Okay, now a final thought about an even deeper flaw in the language of quotation...
3. QUOTATION HAS TOO NARROW OF A DEFINTION OF "UNDERTAKING PROBLEMS"
Read the last part of Youden's quotation again: "The instrument makers continually devise improved instruments and the scientists continually undertake problems that require more and more accurate measurements."
Admittedly, since there is only a conjuction ("and") linking the instrument-makers and scientists, their respective activities, this statement alone provides absolutely no relationship between the two groups. But remember-- he previously describes their relationship as a contest: "There is a somewhat similar contest in science".
Since I established at the very beginning that this relationship is in NO WAY a contest, and since I don't want to put any words in his mouth, I'll take a minimalistic--and a I think fair--approach by reasoning that he accepts, at the very least that a simple dual inter-causal relationship exists (that is, an association of two actors where all expressed actions result from queues provided by one to the other, and vice-versa)
So, if the relationship is inter-causal then the quotation might as well include the following addition (in bold):
(Restated Quotation) "The instrument makers continually devise improved instruments and as a result the scientists continually undertake problems that require more and more accurate measurements"
Based on the re-stated quotation, in order to accept this premise, you have to assume this:
In some cases, a standard that must be met by a scientist in order for him to be considered as "undertaking a problem" is the "measurement" of something which requires a new instrument with accuracy capabilities which exceed that of preexisting instruments.
If one were to assume this, they would run into a very problematic "sub-assumption":
A scientist cannot "undertake a problem" in ways that don't involve any form of instrument measurement.
Why this is problematic: It could easily be said, for instance, that a scientist is undertaking a scientific problem simply by resolving to dedicate himself to strategizing ways to solve it.
The obligatory response on behalf of YoudenchetwickFebruary 26 2007, 17:36:57 UTC
I haven't read the majority of your response. I'm going to read it all in detail and respond (hopefully) to all the points you make. I am altogether certain the vast majority of your analysis is correct, but I want to take a minute to try and spell out the context in which Youden is speaking.
This appears in the Note From the Author section of the text cited in the above quotation. The general flavor of the Note was to impress upon the mind of the reader the distinct and absolutely essential role that measurement has within the field of physics. Youden would not disagree with the assertion that Theory and Measurement are the two foundational sub-disciplines of physics.
The contest he is alluding to in physics is certainly capable (and in fact is in my experience) a highly political endeavor. One needs to have adequate power (money) to further techniques in measurement or theory (since these techniques are substantiated by the same process, namely experimentaton); insofar as scientists identify themselves as "theoretical" or "experimental" physicists (experimental is misleading here, all physicists perform experiments), and many do make this distinction, they see themselves as not one or not the other, and, in a very important sense, rivaling the other for power within the discipline (it is Youden's contention that "experimental" physicists have generally lost that battle until recently).
The idea invoked by Youden is a dialectical one: of theorists trying to conjure up theories that are rigorous and agreeable to the scientific community, yet still years from being able, in principle, to be experimentally verified (this can happen, say, if ia theory agrees with all present data and yet differing in important and meaninful ways with the status quo, such as a Einstein's theories of relativity which have only just recently been tested by NASA); and on the other hand, of experimental physicists concerning themselves with collecting ever-more-accurate (descriptively accurate) data that generally leads to theoretical postulation and a subsequent fresh theory for the new phenomena subsequently in need of explanation (such as Michael Faraday's discovery of cathode rays, and other such discoveries that inform the groundwork for quantum theory).
So Youden is giving us an intriguing comparison, but certainly no analogy, as you seem to be arguing (I say "seem to" because I only read the first paragraph so far). After all, who is supposed to be the armor-maker and who the arms-maker? Who is playing the defensive role and who the offensive in the world of physics? It seems natural to say "both" or "neither" and either of those cases make this comparison disanalogous in an important way. Moreover, there seem to be both instances in which discovery induces theory (Faraday) as well as instances in which postulates induce a discovery (Einstein). So while Youden's quote isn't a direct analogy, it gives the world of physics a more human, practical (and, thus, less lofty) feel.
