Re: comm

[Nick Thompson]

Glen 'n all,

Another example:  I had to work out (and I am not entirely sure, even now)
what Marcus had in mind by "subject" in "subject neutral": subject = the
person who is speaking, as in "a subjective utterance"; or subject = the
thing the person is talking about, as in "the subject of the conversation".


Every man, of course, thinks his own words are plain.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/




> [Original Message]
> From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Date: 9/16/2009 8:42:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] comm. (was Re: FW:
Re:EmergenceSeminar--BritishEmergence)

>
> Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 09/16/2009 06:49 AM:
> > Miles Parker wrote:
> >> What is different about scientific discourse? Is it intent? Context?
> >>
> > Scientific writing aims to facilitate the reader in understanding how to
> > reproduce a result.  It must be subject neutral.
>
> "Must" is too strong.  Here's an (obviously contrived) example.  Let's
> say a document says something like:  "Next, add 500 mL of gel to a
> BIBBLEGONK, agitate for 30 seconds, and sluice into 5 250 mL petri

dishes."

>
> How do we determine what a BIBBLEGONK is?  Can we do it in an entirely
> subject neutral way?  True, we can infer many of the properties of a
> BIBBLEGONK from the usage, here.  It must be able to be agitated and we
> have to be able to sluice from it either with something built into it or
> with an attachment.  But a better way would be to find out precisely
> what it is, which involves thinking at least enough about the subject to
> do an internet search or to ask someone local who might know something
> about these experiments, the equipment required, and the people who
> conduct them.
>
> I.e. it's not entirely subject neutral.
>
> This sort of thing happens all the time when one lab reproduces the
> experiments of another lab, especially when the experiments are
> spatially or temporally distant.
>
> In that sense, I posit that easily reproducible scientific discourse is
> most definitely NOT subject neutral.  Ideally, you'd want to record
> _everything_ about not just the non-subject elements of the experiment,
> but about the people executing the experiment and the conditions under
> which they executed it.  99.999...% of that data would be unnecessary.
> But in the situation where reproduction proves elusive, it can be mined
> for salient differences that will help the new lab reproduce the result.
>
> Again, as long as the simpler model is adequate for the use, you use it.
>  If it's not, you extend it.
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Another example:  I had to work out (and I am not entirely sure, even now)
> what Marcus had in mind by "subject" in "subject neutral": subject = the
> person who is speaking, as in "a subjective utterance"; or subject = the
> thing the person is talking about, as in "the subject of the conversation".
>
>  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_(philosophy)

A scientific report should allow any appropriate reader (a subject) to
decide if they want to revise their information set to another state
that includes some or all of the information the writer sought to
communicate but without any reference to the specific writer (another
subject).   Different subjects should be able to agree on what was
referred to and related (objects), even though they may well have
different interpretations of what it means. There should not need to be
any act of faith or generous `listening' in the transaction.    I would
say depth comes more from the analysis of objects and nailing things
down whereas breadth requires ongoing examination of the subjective.

Marcus

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