DIY science
Locked
 
|
Given the other discussion of the usability or testability of some scientific theories, I thought these might be interesting links: Build A Fusion Reactor http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/ Bringing particle physics to life: build your own cloud chamber http://www.scienceinschool.org/2010/issue14/cloud Detecting Exoplanets by Gravitational Microlensing using a Small Telescope http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609599 -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com Know ten things. Say nine. -- unknown ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
I'm not sure what the relevance is. I can do DIY science by getting access to whatever scientific equipment is needed to do the experiments. Does it really matter what it takes to get access to that equipment? It may be easy; it may be hard. But if it's possible what's the difference as far as your perspective on what science is?
-- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:05 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 04/22/2013 11:37 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> But if it's possible what's the difference as far as > your perspective on what science is? My point was that you, too, can build a device that might allow you to test E=mc^2. It was in response to your statement that: On 04/22/2013 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to > manipulate the world. Much of it provides the foundation for devices > that other people build through which I manipulate the world. My claim is that most of today's science can be personally used, by you, to manipulate the world. You can build the device. And you can use it to formulate a test for these theories. And I claimed this in order to push home my point that theories are not scientific unless they are accompanied by the science of a _test_. -- glen =><= Hail Eris! ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
But I can test E=mc^2 by gaining access to the equipment that allows for such tests. I don't have to build it myself. I still don't see the difference. My original point wasn't about testing e=mc^2; it was about using it in my daily life. I still don't see how I would use it other than in devices that I don't build but that take advantage of it--although I can't think of any of those either. Does a nuclear power generator count? I can't built it, but I can take advantage of it.
-- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:50 AM, glen ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Sorry, I did not intend that you would "use a scientific theory in your daily life". I merely wanted to say that "E=mc^2" is _not_ science. The science lies in the test, the actions you can take. I thought I said that. But maybe I was unclear. On 04/23/2013 07:57 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > But I can test E=mc^2 by gaining access to the equipment that allows for > such tests. I don't have to build it myself. I still don't see the > difference. My original point wasn't about testing e=mc^2; it was about > using it in my daily life. I still don't see how I would use it other than > in devices that I don't build but that take advantage of it--although I > can't think of any of those either. Does a nuclear power generator count? I > can't built it, but I can take advantage of it. -- glen =><= Hail Eris! ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
I still don't get it. If person x tests e=mc^2 and person y doesn't, then is e=mc^2 science to person x but not to person y? Is that the case even if person x tells person y about his test (or shows person y a video of his test)?
I'm not sure what the point of this is any more.
-- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:18 AM, glen ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
I think the Village Pragmatist would say that all science ... all cognition,
in fact ... grows out of the need for self control. Now, we have to be careful with "self-control" here, because it does not only mean, in this context, things like "keeping myself from flying off the handle in FRIAM discussions." By "self-control" is meant,"I poke the world and I see what happens to me." Depending on what happens, I poke the world differently the next time. N -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ropella Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:50 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] DIY science On 04/22/2013 11:37 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: > But if it's possible what's the difference as far as your perspective > on what science is? My point was that you, too, can build a device that might allow you to test E=mc^2. It was in response to your statement that: On 04/22/2013 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to > manipulate the world. Much of it provides the foundation for devices > that other people build through which I manipulate the world. My claim is that most of today's science can be personally used, by you, to manipulate the world. You can build the device. And you can use it to formulate a test for these theories. And I claimed this in order to push home my point that theories are not scientific unless they are accompanied by the science of a _test_. -- glen =><= Hail Eris! ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Doesn't the need for self-control encourage that one acquire knowledge about how the world works? That knowledge is useful (and reassuring) even if it's never used. Are you (or Glen) deprecating knowledge that's never used?
A fundamental confusion seems to me to involve distinguishing knowledge that one uses from knowledge that one doesn't (happen to) use. That seems like a very arbitrary distinction, and I don't understand the reason for wanting to make it. In both cases one is talking about stuff in one's mind. Whether an opportunity happens to arise in which to operate in the world on the basis of that information doesn't seem to me to have much bearing on how we think about that information in our minds. For example, I've never applied CPR to anyone (and hope I won't ever get the chance), but I'm glad I have some understanding of how to do it and how it works.
-- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: I think the Village Pragmatist would say that all science ... all cognition, ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/23/2013 09:45 AM:
> I still don't get it. If person x tests e=mc^2 and person y doesn't, > then is e=mc^2 science to person x but not to person y? Is that the > case even if person x tells person y about his test (or shows person > y a video of his test)? It can still be science to person Y if X explains the test well enough to Y so that Y can perform it, herself. If Y _cannot_ perform the test, then it is not science, to person Y or X. Science must be repeatable. > I'm not sure what the point of this is any more. Well, I'm not sure what you're point was. My point was to explore the idea of science without language. My claim is that there can be science without language because science is about _action_, actions executed by human bodies. Russ Abbott wrote at 04/23/2013 10:28 AM: > Doesn't the need for self-control encourage that one acquire knowledge > about how the world works? That knowledge is useful (and reassuring) > even if it's never used. Are you (or Glen) deprecating knowledge that's > never used? I am claiming that knowledge that is never used, is not knowledge at all. It's fantasy, imaginings, musings, whatever. It would be interesting for you to make the case for the existence of knowledge that is never used, by _never_, I mean never. It would be more interesting if you could provide an example of it. It would be easier and more interesting to make the case for knowledge that is rarely used, or used by one person but not another, etc. In the end, the conclusion would be usage = existence and nonusage = nonexistence. > A fundamental confusion seems to me to involve distinguishing > knowledge that one uses from knowledge that one doesn't (happen to) > use. That seems like a very arbitrary distinction, and I don't > understand the reason for wanting to make it. In both cases one is > talking about stuff in one's mind. Whether an opportunity happens to > arise in which to operate in the world on the basis of that > information doesn't seem to me to have much bearing on how we think > about that information in our minds. For example, I've never applied > CPR to anyone (and hope I won't ever get the chance), but I'm glad I > have some understanding of how to do it and how it works. I posit that you use every bit of knowledge in your head at some point, for some thing. I feel safe positing this because I don't believe in the mind/body duality. Your mind is your brain. Your brain controls your body and your body controls your brain. You may think that your knowledge of CPR doesn't change your behavior in any way. But I can claim that if you are _actually_ glad, then your body is already different due to the knowledge. Hence, that knowledge is used, in some way. Less trivially, when you learned CPR in the first place, your body changed in some way. The very act of learning changed your body. Hence, from the very start, that knowledge was used, by you, to change your body. The point being that usage is the important thing, not knowledge, used or (hypothetically) unused. If you have knowledge and it has zero impact on the world, then it is a no-op. It may as well not exist. Perhaps it really doesn't exist ... like those people who "learn" to do something by reading a book, but who can't actually do the thing they think they can do. -- =><= glen e. p. ropella I said children of the atom let's get together and die ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Hi Russ,
If I am not mistaken, accurate GPS, and perhaps even the GPS in common usage, needs to make appropriate corrections for the rate shift between clocks in orbit and clocks on earth, when the signals are sent from one to the other. The clocks are now that fine. If it did not do so, it would report locations that were wrong in a way that depended on the accident of where the satellites happened to be relative to each other and to the receiver. To the extent that E = mc^2 is a shorthand for the more general energy-momentum relation m^2 c^4 = E^2 + p^2 c^2 this is just the Fourier transform of the expression for the distance metric in Lorentizian geometry age^2 c^2 = t^2 c^2 - x^2 and from this Lorentzian geometry one is forced into clock shifts in a gravitational potential if gravity is to be no more than having to accelerate to stay where one is. So it's not super-direct, but to the extent that all of these relations are essentially expressions of the same geometric property, one couldn't have GPS without having got Lorentzian geometry right vis a vis nature. Eric ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
cognition as self-control (was DIY science)
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
I have to argue with you about all cognition growing out of the need for self control, as opposed to any other physiological process, e.g. turning food into energy, maintaining a reasonable brain temperature, excreting bile into the intestine, etc. Some of these can be classified as self control. But some of them don't fit the category very well. However, on your side, I think it's safe to say that _every_ behavior we engage in is accompanied by at least one, if not lots, of self control behaviors. E.g. it's hard to shoot a duck if your eyes are spastically wiggling around too much or you can't hold your arms steady. I'm wondering if a better way to say it is "maintaining an active embedding" in the world. It's a little bit about self control and a little bit about other control. Where the other won't bend, the self is modified and vice versa. Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/23/2013 10:17 AM: > I think the Village Pragmatist would say that all science ... all cognition, > in fact ... grows out of the need for self control. Now, we have to be > careful with "self-control" here, because it does not only mean, in this > context, things like "keeping myself from flying off the handle in FRIAM > discussions." By "self-control" is meant,"I poke the world and I see what > happens to me." Depending on what happens, I poke the world differently > the next time. N -- =><= glen e. p. ropella The dog is dead and the sacrifice is done ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: cognition as self-control (was DIY science)
