Is Physical Science Socially Constructed?

Sadna #48,

I have been interacting here for about 6 months now. However, been visiting
chowk since Kargil, I believe. This has been my only incarnation.

I did see the link on that thread....thanks.

plats8#43
I was speaking for myself. I learn a lot due to the painstaking patience of posters like AlephNull. Have you been interacting on chowk long(in another avatar perhaps?).

btw, there is an article today on the sixth Pakistani nuke test whose link I posted on that thread.

plats8,
I think the deconstructionists would be able to explain their philosophy except it would sound like they were speaking in tongue. It seems to be a world unto itself..
Earlier I DID make a point about methodology & gave the example of craniometry. I think sadna & you have been aluding to that & it went right over my head.
You called that junk science. I agree. But don`t you think it`s only with hindsight that we can come to this conclusion? Every theory that`s put forward has its supporters and its detractors. Only time can tell us whether it has legs. What was garbage to me previously may turn out to be correct and vice versa. What contributes to this except our biases?

echoboom:

I liked your symbolism of `numerals` and `alphabets`. Your quip, ``The numeral ones do not have the ability to think IRRATIONALLY``, was good, to say the least. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Soysauce #41,

There is a systemic problem in the humanities that one needs to address -
one that concerns intellectual rigour and vacuous posturing.

``To me that`s a comment on how unquestioningly accepting the humanities
folks can be of the wisdom of scientists``...only of scientists who seem to toe
their preferred socio-political agenda. If Sokal had derided the assorted
high priests with equally prolific gibberish, he would not have gotten through.
If you read Ross`s defence of this nonsense, they chose Sokal because he
was on their side of the political debate.

This happens precisely because of the lack of a rigorous framework. It is not
that only humanities allows competing ``theories`` to coexist, it is that there is
no system to relatively evaluate the ``theories``. High Tc superconductivity also
allows competing theories, but the dynamics is completely different there.

Here is a little bit of Chomsky on this matter:
``But for others, I would simply suggest that you ask those who tell you about
the wonders of ``theory`` and ``philosophy`` to justify their claims - to do
what people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy
to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their
theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn`t
already obvious, etc. These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they
can`t be met, then I`d suggest recourse to Hume`s advice in similar circumstances:
to the flames.``

You may want to read the entire thing at

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html

Free-thinker:
Thank you very much for quoting the shair correctly. Somehow I always `sensed` it but knowingly erred thinking that ``menifestation` AND `order` seemed propper..like form and substance.

But, obviously, I was wrong. Although it might take me a while to reconcile with this `new` arrangement.

and it is not `ka` but `mein`--just a minor correction after several quick check-ups. But I`ll get hold of the original someday.

Please do comment on my original write-up as well..the prelude to shairi. Everything from a novice does seem weird but I do not expect to be overlooked just because I never graduated.

Sadna #40,

You`re quite right, perhaps. Still, it is good to see you and Alephnull (who has interacted much
there) in such fora.

Interesting that you mention Robert Gates - I just raised the issue there ; won`t do any good,
I suspect.

echoboom:

You presented a beautiful selection of verses. There is a minor correction however in Chakbast`s verse, the way you wrote it. The correct line is:

Zindgi kya haiy, anassar ka zahoor-e-tarteeb

in stead of ``zahoor-o-tarteeb``. It is probably a typo. Wishing you well.

Other interactors:

Now that I have sat down to write this feedback, I would like to express my appreciation to all of you who took time to read the paper and write your feedbacks. Sadna`s and a few others` feedbacks did enhance the value of the paper. Thanks.

Mohammad Gill

OK I`m back. I still have the deadline but needed a break.

#32 plats8
My point was that bad papers do get thru everywhere except in Sokol`s case he drew attention to it. It probably would have died quietly otherwise. It may be that humanities allows all sorts of theories to coexist unlike science where there are only a few dominant ones at a time & therefore a Sokol in the physical sciences is more likely to be challenged. I think Sokol`s point was that gibberish masquerades as profundity and that`s why he got published. That he was a physicist probably helped in blindsiding the journal editors. To me that`s a comment on how unquestioningly accepting the humanities folks can be of the wisdom of scientists. At any rate, it`s not fair to compare the Schon & Sokol episodes. One was high profile and the other was just another scientist venturing into humanities. On your other point, I am not contesting the methodology (not here at least). But where science interfaces with the larger world - in framing the hypothesis and in interpreting the results in pedestrianese - it is shaped by the larger world.

sadna,
99.5% shared quite likely means 99.5% homology of the bases in the gene sequence. As you say, anyone can challenge his thesis if they have the money. That`s exactly the problem, isn`t it? Collins` statement is in agreement with what the larger society believes any way. Hence no need to challenge it on that count either. As far as I know, no one has asked him to explain the statement but it has been repeated ad nauseum by all & sundry.

