Experiment and Interpretation

[plissaman]

Klowns like me are often misinterpreted, as noted by Yorick.  I am ardently in favor of experiment, carefully observed.  It is the basis of all science. But, but, the interpretation of observed phenomena must also be dealt with carefully.  Voodoo has a pernicious way of creeping in.  After all, for two thousand years we knew that malaria was caused by the bad air of the low, swampy places where it was prevalent, and deadly.  It was only in 1896, after the Anopheles mosquitoes started reading the Annals of Tropical Medicine in the Lancet (not by a Limey, but Dr. Ronald Ross, an admirable Scots physician) that the little critters realized that they had the God-given gift of spreading the disease by biting white people, and thus helped the indigenous populations by keeping Europeans out of the  “White Man’s Grave”. 

 

I love observations, and it is not for me to challenge what people see.  If pious folks observe the image of the Virgin Mary on a half-baked tortilla, I say, “Let it be”.  She certainly has Power to do that, according to Those in the Know, and it seems to me like a folksy, open-hearted gesture on Her Part, that our president would do well to emulate.

 

But, a little learning is a dangerous thing, and it is injudicious to draw conclusions from phenomena that one does not understand the physics of.   It is certainly valid for an honest amateur to ask, “But how can I know if my theory is Voodoo?”  Here are some modest proposals:  first, study as much as you can about the subject, second, understand it well enough to use the professional technical terms of the discipline and then, third, ask a few knowledgeable folks privately for their opinions.

 

So, follows some constructive suggestions.  Read.  Learn.  The Picasso of irrotational rotating viscous/inviscid flows was an amiable Top Brit, Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor.  He is probably now sitting on some Tiepolo cloud up there watching with satisfaction the grand swirling vortical structure of the firmament of the heavens.  I knew him as a lofty figure, and was honored to present the G I Taylor Memorial Lecture at a university far from here some 20 years ago.  There is lotsa stuff on GI on the internet that one can read and learn from – in particular the Taylor-Proudman theorem that has a special charm for me, since before his name was immortalized, I was a lowly scholar in Dr. Proudman’s grad. fluid mechanics classes at Cambridge.   He would not remember, but I recall him, as I melted silently, respectfully, into the woodwork of those 17 th century desks. Fer Gawd’s Sake, Newton sat right there! I held my peace. Dumb questions (which were all I could muster then, and even now) were not encouraged in the Old Maths Schools at the University.

 

As for asking folks, it is my modest guess that, for all their many fine qualities, not too many Friam correspondents have that much background in the very esoteric, and charmingly pointless, subject of pouring fluids outa bottles – unless they be of a good vintage.  But I will answer privately things that folk may ask personally, to the extent I am capable.

 

It is nice, and generous, for the blind to lead the blind, but the truth is seldom approached by that sorta debate. It takes hard work, intelligence and the learning of new ideas.

 

Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low pressures at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with stationary air as the contiguous external fluid are at the same CONSTANT pressure. How could they be otherwise?

Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:[phone]

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Nick Thompson]

Dear Peter,

 

There are three ways to learn something:  read, fiddle with things, and talk to somebody.  I think the best learning take place if one is doing all three at the same time.  

 

Nick

 

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 12:35 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

Klowns like me are often misinterpreted, as noted by Yorick.  I am ardently in favor of experiment, carefully observed.  It is the basis of all science. But, but, the interpretation of observed phenomena must also be dealt with carefully.  Voodoo has a pernicious way of creeping in.  After all, for two thousand years we knew that malaria was caused by the bad air of the low, swampy places where it was prevalent, and deadly.  It was only in 1896, after the Anopheles mosquitoes started reading the Annals of Tropical Medicine in the Lancet (not by a Limey, but Dr. Ronald Ross, an admirable Scots physician) that the little critters realized that they had the God-given gift of spreading the disease by biting white people, and thus helped the indigenous populations by keeping Europeans out of the  “White Man’s Grave”. 

 

I love observations, and it is not for me to challenge what people see.  If pious folks observe the image of the Virgin Mary on a half-baked tortilla, I say, “Let it be”.  She certainly has Power to do that, according to Those in the Know, and it seems to me like a folksy, open-hearted gesture on Her Part, that our president would do well to emulate.

 

But, a little learning is a dangerous thing, and it is injudicious to draw conclusions from phenomena that one does not understand the physics of.   It is certainly valid for an honest amateur to ask, “But how can I know if my theory is Voodoo?”  Here are some modest proposals:  first, study as much as you can about the subject, second, understand it well enough to use the professional technical terms of the discipline and then, third, ask a few knowledgeable folks privately for their opinions.

 

So, follows some constructive suggestions.  Read.  Learn.  The Picasso of irrotational rotating viscous/inviscid flows was an amiable Top Brit, Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor.  He is probably now sitting on some Tiepolo cloud up there watching with satisfaction the grand swirling vortical structure of the firmament of the heavens.  I knew him as a lofty figure, and was honored to present the G I Taylor Memorial Lecture at a university far from here some 20 years ago.  There is lotsa stuff on GI on the internet that one can read and learn from – in particular the Taylor-Proudman theorem that has a special charm for me, since before his name was immortalized, I was a lowly scholar in Dr. Proudman’s grad. fluid mechanics classes at Cambridge.   He would not remember, but I recall him, as I melted silently, respectfully, into the woodwork of those 17 th century desks. Fer Gawd’s Sake, Newton sat right there! I held my peace. Dumb questions (which were all I could muster then, and even now) were not encouraged in the Old Maths Schools at the University.

 

As for asking folks, it is my modest guess that, for all their many fine qualities, not too many Friam correspondents have that much background in the very esoteric, and charmingly pointless, subject of pouring fluids outa bottles – unless they be of a good vintage.  But I will answer privately things that folk may ask personally, to the extent I am capable.

 

It is nice, and generous, for the blind to lead the blind, but the truth is seldom approached by that sorta debate. It takes hard work, intelligence and the learning of new ideas.

 

Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low pressures at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with stationary air as the contiguous external fluid are at the same CONSTANT pressure. How could they be otherwise?

Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
<a href="tel:[phone]">tel:[phone]

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[lrudolph]

Peter Lissaman writes, in relevant part:

> Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low
> pressures at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with
> stationary air as the contiguous external fluid are at the same
> CONSTANT pressure. How could they be otherwise?

But, with discontiguous bodies of stationary air (e.g.,
(1) the large body containing the air in the kitchen or
bathroom where Nick has his sink, along with most of the
rest of the terrestrial atmosphere, and (2) the air
trapped between either (a1) the plug, or (a2) the lower
surface of the water in Nick's sink, at the moment
when he pulls the plug, and (b) one of the two free
surfaces of the standing fluid--greasy water--in
the U-bend of the grease trap), there can be (for
a while) DIFFERENT constant pressures at different
internal/external fluid interfaces--no?  

This is (what I would call) a question asked personally
(though not privately), but if I receive neither a private
nor a public answer, I will simply conclude that you draw
the distinction between "personally" and "privately"
differently than I do.

Lee Rudolph
 

 


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Eric Charles]

Sarbajit,
I believe that for the purposes of some types of learning, Nick would consider that a form of "fiddling." Certainly I would. This is most obvious if you are trying to find out what would happen if you sit under the boddhi tree by yourself for a while. However, it is presumably an appropriate means of experimentation for trying to answer a host of other questions.

Eric

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 12:19 PM, Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]> wrote:

As opposed to the (a ?) fourth way of simply setting under a boddhi tree and isolating yourself from the world ?

Sarbajit

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson@...> wrote:

Dear Peter,

 

There are three ways to learn something:  read, fiddle with things, and talk to somebody.  I think the best learning take place if one is doing all three at the same time.  

 

Nick

 

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

Well, I guess all I can say is that I don't have the temperament to play "thought experiments", or to spend endless cycles getting all hand wavy about serious, complex physical systems behavior.  Regarding the issue of water flowing down the drain which originally started this thread, there are approximately 1.27 x 10^26 molecules of water per gallon, all interacting with each other, and the boundary layers that are defined by the air/water interfaces and the water/vessel interfaces.  The forces that define the nature of these interactions are fairly well understood, and have been modeled at some degree of resolution or another countless times.  So, what's the point of launching a hand-waving expedition about the phenomenon?  I just don't get it.

