tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post3958698807913207608..comments2024-03-28T04:04:55.806-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: More on journal quality control and the forward march of scienceNorberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-79503463773041756762019-09-10T02:43:05.522-07:002019-09-10T02:43:05.522-07:00Quality control in any manufacturing company is im...Quality control in any manufacturing company is important, to get reputation, customer satisfaction. Here, Tech Cloud ERP provides the best Quality Control Management Software in India. We have a <b><a href="https://techclouderp.com" rel="nofollow">cloud based erp software in hyderabad</a></b>, which is the <b><a href="https://techclouderp.com/" rel="nofollow">best erp software in hyderabad</a></b>. <br />Try a free demo now!<br />Mounikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17851681883597064721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-59501117031678500812016-02-24T11:10:09.812-08:002016-02-24T11:10:09.812-08:00I think that Suppe's paradox says something in...I think that Suppe's paradox says something interesting. When you know little then the only thing you have to go on is the "data." I put this in scare quotes because in many cases one doesn't even know what the "data" is, or, more accurately, what the relevant data is. So as this is all we have, we fuss over it, caress it, massage it, and try to get it to do something. We are of the opinion that if only we get the data right, then the insights will flow. I think that this is largely incorrect, and that it reflects a wrongheaded E view of knowledge and how it develops. The hard part is finding some kind of cognitive traction and this comes when some bit of theory makes contact with some bit of non-obvious "reality." When that happens, then things take off. Of course, data is always important, but once you know something the fussing is directed and has a purpose and is easier to manage. The problem with lots of "science" is that we don't know anything deep and so the Empiricist temptation is very strong as the data is all that we have and fussing makes you look busy and serious. Plus the current tools are impressive looking. So, agree with Suppes' observation that fussiness is inversely proportional to insight, and that this is no accident. In fact, one might take fussiness wrt method as a mark of ignorance.<br /><br />Last point: is developing methodology a good idea? Locally yes, generally no.Refining and elaborating those local methods that have worked can be useful. Some forms of argument have proven their worth in a particular domain. Some kinds of data have proven to be insightful. Finding these and understanding their general features is a great thing to do. But, concern about methods IN GENERAL is, IMO, futile and a waste of time. If this be cynicism, so be it. Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-80823470192788842492016-02-23T20:54:38.557-08:002016-02-23T20:54:38.557-08:00>>”It's a paradox of scientific method t...>>”It's a paradox of scientific method that the branches of empirical science that have the least theoretical development have the most sophisticated methods of evaluating evidence.…In areas we know something, the something we know speaks for itself, and does so eloquently. In areas where we know little, then we look to method to cover our ignorance.”<br /><br />This seems a bit cynical for my tastes :). I’m guessing there is a less cynical view. We know more in areas where the data is typically more consistent/robust, therefore those areas require less experimental control/sophistication. And we know less in areas where the stuff is messy/complicated/difficult to control, so we need fancier methodology. So, there is perhaps some truth to the correlation Suppes observes, but it seems to me that there is a more reasonable explanation than “cover our ignorance” for that correlation.<br /><br />Of course, restating it my way suggests we should continue trying to develop fancy methodology - we really don’t have a choice, when the data is messy, I think.karthik durvasulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14541529987768107005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-11898402486805613802016-02-23T17:56:46.619-08:002016-02-23T17:56:46.619-08:00"It's a paradox of scientific method that..."It's a paradox of scientific method that the branches of empirical science that have the least theoretical development have the most sophisticated methods of evaluating evidence."<br /><br />I can see how this might be true within cognitive science (I assume you are comparing acceptability judgments with typical, complicated psychological experiments), but I am more skeptical of this idea across all of science. Are the Large Hadron Collider and the Kepler telescope not sophisticated methods for evaluating evidence, and don't we have quite elaborated theories in particle physics and astrophysics?Russell Richiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11842210225176604539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-63478710742866474232016-02-23T14:05:56.445-08:002016-02-23T14:05:56.445-08:00Sorry. I really am bad at this editorial stuff. An...Sorry. I really am bad at this editorial stuff. Anyway, I believe that I fixed it. Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-23089642535131514432016-02-23T12:10:22.489-08:002016-02-23T12:10:22.489-08:00Your link to the Gelman post does not really lead ...Your link to the Gelman post does not really lead to the Gelman post, but to your Gmail inbox, which is inaccessible to us (fortunately).Marc van Oostendorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06370308174223161604noreply@blogger.com