What's the big deal about the bibblegonk, that part I
figured out -
looked it up on ebay and got some at a discount... But then I tried desperately
to agitate the mixture, and couldn't find anything to say that it truly found
insulting!
Again, this conversation about "modeling minds" is weirdly
high-end. Even the most trivial understanding of the words in context (e.g.,
"agitate") requires something of a model of the writer.
Eric
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 10:41 AM,
"glen e. p. ropella"
<[hidden email]> wrote:
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
Eric Charles
Professional Student and
Assistant
Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA
16601