--Doug

-- 
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:34 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Klowns like me are often misinterpreted, as noted by Yorick.  I am ardently in favor of experiment, carefully observed.  It is the basis of all science. But, but, the interpretation of observed phenomena must also be dealt with carefully.  Voodoo has a pernicious way of creeping in.  After all, for two thousand years we knew that malaria was caused by the bad air of the low, swampy places where it was prevalent, and deadly.  It was only in 1896, after the Anopheles mosquitoes started reading the Annals of Tropical Medicine in the Lancet (not by a Limey, but Dr. Ronald Ross, an admirable Scots physician) that the little critters realized that they had the God-given gift of spreading the disease by biting white people, and thus helped the indigenous populations by keeping Europeans out of the  “White Man’s Grave”. 

 

I love observations, and it is not for me to challenge what people see.  If pious folks observe the image of the Virgin Mary on a half-baked tortilla, I say, “Let it be”.  She certainly has Power to do that, according to Those in the Know, and it seems to me like a folksy, open-hearted gesture on Her Part, that our president would do well to emulate.

 

But, a little learning is a dangerous thing, and it is injudicious to draw conclusions from phenomena that one does not understand the physics of.   It is certainly valid for an honest amateur to ask, “But how can I know if my theory is Voodoo?”  Here are some modest proposals:  first, study as much as you can about the subject, second, understand it well enough to use the professional technical terms of the discipline and then, third, ask a few knowledgeable folks privately for their opinions.

 

So, follows some constructive suggestions.  Read.  Learn.  The Picasso of irrotational rotating viscous/inviscid flows was an amiable Top Brit, Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor.  He is probably now sitting on some Tiepolo cloud up there watching with satisfaction the grand swirling vortical structure of the firmament of the heavens.  I knew him as a lofty figure, and was honored to present the G I Taylor Memorial Lecture at a university far from here some 20 years ago.  There is lotsa stuff on GI on the internet that one can read and learn from – in particular the Taylor-Proudman theorem that has a special charm for me, since before his name was immortalized, I was a lowly scholar in Dr. Proudman’s grad. fluid mechanics classes at Cambridge.   He would not remember, but I recall him, as I melted silently, respectfully, into the woodwork of those 17 th century desks. Fer Gawd’s Sake, Newton sat right there! I held my peace. Dumb questions (which were all I could muster then, and even now) were not encouraged in the Old Maths Schools at the University.

 

As for asking folks, it is my modest guess that, for all their many fine qualities, not too many Friam correspondents have that much background in the very esoteric, and charmingly pointless, subject of pouring fluids outa bottles – unless they be of a good vintage.  But I will answer privately things that folk may ask personally, to the extent I am capable.

 

It is nice, and generous, for the blind to lead the blind, but the truth is seldom approached by that sorta debate. It takes hard work, intelligence and the learning of new ideas.

 

Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low pressures at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with stationary air as the contiguous external fluid are at the same CONSTANT pressure. How could they be otherwise?

Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:<a href="tel:%28505%29983-7728" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Victoria Hughes]

Ahem.

Thus working in a studio setting.

Don't think I am not observing the clamorous silence

 in response to my post inviting you over to experiment with 

what you think will happen, 

what does happen, and 

how you made it happen.

VEH

On Jul 4, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Dear Peter,

 

There are three ways to learn something:  read, fiddle with things, and talk to somebody.  I think the best learning take place if one is doing all three at the same time.  

 

Nick

 

 

 

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 12:35 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

Klowns like me are often misinterpreted, as noted by Yorick.  I am ardently in favor of experiment, carefully observed.  It is the basis of all science. But, but, the interpretation of observed phenomena must also be dealt with carefully.  Voodoo has a pernicious way of creeping in.  After all, for two thousand years we knew that malaria was caused by the bad air of the low, swampy places where it was prevalent, and deadly.  It was only in 1896, after the Anopheles mosquitoes started reading the Annals of Tropical Medicine in the Lancet (not by a Limey, but Dr. Ronald Ross, an admirable Scots physician) that the little critters realized that they had the God-given gift of spreading the disease by biting white people, and thus helped the indigenous populations by keeping Europeans out of the  “White Man’s Grave”. 

 

I love observations, and it is not for me to challenge what people see.  If pious folks observe the image of the Virgin Mary on a half-baked tortilla, I say, “Let it be”.  She certainly has Power to do that, according to Those in the Know, and it seems to me like a folksy, open-hearted gesture on Her Part, that our president would do well to emulate.

 

But, a little learning is a dangerous thing, and it is injudicious to draw conclusions from phenomena that one does not understand the physics of.   It is certainly valid for an honest amateur to ask, “But how can I know if my theory is Voodoo?”  Here are some modest proposals:  first, study as much as you can about the subject, second, understand it well enough to use the professional technical terms of the discipline and then, third, ask a few knowledgeable folks privately for their opinions.

 

So, follows some constructive suggestions.  Read.  Learn.  The Picasso of irrotational rotating viscous/inviscid flows was an amiable Top Brit, Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor.  He is probably now sitting on some Tiepolo cloud up there watching with satisfaction the grand swirling vortical structure of the firmament of the heavens.  I knew him as a lofty figure, and was honored to present the G I Taylor Memorial Lecture at a university far from here some 20 years ago.  There is lotsa stuff on GI on the internet that one can read and learn from – in particular the Taylor-Proudman theorem that has a special charm for me, since before his name was immortalized, I was a lowly scholar in Dr. Proudman’s grad. fluid mechanics classes at Cambridge.   He would not remember, but I recall him, as I melted silently, respectfully, into the woodwork of those 17 th century desks. Fer Gawd’s Sake, Newton sat right there! I held my peace. Dumb questions (which were all I could muster then, and even now) were not encouraged in the Old Maths Schools at the University.

 

As for asking folks, it is my modest guess that, for all their many fine qualities, not too many Friam correspondents have that much background in the very esoteric, and charmingly pointless, subject of pouring fluids outa bottles – unless they be of a good vintage.  But I will answer privately things that folk may ask personally, to the extent I am capable.

 

It is nice, and generous, for the blind to lead the blind, but the truth is seldom approached by that sorta debate. It takes hard work, intelligence and the learning of new ideas.

 

Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low pressures at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with stationary air as the contiguous external fluid are at the same CONSTANT pressure. How could they be otherwise?

Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
<a href="tel:[phone]" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">tel:[phone]

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Nick Thompson]

Well, a couple of points.

 

First, It says something kind of funny about physics … that it will never explain anything that any of us are curious about.

 

Second, it seems to say that there is no educational advantage to … nothing to be learned from … trying to connect principle to vernatcular experience. 

 

Nick

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

Well, I guess all I can say is that I don't have the temperament to play "thought experiments", or to spend endless cycles getting all hand wavy about serious, complex physical systems behavior.  Regarding the issue of water flowing down the drain which originally started this thread, there are approximately 1.27 x 10^26 molecules of water per gallon, all interacting with each other, and the boundary layers that are defined by the air/water interfaces and the water/vessel interfaces.  The forces that define the nature of these interactions are fairly well understood, and have been modeled at some degree of resolution or another countless times.  So, what's the point of launching a hand-waving expedition about the phenomenon?  I just don't get it.

 

--Doug

 

-- 
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:34 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Klowns like me are often misinterpreted, as noted by Yorick.  I am ardently in favor of experiment, carefully observed.  It is the basis of all science. But, but, the interpretation of observed phenomena must also be dealt with carefully.  Voodoo has a pernicious way of creeping in.  After all, for two thousand years we knew that malaria was caused by the bad air of the low, swampy places where it was prevalent, and deadly.  It was only in 1896, after the Anopheles mosquitoes started reading the Annals of Tropical Medicine in the Lancet (not by a Limey, but Dr. Ronald Ross, an admirable Scots physician) that the little critters realized that they had the God-given gift of spreading the disease by biting white people, and thus helped the indigenous populations by keeping Europeans out of the  “White Man’s Grave”. 

 

I love observations, and it is not for me to challenge what people see.  If pious folks observe the image of the Virgin Mary on a half-baked tortilla, I say, “Let it be”.  She certainly has Power to do that, according to Those in the Know, and it seems to me like a folksy, open-hearted gesture on Her Part, that our president would do well to emulate.

 

But, a little learning is a dangerous thing, and it is injudicious to draw conclusions from phenomena that one does not understand the physics of.   It is certainly valid for an honest amateur to ask, “But how can I know if my theory is Voodoo?”  Here are some modest proposals:  first, study as much as you can about the subject, second, understand it well enough to use the professional technical terms of the discipline and then, third, ask a few knowledgeable folks privately for their opinions.

