STS3301 Paper Week 13 - Revision history

Shawn: removed duplicate paragraph 2

2010-12-14T18:14:49Z

removed duplicate paragraph 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:14, 14 December 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:

	Diversification of the curriculum is necessary for training. That diversification must include a weaning, as in Laughlin's example of electrical engineering students "no longer required to learn the laws of electricity." (p. 208) So, the pursuit of science or engineering, split by Laughlin between parts and systems, supposedly can be redirected by adjusting the measure of parts or systems in the curriculum.		Diversification of the curriculum is necessary for training. That diversification must include a weaning, as in Laughlin's example of electrical engineering students "no longer required to learn the laws of electricity." (p. 208) So, the pursuit of science or engineering, split by Laughlin between parts and systems, supposedly can be redirected by adjusting the measure of parts or systems in the curriculum.

	Are the organizational laws really the children of the microscopic and mechanical laws? Isn't the family relationship more like a marriage, wed by Maxwell, Boltzmann, and grudgingly Schrödinger? Has Laughlin studied the history of statistics any further than I have, or am I misinterpreting the taming of chance?

	Are the organizational laws really the children of the microscopic and mechanical laws? Isn't the family relationship more like a marriage, wed by Maxwell, Boltzmann, and grudgingly Schrödinger? Has Laughlin studied the history of statistics any further than I have, or am I misinterpreting the taming of chance?		Are the organizational laws really the children of the microscopic and mechanical laws? Isn't the family relationship more like a marriage, wed by Maxwell, Boltzmann, and grudgingly Schrödinger? Has Laughlin studied the history of statistics any further than I have, or am I misinterpreting the taming of chance?

Shawn: Protected "STS3301 Paper Week 13" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

2009-12-03T04:32:04Z

Protected "STS3301 Paper Week 13" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:32, 2 December 2009
(No difference)

Shawn at 04:31, 3 December 2009

2009-12-03T04:31:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 2 December 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:
	I will use Kevles		I will use Kevles
	to disagree with Kevles		to disagree with Kevles
	on US physics		on US physics.

	===On isolation===		===On isolation===
Line 16:		Line 16:
	I wanted a role.		I wanted a role.

	Diversification of the curriculum is necessary for training. That diversification must include a weaning, as in Laughlin's example of electrical engineering students "no longer required to learn the laws of electricity." (p. 208) So, the pursuit of science or engineering, split by Laughlin between parts and systems supposedly can be redirected by adjusting the measure of parts or systems in the curriculum.		Diversification of the curriculum is necessary for training. That diversification must include a weaning, as in Laughlin's example of electrical engineering students "no longer required to learn the laws of electricity." (p. 208) So, the pursuit of science or engineering, split by Laughlin between parts and systems, supposedly can be redirected by adjusting the measure of parts or systems in the curriculum.

	Are the organizational laws really the children of the microscopic and mechanical laws? Isn't the family relationship more like a marriage, wed by Maxwell, Boltzmann, and grudgingly Schrödinger? Has Laughlin studied the history of statistics any further than I have, or am I misinterpreting the taming of chance?		Are the organizational laws really the children of the microscopic and mechanical laws? Isn't the family relationship more like a marriage, wed by Maxwell, Boltzmann, and grudgingly Schrödinger? Has Laughlin studied the history of statistics any further than I have, or am I misinterpreting the taming of chance?

	Reading Anderson after Kevles and Rhodes, I mostly think of anti-reductionism as a defense of scientists who do ''not'' work on cosmogony and particle physics, logic and math, against a claim that their work is less important, or, more practically, less deserving of funding. Leave it to an article published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science to claim a homestead not only for scientists at all levels but for inter-level work also.		Are the organizational laws really the children of the microscopic and mechanical laws? Isn't the family relationship more like a marriage, wed by Maxwell, Boltzmann, and grudgingly Schrödinger? Has Laughlin studied the history of statistics any further than I have, or am I misinterpreting the taming of chance?

			Reading Anderson after Kevles and Rhodes, I mostly think of anti-reductionism as a defense of scientists who do not work on cosmogony and particle physics, logic and math, against a claim that their work is less important, or, more practically, less deserving of funding. Leave it to an article published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (jobs) to claim a homestead not only for scientists at all levels but for inter-level work also.

