<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Mark and FIS colleagues,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
Maintaining a healthy, open-minded scientific system... easy said
than done.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
--Pedro<br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+2"><br>
</font><br>
<br>
El 16/10/2016 a las 16:07, Mark Johnson escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEzq2RTpqbeTPbfyOZjhJS3JU0ijG2GxwZiavVCDvjZ3Cmb0Yw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/nobel-scientist-tim-hunt-female-scientists-cause-trouble-for-men-in-labs">https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/nobel-scientist-tim-hunt-female-scientists-cause-trouble-for-men-in-labs</a>).
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:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vMLHis5cE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vMLHis5cE</a>), 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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
-------------------------------------------------
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)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/">http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/</a>
-------------------------------------------------
</pre>
</body>
</html>