<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"><div><div style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Dear Francesco and Michel,<br><br>I wonder if it would be possible to make a video explaining these different ideas?<br><br>I'm intrigued by Francesco's economics (particularly the Keynesian probability), and while I remain less confident than Michel that it has been "shown" that economics is about information (I'm guessing you are thinking of the line of thought from Hayek to Stiglitz?) it would be more compelling to see these ideas expressed in richer ways that dry academic papers. Maybe there's an important project here?<br><br>Best wishes,<br><br>Mark</div></div><div dir="ltr"><hr><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">From: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><a href="mailto:migodron@wanadoo.fr">Michel Godron</a></span><br><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Sent: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">28/10/2016 23:27</span><br><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">To: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">fis@listas.unizar.es</a></span><br><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Subject: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Re: [Fis] Scientific communication</span><br><br></div>
<p>Merci pour cette vision très large de ce qu'est l'économie. <br>
</p>
<p>Au delà de la musique suggérée par Ilya Prigogine, il a maintenat
été montré que l'économie, comme l'écologie, est un système de
gestion de l'information qui donne des réactions pour maintenir le
sytème en équilibre. Malheureusement, cette démonstration est
esquissée en anglais seulement dans <i>Landscape Ecology</i>. <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">Cordialement.
<br>
M. Godron<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 26/10/2016 à 16:07, Francesco Rizzo
a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAEvKwyRppJoH3mXfgg_YDKJjZE4UMzAmaX9qK_kn8F_vKZ91Vg@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Caro Mark,
<div>non conosco il pensiero dell'economista che Tu mi indichi.
cercherò di superare questa lacuna. Tuttavia, tra l'economia e
la storia vi è una differenza di fondo: l'economia è una
scienza mediatrice, la storia è una scienza federatrice. Alla
domanda "Che cos'è l'economia?" si può rispondere in tanti
modi. Per me l'economia è un pensiero che tende a realizzare
il massimo risultano col minimo costo. Anch'io adotto la
teoria della probabilità soggettiva di J. M. Keynes e ritengo
che i sistemi economici siano fondati sui valori normali dal
punto di vista soggettivo. Suggerisco inoltre, come ha fatto
Ilya Prigogine, di assumere il paradigma della musica come
base dell'intera scienza. Compresa quella economica. Tutta la
mia vita è stata dedicata alla ricerca della "Nuova economia".
Quindi è giusto comunicarlo, senza alcuna presunzione o
superbia. Ho inventato davvero una una nuova concezione
economica. Complimenti per la tua capacità comunicativa e
auguri.</div>
<div>Un abbraccio.</div>
<div>Francesco</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2016-10-26 13:21 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson
<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnsonmwj1@gmail.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">johnsonmwj1@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">Dear Jose, Francisco and
Pedro, (Pedro - please could you forward if<br>
the server won't do it?)<br>
<br>
First of all, thank you Jose for pointing out this news
story. It's<br>
interesting to reflect that Alan Sokal's hoax of 1996 (which
is<br>
similar) was specifically directed at a discourse which he
deemed to<br>
be unscientific (postmodernism). This one is a nuclear
physics<br>
conference.... and clearly, nobody cares about the science -
this is<br>
about money, status and ego: I'm not sure Sokal could see
the full<br>
extent of this in the 1990s.<br>
<br>
Francisco, I agree with you about not tarring everything
with the same<br>
brush. On the other hand, I think it is important not to
stop asking<br>
fundamental questions, not least "What is economics?". Even
great<br>
economists like Hayek and Von Mises were not convinced about
its<br>
subject matter (they thought it should be "Catallactics" -
the science<br>
of exchange) - and they were even less convinced by the
maths! I do<br>
recommend Tony Lawson's work for a broader perspective on
economic<br>
history.<br>
<br>
Pedro, thank you for a very elegant summary of the
complexities of the<br>
"science system". I like the study of the nature of
information<br>
because, rather like cybernetics, it digs away at the
foundations of<br>
things. There is of course a practical level where we
publish papers<br>
(which few read) and fall asleep (or get drunk) at
conferences (!).<br>
But I am arguing that what we think happens in the "brownian
motion<br>
chamber" of face-to-face communication isn't as impenetrable
as we<br>
might have thought (Bateson got this) , and that it is
profoundly<br>
connected not only to what we do with technology, but to the<br>
pathologies of communication, marketisation and
inauthenticity that<br>
Sokal and others point to. This partly falls into the domain
of the<br>
phenomenologists (Alfred Schutz is important in covering
this<br>
territory), but also into the domain of artists who
communicate in<br>
powerfully in different kinds of ways. There's more work to
do here.<br>
<br>
As a very speculative contribution to this, I've done one
more video<br>
which is an attempt to summarise my argument and tie it to
an example<br>
of musical communication (a Bach fugue). Alfred Schutz wrote
a<br>
wonderful paper on music called "Making Music Together"<br>
(<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40969255" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.jstor.org/stable/<wbr>40969255</a>
- Loet told me about this years<br>
ago, and it's one of the few really great academic papers I
know). I<br>
don't mention Schutz in the video, but I do use John Maynard
Keynes's<br>
remarkable treatise on probability from 1921.<br>
<br>
I argue that at the root of our communication practices lie<br>
assumptions about 'counting' and 'similarity': we make
assumptions<br>
about things being the same, we count references (but one
reference is<br>
not the same as another!), etc; in scientific practice, we
make<br>
connections between like-observations and causal
explanations - all<br>
the while losing sight of the possibility that it is us who
impose the<br>
order of similarity on things. I've found Keynes's idea of
'negative<br>
analogy' (see video) useful for looking at this differently,
and to<br>
explain the patterns perceived in music. I've found
understanding this<br>
helpful to understand that the "Brownian motion" may also be
like<br>
this. The process depends on multiple descriptions - which
brings<br>
things back to my basic argument for the exploitation of
rich<br>
communications media, etc. I should also say that Loet's
ideas on<br>
mutual redundancy also fit to this perspective, although
there remain<br>
deep questions about Shannon and probability.<br>
<br>
Apologies for the rather crackly sound in parts of the
video, but I<br>
hope at least some of it makes sense (and I hope I didn't
make too<br>
many mistakes playing the Bach fugue!)<br>
<br>
The video is here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeuRlVrTUGU" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=LeuRlVrTUGU</a>
-<br>
"Scientific Communication: From Keynes's Probability theory
to a Bach<br>
Fugue"<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
On 22 October 2016 at 13:18, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero<br>
<div>
<div class="h5"><<a href="mailto:javierweiss@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">javierweiss@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> Dear Mark,<br>
><br>
> I think this might be of interest for the
discussion<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/22/nonsense-paper-written-by-ios-autocomplete-accepted-for-conference" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.theguardian.com/<wbr>science/2016/oct/22/nonsense-<wbr>paper-written-by-ios-<wbr>autocomplete-accepted-for-<wbr>conference</a><br>
><br>
> It's a extreme case of economic interest debunking
scientific communication.<br>
> I think it shows a problem of coding between
science and economics. Codes<br>
> disambiguate information processing allowing
differentiation. Frauds like<br>
> these fall in between both codes: they are making
money out of science<br>
> without making science.<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
> Javier<br>
><br>
> El oct 21, 2016 9:06 a.m., "Francesco Rizzo" <<a href="mailto:13francesco.rizzo@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">13francesco.rizzo@gmail.com</a>><br>
> escribió:<br>
>><br>
>> Caro Mark e cari tutti,<br>
>> da "Il giudizio di valore" (1972) affermo che
la scienza economica<br>
>> "normale" doveva essere buttata alle ortiche o
nell'immondezzaio, perchè<br>
>> "La scienza non può non essere umana, civile,
sociale, ECONOMI(C)A,<br>
>> enigmatica, nobile, profetica" (2016). Quindi
non mi viene facile leggere<br>
>> taluni rilievi critici che non possono
condividere perché non è giusto fare<br>
>> di tutte le erbe un fascio.<br>
>> Ho rispetto del pensiero degli altri, ma
ritengo sempre opportuno mettere<br>
>> i puntini sulle i.<br>
>> Francesco<br>
>><br>
>> 2016-10-21 14:33 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan
<<a href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es" moz-do-not-send="true">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>>:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Dear Mark and FIS colleagues,<br>
>>><br>
>>> It was a pity that our previous replies
just crossed in time, otherwise I<br>
>>> would have continued along your thinking
lines. However, your alternative<br>
>>> focus on who has access to the "Brownian
chamber motion" is pretty exciting<br>
>>> too.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Following our FIS colleague Howard Bloom
("The Global Brain", 2000),<br>
>>> universities and the like are a social
haven for a new type of personality<br>
>>> that does not match very well within the
social order of things. It is the<br>
>>> "Faustian type" of mental explorers,
dreamers, creators of thought, etc.<br>
>>> Historically they have been extremely
important but the way they are treated<br>
>>> (even in those "havens" themselves!), well,
usually is rather frustrating<br>
>>> except for a few fortunate parties. A long
list of arch-famous scientific<br>
>>> figures ended very badly indeed.<br>
>>><br>
>>> So, in this view, people "called to the
box" are the Faustians of the<br>
>>> locality... But of course, other essential
factors impinge on the box<br>
>>> composition and inner directions, often
very rudely. SCIENTIA POTESTAS EST:<br>
>>> it means that as the box's outcomes are so
much influential in the<br>
>>> technology, religion, culture, richness,
prosperity, and military power,<br>
>>> etc., a mixing of socio-political interests
will impress a tough handling in<br>
>>> the external guidance and inner contents of
the poor box.<br>
>>><br>
>>> And finally, the education --as you have
implied-- that very often is<br>
>>> deeply imbued with classist structures and
class selection. The vitality of<br>
>>> the Brownian box would most frequently hang
from these educational<br>
>>> structures --purses-- for both financing
and arrival of new people. And that<br>
>>> implies further administrative strings and
been involved in frequent<br>
>>> bureaucratic internecine conflicts. The
book of Gregory Clark (2014, The Son<br>
>>> also Raises) is an excellent reading on
class "iron statistics" everywhere,<br>
>>> particularly in education.<br>
>>><br>
>>> E puor si muove! All those burdens have a
balance of positive supporting<br>
>>> and negative discouraging influences,
different in each era. Perhaps far<br>
>>> better in our times, but who knows... The
good thing relating our discussion<br>
>>> is that, from immemorial times, all those
Brownian boxes around are<br>
>>> wonderfully agitated and refreshed by the
external communication flows of<br>
>>> scientific publications via the multiple
channels (explosive ones today,<br>
>>> almost toxic for the Faustian).<br>
>>><br>
>>> Maintaining a healthy, open-minded
scientific system... easy said than<br>
>>> done.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best regards<br>
>>> --Pedro<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> El 16/10/2016 a las 16:07, Mark Johnson
escribió:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Dear Pedro,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thank you for bringing this back down to
earth again. I would like to<br>
>>> challenge something in your first comment -
partly because contained<br>
>>> within it are issues which connect the
science of information with the<br>
>>> politics of publishing and elite education.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Your 'bet' that "that oral exchange
continues to be the central<br>
>>> vehicle. It is the "Brownian Motion" that
keeps running and infuses<br>
>>> vitality to the entire edifice of science."
is of course right.<br>
>>> However, there is a political/critical
issue as to who has ACCESS to<br>
>>> the chamber with the Brownian motion.<br>
>>><br>
>>> It is common for elite private schools in
the UK (and I'm sure<br>
>>> elsewhere) to say "exams aren't important
to us. What matters are the<br>
>>> things around the edges of formal
education... character-building<br>
>>> activities, contact with the elite, etc".
What they mean is that they<br>
>>> don't worry about exams because their
processes of pre-selection and<br>
>>> 'hot-housing' mean that all their students
will do well in exams<br>
>>> anyway. But nobody would argue that exams
are not important for<br>
>>> personal advancement in today's society,
would they?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Similarly, elite universities may say
"published papers are not that<br>
>>> important - what happens face-to-face is
what matters!". Those<br>
>>> universities do not have to worry so much
about publishing in<br>
>>> high-quality journals because (often) the
editors of those journals<br>
>>> are employed by those universities. But
when, at least in the last 10<br>
>>> years or so, did anybody get an academic
job in a university with no<br>
>>> publications?<br>
>>><br>
>>> I draw attention to this not because it
seems like a stitch-up<br>
>>> (although it is). It is because it skews
what you call the "Brownian<br>
>>> motion". At worst we end up with the kind
of prejudice that was<br>
>>> expressed by Professor Tim Hunt last year<br>
>>><br>
>>> (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/nobel-scientist-tim-hunt-female-scientists-cause-trouble-for-men-in-labs" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.theguardian.com/<wbr>uk-news/2015/jun/10/nobel-<wbr>scientist-tim-hunt-female-<wbr>scientists-cause-trouble-for-<wbr>men-in-labs</a>).<br>
>>> More fundamentally, the doubts and
uncertainties of the many are very<br>
>>> important, and in this system, they are not
only not heard, but in the<br>
>>> increasingly rarefied and and specialised
exchanges in the "Brownian<br>
>>> motion chamber</div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><br><div>[The entire original message is not included.]</div></body></html>