Friam

The Verifier

Classic

List

Threaded

4 messages Options

Roger Critchlow-2

The Verifier

Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for cognitive
biases among groups of researchers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=business

-- rec --
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/bc759113/attachment.html

Phil Henshaw-2

The Verifier

I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy patches as keys
to where I'll discover new things. One exceptionally common bias of
current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore the time lags
between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the discovery of
the independent developmental process that are functional necessities in
the occurrence of the response. An example? Any process of entropy,
seems to requires the local development of individual self-organizing
complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.

I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in the topology of
networks, and how the distribution of densely connected hubs changes
network behaviors entirely, among other things. What's totally
remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free' distribution
of connections, as it has become called, develops as the network adds
and then abandons links (branching followed by selection) to produce the
final form, he attributes no causal contribution to the direct process
by which system producing the network develops, i.e. to what happens.
Instead he extremely consistently phrases the cause of the pattern as
being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse square distribution
of nodes with high degrees of connection, a statistical property
discovered after the fact. I'm going page after page after page
wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary process by
which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of things,...
and the answer seems to be, well, never!! It's stunning how so many
hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at squarely and
then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not fitting
the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly observant
examination of the facts!

I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in our tools,
since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the patterns and
is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns associated with
them, but is just not drawn to studying them. If used for the purpose,
these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the direct causal
mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps consistently
declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the behavior to not
exist. Just g.d. remarkable! Could it be that our forbearers were
just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional tools were
built in a way that can't describe anything else?

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier

Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for cognitive
biases among groups of researchers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=bu
siness
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=b
usiness>

-- rec --

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/7f8b286c/attachment.html

Prof David West

The Verifier

An old book, but still interesting and relevant - Knorr-Certina, The
Manufacture of Knowledge, looks at how science is really done and really
written about and biases, blind-spots, and paradigms. A good complement
to the even older work of Paul Feyerabend.

davew

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
said:

> I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy patches as keys
> to where I'll discover new things. One exceptionally common bias of
> current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore the time lags
> between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the discovery of
> the independent developmental process that are functional necessities in
> the occurrence of the response. An example? Any process of entropy,
> seems to requires the local development of individual self-organizing
> complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
>
> I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
> insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in the topology of
> networks, and how the distribution of densely connected hubs changes
> network behaviors entirely, among other things. What's totally
> remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free' distribution
> of connections, as it has become called, develops as the network adds
> and then abandons links (branching followed by selection) to produce the
> final form, he attributes no causal contribution to the direct process
> by which system producing the network develops, i.e. to what happens.
> Instead he extremely consistently phrases the cause of the pattern as
> being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse square distribution
> of nodes with high degrees of connection, a statistical property
> discovered after the fact. I'm going page after page after page
> wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary process by
> which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of things,...
> and the answer seems to be, well, never!! It's stunning how so many
> hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at squarely and
> then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not fitting
> the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly observant
> examination of the facts!
>
> I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in our tools,
> since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the patterns and
> is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns associated with
> them, but is just not drawn to studying them. If used for the purpose,
> these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the direct causal
> mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps consistently
> declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the behavior to not
> exist. Just g.d. remarkable! Could it be that our forbearers were
> just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional tools were
> built in a way that can't describe anything else?
>
>
>
> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040
> tel: 212-795-4844
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
>
>
> Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for cognitive
> biases among groups of researchers.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=bu
> siness
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=b
> usiness>
>
> -- rec --
>
>
>
>
>

Phil Henshaw-2

The Verifier

Thanks for the Feyerabend reference, but geel whiz... Knorr-Certina's
"The Manufacture of Knowledge" is $349.95, on Amazon, used! and only one
copy. but in French it's only $25 bucks! Hey should I snap it up?

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prof David West [mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm]
> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 7:12 PM
> To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
>
>
>
>
> An old book, but still interesting and relevant -
> Knorr-Certina, The Manufacture of Knowledge, looks at how
> science is really done and really written about and biases,
> blind-spots, and paradigms. A good complement to the even
> older work of Paul Feyerabend.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> said:
> > I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy
> patches as keys
> > to where I'll discover new things. One exceptionally
> common bias of
> > current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore
> the time lags
> > between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the
> discovery
> > of the independent developmental process that are
> functional necessities in
> > the occurrence of the response. An example? Any process
> of entropy,
> > seems to requires the local development of individual
> self-organizing
> > complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
> >
> > I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
> > insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in
> the topology
> > of networks, and how the distribution of densely connected
> hubs changes
> > network behaviors entirely, among other things. What's totally
> > remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free'
> > distribution of connections, as it has become called,
> develops as the
> > network adds and then abandons links (branching followed by
> selection)
> > to produce the final form, he attributes no causal
> contribution to the
> > direct process by which system producing the network
> develops, i.e. to
> > what happens. Instead he extremely consistently phrases the
> cause of
> > the pattern as being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse
> > square distribution of nodes with high degrees of
> connection, a statistical property
> > discovered after the fact. I'm going page after page after page
> > wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary
> process by
> > which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of
> things,...
> > and the answer seems to be, well, never!! It's stunning
> how so many
> > hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at
> squarely
> > and then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not
> > fitting the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly
> > observant examination of the facts!
> >
> > I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in
> our tools,
> > since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the patterns
> > and is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns
> associated with
> > them, but is just not drawn to studying them. If used for
> the purpose,
> > these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the
> direct causal
> > mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps
> consistently
> > declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the
> behavior to not
> > exist. Just g.d. remarkable! Could it be that our
> forbearers were
> > just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional
> tools were
> > built in a way that can't describe anything else?
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > NY NY 10040
> > tel: 212-795-4844
> > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > Behalf Of Roger
> Critchlow
> > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >
> >
> > Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for
> > cognitive biases among groups of researchers.
> >
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/you>

rmoney/05frame.html?ref=
> > bu
> > siness
> >
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.
html?ref=b
> usiness>
>
> -- rec --
>
>
>
>
>