more serious objection). In this matter my view is similar, but different from bh_doc, in the sense that I would not go as far as to say that the purpose of science is to "(make) testable hypotheses and demonstrating them beyond reasonable doubt".
If there will always be unprovable truths, is science always doomed to fall short of a complete answer?
Since you know the Incompleteness Theorem I assume you are also familiar with Popperian thoughts, so I'll save the rhetorics.
Personally I think that the (Popperian) scientific method is the best that human can ever achieve. Other methods (e.g. truth through revelation) are simply intellectually dishonest, besides being inconsistent and having absolutely no sense of objectivity. I would also like my hypotheses to pass some measure of parsimony, but that's just my preference.
So that's "flamebait"? I was expecting an "off-topic" mod. So maybe the person who made that moderation knew very well about how bad the current economic system is and just can't bear another discussion on it? So maybe the moderator is Ben Bernanke? (Or someone from Countrywide)
OK, I will keep quiet now.
This is so right, and yet so wrong.
God help us all. <- Note that (as an atheist) this is so wrong, and yet so right.
Good point. The last time I inherited* codes (together with tons of useless class diagrams) from a "software engineering guru" I almost choked. I had to waste a month removing 90% of his codes to see how wrong some of his loops were constructed, and how the same can be achieved with just a little hard-core CS stuff. *The "software engineering guru", apparently not satisfied with his meager salary as a software engineer, moved on to a more self-aggrandizing title, with more subordinates to hurt.
So much for a discipline which is supposed to be practical.
They used to debate whether Software Engineering (together with all the fundings it carries) should go to CS or ENG. The answer is clear to me. The abomination known as Software Engineering needs to be expelled from both disciplines --- IMMEDIATELY. Period.
There are some real geniuses working on Wall Street, in VCs, Consulting, and yes, even marketing.
The same geniuses who thunk up "derivatives"? the sub-prime scam? The Bear Stearns bailout? The rising prices of commodities? The Ponzi Scheme and Musical Chair based economy which is about to collapse? I hope the IMF goes easy on Uncle Sam.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562291,00.html
http://business.theage.com.au/imf-finally-knocks-on-uncle-sams-door-20080629-2yui.html
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2008/06/30755.php
http://www.financialsense.com/Market/kirby/2008/0630.html
I was going to complain to your parent post but you did it for me. I will just a little.
In computer science, "USENIX Annual Technical Conference" has much higher impact factor than, say, "FOCS". The only thing I take it to mean is that it takes 5, 6 times the time to read a paper in "FOCS" than one in "USENIX Annual Technical Conference". (c.f. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/impact.html)
Now compare that to publications in mathematics. It appears that the citation index depends at least as much to the importance of the discovery as
1. the immediate usefulness of the subject matter, and
2. the difficulty of the subject (=> less researchers, less accessible)
3. the completeness of the study (if a work is very complete it is very difficult to improve upon)
You are a neuroscientist sympathetic to the Chalmers school?
No offense, does that have anything to do with your anonymity? I am just curious about the landscape in today's neuroscience research community.
If you had given (not necessarily accurate) reference to every piece of your information you would've sounded exactly like one of my favorite pseudo-fiction writers --- the ever bewildering Lyall Watson.
:)
Thanks and keep up the good work!
...mathematical people who struggle with arts or literature courses (or anything involving an essay).
;)
I'll let you in on a little secret. Consider this situation: you draw better than your girlfriend --- who's an artist. And you, honest to god, just can't refrain from telling her that. Question: who's not going to get some?
Most of the time, math people not able to do art is simply that. Act like a fool so that you can get some.
I usually play my cards very carefully, but today I have to stand up for the math profs because you had a bad attitude. And besides, what am I losing?
Don't underestimate peoples' sense of personal responsibility, or their curiosity, or their passion.
I hope I share your optimism, but today, science/engineering schools are having problem with student enrollment. Some had to downsize, some closed, and overall the "market sentiments" are not good.
And what about the few who had a "sense of personal responsibility" and studies science/engineering? They become trapped in a program that in the end gave them limited jobs in the university (since schools shrunk), and low paying jobs in the private sector, typically a fraction of what people in the financial sector earn (by driving up an economic bubbles).
I used to believe in the free market. Not anymore. You should wise up too.