 

So, follows some constructive suggestions.  Read.  Learn.  The Picasso of irrotational rotating viscous/inviscid flows was an amiable Top Brit, Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor.  He is probably now sitting on some Tiepolo cloud up there watching with satisfaction the grand swirling vortical structure of the firmament of the heavens.  I knew him as a lofty figure, and was honored to present the G I Taylor Memorial Lecture at a university far from here some 20 years ago.  There is lotsa stuff on GI on the internet that one can read and learn from – in particular the Taylor-Proudman theorem that has a special charm for me, since before his name was immortalized, I was a lowly scholar in Dr. Proudman’s grad. fluid mechanics classes at Cambridge.   He would not remember, but I recall him, as I melted silently, respectfully, into the woodwork of those 17 th century desks. Fer Gawd’s Sake, Newton sat right there! I held my peace. Dumb questions (which were all I could muster then, and even now) were not encouraged in the Old Maths Schools at the University.

 

As for asking folks, it is my modest guess that, for all their many fine qualities, not too many Friam correspondents have that much background in the very esoteric, and charmingly pointless, subject of pouring fluids outa bottles – unless they be of a good vintage.  But I will answer privately things that folk may ask personally, to the extent I am capable.

 

It is nice, and generous, for the blind to lead the blind, but the truth is seldom approached by that sorta debate. It takes hard work, intelligence and the learning of new ideas.

 

Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low pressures at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with stationary air as the contiguous external fluid are at the same CONSTANT pressure. How could they be otherwise?

Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:<a href="tel:%28505%29983-7728" target="_blank">[phone]

 

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

There is *everything* to be learned from the phenomenon in question, if one is just willing to buckle down and study the underlying science.  Mechanical engineering.  Chemical Engineering.  Physics.  Fluid flow dynamics.  Mathematics.  Kinematics.  Statics.  These sciences contain the language to describe and/or explain the physics of vortex mechanics.  English and hand waving and/or philosophy <shudder> are not rich enough communications media to carry that much information.

--Doug

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, a couple of points.

 

First, It says something kind of funny about physics … that it will never explain anything that any of us are curious about.

 

Second, it seems to say that there is no educational advantage to … nothing to be learned from … trying to connect principle to vernatcular experience. 

 

Nick

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

Well, I guess all I can say is that I don't have the temperament to play "thought experiments", or to spend endless cycles getting all hand wavy about serious, complex physical systems behavior.  Regarding the issue of water flowing down the drain which originally started this thread, there are approximately 1.27 x 10^26 molecules of water per gallon, all interacting with each other, and the boundary layers that are defined by the air/water interfaces and the water/vessel interfaces.  The forces that define the nature of these interactions are fairly well understood, and have been modeled at some degree of resolution or another countless times.  So, what's the point of launching a hand-waving expedition about the phenomenon?  I just don't get it.

 

--Doug

 

-- 
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:34 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Klowns like me are often misinterpreted, as noted by Yorick.  I am ardently in favor of experiment, carefully observed.  It is the basis of all science. But, but, the interpretation of observed phenomena must also be dealt with carefully.  Voodoo has a pernicious way of creeping in.  After all, for two thousand years we knew that malaria was caused by the bad air of the low, swampy places where it was prevalent, and deadly.  It was only in 1896, after the Anopheles mosquitoes started reading the Annals of Tropical Medicine in the Lancet (not by a Limey, but Dr. Ronald Ross, an admirable Scots physician) that the little critters realized that they had the God-given gift of spreading the disease by biting white people, and thus helped the indigenous populations by keeping Europeans out of the  “White Man’s Grave”. 

 

I love observations, and it is not for me to challenge what people see.  If pious folks observe the image of the Virgin Mary on a half-baked tortilla, I say, “Let it be”.  She certainly has Power to do that, according to Those in the Know, and it seems to me like a folksy, open-hearted gesture on Her Part, that our president would do well to emulate.

 

But, a little learning is a dangerous thing, and it is injudicious to draw conclusions from phenomena that one does not understand the physics of.   It is certainly valid for an honest amateur to ask, “But how can I know if my theory is Voodoo?”  Here are some modest proposals:  first, study as much as you can about the subject, second, understand it well enough to use the professional technical terms of the discipline and then, third, ask a few knowledgeable folks privately for their opinions.

 

So, follows some constructive suggestions.  Read.  Learn.  The Picasso of irrotational rotating viscous/inviscid flows was an amiable Top Brit, Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor.  He is probably now sitting on some Tiepolo cloud up there watching with satisfaction the grand swirling vortical structure of the firmament of the heavens.  I knew him as a lofty figure, and was honored to present the G I Taylor Memorial Lecture at a university far from here some 20 years ago.  There is lotsa stuff on GI on the internet that one can read and learn from – in particular the Taylor-Proudman theorem that has a special charm for me, since before his name was immortalized, I was a lowly scholar in Dr. Proudman’s grad. fluid mechanics classes at Cambridge.   He would not remember, but I recall him, as I melted silently, respectfully, into the woodwork of those 17 th century desks. Fer Gawd’s Sake, Newton sat right there! I held my peace. Dumb questions (which were all I could muster then, and even now) were not encouraged in the Old Maths Schools at the University.

 

As for asking folks, it is my modest guess that, for all their many fine qualities, not too many Friam correspondents have that much background in the very esoteric, and charmingly pointless, subject of pouring fluids outa bottles – unless they be of a good vintage.  But I will answer privately things that folk may ask personally, to the extent I am capable.

 

It is nice, and generous, for the blind to lead the blind, but the truth is seldom approached by that sorta debate. It takes hard work, intelligence and the learning of new ideas.

 

Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low pressures at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with stationary air as the contiguous external fluid are at the same CONSTANT pressure. How could they be otherwise?

Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:<a href="tel:%28505%29983-7728" target="_blank">[phone]

 

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Nick Thompson]

Ok.  What follows from that?   Only experts should speak?  Only experts should think  Or, Nick should shut up and stop talking about it?  ? Don’t e xperts have the obligation to pull up their shorts and take the time to explain it to the rest of us?I don’t understand the intellectual world that would flow from your approach?

 

Nick

 

 

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 4:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

There is *everything* to be learned from the phenomenon in question, if one is just willing to buckle down and study the underlying science.  Mechanical engineering.  Chemical Engineering.  Physics.  Fluid flow dynamics.  Mathematics.  Kinematics.  Statics.  These sciences contain the language to describe and/or explain the physics of vortex mechanics.  English and hand waving and/or philosophy <shudder> are not rich enough communications media to carry that much information.

 

--Doug

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, a couple of points.

 

First, It says something kind of funny about physics … that it will never explain anything that any of us are curious about.

 

Second, it seems to say that there is no educational advantage to … nothing to be learned from … trying to connect principle to vernatcular experience. 

 

Nick

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

Well, I guess all I can say is that I don't have the temperament to play "thought experiments", or to spend endless cycles getting all hand wavy about serious, complex physical systems behavior.  Regarding the issue of water flowing down the drain which originally started this thread, there are approximately 1.27 x 10^26 molecules of water per gallon, all interacting with each other, and the boundary layers that are defined by the air/water interfaces and the water/vessel interfaces.  The forces that define the nature of these interactions are fairly well understood, and have been modeled at some degree of resolution or another countless times.  So, what's the point of launching a hand-waving expedition about the phenomenon?  I just don't get it.

 

--Doug

 

-- 
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:34 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Klowns like me are often misinterpreted, as noted by Yorick.  I am ardently in favor of experiment, carefully observed.  It is the basis of all science. But, but, the interpretation of observed phenomena must also be dealt with carefully.  Voodoo has a pernicious way of creeping in.  After all, for two thousand years we knew that malaria was caused by the bad air of the low, swampy places where it was prevalent, and deadly.  It was only in 1896, after the Anopheles mosquitoes started reading the Annals of Tropical Medicine in the Lancet (not by a Limey, but Dr. Ronald Ross, an admirable Scots physician) that the little critters realized that they had the God-given gift of spreading the disease by biting white people, and thus helped the indigenous populations by keeping Europeans out of the  “White Man’s Grave”. 

 

I love observations, and it is not for me to challenge what people see.  If pious folks observe the image of the Virgin Mary on a half-baked tortilla, I say, “Let it be”.  She certainly has Power to do that, according to Those in the Know, and it seems to me like a folksy, open-hearted gesture on Her Part, that our president would do well to emulate.

 

But, a little learning is a dangerous thing, and it is injudicious to draw conclusions from phenomena that one does not understand the physics of.   It is certainly valid for an honest amateur to ask, “But how can I know if my theory is Voodoo?”  Here are some modest proposals:  first, study as much as you can about the subject, second, understand it well enough to use the professional technical terms of the discipline and then, third, ask a few knowledgeable folks privately for their opinions.

 

So, follows some constructive suggestions.  Read.  Learn.  The Picasso of irrotational rotating viscous/inviscid flows was an amiable Top Brit, Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor.  He is probably now sitting on some Tiepolo cloud up there watching with satisfaction the grand swirling vortical structure of the firmament of the heavens.  I knew him as a lofty figure, and was honored to present the G I Taylor Memorial Lecture at a university far from here some 20 years ago.  There is lotsa stuff on GI on the internet that one can read and learn from – in particular the Taylor-Proudman theorem that has a special charm for me, since before his name was immortalized, I was a lowly scholar in Dr. Proudman’s grad. fluid mechanics classes at Cambridge.   He would not remember, but I recall him, as I melted silently, respectfully, into the woodwork of those 17 th century desks. Fer Gawd’s Sake, Newton sat right there! I held my peace. Dumb questions (which were all I could muster then, and even now) were not encouraged in the Old Maths Schools at the University.

 

As for asking folks, it is my modest guess that, for all their many fine qualities, not too many Friam correspondents have that much background in the very esoteric, and charmingly pointless, subject of pouring fluids outa bottles – unless they be of a good vintage.  But I will answer privately things that folk may ask personally, to the extent I am capable.

 

It is nice, and generous, for the blind to lead the blind, but the truth is seldom approached by that sorta debate. It takes hard work, intelligence and the learning of new ideas.

 

Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low pressures at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with stationary air as the contiguous external fluid are at the same CONSTANT pressure. How could they be otherwise?

Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:<a href="tel:%28505%29983-7728" target="_blank">[phone]

 

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[lrudolph]

Nick replies to Douglas Roberts:

> First, It says something kind of funny about physics .
> that it will never
> explain anything that any of us are curious about

unless we first learn enough about it (physics) that
we can understand the explanation (in physical terms)?

> Second, it seems to say that there is no educational advantage to . nothing
> to be learned from . trying to connect principle to vernatcular experience

without making the connections in a principled (rather
than vernacular???) way?




============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Steve Smith]

Nick -

As usual, I'm of two minds.  I appreciate your frustration, as I do those of those more educated/trained in the relative sciences of the problem under scrutiny.

I do not think it is unreasonable for someone such as yourself to try to get a grasp on the phenomena of interest with a combination of observation, research of the existing underlying theory, and discussion with anyone who will engage with you on the topic (I bet your barber and grocery clerk are totally tired of hearing about swirlies!).

On the other hand, you know from your own chosen field of expertise that a simplistic understanding of the complex phenomena that you have studied deeply is almost always lacking and sometimes listening to others attempt to (over)simplify the issues involved (which you spent years or decades coming to appreciate) can be extremely grating.  

Without speaking for anyone else here, I find myself in the middle.   And of two minds!

When I notice something counter-intuitive in the world, or which seems to contradict "conventional wisdom", my little brain's gears creak into engagement and things start whirling, clacking and grinding.  Sometimes I open my mouth and let those sounds come out in the presence of others, sometimes I don't.   I have a variety of friends and colleagues with a variety of expertise at a variety of depths which I tap in various ways.  Some require that I buy them coffee or beer or even hard liquor before they will  listen to me.  Many require that I listen to them politely while they struggle with concepts *I* either find trivial or so complex as to be impossible to discuss with anyone except another with my level of understanding.  Others require that I be entertaining in some other way before they will engage their clacking, grinding, creaking brains with mine.

 Yet others simply refuse... or throw me an ultimatum.. (e.g. "I will discuss with you Evolution of Form *only* after you have read D'Arcy Thompson's seminal work on the topic and *after* you forget everything that you have ever heard coming from the mouth, pen, typewriter, word processor or disciple of Rupert Sheldrake).   Such usually leads me to go read D'arcy Thompson (and peek at Rupert Sheldrake) at which point I often don't bother to re-engage said friend, colleague, because I appreciate how complex/subtle/compromised the topic may be after all.

As you can tell, I'm equally willing to ignore yours (and other's) variously idle to serious speculations about things as I am to jump up on the dinner table and wave my own hands wildly.   Many (the list is 500 strong?) obviously are happy either ignoring us completely, musing silently as their tub drains, or grating their teeth and kicking their dog in response to our inanity.

I myself have drained as many basins while staring at them intently as I'm likely to in my life.  I think your questions are interesting, I think there are simple answers which have already been discussed and then there are arbitrarily complex answers which you've only heard people allude to (e.g. "this problem has been thoroughly studied", "why don't you get a PhD in fluid dynamics and a specialty in vortex watching?").

There is a reason that there is such a large market for popular science books, articles, videos, etc.  Many of us are truly curious about the physical world around us but are unlikely to take the time (get a PhD and work a few years in the field?) to really understand the things we are curious about.   So we are very happy when someone who has done this is willing to take the time to write the book, make the documentary, etc.   I love Stephen Hawking, Fritjof Capra, James Gleick, Douglas Hofstadter, Michael Pollan, Henry Petrotski, Esther Dyson, Sherri Turkle, George Johnson, Jared Diamond,  and all those other folks for taking the time not only to actually understand some of the things I'm curious about, but also take the time to put it in language that I have a chance of understanding.

I say, don't let anyone stop you from asking the questions and even taking a layman's whack at some answers, but it is obvious that many will avoid diving in too deep with you.   Those who have lived their lives in the trenches of the topic at hand (like Peter) would seem the most likely to be unwilling to go beyond the most superficial of explanations and engagements.  Beyond that point, there be dragons!  Only the very brave or very foolish venture further!

I for one think foolhardiness is a good substitute for bravery, else why would any of us ever marry, have children, develop an expertise in anything, leave the safety and comfort of our homes (or bathtubs), etc.

If it is any consolation, I spend huge amounts of my time doing things for myself that others (especially well defined systems) could do for me more "efficiently".  When an expert (or just anyone steeped in the standard method) arrives on the scene, they are always appalled, and even moreso if I ask them (even for pay) to make sense of the mess I have.   The propane man doesn't want to troubleshoot my homemade methane generator or the converted gas appliances that run off of it.  The drywall guy nearly croaked when he saw the framing/blocking I left for him to try to make straight lines of  in my new sunroom, but with enough happy cajoling and promises to pay him hourly, not by the square foot, I have a pretty damned nice looking ceiling.  Any self-respecting farmer/gardener giggles when they see what passes with me for growing food.  My mechanic cringes when I bring him any of the vehicles I don't normally let him maintain (my 1949 Dumptruck being the scariest of all).

I personally do not care to spend my life studying the conventional topics from the conventional texts, accepting the conventional hypotheses, sitting at Jiffy Lube while the 17 year old kid lectures me on why my 2 month old air filter "really needs replacing" at $40 when I just did it myself for $12, or  paying an architect and crew of professionals (or not) to spend $80K of my hard earned money to add $50K value to my home. I have the luxury to make a lot of mistakes, so I do.  I suppose I could spend my free time watching TV, shopping or taking cruises instead.     

That is not to say that I don't understand that all of these people (experts) can get rather irritated at me for doing things my own way, figuring things out for myself, avoiding the presumed "truths" of the masses.   Nor is it to say that I don't consult the manuals (after my first major faux pas) or study the theory of something before I dove in over my head.  

Sorry for the tangential rant... I think your frustration triggered some resonance for me both about "experts" and about "amateurs" which I find myself playing both from time to time.

Carry on,
 - Steve

Well, a couple of points.

 

First, It says something kind of funny about physics … that it will never explain anything that any of us are curious about.

 

Second, it seems to say that there is no educational advantage to … nothing to be learned from … trying to connect principle to vernatcular experience. 

 

Nick

 

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

Well, I guess all I can say is that I don't have the temperament to play "thought experiments", or to spend endless cycles getting all hand wavy about serious, complex physical systems behavior.  Regarding the issue of water flowing down the drain which originally started this thread, there are approximately 1.27 x 10^26 molecules of water per gallon, all interacting with each other, and the boundary layers that are defined by the air/water interfaces and the water/vessel interfaces.  The forces that define the nature of these interactions are fairly well understood, and have been modeled at some degree of resolution or another countless times.  So, what's the point of launching a hand-waving expedition about the phenomenon?  I just don't get it.

 

--Doug

 

-- 
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:34 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Klowns like me are often misinterpreted, as noted by Yorick.  I am ardently in favor of experiment, carefully observed.  It is the basis of all science. But, but, the interpretation of observed phenomena must also be dealt with carefully.  Voodoo has a pernicious way of creeping in.  After all, for two thousand years we knew that malaria was caused by the bad air of the low, swampy places where it was prevalent, and deadly.  It was only in 1896, after the Anopheles mosquitoes started reading the Annals of Tropical Medicine in the Lancet (not by a Limey, but Dr. Ronald Ross, an admirable Scots physician) that the little critters realized that they had the God-given gift of spreading the disease by biting white people, and thus helped the indigenous populations by keeping Europeans out of the  “White Man’s Grave”. 

 

I love observations, and it is not for me to challenge what people see.  If pious folks observe the image of the Virgin Mary on a half-baked tortilla, I say, “Let it be”.  She certainly has Power to do that, according to Those in the Know, and it seems to me like a folksy, open-hearted gesture on Her Part, that our president would do well to emulate.

 

But, a little learning is a dangerous thing, and it is injudicious to draw conclusions from phenomena that one does not understand the physics of.   It is certainly valid for an honest amateur to ask, “But how can I know if my theory is Voodoo?”  Here are some modest proposals:  first, study as much as you can about the subject, second, understand it well enough to use the professional technical terms of the discipline and then, third, ask a few knowledgeable folks privately for their opinions.

 

So, follows some constructive suggestions.  Read.  Learn.  The Picasso of irrotational rotating viscous/inviscid flows was an amiable Top Brit, Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor.  He is probably now sitting on some Tiepolo cloud up there watching with satisfaction the grand swirling vortical structure of the firmament of the heavens.  I knew him as a lofty figure, and was honored to present the G I Taylor Memorial Lecture at a university far from here some 20 years ago.  There is lotsa stuff on GI on the internet that one can read and learn from – in particular the Taylor-Proudman theorem that has a special charm for me, since before his name was immortalized, I was a lowly scholar in Dr. Proudman’s grad. fluid mechanics classes at Cambridge.   He would not remember, but I recall him, as I melted silently, respectfully, into the woodwork of those 17 th century desks. Fer Gawd’s Sake, Newton sat right there! I held my peace. Dumb questions (which were all I could muster then, and even now) were not encouraged in the Old Maths Schools at the University.

 

As for asking folks, it is my modest guess that, for all their many fine qualities, not too many Friam correspondents have that much background in the very esoteric, and charmingly pointless, subject of pouring fluids outa bottles – unless they be of a good vintage.  But I will answer privately things that folk may ask personally, to the extent I am capable.

 

It is nice, and generous, for the blind to lead the blind, but the truth is seldom approached by that sorta debate. It takes hard work, intelligence and the learning of new ideas.

 

Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low pressures at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with stationary air as the contiguous external fluid are at the same CONSTANT pressure. How could they be otherwise?

Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28505%29983-7728" target="_blank">[phone]

 

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Nick Thompson]

Actually, Steve, despite spending 40 years doing what it was I did, I never felt an expert.  One of my criteria for expertise, which I felt I never met,  was the capacity to explain  a difficult subject to an attentive, well-educated lay person.  And the emperor’s new clothes has always been one of my guiding myths.   

 

So, I confess, these guys bemuse me a bit.  “Frustrate” is way too strong.  There is no place that I can stand to expect experts to answer lay questions about everyday phenonmena.  However, for myself, I find curiosity intensely seductive, and, if I ever ran into somebody who was curious about what I did all those years, I would leap at the chance to explore it with them.   So, I don’t understand why another’s curiosity doesn’t delight them as much as it delights me.  But, of course, that’s stupid.  People are just different. 

 

All the best,

 

nIck

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 7:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

Nick -

As usual, I'm of two minds.  I appreciate your frustration, as I do those of those more educated/trained in the relative sciences of the problem under scrutiny.

I do not think it is unreasonable for someone such as yourself to try to get a grasp on the phenomena of interest with a combination of observation, research of the existing underlying theory, and discussion with anyone who will engage with you on the topic (I bet your barber and grocery clerk are totally tired of hearing about swirlies!).

On the other hand, you know from your own chosen field of expertise that a simplistic understanding of the complex phenomena that you have studied deeply is almost always lacking and sometimes listening to others attempt to (over)simplify the issues involved (which you spent years or decades coming to appreciate) can be extremely grating.  

Without speaking for anyone else here, I find myself in the middle.   And of two minds!

When I notice something counter-intuitive in the world, or which seems to contradict "conventional wisdom", my little brain's gears creak into engagement and things start whirling, clacking and grinding.  Sometimes I open my mouth and let those sounds come out in the presence of others, sometimes I don't.   I have a variety of friends and colleagues with a variety of expertise at a variety of depths which I tap in various ways.  Some require that I buy them coffee or beer or even hard liquor before they will  listen to me.  Many require that I listen to them politely while they struggle with concepts *I* either find trivial or so complex as to be impossible to discuss with anyone except another with my level of understanding.  Others require that I be entertaining in some other way before they will engage their clacking, grinding, creaking brains with mine.

 Yet others simply refuse... or throw me an ultimatum.. (e.g. "I will discuss with you Evolution of Form *only* after you have read D'Arcy Thompson's seminal work on the topic and *after* you forget everything that you have ever heard coming from the mouth, pen, typewriter, word processor or disciple of Rupert Sheldrake).   Such usually leads me to go read D'arcy Thompson (and peek at Rupert Sheldrake) at which point I often don't bother to re-engage said friend, colleague, because I appreciate how complex/subtle/compromised the topic may be after all.

As you can tell, I'm equally willing to ignore yours (and other's) variously idle to serious speculations about things as I am to jump up on the dinner table and wave my own hands wildly.   Many (the list is 500 strong?) obviously are happy either ignoring us completely, musing silently as their tub drains, or grating their teeth and kicking their dog in response to our inanity.

I myself have drained as many basins while staring at them intently as I'm likely to in my life.  I think your questions are interesting, I think there are simple answers which have already been discussed and then there are arbitrarily complex answers which you've only heard people allude to (e.g. "this problem has been thoroughly studied", "why don't you get a PhD in fluid dynamics and a specialty in vortex watching?").

There is a reason that there is such a large market for popular science books, articles, videos, etc.  Many of us are truly curious about the physical world around us but are unlikely to take the time (get a PhD and work a few years in the field?) to really understand the things we are curious about.   So we are very happy when someone who has done this is willing to take the time to write the book, make the documentary, etc.   I love Stephen Hawking, Fritjof Capra, James Gleick, Douglas Hofstadter, Michael Pollan, Henry Petrotski, Esther Dyson, Sherri Turkle, George Johnson, Jared Diamond,  and all those other folks for taking the time not only to actually understand some of the things I'm curious about, but also take the time to put it in language that I have a chance of understanding.

I say, don't let anyone stop you from asking the questions and even taking a layman's whack at some answers, but it is obvious that many will avoid diving in too deep with you.   Those who have lived their lives in the trenches of the topic at hand (like Peter) would seem the most likely to be unwilling to go beyond the most superficial of explanations and engagements.  Beyond that point, there be dragons!  Only the very brave or very foolish venture further!

I for one think foolhardiness is a good substitute for bravery, else why would any of us ever marry, have children, develop an expertise in anything, leave the safety and comfort of our homes (or bathtubs), etc.

If it is any consolation, I spend huge amounts of my time doing things for myself that others (especially well defined systems) could do for me more "efficiently".  When an expert (or just anyone steeped in the standard method) arrives on the scene, they are always appalled, and even moreso if I ask them (even for pay) to make sense of the mess I have.   The propane man doesn't want to troubleshoot my homemade methane generator or the converted gas appliances that run off of it.  The drywall guy nearly croaked when he saw the framing/blocking I left for him to try to make straight lines of  in my new sunroom, but with enough happy cajoling and promises to pay him hourly, not by the square foot, I have a pretty damned nice looking ceiling.  Any self-respecting farmer/gardener giggles when they see what passes with me for growing food.  My mechanic cringes when I bring him any of the vehicles I don't normally let him maintain (my 1949 Dumptruck being the scariest of all).

I personally do not care to spend my life studying the conventional topics from the conventional texts, accepting the conventional hypotheses, sitting at Jiffy Lube while the 17 year old kid lectures me on why my 2 month old air filter "really needs replacing" at $40 when I just did it myself for $12, or  paying an architect and crew of professionals (or not) to spend $80K of my hard earned money to add $50K value to my home. I have the luxury to make a lot of mistakes, so I do.  I suppose I could spend my free time watching TV, shopping or taking cruises instead.     

That is not to say that I don't understand that all of these people (experts) can get rather irritated at me for doing things my own way, figuring things out for myself, avoiding the presumed "truths" of the masses.   Nor is it to say that I don't consult the manuals (after my first major faux pas) or study the theory of something before I dove in over my head.  

Sorry for the tangential rant... I think your frustration triggered some resonance for me both about "experts" and about "amateurs" which I find myself playing both from time to time.

Carry on,
 - Steve

Well, a couple of points.

 

First, It says something kind of funny about physics … that it will never explain anything that any of us are curious about.

 

Second, it seems to say that there is no educational advantage to … nothing to be learned from … trying to connect principle to vernatcular experience. 

 

Nick

 

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

Well, I guess all I can say is that I don't have the temperament to play "thought experiments", or to spend endless cycles getting all hand wavy about serious, complex physical systems behavior.  Regarding the issue of water flowing down the drain which originally started this thread, there are approximately 1.27 x 10^26 molecules of water per gallon, all interacting with each other, and the boundary layers that are defined by the air/water interfaces and the water/vessel interfaces.  The forces that define the nature of these interactions are fairly well understood, and have been modeled at some degree of resolution or another countless times.  So, what's the point of launching a hand-waving expedition about the phenomenon?  I just don't get it.

 

--Doug

 

-- 
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:34 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Klowns like me are often misinterpreted, as noted by Yorick.  I am ardently in favor of experiment, carefully observed.  It is the basis of all science. But, but, the interpretation of observed phenomena must also be dealt with carefully.  Voodoo has a pernicious way of creeping in.  After all, for two thousand years we knew that malaria was caused by the bad air of the low, swampy places where it was prevalent, and deadly.  It was only in 1896, after the Anopheles mosquitoes started reading the Annals of Tropical Medicine in the Lancet (not by a Limey, but Dr. Ronald Ross, an admirable Scots physician) that the little critters realized that they had the God-given gift of spreading the disease by biting white people, and thus helped the indigenous populations by keeping Europeans out of the  “White Man’s Grave”. 

 

I love observations, and it is not for me to challenge what people see.  If pious folks observe the image of the Virgin Mary on a half-baked tortilla, I say, “Let it be”.  She certainly has Power to do that, according to Those in the Know, and it seems to me like a folksy, open-hearted gesture on Her Part, that our president would do well to emulate.

 

But, a little learning is a dangerous thing, and it is injudicious to draw conclusions from phenomena that one does not understand the physics of.   It is certainly valid for an honest amateur to ask, “But how can I know if my theory is Voodoo?”  Here are some modest proposals:  first, study as much as you can about the subject, second, understand it well enough to use the professional technical terms of the discipline and then, third, ask a few knowledgeable folks privately for their opinions.

 

So, follows some constructive suggestions.  Read.  Learn.  The Picasso of irrotational rotating viscous/inviscid flows was an amiable Top Brit, Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor.  He is probably now sitting on some Tiepolo cloud up there watching with satisfaction the grand swirling vortical structure of the firmament of the heavens.  I knew him as a lofty figure, and was honored to present the G I Taylor Memorial Lecture at a university far from here some 20 years ago.  There is lotsa stuff on GI on the internet that one can read and learn from – in particular the Taylor-Proudman theorem that has a special charm for me, since before his name was immortalized, I was a lowly scholar in Dr. Proudman’s grad. fluid mechanics classes at Cambridge.   He would not remember, but I recall him, as I melted silently, respectfully, into the woodwork of those 17 th century desks. Fer Gawd’s Sake, Newton sat right there! I held my peace. Dumb questions (which were all I could muster then, and even now) were not encouraged in the Old Maths Schools at the University.

 

As for asking folks, it is my modest guess that, for all their many fine qualities, not too many Friam correspondents have that much background in the very esoteric, and charmingly pointless, subject of pouring fluids outa bottles – unless they be of a good vintage.  But I will answer privately things that folk may ask personally, to the extent I am capable.

 

It is nice, and generous, for the blind to lead the blind, but the truth is seldom approached by that sorta debate. It takes hard work, intelligence and the learning of new ideas.

 

Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low pressures at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with stationary air as the contiguous external fluid are at the same CONSTANT pressure. How could they be otherwise?

Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:<a href="tel:%28505%29983-7728" target="_blank">[phone]

 

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Nick Thompson]

Doug,

 

Thanks for this.  I read it AFTER I had written my last post on this subject, but I think this post is a pretty accurate expression of my response, here.   But your remarks here do salve my bemusement a bit. 

 

Nick

 

 

 

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 5:49 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

Re: obligation: sure.  Get a background that provides you with a scientific basis for understanding whatever particular aspect of science you find especially fascinating at the moment, and I'm positive you will be able to find an expert to explain it to you. 

 

Myself; I would not, for example, ask a cosmologist to explain general or special relativity to me in plain old American English (plus/minus had-waving) with any expectation that the answer will be meaningful. Sure, I'd probably get a limited, superficial understanding, but I don't have the math background to completely understand a robust, full explanation of either of those topic areas.  Baby talk is the only answer I would expect to receive.  If I ever wanted more than that, I'd just have to prepare myself by mastering the language of mathematics and physics in which a full answer would, by necessity, be supplied.  

 

That's my view of "the intellectual world".  Does your view of same lead you to expect that one can obtain, or perhaps, even, is entitled to a full understanding of complex scientific systems without having provided oneself with a sufficiently rich, specialized scientific background?

 

--Doug

 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ok.  What follows from that?   Only experts should speak?  Only experts should think  Or, Nick should shut up and stop talking about it?  ? Don’t e xperts have the obligation to pull up their shorts and take the time to explain it to the rest of us?I don’t understand the intellectual world that would flow from your approach?

 

Nick

 

 

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 4:40 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

There is *everything* to be learned from the phenomenon in question, if one is just willing to buckle down and study the underlying science.  Mechanical engineering.  Chemical Engineering.  Physics.  Fluid flow dynamics.  Mathematics.  Kinematics.  Statics.  These sciences contain the language to describe and/or explain the physics of vortex mechanics.  English and hand waving and/or philosophy <shudder> are not rich enough communications media to carry that much information.

 

--Doug

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, a couple of points.

 

First, It says something kind of funny about physics … that it will never explain anything that any of us are curious about.

 

Second, it seems to say that there is no educational advantage to … nothing to be learned from … trying to connect principle to vernatcular experience. 

 

Nick

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

Well, I guess all I can say is that I don't have the temperament to play "thought experiments", or to spend endless cycles getting all hand wavy about serious, complex physical systems behavior.  Regarding the issue of water flowing down the drain which originally started this thread, there are approximately 1.27 x 10^26 molecules of water per gallon, all interacting with each other, and the boundary layers that are defined by the air/water interfaces and the water/vessel interfaces.  The forces that define the nature of these interactions are fairly well understood, and have been modeled at some degree of resolution or another countless times.  So, what's the point of launching a hand-waving expedition about the phenomenon?  I just don't get it.

 

--Doug

 

-- 
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

 

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:34 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Klowns like me are often misinterpreted, as noted by Yorick.  I am ardently in favor of experiment, carefully observed.  It is the basis of all science. But, but, the interpretation of observed phenomena must also be dealt with carefully.  Voodoo has a pernicious way of creeping in.  After all, for two thousand years we knew that malaria was caused by the bad air of the low, swampy places where it was prevalent, and deadly.  It was only in 1896, after the Anopheles mosquitoes started reading the Annals of Tropical Medicine in the Lancet (not by a Limey, but Dr. Ronald Ross, an admirable Scots physician) that the little critters realized that they had the God-given gift of spreading the disease by biting white people, and thus helped the indigenous populations by keeping Europeans out of the  “White Man’s Grave”. 

 

I love observations, and it is not for me to challenge what people see.  If pious folks observe the image of the Virgin Mary on a half-baked tortilla, I say, “Let it be”.  She certainly has Power to do that, according to Those in the Know, and it seems to me like a folksy, open-hearted gesture on Her Part, that our president would do well to emulate.

 

But, a little learning is a dangerous thing, and it is injudicious to draw conclusions from phenomena that one does not understand the physics of.   It is certainly valid for an honest amateur to ask, “But how can I know if my theory is Voodoo?”  Here are some modest proposals:  first, study as much as you can about the subject, second, understand it well enough to use the professional technical terms of the discipline and then, third, ask a few knowledgeable folks privately for their opinions.

 

So, follows some constructive suggestions.  Read.  Learn.  The Picasso of irrotational rotating viscous/inviscid flows was an amiable Top Brit, Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor.  He is probably now sitting on some Tiepolo cloud up there watching with satisfaction the grand swirling vortical structure of the firmament of the heavens.  I knew him as a lofty figure, and was honored to present the G I Taylor Memorial Lecture at a university far from here some 20 years ago.  There is lotsa stuff on GI on the internet that one can read and learn from – in particular the Taylor-Proudman theorem that has a special charm for me, since before his name was immortalized, I was a lowly scholar in Dr. Proudman’s grad. fluid mechanics classes at Cambridge.   He would not remember, but I recall him, as I melted silently, respectfully, into the woodwork of those 17 th century desks. Fer Gawd’s Sake, Newton sat right there! I held my peace. Dumb questions (which were all I could muster then, and even now) were not encouraged in the Old Maths Schools at the University.

 

As for asking folks, it is my modest guess that, for all their many fine qualities, not too many Friam correspondents have that much background in the very esoteric, and charmingly pointless, subject of pouring fluids outa bottles – unless they be of a good vintage.  But I will answer privately things that folk may ask personally, to the extent I am capable.

 

It is nice, and generous, for the blind to lead the blind, but the truth is seldom approached by that sorta debate. It takes hard work, intelligence and the learning of new ideas.

 

Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low pressures at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with stationary air as the contiguous external fluid are at the same CONSTANT pressure. How could they be otherwise?

Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:<a href="tel:%28505%29983-7728" target="_blank">[phone]

 

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Steve Smith]

Actually, Steve, despite spending 40 years doing what it was I did, I never felt an expert.  One of my criteria for expertise, which I felt I never met,  was the capacity to explain  a difficult subject to an attentive, well-educated lay person.  And the emperor’s new clothes has always been one of my guiding myths.   

 

So, I confess, these guys bemuse me a bit.  “Frustrate” is way too strong.  There is no place that I can stand to expect experts to answer lay questions about everyday phenonmena.  However, for myself, I find curiosity intensely seductive, and, if I ever ran into somebody who was curious about what I did all those years, I would leap at the chance to explore it with them.   So, I don’t understand why another’s curiosity doesn’t delight them as much as it delights me.  But, of course, that’s stupid.  People are just different. 

 

Actually Nick, I think we *have* tapped your experience off and on here and it has been useful and informative if never (as it should be) conclusive.

I have a friend who's e-mail signature reads:

    "Life is flux, everything else is opinion".  

I think this may sum up the discussion to date on this topic quite nicely!


- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Owen Densmore]

I like this conversation .. its bugged me for years that it's difficult to discuss computer science and mathematics with my friends.  Indeed, I think many of us find it a bit lonely.

I certainly feel uncomfortable telling them to go get a good education in mathematics then we can chat!  And when I try to explain the way GPUs and Shader languages work, I'd like to say more than "its what your graphics card does" when the real answer goes to core computer science architectures like Systolic Algorithms.

And even as well as I understood "computing", taking a graduate course from Cris Moore last year let me know just what exciting and demanding ideas there are ahead.  (My interest is the intersection of math and comp-sci.  Much of what Knuth does.)

One approach we had hoped would clarify science, technology and mathematics to non-practitioners was to create multi-disciplinary projects, first at Redfish, then at SFX.  Indeed, working together with Nick on Moth (My way Or The Highway) via a netlogo model let me peer into his world a bit, and vice-versa.  Many of the early SFI projects were just that: a blend of several sciences working on a shared interest.

I think the down side is not Us vs Them, or "Soft science vs Hard science" or whatever.  It's far simpler.  It's just Damn Hard to do nearly anything of import.  I think here I agree with Doug .. to really understand anything from a vortex to a GPU requires SERIOUS effort, months just to get started .. and because we only have so much time, we choose, and generally stay within our own domain because we get more done that way.  Thus silos.

The bad news here is that, unless I'm much mistaken Nick, asking questions won't result in much more than pointers to various techniques that have proven successful in dealing with fluid dynamics.  I'd suggest we get Peter to give us a chat.  I'd like some help too, now that I've worked with openGL and GPUs .. maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_Boltzmann_methods ?

        -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Eric Charles]

This conversation has been fascinating. I cannot help but think that various poster's instructions to those interested - that those interested need several years of graduate study, etc. - are clearly a cop out. It is possible that I missed some crucial step of the conversation somewhere, but I this feeling is persistent because of how straightforward Nick's question was.

As complex as psychology is, if you asked me why a rat in a Skinner box pressed a leaver 20 times in a minute, I could give you a pretty straightforward and understandable-by-the-layman answer. I could also give you a ridiculously complicated and jargon riddled answer, or I could tell you that it takes 10 years of study to even understand the question. All three responses would be true.

As I understand Nick's question, he pointed out a seeming contradiction in a relatively simple and mundane phenomenon; or at least, a ridiculously common phenomenon at our bigger-than-a-pinhead, smaller-than-a-house physical scale. I read the initial start of this (series of) thread(s) roughly as follows: 1) There is a system that seems like it is doing X efficiently, and its doing X is a very reasonable explanation for the intrinsic-formation of the system. Hence, they system seems straightforward. However, 2) some simple experiments seem to indicated that the system is not doing X! 3) Why then does the system form and remain stable?

In its generic form, this seems like one of the most basic types of questions that face anyone doing systems work. Here, the system is a whirlpool, and "X" is dissipating-energy-by-moving-water-more-efficiently-down-the-drain (i.e., towards the center of the earth).  Nick offered a simple experiment, the point of which was to cast skepticism on whether the whirlpool really increases the rate of water falling. This led to the question of why the system would form and remain, for the most part, stable. The issue was phrased, at least initially, as a quest for the gradient being dissipated, or at least the energy being done away with.

While I recognize that this is not the type of question I would necessarily expect a high school physics teacher to know off the top of their head, it is also not the type of question I would expect to lead to this level of hand wringing and rationalization. --- Yes, there is clearly a very complex answer that could be given, expressed in the specialized jargon of specific physical disciplines, and draped in some nasty, nasty math. However, the fact that some clear answer has not been given leads me to believe, barring further evidence, that this is a phenomenon that remains poorly understood. At the least, it is not understood well enough to be explained simply, which is a pretty good criterion for judging how well a thing is understood.

One reason I enjoy this list is because it has well-educated people explaining their work to other well-educated people. No one has requested an explanation they could tell their grandmother, or their 4 year old child. Sometimes the explanations offered on the list work and sometimes they do not, typically they work for some people but not others. I'm not sure why people are suddenly hiding behind the difficulty of explaining the phenomenon.

Eric

P.S. Damn, if I missed some posts some where, this email will be ridiculously embarrassing. 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Nick Thompson]

Eric,

 

Based on my own experience with my own expertise, I offer the following understanding of what has happened on the list:

 

(1)     There is an elementary explanation of this phenomenon.

(2)    The speakers are enormously well-educated individuals who once knew that explanation.

(3)     They have forgotten it!

 

Nick

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ERIC P. CHARLES
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 1:17 AM
To: Owen Densmore
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

This conversation has been fascinating. I cannot help but think that various poster's instructions to those interested - that those interested need several years of graduate study, etc. - are clearly a cop out. It is possible that I missed some crucial step of the conversation somewhere, but I this feeling is persistent because of how straightforward Nick's question was.

As complex as psychology is, if you asked me why a rat in a Skinner box pressed a leaver 20 times in a minute, I could give you a pretty straightforward and understandable-by-the-layman answer. I could also give you a ridiculously complicated and jargon riddled answer, or I could tell you that it takes 10 years of study to even understand the question. All three responses would be true.

As I understand Nick's question, he pointed out a seeming contradiction in a relatively simple and mundane phenomenon; or at least, a ridiculously common phenomenon at our bigger-than-a-pinhead, smaller-than-a-house physical scale. I read the initial start of this (series of) thread(s) roughly as follows: 1) There is a system that seems like it is doing X efficiently, and its doing X is a very reasonable explanation for the intrinsic-formation of the system. Hence, they system seems straightforward. However, 2) some simple experiments seem to indicated that the system is not doing X! 3) Why then does the system form and remain stable?

In its generic form, this seems like one of the most basic types of questions that face anyone doing systems work. Here, the system is a whirlpool, and "X" is dissipating-energy-by-moving-water-more-efficiently-down-the-drain (i.e., towards the center of the earth).  Nick offered a simple experiment, the point of which was to cast skepticism on whether the whirlpool really increases the rate of water falling. This led to the question of why the system would form and remain, for the most part, stable. The issue was phrased, at least initially, as a quest for the gradient being dissipated, or at least the energy being done away with.

While I recognize that this is not the type of question I would necessarily expect a high school physics teacher to know off the top of their head, it is also not the type of question I would expect to lead to this level of hand wringing and rationalization. --- Yes, there is clearly a very complex answer that could be given, expressed in the specialized jargon of specific physical disciplines, and draped in some nasty, nasty math. However, the fact that some clear answer has not been given leads me to believe, barring further evidence, that this is a phenomenon that remains poorly understood. At the least, it is not understood well enough to be explained simply, which is a pretty good criterion for judging how well a thing is understood.

One reason I enjoy this list is because it has well-educated people explaining their work to other well-educated people. No one has requested an explanation they could tell their grandmother, or their 4 year old child. Sometimes the explanations offered on the list work and sometimes they do not, typically they work for some people but not others. I'm not sure why people are suddenly hiding behind the difficulty of explaining the phenomenon.

Eric

P.S. Damn, if I missed some posts some where, this email will be ridiculously embarrassing. 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Owen

 

AS for the discussion with Doug and Peter, I am, I guess, an incurable amateur.   I think of the world as arrayed in layers [of abstraction]; for me, there always is [should be?—note the use of modal language!] a level of abstraction at which it is appropriate for somebody to explain something to somebody else.  For instance, if somebody asks me a question based on the mother earth fallacy (gaia hypothesis, whatever) (which drives me WILD),  I try to answer it at the level of the abstraction, rather than at the level of the fact.  The good answer is something like, “I will try to answer your factual answer in a moment, but first I need to understand the assumptions behind it: Why is it that you suppose that nature is beneficent?” 

 

Other people think of the world as arrayed in silos.  Actually, silos is too generous;  I live on a farm; I KNOW silos.  It’s more like cell blocks in a prison.  Once you pass through a set of doors you can never get out. 

 

I can certain imagine that peter and doug would prefer not to waste their time answering my question, but why then, would the waste so much time trying to get me not to ask it?

 

I do think that FRIAM has become more siloed in the last year or so.  I think it is in part because we have lost our complexity focus, which, for good or ill, used to draw us into a common conversation from time to time.

 

Nick
 

 

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 12:36 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

I like this conversation .. its bugged me for years that it's difficult to discuss computer science and mathematics with my friends.  Indeed, I think many of us find it a bit lonely.

 

I certainly feel uncomfortable telling them to go get a good education in mathematics then we can chat!  And when I try to explain the way GPUs and Shader languages work, I'd like to say more than "its what your graphics card does" when the real answer goes to core computer science architectures like Systolic Algorithms.

 

And even as well as I understood "computing", taking a graduate course from Cris Moore last year let me know just what exciting and demanding ideas there are ahead.  (My interest is the intersection of math and comp-sci.  Much of what Knuth does.)

 

One approach we had hoped would clarify science, technology and mathematics to non-practitioners was to create multi-disciplinary projects, first at Redfish, then at SFX.  Indeed, working together with Nick on Moth (My way Or The Highway) via a netlogo model let me peer into his world a bit, and vice-versa.  Many of the early SFI projects were just that: a blend of several sciences working on a shared interest.

 

I think the down side is not Us vs Them, or "Soft science vs Hard science" or whatever.  It's far simpler.  It's just Damn Hard to do nearly anything of import.  I think here I agree with Doug .. to really understand anything from a vortex to a GPU requires SERIOUS effort, months just to get started .. and because we only have so much time, we choose, and generally stay within our own domain because we get more done that way.  Thus silos.

 

The bad news here is that, unless I'm much mistaken Nick, asking questions won't result in much more than pointers to various techniques that have proven successful in dealing with fluid dynamics.  I'd suggest we get Peter to give us a chat.  I'd like some help too, now that I've worked with openGL and GPUs .. maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_Boltzmann_methods ?

 

        -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[lrudolph]

Nick writes, in relevant part:

> AS for the discussion with Doug and Peter, I am, I guess,
> an incurable amateur.   I think of the world as arrayed in
> layers [of abstraction]; for me, there always is [should be?
> -note the use of modal language!] a level of abstraction at
> which it is appropriate for somebody to explain something to
> somebody else.  For instance, if somebody asks me a question
> based on the mother earth fallacy (gaia hypothesis, whatever)
> (which drives me WILD),  I try to answer it at the level of
> the abstraction, rather than at the level of the fact.  The
> good answer is something like, "I will try to answer your
> factual answer in a moment, but first I need to understand
> the assumptions behind it: Why is it that you suppose that
> nature is beneficent?"  

I won't try to answer your factual question (much less your
factual answer!) in a moment, if ever, but first I need to
understand the assumptions behind it: Why is it that you (as
it seems to me) suppose that Doug and Peter *could*, if they
only *would*, explain to you the complexities of fluid dynamics
(or even just the particular complexities involved with water
draining from a basin, supposing--which appears to be false--
that those particular complexities can be sensibly disentangled
from the general complexities of that very complex subject,
which is by no means satisfactorily mathematized [see
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Navier-Stokes_Equations/]),
in your present state of understanding of physics (and
mathematics)?

To put it another way, given that the best explanation I've
seen for what Eugene Wigner called "the unreasonable effectiveness
of mathematics in the physical sciences" is that the human capacity
to think *mathematically* (and therefore *effectively*) about the
physical world is an evolutionary consequence of the comparative
*ineffectiveness* of thinking *unmathematically*, why do ... oh,
hell, I can't finish that sentence.  But I'll leave it, as an
opening for you to divert the conversation to *your* expertise,
and give me a chance to play the goat (rather than the "let's you
and him fight" bystander, with a side order of Physical Ignoramus,
Second Class) for a while.

Lee Rudolph

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

Nick,

Do you remember us asking you if you knew what the Nusselt number was?  A quick google will help you out.  And the Grasshof number? (Ditto re: google).  Prandtl? (Ditto).  Reynolds?  Navier-Stokes equations?  Finite element analysis as pertains to kinematic fluid flow systems?

Do you know how they all pertain to your question of (roughly paraphrased) why does the water go down the drain the way it does?  

Well, by leading you in this direction at least two of us gave the tools to answer to your question, but you didn't seem to like that.  

--Doug

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

I can certain imagine that peter and doug would prefer not to waste their time answering my question, but why then, would the waste so much time trying to get me not to ask it?

 

 

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 12:36 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

 

I like this conversation .. its bugged me for years that it's difficult to discuss computer science and mathematics with my friends.  Indeed, I think many of us find it a bit lonely.

 

I certainly feel uncomfortable telling them to go get a good education in mathematics then we can chat!  And when I try to explain the way GPUs and Shader languages work, I'd like to say more than "its what your graphics card does" when the real answer goes to core computer science architectures like Systolic Algorithms.

 

And even as well as I understood "computing", taking a graduate course from Cris Moore last year let me know just what exciting and demanding ideas there are ahead.  (My interest is the intersection of math and comp-sci.  Much of what Knuth does.)

 

One approach we had hoped would clarify science, technology and mathematics to non-practitioners was to create multi-disciplinary projects, first at Redfish, then at SFX.  Indeed, working together with Nick on Moth (My way Or The Highway) via a netlogo model let me peer into his world a bit, and vice-versa.  Many of the early SFI projects were just that: a blend of several sciences working on a shared interest.

 

I think the down side is not Us vs Them, or "Soft science vs Hard science" or whatever.  It's far simpler.  It's just Damn Hard to do nearly anything of import.  I think here I agree with Doug .. to really understand anything from a vortex to a GPU requires SERIOUS effort, months just to get started .. and because we only have so much time, we choose, and generally stay within our own domain because we get more done that way.  Thus silos.

 

The bad news here is that, unless I'm much mistaken Nick, asking questions won't result in much more than pointers to various techniques that have proven successful in dealing with fluid dynamics.  I'd suggest we get Peter to give us a chat.  I'd like some help too, now that I've worked with openGL and GPUs .. maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_Boltzmann_methods ?

 

        -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org