Statistical findings are never true, even when they are essentially accurate. They are guesses about properties of populations that are themselves hypothetical. The problem is that the scientific community likes to portray such fundamental methodological weakness as if it were precise, replicable, theoretically informed truth. Statistical findings are, at best, weak empirical indicators that only strengthen when underlying mechanisms are understood, at whch point the statistics themselves become superfluous.
Peer review cannot overcome the problems with theoretically weak, poorly executed and interpreted statistical research--even when population parameter estimates are accurate. The peers are themselves too committed to the paper production system. If the empirical goal of identifying important problems and then tracking down underlying mecanisms is secondary to paper production--which too often is more about making journal editors feel comfortable than about the serious debate needed for scientiic advance--then statistical science becomes mostly a fashion show. I think the author of the article is onto this and, yes, many weak scientists probably should feel threatened and probably would not be happy with this analysis. They have no sensible argument against it. Paper production is only the goal when you are not advancing as a science. I would venture to say that the more papers in a field by more people blindly espousing the statistical empirical ideology --while never actually following a problem to a more definitive conclusion-- the more likely we have a science that is not advancing, and probably cannot advance. Reporting scientific advance should be the goal, not numbers of papers produced. But papers produced is the coin of the realm in what is presented as legitimate science. Thus, much of this corpus of "scientific literature" is trash.
I am very glad the author of the paper being discussed has raised these important questions.
You've got it right about the ill effects of publishers shooting for sales. But what if we're already living in the sci-fi space, so we can't distinguish where we are from what we might or should be? The best sci-fi that I have read addresses the fears in the present about a trajectory in society to the future. Usually something important, like freedom, individuality, or human emotion is there to be lost and the story draws stark contrasts between a hoped for future and a destructive one. I'm not sure that we as a society any longer recognize the cultural achievements of the past sufficiently to understand what we have to lose. If it is only about personal wealth or beauty that you buy, there is nothing to fear because there's nothing to lose. Hence, no sci-fi future. Just the sci future; the illusion that technological advance somehow always makes life better. I guess we just need stories that look to the past, like anti-sci-fi.
I agree, though, that the best sci-fi stories depend less on clever technology tricks about what the future and more on the problem of grasping our humanity. Sci-fi will live on when good authors show up. Why should it be a product that can be produced on a corporate schedule? Let the publishers bury themselves for awhile and something new will probably emerge.
I liked the article. Anime deserves recognition as a serious artform. I agree though that the article is off in several respects. It misses the questions often raised about science conducted by the wealthy presumably for the advancement of knowledge when power maybe more at issue; about the destructive power of knowledge that ignores the basic needs of humanity (e.g., Akira, Mononoke); about the complexity of questions about who is good and who is bad; about the dissolution of traditional cultures; and about the unpleasant realities of life and death that the Japanese explore so unflinchingly. These themes permeate many of the films cited in the article. The remarks about the Ghost in the Shell showed a big cultural blind-spot... Was Kusanagi questioning her humanity--wishing to be like us--or our primitive assumptions about humanity given the prospect of sentience in a machine--or within the flow of information itself? The Japanese are not afraid to "animate" what we would consider lifeless. Would a machine like Kusanagi really want to make the choice to be a human constrained to the hierarchies of human societies? Is a humanity that destroys nature not destroying itself, even as it presumes to control it's fate (Mononoke)? Animation is a means for exploring ideas that would be difficult to engage with standard film. The artform deserves recognition for becoming a driving influence on some of our most innovative cinema (e.g., The Matrix). We truly are the followers here. The NYT article is a step in the right direction; I hope it opens the door to reviews of anime on its (their?) own terms...
Mr. Katz sure knows how to provoke!! I take an interesting thought from his remarks: Like Clinton-era liberals, where some good work was lost to the public in the overemphasis on style and a pretentious and self-serving politically correct morality, the Apple crowd is increasingly depending on snob chic to sell their wares. They would do well to remember who really pays the bills and gets the work done in this country... Microsoft, afterall, would have us do things their way--for our own good. There might be alot of good--and maybe some profits--in Apple offering a bit of competition, revisiting their promise to provide useful tools for the masses.
The big problem here is that Microsoft presumes that it's interest in updating software supercedes the end-user's control of his or her machine. Why would any user want Microsoft doing anything to their machine without prior consent? The interest of a software corporation and the end-user are fundamentally different... Even local IT managers often screw up work in progress when updating software--usually timed for their convenience, not the user's. I am thankful that Microsoft is so incompetent; perhaps the ill-conceived notion that a central authority should dole out and control tools that have already been purchased by end-users will at last come under question.
I was about to get rid of Comcast Cable for approaching $40 per month. Big media always shoot for the middle of the road, so any advantage that cable was supposed to provide is dissappearing fast.. no diversity, no depth in the programmming, no risk-taking... I suppose HBO is doing some good things, but I do not want to pay monthly rent for one or two good shows. I would like a movie pipe, but I am not going to pay much more than the video rental cost for any given movie. These companies should get busy supporting smaller special interests more--like real thorough and objective news coverage for chrisssake!--so there actually seems like a reason to pay for them...
Slashdot Mirror
All this talk about truth...
