Comments on: Another New Kind of Science? http://alchemicalmusings.org/2006/04/03/another-new-kind-of-science/ Aurum nostrum non est aurum vulgi Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:17:01 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Jonah http://alchemicalmusings.org/2006/04/03/another-new-kind-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Jonah Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:53:00 +0000 http://alchemicalmusings.org/?p=22#comment-30 Of course. I am just questioning the impulse to resort to statistics to <I>support</I> a theory in an era where there may be alternate, emerging techniques which can also adequately support the assertions. I left the <a HREF="create.alt.ed.nyu.edu/symposium2006/schedule.html" rel="nofollow">NYU Tech & Learning Symposium</A> thinking that we could understand more about human memory and cognition from an armchair (<a HREF="http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html" rel="nofollow">inner</A> <a HREF="http://www.mindfire.ca/The%20Reflexive%20Universe.htm" rel="nofollow">empiricism</A>?) and that 2k years ago they had a better theory of the mind than we do now. Interestingly, Ulises just made a related <a HREF="http://ideant.typepad.com/ideant/2006/04/social_software.html" rel="nofollow">post</A> questioning the ways in which technology impacts epistemology: "it is true that technology alters our ways of knowing and thinking in irreversible ways. These shifts in epistemic stances are particularly pronounced in the use of technologies that manipulate language. If the manipulation of numerical data by computers fundamentally changed how we construct knowledge in the sciences, the manipulation of language by technology had a similar effect for other disciplines" Complex visualizations won't yield truth any more readily than statistics. But could they become powerful and persuasive enough to displace statistics? Of course. I am just questioning the impulse to resort to statistics to support a theory in an era where there may be alternate, emerging techniques which can also adequately support the assertions.

I left the NYU Tech & Learning Symposium thinking that we could understand more about human memory and cognition from an armchair (inner empiricism?) and that 2k years ago they had a better theory of the mind than we do now.

Interestingly, Ulises just made a related post questioning the ways in which technology impacts epistemology:

“it is true that technology alters our ways of knowing and thinking in irreversible ways. These shifts in epistemic stances are particularly pronounced in the use of technologies that manipulate language. If the manipulation of numerical data by computers fundamentally changed how we construct knowledge in the sciences, the manipulation of language by technology had a similar effect for other disciplines”

Complex visualizations won’t yield truth any more readily than statistics. But could they become powerful and persuasive enough to displace statistics?

]]> By: Frank Moretti http://alchemicalmusings.org/2006/04/03/another-new-kind-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Frank Moretti Sun, 09 Apr 2006 15:10:00 +0000 http://alchemicalmusings.org/?p=22#comment-29 The problem with statistical analysis in the hands of many is that they expect the statiistics to yeild the truth and this leads into the mistake "reporting their findings" in a theory-deprived context. Whenever you are dealing with the human sciences, whether the information is statistical, visual or otherwise, you still have to build a meaningful narrative that requires that you have a point of view that has either overt or covert theoretical assumptions. Without that you arte in danger of reporting your views in what Marcuse calls opreational language, a language derived from the tools of discovery rather a serious point of view. The problem with statistical analysis in the hands of many is that they expect the statiistics to yeild the truth and this leads into the mistake “reporting their findings” in a theory-deprived context. Whenever you are dealing with the human sciences, whether the information is statistical, visual or otherwise, you still have to build a meaningful narrative that requires that you have a point of view that has either overt or covert theoretical assumptions. Without that you arte in danger of reporting your views in what Marcuse calls opreational language, a language derived from the tools of discovery rather a serious point of view.

]]>