[Fis] Scientific communication

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Mark e cari tutti,
da "Il giudizio di valore" (1972) affermo che la scienza economica
"normale" doveva essere buttata alle ortiche o nell'immondezzaio, perchè
 "La scienza non può non essere  umana, civile, sociale, ECONOMI(C)A,
enigmatica, nobile, profetica" (2016). Quindi non mi viene facile leggere
taluni rilievi critici che non possono condividere perché non è giusto fare
di tutte le erbe un fascio.
Ho rispetto del pensiero degli altri, ma ritengo sempre opportuno mettere i
puntini sulle i.
Francesco

2016-10-21 14:33 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>:

> Dear Mark and FIS colleagues,
>
> It was a pity that our previous replies just crossed in time, otherwise I
> would have continued along your thinking lines. However, your alternative
> focus on who has access to the "Brownian chamber motion" is pretty exciting
> too.
>
> Following our FIS colleague Howard Bloom ("The Global Brain", 2000),
> universities and the like are a social haven for a new type of personality
> that does not match very well within the social order of things. It is the
> "Faustian type" of mental explorers, dreamers, creators of thought, etc.
> Historically they have been extremely important but the way they are
> treated (even in those "havens" themselves!), well, usually is rather
> frustrating except for a few fortunate parties. A long list of arch-famous
> scientific figures ended very badly indeed.
>
> So, in this view, people "called to the box" are the Faustians of the
> locality... But of course, other essential factors impinge on the box
> composition and inner directions, often very rudely. SCIENTIA POTESTAS EST:
> it means that as the box's outcomes are so much influential in the
> technology, religion, culture, richness, prosperity, and military power,
> etc., a mixing of socio-political interests will impress a tough handling
> in the external guidance and inner contents of the poor box.
>
> And finally, the education --as you have implied-- that very often is
> deeply imbued with classist structures and class selection. The vitality of
> the Brownian box would most frequently hang from these educational
> structures --purses-- for both financing and arrival of new people. And
> that implies further administrative strings and been involved in frequent
> bureaucratic internecine conflicts. The book of Gregory Clark (2014, The
> Son also Raises) is an excellent reading on class "iron statistics"
> everywhere, particularly in education.
>
> E puor si muove! All those burdens have a balance of positive supporting
> and negative discouraging influences, different in each era. Perhaps far
> better in our times, but who knows... The good thing relating our
> discussion is that, from immemorial times, all those Brownian boxes around
> are wonderfully agitated and refreshed by the external communication flows
> of scientific publications via the multiple channels (explosive ones today,
> almost toxic for the Faustian).
>
> Maintaining a healthy, open-minded scientific system... easy said than
> done.
>
> Best regards
> --Pedro
>
>
>
>
>
> El 16/10/2016 a las 16:07, Mark Johnson escribió:
>
> Dear Pedro,
>
> Thank you for bringing this back down to earth again. I would like to
> challenge something in your first comment - partly because contained
> within it are issues which connect the science of information with the
> politics of publishing and elite education.
>
> Your 'bet' that "that oral exchange continues to be the central
> vehicle. It is the "Brownian Motion" that keeps running and infuses
> vitality to the entire edifice of science." is of course right.
> However, there is a political/critical issue as to who has ACCESS to
> the chamber with the Brownian motion.
>
> It is common for elite private schools in the UK (and I'm sure
> elsewhere) to say "exams aren't important to us. What matters are the
> things around the edges of formal education... character-building
> activities, contact with the elite, etc". What they mean is that they
> don't worry about exams because their processes of pre-selection and
> 'hot-housing' mean that all their students will do well in exams
> anyway. But nobody would argue that exams are not important for
> personal advancement in today's society, would they?
>
> Similarly, elite universities may say "published papers are not that
> important - what happens face-to-face is what matters!". Those
> universities do not have to worry so much about publishing in
> high-quality journals because (often) the editors of those journals
> are employed by those universities. But when, at least in the last 10
> years or so, did anybody get an academic job in a university with no
> publications?
>
> I draw attention to this not because it seems like a stitch-up
> (although it is). It is because it skews what you call the "Brownian
> motion". At worst we end up with the kind of prejudice that was
> expressed by Professor Tim Hunt last year
> (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/nobel-scientist-tim-hunt-female-scientists-cause-trouble-for-men-in-labs).
> More fundamentally, the doubts and uncertainties of the many are very
> important, and in this system, they are not only not heard, but in the
> increasingly rarefied and and specialised exchanges in the "Brownian
> motion chamber", as the elite scholars endlessly discuss ontological
> arguments for the existence of information (!), everyone else is
> effectively locked-out.
>
> The economic crisis and the economists is a good example of this kind
> of pathology. It was pretty obvious that the economic system was
> heading for trouble quite some time before 2008; it was also obvious
> to a few economists on the fringes (who became very unpopular) that
> economics was in a mess many years before, concocted out of spurious
> mathematical models and a published discourse which would admit little
> else. As Tony Lawson says here (this is worth watching:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vMLHis5cE), after the crisis it's
> easier to claim that economics is in a mess. But doing something about
> it is a different matter.
>
> As a side note about Brownian motion: Tony Lawson is based in
> Cambridge as has, over the last 20 years, held a bi-weekly seminar
> series open to all called the Cambridge Realist Workshop. Some of the
> brightest minds in the University attend these. They all have deep
> discussions about economics, ontology, society... basically, about
> "everyone else". But "everyone else" isn't in the room.
>
> This is the problem. Were "everyone else" to be there, for it to be
> truly open, honest and democratic.... I think we would have a better
> science of society, information, education, etc... A small step to
> achieving this is to communicate our doubts in different, more open
> and more creative ways.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20161021/8f611798/attachment.html>