Couldn’t really think above room temperature this past week. Too much going on, too much emotion. The strong silent type I’m not, rather, weak and noisy is closer.
But! Now, back in the saddle:
– Just finished Pope Benedict’s Spirit of the Liturgy.Wow. Always loved that guy. But it’s going to take, you know, thought to write on it. Maybe later this year.
– Had this great idea: since John C. Wright’s Awake in the Night Lands is in the queue, thought I’d better read William Hope Hodges 1912 original, The Night Land. Well, after about 40-50 Kindle pages, I noticed that the percent indicator said, like, 3%. This is 200,000 word novel. It is both brilliant and in dire need of an editor – there’s a 100,000 word deathless classic hiding in there somewhere, instead of another flawed, much praised, rarely read book. Half way through, and it’s worth the trouble, but – man. It wouldn’t even be hard to edit 50% of it away without doing any damage to the story at all.
I’ll review ASAP.
– in the earlier post about probabilistic versus deterministic descriptions of subatomic events, Dr. Bob Kurland made some excellent comments. Unfortunately, my brain was set to ‘warm’ this week, So, I hope to get back to that soon, too.
– Science Marches On! I’m continually struck by how little claim on our loyalty, as in the sense of ‘none’, psychology, sociology and related fields have. The syllogism runs something like this:
- Results achieved by rigorous and reviewed application of the Scientific Method as exemplified in physics and chemistry demand a reasonable and honest man’s acknowledgement as science;
- Psychology sociology and related fields never achieve and rarely aspire to the rigorous and reviewed application of the Scientific Method as exemplified in physics and chemistry;
- Therefore, psychology sociology and related fields do not demand a reasonable and honest man’s acknowledgement as science.
What this means: in no event are the claims made by sociologists, psychologists and those in related fields to be taken seriously. Only if they can survive the sort of critical scrutiny that the scientific claims of physicists and chemists are routinely subjected to should we grant them the status of science. They have yet to reach the ‘alchemy’ stage of development, whereby practitioners can at least reproduce objective results without understanding them.
Now, of course, as Aristotle said, we can’t demand more certainty from our investigations than the nature of what is being investigated admits. What is missing nowadays: the strength of our claims also drops: we can’t make claims any stronger than the inherent uncertainty of the subject matter permits – and that’s only if we’re really doing our jobs, and not just milling political propaganda.