STS3301 Paper Week 13: Difference between revisions

From ShawnReevesWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
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.


I'm not sure everyone is as confident as Laughlin in declaring "collective principles of organization" to be "everything–the true source of physical law." He is forced by this view of progress to see the shift to the system as a Marco-Polo-like "discovery." Why make claims like that when it is pretty hard to deny that the country was created. Maybe physics is leaving an age of "discovery" (canal rays, Stark effect) and creating an age of systems (strings, qfd).
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?


==Readings==
==Readings==

Revision as of 12:14, 28 November 2009

Response to readings for STS 3301.

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?

Readings

<bib>Laughlin:2005</bib>

<bib>Dyson:1979</bib>

Retrieved from "https://shawnreeves.net//wiki/index.php?title=STS3301_Paper_Week_13&oldid=212"