Funding could come from the likes of Elon Musk if the idea were presented correctly. The medium is the message. Presenting information in a new way could potentially crack this whole thing open.
One of the main vectors of trouble is that science teachers and profs discourage deep questioning like how did Newton derive G? or how do we know viruses are real? etc. So it will take gumption for a truly inquisitive student to make it through the system.
"This subject is probably even more controversial than global warming."
Aye, I'm afraid so. I find it very entertaining and valiant when you 'fight positivism with positivism', but it's also a little frustrating for me for entirely pragmatic reasons - I want to engage with you in this arena, but the philosophical topics are too huge to approach from a standing start. I'd need a well-made conceptual skeleton key to get to where the discussion would be fruitful and I don't have one right now.
In brief, however, the sciences are riddled with entirely conceptual entities... you don't need to go for virus, electron is fine as an exemplar (much less controversial). I think it's the best example because despite the impossibility of observing an electron, we would not ditch the electron without another model that supplanted it and plugged the theoretical gap. This is also how I feel about the virus as a conceptual entity - the contagion model is badly broken (the challenge trials research are fascinating in this regard!) but the virus concept does plenty of work elsewhere too e.g. I don't know how to explain the Antarctic cod's glycoprotein without it. I'm willing to entertain all options... but we're dealing with tightly interwoven webs of concepts and complex questions about epistemology here.
I very much like your idea about a new kind of search engine... I don't think the commercial forces exist to get this made, alas.
Please forgive this 'glancing blow' - and also consider it a raincheck for a future discussion on this! I'll need to craft some tools to make our hypothetical future conversation worthwhile.
Hi Chris. Thanks for weighing in. I'm not exactly taking on positivism. Positivism has its place, after all. But when ideas fail on their own terms or according to their own rules, I find that pretty entertaining. This is how divination fell apart.
I love that you mention the electron. It's difficult to find a discussion of what is meant by a "negative charge"--which sounds like an oxymoron. If you recall, I've discussed some of the trouble with the Millikan oil drop experiment determining the discrete charge of all electrons. Rutherford's revolutionary experiments brought about the imaginary version of the electron we now hold as true (and even as FACT), but the nature of electrons as discrete particles is hardly factual. As you point out, they are imagined. It is equally possible that electrons are more like the rings that form around a pebble tossed into a body of water. And there is reason to consider ferocell images of magnetism as holographic images of atoms, since magnets are a case of aligned atoms opening up what appears to be a portal of sorts. (Just google ferocell to see what I'm talking about.) To me, these troubles are wonderful and ought to be thought of as open ended instead of right or wrong.
So that leads us to the engineering of a new kind of search engine. Since these matters are squarely in your field, I'd love to hear more from you on this subject. I wonder if there might be stepping stones toward building such an engine. To my mind, the priority is to represent information in a manner that guides folks toward an understanding that they have NOT reached a definitive answer. I've watched friends and neighbours lose and forget the skill of conversation. It's like curiosity has just gone out the window since everyone has their little "smart" companion that relays insta-truth, and that's all they need. So we've migrated from a culture of dialogue to outright condescension and smug judgementalism.
Re: 'positivism', I think I reflexively used this in the sense I defined for The Mythology of Evolution without even thinking about it! From the glossary of that book:
Positivism: a scientific non-religion based upon avoiding belief in untestable things, and thus an attempt to minimize metaphysics (q.q.v.) as much as possible.
I didn't even realise I was doing it until you reminded me that there's another sense in which this is used. 😁
Regarding a new kind of search engine - this is only tangentially my field. I mean, my speciality is videogames. I do have a Masters in AI, but my doctorate is in aesthetics/ethics. I wouldn't really consider myself an expert in this particular niche of computer science, despite several degrees in the subject....
However, it certainly is distressing watching people use search engines as a bite-sized encyclopaedia look-up and not realising just how much epistemic legerdemain has gone into providing 'definitive' answers (and, equivalently, just how much is brushed under the carpet in doing so). Search is a complex field, full of direct interference. Nothing provides 'raw' results these days, and to a fair degree nobody wants this either. The appeal of the Large Language Model is precisely that it saves you having to read and precis by 'doing it for you'. The cost of this is never considered!
All in all, I'm not sure that trying to fix this problem via a search engine would work. The problem is the epistemic crisis, and since vanishingly small numbers of people are aware there is even an issue here, how would one get funding for such a project...? I think there might be a back door approach, though. Business management is a field that acknowledges indeterminacy. If you could prototype 'ambiguous search' in such a field, you might then be able to make something for wider distribution.
I've said it before, but people desire certainty far more than truth. This is one of the central issues of our time, and a lot of very nasty things have come downstream from it...
Your idea for a new kind of search engine designed for scientific research is a vital one, especially for the new generation. There's genuine curiosity and enthusiasm for scientific experimentation and discovery among my daughter's third grade classmates, and from what I can tell, science is the favourite subject of the majority. Months later my daughter and her friends still talk about how much fun it was making slime, for instance, working with different scientific instruments, seeing what happens when one substance is mixed with another. So it seems the perfect time to introduce them to the rudiments of proper research, nourishing their curiosity and building the foundation for a healthy scepticism upon which a new paradigm about the nature of facts and truth we so desperately need could emerge. All this to say, dear Asa, that I'd be thrilled to see such a search engine come to life . . .
Funding could come from the likes of Elon Musk if the idea were presented correctly. The medium is the message. Presenting information in a new way could potentially crack this whole thing open.
One of the main vectors of trouble is that science teachers and profs discourage deep questioning like how did Newton derive G? or how do we know viruses are real? etc. So it will take gumption for a truly inquisitive student to make it through the system.
"This subject is probably even more controversial than global warming."
Aye, I'm afraid so. I find it very entertaining and valiant when you 'fight positivism with positivism', but it's also a little frustrating for me for entirely pragmatic reasons - I want to engage with you in this arena, but the philosophical topics are too huge to approach from a standing start. I'd need a well-made conceptual skeleton key to get to where the discussion would be fruitful and I don't have one right now.
In brief, however, the sciences are riddled with entirely conceptual entities... you don't need to go for virus, electron is fine as an exemplar (much less controversial). I think it's the best example because despite the impossibility of observing an electron, we would not ditch the electron without another model that supplanted it and plugged the theoretical gap. This is also how I feel about the virus as a conceptual entity - the contagion model is badly broken (the challenge trials research are fascinating in this regard!) but the virus concept does plenty of work elsewhere too e.g. I don't know how to explain the Antarctic cod's glycoprotein without it. I'm willing to entertain all options... but we're dealing with tightly interwoven webs of concepts and complex questions about epistemology here.
I very much like your idea about a new kind of search engine... I don't think the commercial forces exist to get this made, alas.
Please forgive this 'glancing blow' - and also consider it a raincheck for a future discussion on this! I'll need to craft some tools to make our hypothetical future conversation worthwhile.
With unlimited love,
Chris.
Hi Chris. Thanks for weighing in. I'm not exactly taking on positivism. Positivism has its place, after all. But when ideas fail on their own terms or according to their own rules, I find that pretty entertaining. This is how divination fell apart.
I love that you mention the electron. It's difficult to find a discussion of what is meant by a "negative charge"--which sounds like an oxymoron. If you recall, I've discussed some of the trouble with the Millikan oil drop experiment determining the discrete charge of all electrons. Rutherford's revolutionary experiments brought about the imaginary version of the electron we now hold as true (and even as FACT), but the nature of electrons as discrete particles is hardly factual. As you point out, they are imagined. It is equally possible that electrons are more like the rings that form around a pebble tossed into a body of water. And there is reason to consider ferocell images of magnetism as holographic images of atoms, since magnets are a case of aligned atoms opening up what appears to be a portal of sorts. (Just google ferocell to see what I'm talking about.) To me, these troubles are wonderful and ought to be thought of as open ended instead of right or wrong.
So that leads us to the engineering of a new kind of search engine. Since these matters are squarely in your field, I'd love to hear more from you on this subject. I wonder if there might be stepping stones toward building such an engine. To my mind, the priority is to represent information in a manner that guides folks toward an understanding that they have NOT reached a definitive answer. I've watched friends and neighbours lose and forget the skill of conversation. It's like curiosity has just gone out the window since everyone has their little "smart" companion that relays insta-truth, and that's all they need. So we've migrated from a culture of dialogue to outright condescension and smug judgementalism.
Great reply, thanks Asa!
Re: 'positivism', I think I reflexively used this in the sense I defined for The Mythology of Evolution without even thinking about it! From the glossary of that book:
Positivism: a scientific non-religion based upon avoiding belief in untestable things, and thus an attempt to minimize metaphysics (q.q.v.) as much as possible.
I didn't even realise I was doing it until you reminded me that there's another sense in which this is used. 😁
Regarding a new kind of search engine - this is only tangentially my field. I mean, my speciality is videogames. I do have a Masters in AI, but my doctorate is in aesthetics/ethics. I wouldn't really consider myself an expert in this particular niche of computer science, despite several degrees in the subject....
However, it certainly is distressing watching people use search engines as a bite-sized encyclopaedia look-up and not realising just how much epistemic legerdemain has gone into providing 'definitive' answers (and, equivalently, just how much is brushed under the carpet in doing so). Search is a complex field, full of direct interference. Nothing provides 'raw' results these days, and to a fair degree nobody wants this either. The appeal of the Large Language Model is precisely that it saves you having to read and precis by 'doing it for you'. The cost of this is never considered!
All in all, I'm not sure that trying to fix this problem via a search engine would work. The problem is the epistemic crisis, and since vanishingly small numbers of people are aware there is even an issue here, how would one get funding for such a project...? I think there might be a back door approach, though. Business management is a field that acknowledges indeterminacy. If you could prototype 'ambiguous search' in such a field, you might then be able to make something for wider distribution.
I've said it before, but people desire certainty far more than truth. This is one of the central issues of our time, and a lot of very nasty things have come downstream from it...
Thanks for engaging in the discussion!
Chris.
Your idea for a new kind of search engine designed for scientific research is a vital one, especially for the new generation. There's genuine curiosity and enthusiasm for scientific experimentation and discovery among my daughter's third grade classmates, and from what I can tell, science is the favourite subject of the majority. Months later my daughter and her friends still talk about how much fun it was making slime, for instance, working with different scientific instruments, seeing what happens when one substance is mixed with another. So it seems the perfect time to introduce them to the rudiments of proper research, nourishing their curiosity and building the foundation for a healthy scepticism upon which a new paradigm about the nature of facts and truth we so desperately need could emerge. All this to say, dear Asa, that I'd be thrilled to see such a search engine come to life . . .