STS3301 Paper Week 13: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
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. | |||
==Readings== | ==Readings== | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
<bib>Dyson:1979</bib> | <bib>Dyson:1979</bib> | ||
<bib>Anderson:1972</bib> | |||
Revision as of 13:18, 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, 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.
Readings
<bib>Laughlin:2005</bib>
<bib>Dyson:1979</bib>
<bib>Anderson:1972</bib>