Okay, now a final thought about an even deeper flaw in the language of quotation...
3. QUOTATION HAS TOO NARROW OF A DEFINTION OF "UNDERTAKING PROBLEMS"
Read the last part of Youden's quotation again:
"The instrument makers continually devise improved instruments and the scientists continually undertake problems that require more and more accurate measurements."
Admittedly, since there is only a conjuction ("and") linking the instrument-makers and scientists, their respective activities, this statement alone provides absolutely no relationship between the two groups. But remember-- he previously describes their relationship as a contest: "There is a somewhat similar contest in science".
Since I established at the very beginning that this relationship is in NO WAY a contest, and since I don't want to put any words in his mouth, I'll take a minimalistic--and a I think fair--approach by reasoning that he accepts, at the very least that a simple dual inter-causal relationship exists (that is, an association of two actors where all expressed actions result from queues provided by one to the other, and vice-versa)
So, if the relationship is inter-causal then the quotation might as well include the following addition (in bold):
(Restated Quotation)
"The instrument makers continually devise improved instruments and as a result the scientists continually undertake problems that require more and more accurate measurements"
Based on the re-stated quotation, in order to accept this premise, you have to assume this:
In some cases, a standard that must be met by a scientist in order for him to be considered as "undertaking a problem" is the "measurement" of something which requires a new instrument with accuracy capabilities which exceed that of preexisting instruments.
If one were to assume this, they would run into a very problematic "sub-assumption":
A scientist cannot "undertake a problem" in ways that don't involve any form of instrument measurement.
Why this is problematic: It could easily be said, for instance, that a scientist is undertaking a scientific problem simply by resolving to dedicate himself to strategizing ways to solve it.
Reply
This appears in the Note From the Author section of the text cited in the above quotation. The general flavor of the Note was to impress upon the mind of the reader the distinct and absolutely essential role that measurement has within the field of physics. Youden would not disagree with the assertion that Theory and Measurement are the two foundational sub-disciplines of physics.
The contest he is alluding to in physics is certainly capable (and in fact is in my experience) a highly political endeavor. One needs to have adequate power (money) to further techniques in measurement or theory (since these techniques are substantiated by the same process, namely experimentaton); insofar as scientists identify themselves as "theoretical" or "experimental" physicists (experimental is misleading here, all physicists perform experiments), and many do make this distinction, they see themselves as not one or not the other, and, in a very important sense, rivaling the other for power within the discipline (it is Youden's contention that "experimental" physicists have generally lost that battle until recently).
The idea invoked by Youden is a dialectical one: of theorists trying to conjure up theories that are rigorous and agreeable to the scientific community, yet still years from being able, in principle, to be experimentally verified (this can happen, say, if ia theory agrees with all present data and yet differing in important and meaninful ways with the status quo, such as a Einstein's theories of relativity which have only just recently been tested by NASA); and on the other hand, of experimental physicists concerning themselves with collecting ever-more-accurate (descriptively accurate) data that generally leads to theoretical postulation and a subsequent fresh theory for the new phenomena subsequently in need of explanation (such as Michael Faraday's discovery of cathode rays, and other such discoveries that inform the groundwork for quantum theory).
So Youden is giving us an intriguing comparison, but certainly no analogy, as you seem to be arguing (I say "seem to" because I only read the first paragraph so far). After all, who is supposed to be the armor-maker and who the arms-maker? Who is playing the defensive role and who the offensive in the world of physics? It seems natural to say "both" or "neither" and either of those cases make this comparison disanalogous in an important way. Moreover, there seem to be both instances in which discovery induces theory (Faraday) as well as instances in which postulates induce a discovery (Einstein). So while Youden's quote isn't a direct analogy, it gives the world of physics a more human, practical (and, thus, less lofty) feel.
That said, I'm going to read your comments :)
Reply
Leave a comment