	Anderson claims that each level of complexity in his hierarchy of science requires its own resources that are intuitive for the workers on that level. On a solution of nuclear structure: "it was simply an inspiration, based, to be sure, on everyday intuition, which suddenly fitted everything together." (p. 395) Compare this to Wise's presentation of William Thomson's two-sphere problem of 1845. (~~<bib>~~Wise:1989~~</bib>~~ pp. 263-266) The resources, according to Wise, are brought to the science, "focusing" a social guiding light on a technical problem. The actor chooses from among the possible explanations, co-creating a discourse with other scientists using and guiding common language.		Anderson claims that each level of complexity in his hierarchy of science requires its own resources that are intuitive for the workers on that level. On a solution of nuclear structure: "it was simply an inspiration, based, to be sure, on everyday intuition, which suddenly fitted everything together." (p. 395) Compare this to Wise's presentation of William Thomson's two-sphere problem of 1845. (Wise:1989 pp. 263-266) The resources, according to Wise, are brought to the science, "focusing" a social guiding light on a technical problem. The actor chooses from among the possible explanations, co-creating a discourse with other scientists using and guiding common language.

	In his 1995 preface, Kevles claims much the social power of physics came from the "identification of physics with National Security." (p. ix) Did physicists squander that political capital, or did it merely run out its limited life? "Angry opposition" is the case for the former, ties to economics probably the case for the latter. The current most lauded work on Cornell's synchrotron is the Energy Recovering Linac, in many physicists' minds adding to the synchrotron something like the regenerative braking of a hybrid car, making their work more socially relevant.		In his 1995 preface, Kevles claims much the social power of physics came from the "identification of physics with National Security." (p. ix) Did physicists squander that political capital, or did it merely run out its limited life? "Angry opposition" is the case for the former, ties to economics probably the case for the latter. The current most lauded work on Cornell's synchrotron is the Energy Recovering Linac, in many physicists' minds adding to the synchrotron something like the regenerative braking of a hybrid car, making their work more socially relevant.

Shawn: pre-perestroika patriotism

2009-12-03T04:16:08Z

pre-perestroika patriotism

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:16, 2 December 2009
Line 32:		Line 32:
	So, not only did the state bring down physics when lowering funding, physics brought itself down by trying to keep up with the state's desires. Irony: By stoking a cold war arms race in high energy particle physics, physicists destroyed the balance of national to international pursuits that kept the taxpayers from passing judgement on their work.		So, not only did the state bring down physics when lowering funding, physics brought itself down by trying to keep up with the state's desires. Irony: By stoking a cold war arms race in high energy particle physics, physicists destroyed the balance of national to international pursuits that kept the taxpayers from passing judgement on their work.

	Ah, but then Kevles puts forward that same alternative, on page xxiv, discussing how physicists were loath to political engagement with 'pure science.'		Ah, but then Kevles puts forward that same alternative, on page xxiv, discussing how physicists were loath to political engagement with 'pure science.' And then on page xxxvi that the boat was tied to the wrong wagon, a pre-perestroika patriotism.

	But, if Kevles wants to draw a parallel to 1890s science, where is the reference to Augustus Rowland and his plea for pure science? Kevles mentions the plea at the end of chapter 3, but why not in this preface? It would be nice to mention it in the part about the fight between who was more useful, and who was more fundamental, condensed matter or high energy.		But, if Kevles wants to draw a parallel to 1890s science, where is the reference to Augustus Rowland and his plea for pure science? Kevles mentions the plea at the end of chapter 3, but why not in this preface? It would be nice to mention it in the part about the fight between who was more useful, and who was more fundamental, condensed matter or high energy. (pp. xxiv, xxv)

	===One more for the road: On the demise of internationalization of the SSC in 1992===		===One more for the road: On the demise of internationalization of the SSC in 1992===

Shawn: vomitous haiku

2009-12-03T04:06:56Z

vomitous haiku

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:06, 2 December 2009
Line 35:		Line 35:

	But, if Kevles wants to draw a parallel to 1890s science, where is the reference to Augustus Rowland and his plea for pure science? Kevles mentions the plea at the end of chapter 3, but why not in this preface? It would be nice to mention it in the part about the fight between who was more useful, and who was more fundamental, condensed matter or high energy.		But, if Kevles wants to draw a parallel to 1890s science, where is the reference to Augustus Rowland and his plea for pure science? Kevles mentions the plea at the end of chapter 3, but why not in this preface? It would be nice to mention it in the part about the fight between who was more useful, and who was more fundamental, condensed matter or high energy.

			===One more for the road: On the demise of internationalization of the SSC in 1992===
			George Bush left us out
			of his visit to Japan.
			He's too busy barfing.