The difficulty in most fields, in my opinion, is learning how to "think" fluently within them. A good math student is one who has learned the art of problem solving and proofs. A good student in many arts subjects (say, fine art, sociology, philosophy, film history, english...) will have an ability to connect diverse concepts and synthesize something interesting from them.
On the contrary, a good math student is the one who have to connect diverse concepts and synthesize something interesting from them... and he/she will have to actually PROVE the relation, instead of just stating them as analogy.
Whatever you said about art, it is the same with math, except that math is just way more difficult. I am not saying that what you do is worthless --- I read a lot of fine art, sociology, philosophy, film history myself. They're very interesting, but I have to be honest about this: they're not at all difficult (except for some modern philosophy), especially not when compared to subjects like math. Why can't you just accept that?
To me, this belief is justified simply by watching many CS students attempt to write documentation.
This is true. But it has nothing to do with difficulty. It has more to do with experience: understanding the target audience and writing cohesively. Nothing that a little training cannot do.
It is the reason that courses like "English for math students" exist: many would fail an actual English/Lit course.
Good question. Why is there an "English for math students" course?
Do you know how much time you need to spend on a math subject? You don't want to burden these poor souls.
Or maybe I should just give you the Wittgenstein treatment.
Perhaps this will answer all your questions: I was about to enter art school before I realized that the place is dominated by people who actually can't draw (meaning that they don't even have the techniques, which I actually consider easy). My personal conviction is that art is about connecting hearts -> if there is no recipient it is not art (at least not yet). This also has the horrible implication that anyone can bullsh*t their way in art school.
And guess what? Turns out that science requires a lot more creativity than art! And whether your stuffs are good or not are all objectively verifiable (well, almost)!
I'm going to assume you've never studied art. Since I have studied art and computer science (at the Univeristy level -- and get excellent grades in both), I probably have more perspective on the issue than someone who has only studied one of these. The people who excel in either field generally have a keen interest in it, and the majority of them would not excel in the other field. So to say that one is more difficult than the other presumes a standard of difficulty that is the same across all people. I.e., a standard that does not exist.
When I was in undergrad/grad schools, I had friends in arts/business come to me to help them read their papers. I could read those papers easily. Trust me when I tell you that maths papers requires many more days of thinking (the theoretical ones a lot lot more, the more practical not as much, but significantly more). "How about I read your papers, and you read mine?" -- this I call the acid test of subject difficulty. Are you up to it?
If you are studying philosophy or linguistics, some of the stuffs are just as hard as mathematics --- but usually maths profs consider those mathematics anyway.
I see this in University as well -- at U of Waterloo, many people in Math, Computer Science, Engineering, etc exist in a hilariously blind culture of superiority. I notice this particularly because I am doing a CS major with a minor in Fine Art, so I am not couped up inside the Math faculty. You can easily tell both students and profs with a narrow view of the world simply by their opinions of "art" students and faculty.
Your "profs with a narrow view of the world" knows that math is much more difficult than art, and if they don't keep a straight policy against people who choose the "easy way to CS degree" soon there won't be anybody doing maths. It's really that simple. Believe me, it's much more enjoyable to be "nice to the students" than to be "nasty" in this particular case --- but somebody has to keep the spirit alive.
the same fondness for weird change-the-world schemes, and the same ignorance of real-world economics.
:)
I would like to hear more of your interpretation of real-world economics. Let's talk Keynesian, Reaganism, or Krugmanism.
Whatever it is, I think we are a long way from Eric Raymonds' "Bazaar" theory. In my humble opinion, liberal ideals are sometimes counter to laissez-faire economic liberalism.
I have mod points and wanted to mod you down, but I thought I should reply instead -- just in case the less well informed take the grandparent post to be christian in nature.
I hope you realize the Gospel of Thomas is not in the bible and was just making a joke.
Elsewhere, people make comments that show that they know zilt about biology (and get modded way up nonetheless!). I wonder where all the more mature readers of slashdot are.
mortgage crisis is probably better explained by the Fed's interest rates, regulatory changes, people's inexperience with ARMS, etc.
I don't think this is true. The finger-pointing (at sub-prime mortgage) only shows that people are unwilling to reform a system which favors bubble. Feds bailing out the "innocent ones" out (again!) is only going to make things worse. Looking at the past we know this will happen: those who wants to join the ranks will continue to pretend that nothing is wrong and play along. Those who doesn't... well, they suffer.
Quick answers: The exchange of goods and services between people. How much people are willing to trade for a given item or service.
You mean "the real economy", as they generally call it these days (as in "the effects is spilling over to the real economy").
"Fair" is too complex a subject, it would probably take a whole post just to properly describe what "fair" means in this context.
Indeed "fair" is a very complex issue. But we can draw some conclusions from the current absurd situation:
1. schools have to downsize their science/engineering faculties, or even close them down, while business schools flourish. (Don't say "well, schools should be subjected to free market ideologies, too" unless you want to get me started again. Quick answer: science doesn't draw profit in one generation!)
2. financial professions draw better salaries than scientists/engineers these days, often by 2 to 3 times.
Anyway I hope I am not talking to one of those students who chose business over science. (In which case I don't know how to appeal to your existential or objectivist philosophy.)
You're missing the point.
OK. You point respectfully taken. Now will you consider my points also?
speculators force prices to reflect things as they really are.
Do they? Explain the mortgage crisis to me then.
Who suffers from the greedy acts of a few? Or was it really the acts of only a few? Or is everyone playing the system guilty? (Which'll explain a lot.)
You need to ask a few very basic questions seriously: What is economy? What is value? Who contributes in absolute terms to the economy? Is the market anything more than a game involving investors psychology? Who is doing work which should be properly rewarded? What is fair reward?
If you can't see why he was modded up, and you got ignored, you need help.
The post was responding to, and trying to counter the argument an original post that states a real problem with the current society: nobody wants to work the difficult jobs that pay little, and going for the not as difficult, glamorous jobs that pay very well. A trend which I want to see reversed. As for his claim of "demonizing a profession", I think "restoring balance" is more my position. If everyone puts their eyes on the easy money, nobody is going to contribute anything.
(BTW I don't mind being ignored, since the world doesn't like a spoil sport to tell them that they can't have the cake and eat it too.)
You expect everyone to get on board an attempt to demonize an entire occupation.
Demonize? Hell, no. Just to put it in the right perspective. Like, who's responsible for the mortgage crisis now. Is this not "greed"?
Right wage for the right amount of work --- and responsibility for consequences for demonstration of greed.
No, the current system rewards those who perform services that the economy at large values.
I read this as: today's financial system rewards those who perform the most value to the financial system. Does it really benefit mankind? Who knows? I do, however, see the gini index rising in many places.
As to the claim that scientists a priori add more value, I've never found that an easy claim to swallow as it invariably requires special pleadings to make the case.
Exactly! requires special pleadings to make the case. Science works on a long-term basis, with achievements built on earlier achievements. For example your computers today depend on researches done in the 40s to 70s. The scientific system does not reward very well since nobody knows who's works will matter the most in the long term, and scientists (with a few exceptions) also typically do not speak so loud about what they have done.
Do you see the problem now? Science requires a culture and atmosphere quite the opposite of the finance market. We cannot put to the development of science the same forces that you use to drive today's economy (which with all the bubbles emerging again these days, I will need some convincing to buy that it is actually working).
My father is an alien, you insensitive clod!
I suspect you've never tried to sell real estate then - because somebody that is 'nothing but a salesman' will fail. Selling real estate not only involves the sales- but managing the interaction between seller & buyer, working with mortgage brokers, dealing with city/county/state authorities on a variety of matters (inspections, codes, taxes), working with building inspectors (and understanding their reports)... It's a fairly complex job.
More complex than having to solve diophantine equations? Your scientists don't seem to be getting six digits salaries --- and they face fierce competitions from the world. Granted the grant-parent post's tone is exaggerated, but you reply simply muddles the situation --- which is that:
works are not rewarded appropriately under the current economy structure.
The whole problem can be summed up in this sentence: Who decides who gets what? The current system gives more power to whoever has more contact with the financial system. Note that I am not claiming that people working in finance do not add value, but think about this, who adds more value?
Speculators are people who take risks in the expectation of profits. The term for the behavior you describe is "rent-seeking".
The situation is not rent-seeking. It's unfair distribution of wealth due to control of profit in the chain of transactions. Think: if you are the boss, would you reward yourself more or your workers? If you are near the end of the chain, tough luck, people in the middle are more likely to reward themselves more than they reward you.