http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/science-privilege-fork-from-acid-epistemology-tp7594776p7594790.html
the papers were papers in the main tracks of the conference — not student poster presentations.
> The evolution of philosophy to science is ubiquitous. Charles Needham
> documented how essentially all of Chinese science evolved from, mostly,
> Taoist philosophy. Computational Science ala Leibniz derived from the
> Theistic Philosophy of Ramon Lull. Alchemy to Chemistry, etc. etc.
>
> I agree with Glen, that is irrelevant to the problem he posed.
>
> Can't provide a controlled experiment of the sort he suggested, but I
> can provide a supporting anecdote.
>
> The software apprenticeship program I did at Highlands mandated a whole
> lot of philosophy and history of computing and technology as well as
> some Taoism and other philosophical odds and ends. We also made them
> read poetry and study anthropology, so the philosophy may or may not
> have been the prime determinant of results.
>
> But, 22 students, 1 year in the program including freshmen who could
> not use a word processor to a couple of grad students with professional
> experience. (We had a one-room classroom.)
>
> 10 of the students published papers, that year, at one of the two
> refereed conferences with the highest rejection rates in the US at the
> time.
>
> The "no cut and paste" student was supervising other students working
> on a Java J2EE project for the State Engineer's Office after one
> semester.
>
> All of the students, including the freshmen with only that one year of
> apprenticeship, were placed in full-time developer jobs at the State of
> New Mexico or Los Alamos Labs (in admin area, not nuclear science area)
> when felon Aragon canceled the program.
>
> The work of the students won an award from the New Mexico Information,
> Software, and Technology Association.
>
> Definitely above average performance and due, at least in some small
> measure, to the philosophy — or so I think.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, at 6:05 PM,
[hidden email] wrote:
> > Sorry, Glen. I didn't mean to imply any kind of argument in the
> > matter. The comment just interested me, and I thought you might have
> > information to share with me. It wasn't clear that I could even
> > support the more general proposition, the one I thought you were
> > making, let alone the more specific one that you actually made.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Nicholas Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> > Clark University
> >
[hidden email]
> >
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Friam <
[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 10:58 AM
> > To: FriAM <
[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
> >
> > I'm not going to answer because that's irrelevant. The challenge is
> > whether or not conversations like this impact the science done by those
> > who have them.
> >
> > On 3/12/20 9:56 AM,
[hidden email] wrote:
> > > Ah! When you say that the benefit of philosophy to science is "straightforward", what do you have in mind?
> > --
> > ☣ uǝlƃ
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> >
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> > archives back to 2003:
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> > FRIAM-COMIC
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> > archives back to 2003:
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> > FRIAM-COMIC
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> >
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
by Dr. Strangelove