Statistical findings are never true, even when they are essentially accurate. They are guesses about properties of populations that are themselves hypothetical. The problem is that the scientific community likes to portray such fundamental methodological weakness as if it were precise, replicable, theoretically informed truth. Statistical findings are, at best, weak empirical indicators that only strengthen when underlying mechanisms are understood, at whch point the statistics themselves become superfluous.
Peer review cannot overcome the problems with theoretically weak, poorly executed and interpreted statistical research--even when population parameter estimates are accurate. The peers are themselves too committed to the paper production system. If the empirical goal of identifying important problems and then tracking down underlying mecanisms is secondary to paper production--which too often is more about making journal editors feel comfortable than about the serious debate needed for scientiic advance--then statistical science becomes mostly a fashion show. I think the author of the article is onto this and, yes, many weak scientists probably should feel threatened and probably would not be happy with this analysis. They have no sensible argument against it. Paper production is only the goal when you are not advancing as a science. I would venture to say that the more papers in a field by more people blindly espousing the statistical empirical ideology --while never actually following a problem to a more definitive conclusion-- the more likely we have a science that is not advancing, and probably cannot advance. Reporting scientific advance should be the goal, not numbers of papers produced. But papers produced is the coin of the realm in what is presented as legitimate science. Thus, much of this corpus of "scientific literature" is trash.
I am very glad the author of the paper being discussed has raised these important questions.
You've got it right about the ill effects of publishers shooting for sales. But what if we're already living in the sci-fi space, so we can't distinguish where we are from what we might or should be? The best sci-fi that I have read addresses the fears in the present about a trajectory in society to the future. Usually something important, like freedom, individuality, or human emotion is there to be lost and the story draws stark contrasts between a hoped for future and a destructive one. I'm not sure that we as a society any longer recognize the cultural achievements of the past sufficiently to understand what we have to lose. If it is only about personal wealth or beauty that you buy, there is nothing to fear because there's nothing to lose. Hence, no sci-fi future. Just the sci future; the illusion that technological advance somehow always makes life better. I guess we just need stories that look to the past, like anti-sci-fi.
I agree, though, that the best sci-fi stories depend less on clever technology tricks about what the future and more on the problem of grasping our humanity. Sci-fi will live on when good authors show up. Why should it be a product that can be produced on a corporate schedule? Let the publishers bury themselves for awhile and something new will probably emerge.
I liked the article. Anime deserves recognition as a serious artform. I agree though that the article is off in several respects. It misses the questions often raised about science conducted by the wealthy presumably for the advancement of knowledge when power maybe more at issue; about the destructive power of knowledge that ignores the basic needs of humanity (e.g., Akira, Mononoke); about the complexity of questions about who is good and who is bad; about the dissolution of traditional cultures; and about the unpleasant realities of life and death that the Japanese explore so unflinchingly. These themes permeate many of the films cited in the article. The remarks about the Ghost in the Shell showed a big cultural blind-spot... Was Kusanagi questioning her humanity--wishing to be like us--or our primitive assumptions about humanity given the prospect of sentience in a machine--or within the flow of information itself? The Japanese are not afraid to "animate" what we would consider lifeless. Would a machine like Kusanagi really want to make the choice to be a human constrained to the hierarchies of human societies? Is a humanity that destroys nature not destroying itself, even as it presumes to control it's fate (Mononoke)? Animation is a means for exploring ideas that would be difficult to engage with standard film. The artform deserves recognition for becoming a driving influence on some of our most innovative cinema (e.g., The Matrix). We truly are the followers here. The NYT article is a step in the right direction; I hope it opens the door to reviews of anime on its (their?) own terms...
Mr. Katz sure knows how to provoke!! I take an interesting thought from his remarks: Like Clinton-era liberals, where some good work was lost to the public in the overemphasis on style and a pretentious and self-serving politically correct morality, the Apple crowd is increasingly depending on snob chic to sell their wares. They would do well to remember who really pays the bills and gets the work done in this country... Microsoft, afterall, would have us do things their way--for our own good. There might be alot of good--and maybe some profits--in Apple offering a bit of competition, revisiting their promise to provide useful tools for the masses.
Go, Mr. Katz!!... I'll keep reading...
The big problem here is that Microsoft presumes that it's interest in updating software supercedes the end-user's control of his or her machine. Why would any user want Microsoft doing anything to their machine without prior consent? The interest of a software corporation and the end-user are fundamentally different... Even local IT managers often screw up work in progress when updating software--usually timed for their convenience, not the user's. I am thankful that Microsoft is so incompetent; perhaps the ill-conceived notion that a central authority should dole out and control tools that have already been purchased by end-users will at last come under question.
I was about to get rid of Comcast Cable for approaching $40 per month. Big media always shoot for the middle of the road, so any advantage that cable was supposed to provide is dissappearing fast.. no diversity, no depth in the programmming, no risk-taking... I suppose HBO is doing some good things, but I do not want to pay monthly rent for one or two good shows. I would like a movie pipe, but I am not going to pay much more than the video rental cost for any given movie. These companies should get busy supporting smaller special interests more--like real thorough and objective news coverage for chrisssake!--so there actually seems like a reason to pay for them...