	==Readings==		==Readings==

Shawn: /* On why I went to Cornell to study physics and chemistry: */

2009-12-03T04:01:56Z

On why I went to Cornell to study physics and chemistry:

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 2 December 2009
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Even if it's Texas.		Even if it's Texas.

	===On why I went to Cornell to study physics and chemistry:===		===On why I went to Cornell, my first choice in 1986-1987, to study physics and chemistry:===
	Chemistry textbook,		Chemistry textbook,
	sidebar on the SSC,		sidebar on the SSC,

Shawn: A plea for more Augustus Rowland

2009-12-03T04:00:17Z

A plea for more Augustus Rowland

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:00, 2 December 2009
Line 31:		Line 31:

	So, not only did the state bring down physics when lowering funding, physics brought itself down by trying to keep up with the state's desires. Irony: By stoking a cold war arms race in high energy particle physics, physicists destroyed the balance of national to international pursuits that kept the taxpayers from passing judgement on their work.		So, not only did the state bring down physics when lowering funding, physics brought itself down by trying to keep up with the state's desires. Irony: By stoking a cold war arms race in high energy particle physics, physicists destroyed the balance of national to international pursuits that kept the taxpayers from passing judgement on their work.

			Ah, but then Kevles puts forward that same alternative, on page xxiv, discussing how physicists were loath to political engagement with 'pure science.'

			But, if Kevles wants to draw a parallel to 1890s science, where is the reference to Augustus Rowland and his plea for pure science? Kevles mentions the plea at the end of chapter 3, but why not in this preface? It would be nice to mention it in the part about the fight between who was more useful, and who was more fundamental, condensed matter or high energy.

	==Readings==		==Readings==

Shawn: /* On why I went to Cornell to study physics and chemistry: */

2009-12-03T03:51:16Z

On why I went to Cornell to study physics and chemistry:

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:51, 2 December 2009
Line 13:		Line 13:
	===On why I went to Cornell to study physics and chemistry:===		===On why I went to Cornell to study physics and chemistry:===
	Chemistry textbook,		Chemistry textbook,
	~~Sidebar~~ on the SSC,		sidebar on the SSC,
	I wanted a role.		I wanted a role.

Shawn at 03:50, 3 December 2009

2009-12-03T03:50:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:50, 2 December 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Response to readings for [[STS 3301]].		Response to readings for [[STS 3301]].

			===On history's battles===
	I will use Kevles		I will use Kevles
	to disagree with Kevles		to disagree with Kevles
	on US physics		on US physics

			===On isolation===
	One thing not to do:		One thing not to do:
	Put all your eggs in one basket.		Put all your eggs in one basket.
	Even if it's Texas.		Even if it's Texas.

			===On why I went to Cornell to study physics and chemistry:===
			Chemistry textbook,
			Sidebar on the SSC,
			I wanted a role.

	Diversification of the curriculum is necessary for training. That diversification must include a weaning, as in Laughlin's example of electrical engineering students "no longer required to learn the laws of electricity." (p. 208) So, the pursuit of science or engineering, split by Laughlin between parts and systems supposedly can be redirected by adjusting the measure of parts or systems in the curriculum.		Diversification of the curriculum is necessary for training. That diversification must include a weaning, as in Laughlin's example of electrical engineering students "no longer required to learn the laws of electricity." (p. 208) So, the pursuit of science or engineering, split by Laughlin between parts and systems supposedly can be redirected by adjusting the measure of parts or systems in the curriculum.

Shawn: Texas haiku

2009-12-03T03:27:43Z

Texas haiku

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 2 December 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:
	to disagree with Kevles		to disagree with Kevles
	on US physics		on US physics

			One thing not to do:
			Put all your eggs in one basket.
			Even if it's Texas.

	Diversification of the curriculum is necessary for training. That diversification must include a weaning, as in Laughlin's example of electrical engineering students "no longer required to learn the laws of electricity." (p. 208) So, the pursuit of science or engineering, split by Laughlin between parts and systems supposedly can be redirected by adjusting the measure of parts or systems in the curriculum.		Diversification of the curriculum is necessary for training. That diversification must include a weaning, as in Laughlin's example of electrical engineering students "no longer required to learn the laws of electricity." (p. 208) So, the pursuit of science or engineering, split by Laughlin between parts and systems supposedly can be redirected by adjusting the measure of parts or systems in the curriculum.