|
|
Well, If I am doing my job well as the Village Pragmatist, you are arguing
with Peirce, not with me. Frankly, I have no idea what I think. But I think Peirce thinks a lot like a control system theorist ... eg. Powers. Nick -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:38 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] cognition as self-control (was DIY science) I have to argue with you about all cognition growing out of the need for self control, as opposed to any other physiological process, e.g. turning food into energy, maintaining a reasonable brain temperature, excreting bile into the intestine, etc. Some of these can be classified as self control. But some of them don't fit the category very well. However, on your side, I think it's safe to say that _every_ behavior we engage in is accompanied by at least one, if not lots, of self control behaviors. E.g. it's hard to shoot a duck if your eyes are spastically wiggling around too much or you can't hold your arms steady. I'm wondering if a better way to say it is "maintaining an active embedding" in the world. It's a little bit about self control and a little bit about other control. Where the other won't bend, the self is modified and vice versa. Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/23/2013 10:17 AM: > I think the Village Pragmatist would say that all science ... all > cognition, in fact ... grows out of the need for self control. Now, > we have to be careful with "self-control" here, because it does not > only mean, in this context, things like "keeping myself from flying > off the handle in FRIAM discussions." By "self-control" is meant,"I poke the world and I see what > happens to me." Depending on what happens, I poke the world differently > the next time. N -- =><= glen e. p. ropella The dog is dead and the sacrifice is done ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eric Smith
I would say self-control is a sufficient but not necessary condition for doing science. Besides the joy that it gives me to find out about it, my life will be more or less the same whether I know the ratio of blue to red elliptical galaxies or not.
I saw there was another (currently small) thread about this, but I have not read it yet, so please excuse any repetition. -Arlo James Barnes ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
In the spirit of Glen's offerings of
DIY Science, here is one I was recently tracking...
http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/tealaser/tealaser7.htm FYI T.E.A stands for "transversely excited atmospheric" laser... and it essentially uses the 70+% N2 in the atmosphere as the active element... the lasing "chamber" is the brief-lived plasma between two parallel aluminum angle-bars... cycling at roughly 120hz Discussion of the point or value of these types of projects and whether they are "Science" or "Technology" aside, it is pretty amazing to see nothing more exotic than a high voltage power supply and aluminum "scrap" involved and an esoteric principle of science (LASEing) demonstrated on your own workbench. As Fred likes to say... "Do not look into the laser with your remaining good eye!". I might also remind the group that George Johnson, local Science writer extraordinaire and his book: "The Ten Most Beautiful Experiments". Somewhere I have a hiqh quality (color) reproduction of Michelson's notebook on the famous interferometry experiment that put to bed the question of aether. In his own "hand", the work is elegant and inspiring as to what science can be (and was) without high technology (by today's standards), albeit with some difficulty (who has a pool of mercury to float a block of marble in?). There appear to be 2 copies for sale on Amazon now... Bell Labs made the reproductions for their employees. My (two) copies came by way of the St John's Library bag sale each year... they had about 20 copies and my wife and I (independently) grabbed one, not wanting to be greedy... soon after the remaining 18 copies got gobbled by someone *more* willing to be greedy. I gave a copy to a dear friend who can appreciate such artifacts and then buried my own copy somewhere in my archives. Bah! This link is modestly apropos of the experiment in question but also responsive to our earlier question of "what is a force?". http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html- Steve Given the other discussion of the usability or testability of some scientific theories, I thought these might be interesting links: Build A Fusion Reactor http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/ Bringing particle physics to life: build your own cloud chamber http://www.scienceinschool.org/2010/issue14/cloud Detecting Exoplanets by Gravitational Microlensing using a Small Telescope http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609599 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Steve Smith wrote at 04/25/2013 10:35 PM:
> http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/tealaser/tealaser7.htm Nice! I think I have my next dorkbot project. I had to quit going to the meetings because I was so embarrassed that I hadn't done anything in so long. And my theramin project was a complete failure. Debugging is hard. 8^) -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day. -- John A. Wheeler ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |