word essay. Well, don't worry too much, someone did one earlier -
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/
This is only one example, outside my sphere of expertise, I can think
of concerning just how difficult thinking, experiment and proof can
be. How different it all is from moroneconomics that makes
assumptions of standardised human behaviour and outcomes that bless
the rich. I wonder what physics would be like if it allowed such
prejudiced thinking?
When I walk Max I'm rather proud of him - he does his business in our
backyard and is an all round nice guy. I can't but notice our
neighbours have let their dogs foul and that local kids foul with
litter. We need quite draconian measures to stop the worst in our
society levelling everything down to the midden and jungle. It seems
reasonable not to expect the best as standard human behaviour. When
I look at the stealing going on under the name of economics, politics
or whatever I get the same feeling.
As a scientist, I realised most people know very little of the
reasoning and skills involved. One tries to be charitable and assume
this is because they don't get the chance, but to be honest I've felt
for a long time this is more to do with dullardry, ineptitude and
laziness. I don't believe the natural human condition is one of hard
work and animals are not much of a model for this. The 'busy bee'
usually isn't and spends more time incumbent.
When one looks at such as the consideration of mass and energy in
physics, one should wonder on such matters as 'work' in human
interaction, and how that may 'break down'. We don't and still live
in the Dark Ages. If I ask for a 5,000 word essay on work motivation,
95% of responses from those forced to comply for qualification
purposes will be a regurgitation of textbooks on Maslow, Hertzberg,
Lawler and other 'names' (all dross). The odd student might start in
such contradiction as that of the wealthy manager sated with money and
the poor farmer in India saddled with debt.
The content of management textbooks has long been a scandal and the
only change I've noticed since the 1950s is 'weight and gloss'. They
just weigh more these days, glossing over the same old trash One can
note the same in legislative documents. Glass-Steagal was 30-odd
pages, whereas the 'Facilitation of Bankster Fraud Acts' of modern
times run to thousands.
What strikes me as a scientist is that questions like what kind of a
world do we want ourselves and others to live in, what is the work
needed to do and maintain this and so on is all excluded. If physics
was like economics we'd only be able to describe earth, wind, fire and
water. All that's come from science in this direction is unwarranted
abstraction, usually of maths-based 'proof'.
The farce of our system lies in allowing people to get rich and then
control wealth and politics. This is obvious. We rightly worry that
simply overturning this only produces another set of such 'worthies'
likely to be worse. We may even worry that the absence of such
libidinal wealth opportunity takes away all motivation. Whatever this
is about, it's not science. Unlike science, which you won't be doing
unless you can demonstrate some competence, general argument assumes
you have some. Hearing this, many fear the message is a call to be
ruled by scientists. All the scientist really wants is a break from
superstition.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário