Is Science the only Way of Knowing?
An excellent discussion from one of the leading bloggers on science and academia.
Is Science the only Way of Knowing?
An excellent discussion from one of the leading bloggers on science and academia.
I’ve been asked over and over for good books about mathematics for a layperson, someone who hasn’t taken advanced courses in university and is more simply interested in learning about what math is, and some of the more interesting historical figures and results from mathematics. Ironically, when you are a mathematics major at Waterloo, you get the opportunity in 4th year to take a course on the history of mathematics and you get introduced to a few really good books that start to explain the mindset and philosophy behind mathematics and not simply just the theorems and proofs.
Here are the 5 books about I most recommend to those who want to understand the mathematical mind and philosophy. Continue reading
Thoughts after a long night chatting with James McTavish and Joe Stauttener on Wednesday.
Tempus Fugit, time flies. Our lives are but short instants on this planet, a place to touch those around us, bear children (if we can), build a better world for the next generation, and remember that we all reach the same end. We have the ability to be more than of this world, but to do that we must free ourselves from its chains of bondage. Not only from man, but from ourselves. To worship and praise our bodies but not become slaves to them. No slave truly loves and worships its master, many only obey it grudgingly.
You see, we have one feature animals don’t, we have the ability to resist all of our instinctual urges, no matter how difficult it may be. Sin is not permanent failure, it is the natural expectation of being human. We will sin, there is no way around it. What matters is we are forgiven and can try to do better each week. In the Catholic mass, I find that the three statements of “Mea Culpa – Through my own fault” are a stark reminder of this.
However, in the very same mass, we state that we can be forgiven, and by the end we are. This allows us to go clean into the world for the next week and improve ourselves. Remembering at all times Tempus Fugit.
Some may say it is God’s grace and blessing on us, hence the song Amazing Grace. We can fail in our resistance, but the forgiveness gives us the strength to fight again for self freedom, to be beyond this world.
It is excuse to state that being a slave to your body is somehow freedom. Freedom is not only not being a slave to a person, but not being a slave to anything, including ourselves. What is worse, once you are a slave to your body, you will forget the most important thing, death will come to us all.
Through remembering death, we can remember that our temporary satisfying of those instinctual urges don’t matter. We become only of this world, and the more we are that, the more we will cease when death arrives.
Memento Mori, remember death.
This is not dark or grim, this is a bright light for anyone who understands it. If you look, you will see those chains, and realize that they can be broken, and we can be more than of this world.
You can actually be free.
Avant que j’écrive cet article, il faut que j’excuse mon français. J’ai voulu pratiquer mon français en écrivant dans mon blogue pendant de nombreuses années, mais je n’ai pas eu la confiance d’écrire sur les sujets que j’aime en français. Ceci est mon premier essai. Cela dit, on y va.
Présentement, je lis un livre de Robert Ulanowicz, «The Third Window». Cette un livre sur les problèmes de science écologique. Spécifiquement les nombreuses tentatives d’appliquer le réductionnisme de physiques sur le terrain. L’hypothèse de Ulanowicz’s est que la complexité inhérente dans le terrain rend ce programme impossible parce qu’une seule action peut changer tout le mécanisme dans l’objet d’étude. Une autre structure pour l’étude est requise, ou au moins c’est impératif à reconnaître les limitations extrêmes des modèles.
Je pense que c’est la même chose en économie, mais je pense aussi que beaucoup, si pas toutes, les personnes dans ce terrain ne considèrent pas ce problème. Ils sont trop obsédés par l’aide d’un programme de recherche comme celui des physiques – un programme basé sur le réductionnisme.
Ce programme est condamné à l’échec.
En finance, Nassim Taleb discute l’ idée du «Black Swan». Bien qu’il soit possible de définir une modèle où un grand nombre de traits observés existent, un seul incident peut changer l’ensemble du mécanisme. Alors, le modèle est complètement faux. C’est parce que le modèles comme ceux des physiques exigent que le système ait une distribution de probabilité simple – par exemple, une distribution de courbe en cloche.
C’est un château de cartes. Ce sera toujours un château de cartes.
Par exemple, si ce problème arrive en physique. Ce serait comme s’il y avait toujours une particule qui dévaste tout, et les particules arrive tout le temps. L’intégralité de l’étude de la physique devrait être réécrite toutes le quelques semaines. Ce serait inutile. Personne ne perdrait son temps à l’utiliser.
Mais, en économie, les décisions majeurs sont prises régulièrement avec ces modèles. Des décisions qui affectent des millions au quotidien. La science n’est pas une science. C’est une idéologie avec une mythologie construite à partir de fausses prémisses.
Je pense qui c’est le temps que ces décisions soient effectuées sans cette fausse science mais avec la reconnaissance que les décisions soient idéologiques. Les décisions le sont parce que les politiciens croient c’est la meilleure chose à faire. Cessons d’essayer de prétendre qu’il n y a aucune science derrière les décisions. Les décisions sont toutes idéologiques.
C’est le mensonge qui anime nos mauvaises décisions politiques.
C’est pourquoi une grande partie du monde doit avoir de nombreux problèmes.
Ou alors, il faut construire une nouvelle science de l’économie. Qu’on ne la fonde pas sur le culte de cargo du réductionnisme, mais sur la réalité que nous ne pourrons jamais comprendre comment fonctionne l’économie, sauf dans de rare circonstances simples.
Lorsqu’on n’a pas besoin d’un modèle de l’économie.
Just as every nation has its own concept of nation and finds the constitutive characteristics of nationality within itself, so every culture and cultural epoch has its own concept of culture.
To measure progress, we need to state a direction in which we are progressing. If progress is defined as distance, I can wander randomly and every step I take is progress. If I am in a desert and need to save myself, progress would be motion either out of the desert or towards an oasis. If progress is spiritual enlightenment, walking around may or may not mean progress at all.
In many cases, progress isn’t obvious; To an academic, progress can be failure – failed experiments or hypotheses; To an engineer, progress can be lack of failure or efficiency in production regardless of aesthetic; To an artist, progress can be quality and aesthetic of production regardless of cost; To an businessman, progress can be profit-margin for production.
Progress for one person is not progress for the other. Even worse, in some cases, progress for one is actually regress for the other.
So, while individual progress is not important, there is one definition of progress that many believe is constant and permanent.
Many feel that now we are living the pinnacle of human life, we have more stuff to use, more technology, we live longer, we “live like kings”. The storyline goes that through our collective efforts, we have built a great society and continue to progress rapidly into a brave new world. By those measures, we are better off than we’ve ever been and things are only getting better.
It is true, we live longer, have more stuff, and do not have the need to be constantly searching for simple food and shelter like some of our ancestors did. We are more productive and have access to more information than ever before. Yet is this progress?
By many secular and technological standards we have progressed further than any previous age.
For the elite who now have access to technologies and lifestyles previously reserved for the greatest of kings, it sure feels like it.
For the guy I used to see every day sleeping on the street under a streetlamp, I’m not as sure.
But no, the story told throughout the media, TED talks, etc. is that this is progress and the only way to continue it is to become even more productive, create even more technology (without consideration of consequences), build more businesses, to work work work.
I’ve heard and read this all before. Yet, the statement above contains it’s own fallacy – The Texas Sharp shooter fallacy. We are further along than any previous generation because we have drawn the target around where we are moving furthest. We are more productive than ever, but at what cost? In the US and Canada our leisure time is less than ever. In many cases both parents in households must work to pay the bills. We are so individualistic that many extended families never see eachother. We have less spirituality than ever, possibly because we have less time than ever, and our communities and social action has been reduced to pitiful non-violent rallies that make us feel good but accomplish very little.
Yet, we are in the best of all worlds because that is what we are doing best this century.
I can hear some of the more tech-worshipping followers reading this thinking: “Repent Harlequin!”
In a theological age, everything runs smoothly if theological questions are in order; everything else is “provided” by definition. The same is true of other ages. In a humanitarian-moral age, it is only necessary to inculcate morals, whereby all problems become problems of education. In an economic age, one needs only solve adequately the problem of the production and distribution of goods in order to make superfluous all moral and social questions. Mere technical thinking also solves the economic problem with new technical developments. All questions, including the economic, recede before the task of technical progress.
If humanitarian-moral progress is still expected by many today from the perfection of technology, it is because technology is magically linked to morality on the somewhat naive assumption that the splendid array of contemporary technology will be used only as intended
A fairly controversial political philosopher I have been reading discusses how every century draws the target to define progress based on what they are progressing in. From that definition of progress, the elite (or state) derives its power precisely because defining progress defines good and bad; an enemy-friend grouping.
Hence, one century marks it as piousness and religious progress and leads to religious wars, another marks it as philosophical and educational and leads to revolution, yet another marks it as economic progress and leads to economic wars and colonialism. The previous century marked it as technological and consumer based progress — we are more advanced than our predecessors because we have more tech, more stuff. We are better because we are efficient.
This makes us feel happy, feel accomplished, and feel comfortable with the status quo. While it is not a conspiracy, it also has the effect of encouraging the general population to support whoever is in power, not necessarily elected officials, but general elites. It defines friend and enemy groupings and ensures that those who are part of the larger grouping will have more power.
Yet, we must ask is this the progress we want. Is this right? In the last 15 years due to more pervasive technology, we work more than ever. Many people carry their smartphone with them and feel that they must respond to emails and work requests at all hours of the day, essentially working 12+ hours a day.
Some IT techs I know are on 24 hours alert, work well over 40 hours a week and don’t get paid for any overtime. They forbid the idea of unions or collective bargaining to attempt to be properly paid for their work because unions are not efficient (and they aren’t). Yet, if we have no leisure time, why the hell are we working so hard? Who are we working for?
It can’t be the next generation, so many people feel so overworked that they refuse to have children. Many make excuses for this, but I believe it comes down to the same reason people in famine situations don’t have children. If you are working your ass off to stand still, how can you believe there is enough of anything for the next generation?
It can’t be for us to simply live. We have had enough food and housing for decades. We have so much productivity surplus in the US that it is being wasted during a needless recession/depression because we pay more attention to the false golden idol of money than to the fact that people are wanting to work and they simply aren’t being allowed to.
It can’t be for our own leisure. Even leisure time is based on the utmost efficiency. Bucket lists are simply checklists for leisure, many don’t go to these amazing places to actually be in awe. They go to be able to outdo the Joneses.
Perhaps the bucket list is a clue, we need to create stuff, we need to be more efficient, we need to be productive – at all expense. If we are productive enough, then we will get some undefined reward because we have supposedly contributed most to society. It makes us feel better than those who are unable to find work or, by the definitions of meritocracy in our society, are deservedly poor. It reinforces the friend-enemy dynamic we want so badly around the “neutral” idea of efficiency and productivity.
We work this hard, at the expense of family, spirituality, religion and happiness, because that is how we defined progress.
Yet, in the end I don’t think we have progressed at all.