``By the way, you seem to have been rather quiet at the ``Faujiz`` board lately. ``

I wasn`t very active there, actually. What is the point of posting Robert Gates`s account of events in 1990 when the famous tehzeeb of abusing the messenger and his/her upbringing is going to be the only reply?

IMO, if India is going to suffer a nuke attack, listening to gaalis of gadhas is not the way for us to prepare for it.

As long as humans use numerals and alphabets, this talk will never end. Those who dabble in numerals but have to seek the support of alphabets will always be dominated by alphabet-wallas. The numeral ones just do not have the ability to think IRRATIONALLY. They are `supposed` to be bad communicators in alphabets if they want to excel in numerals. It is mutually exclusive. The dividion is firmly established by the time a human is 10 years old--when his neurons get ``hard-wired``.

The ENTIRE human knowledge is always HEARSAY--no matter what the media. Eyes have a shut-off button. Ears don`t. A picture is useless without caption. Try to watch a movie on mute. Tongue has a shut-off button too but is reactive , ears not. Eyes can be censored Ears and tongue cannot be completely censored. Eyes need matter to validate observation and so does skin..both are totally hopeless & just cannot be trusted. A whole industry (magic) revolves around fooling the most trusted of human faculties--sight!

The western obssession and pre-occupation with eye-witness & `seeing-is-believing` is the pivot on which the gyrometer is set right now--and for all of us this is destiny.

But those who deal with alphabets know better. Speech is the only faculty which reports on thought. Maybe the `lower` form or at least one among millions of the have less or more `SENSES` but their non-reporting distinguishes us from them.

Or so we think as of today.


Mir:
Ley saans bhee aahistaa kay naazuk hai bohut kaam
aafaaque kee iss kar-gah-e sheeshaa garee kaa.

Ghalib:

MehfilaiN brham karay hai ganjfaa baaz-e khayal
HaiN varaque garddaniyay nairang-e yuk butkhana hum.

Hai ghaib ghaib jis ko samajhte hain hum shhood
Hain khwab mein hunooz, jo jage hain khuab mein

Chikbust:
Zindagee kya hai? anaasir kaa zahoor O tarteeb
Maut kyaa hai? in hee ajzaa kaa paraishaN hona.

Iqbal:
Haqueequat eik hai hur cheez ki: khaki ho keh noorani
Lahoo khursheed kaa tapkay, ugar zarray kaa dil cheeraiN.

Faiz:
``Kayee baar iss kee khaatir zarray zarrayb kaa jigar cheeraa
mgar yeh chashm-e hairaan, jiss kee hairaani naheen jaatee.``

Sadna #36,

Chandrasekhar`s difficulties may be ascribed to Eddington`s scientific biases,
or a variety of other factors. I think that with time we have developed a more
mature scientific community. And as you said, Chandra`s science did finally
prevail.

By the way, you seem to have been rather quiet at the ``Faujiz`` board lately.

Is Physical Science Socially Constructed?
Mohammad Gill

Dear Dr. Gill -- you are the Farzana Versey of the Pysicial Sciences.......:-)

soysauce #34
OK.

plats8 #32
Exactly. Getting into the way science academia functions wrt personalities, funding or structure is a totally different thing from getting into scientific theory.

And for example, I don`t know if the late acceptance of S. Chandrasekhar`s Chandrashekhar limit is a good example of bias in the scientific community or not, but finally the soundness of his science prevailed.

Soysauce #34,

Charlie Lieber was among the ones to first notify Nature, but Dan Ralph
apparently had a poor graduate student who worked on replicating one of
the experiments for over a year and failing miserably. I think the murmur
over identical plots (identical to five decimal places) started well after people
had been unsuccessful in getting even remotely similar results. This was truly a
disgraceful act of a charlatan.

#32 plats8
My understanding is that Charles Lieber & a few others noticed these same graphs with the same noise pattern and notified the editor of Nature & the bell labs & that`s how the questions started.
#31 sadna
It may well be up to the humanities folks to defend themselves. I don`t believe I have tried to defend them. My comments started with the author`s statement to the effect that the discussion/debate ought to happen in the framework of science, which he defines as rationalism. I strongly disagree with that even tho I am a practitioner of ``hard`` science.
I have a dead line & will take up the rest of your & plats8`s points later this week or early next week if this thread stays alive.