Tales of Power and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

I've reviewed this book elsewhere, but what I really wanted to talk about was something that Daniel Noel touched upon in 'Seeing Castaneda'.

Reading the latest buzz on Castaneda, he seems pretty much totally discredited as an anthropologist.

However, as an observer or conjurer of human perception and sensibility, he is everything that he said he was. Obviously, given the historical references to his life, the man approached what we consider a cult figure, complete with women who followed him around, something we can easily follow in his books. You might say that he took advantage of his celebrity status and worked back and forth between his books and his followers much as an artist would work with his patrons and audience to popularize himself and his work.

What is fascinating about this approach is that it is self-consistent with the arts of manipulation written about in his books. Furthermore, if we take the incongruency of his writings with what we might call reality or everyday reality, and look at the way society relentlessly renders such incongruencies as superficial or otherwise unworthy of notice, we find even more self-consistency.

Castaneda the faker managed to fake a great many people out for six years. That he is essentially discredited at this time is to miss the whole point of his success at exactly what he claims he was taught by Don Juan. He truly turned writing into an 'act of sorcery' , creating a semiplausible account that was actually taken as the real thing for quite awhile. You might call it nothing more than a 'beautiful hoax' on the level of a fake Vermeer or Piltdown Man, except that Castaneda went much further, actually pointing out what he was doing by having Don Juan point out what he was doing to Carlos.

Which brings us to the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn. How strange to find almost exactly the permutation of reality that Carlos writes about in a series of essays on scientific experimentation. Now, in no way would I suggest that Kuhn, a scientific historian, is mystical in his approach to the history of science. On the contrary, he exudes careful discernment between the subtleties of concepts he maps out, from paradigms to scientific data. And though he's been accused of being a relativist, I think it would be more accurate to say he's doing something akin to phenomenology here: writing down what he's observed and putting it together as a theory, or thesis.

But these two writers, now both departed, have given us two sides of a golden coin, so to speak. Because what they are dealing with is how humans apprehend reality. And this is quantum behavior, wave action that they are discussing, although they don't know it.

Inlepid

A word, though latin. From the back of my mind. Solipsism at work and play.

Corona Udder Butter

I got this one by doing research on Creomulsion. It's another glimmace, a true-typo.

It softens and relieves pain from sore teats and udders.

Google Hronir

This is beginning to get scary.

I did two random googles so far today. The first one was "my ocean has a hole in it"

It turns out there is a hole in the ocean.

Then I typed in "the universe is green". It turns out that this is true also.

Survival of the fittest theory

I love scientists who are honest. While philosophers like Nicholas Taleb warn us against the human propensity to create narrative from facts, Richard Dawkins and his cohorts shamelessly create 'evolutionary narratives' to explain everything from religion to breasts.

Thomas Kuhn, in his influential (it influenced me) book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" , explains the wealth of theory making in science:

When a field of study is in its early stages, there are many more questions than answers, and the experts turn to theorizing as a means of filling in the blanks. Eventually a paradigm will arise that matures to the point where it becomes dominant. This allows a great deal of focused work around the paradigm. Eventually anomalies are discovered, and competing theories arise. If one theory is better than others at explaining known observations, then it eventually becomes the new paradigm.

A key point of Kuhn's essay is his observation, from the historical standpoint, that defense of the current paradigm is intense, regardless of the science in question. Evolution, as such, has become such a dominant paradigm that it is commonplace to talk about things evolving, much as it was commonplace for decades to talk about things being 'relative'. In the case of both Evolution and Relativity, scientists look to the two paradigms for what they can predict and, some would say, for their utility. In other words, Relativity might predict black holes and possibly allow us to escape falling into one. Or, Relativity might help predict when a star might implode. Evolution might predict the extinction of a particular species that can't evolve.

What is important to realize, and what Kuhn observes, is that the prevalent paradigm of a science shapes research and experimentation. Evolutionary science has led to our concepts of extinction, biological mutation, and many other current fields of study. It could be argued that Evolution, as a paradigm, has provided humanity with the benefit of DNA research, research on the nature of diseases, and many other courses of study that benefit the human race.

When we examine the theory of evolution in this light, we can understand why so many scientists see it as a benefit. The fact that it conflicts with traditional Christian and other deist concepts of reality is seen as a side issue by many.

Intelligent discourse concerning the nature of these two apparently contradictory views might be more fruitful if it revolved around the fact that both exist. Both obviously offer benefits to humankind, and these benefits should be given appropriate respect in any discourse.

However, Kuhn argues, such intelligent discourse is most difficult precisely when two competing views are viable contenders for the allegiance of their audience. From Kuhn's point of view, what we call science will change to accomodate the facts that our technology provides us with.

So far we have said nothing about the benefit offered by view in a created world. Scientists are just now starting to look at this seriously. Most likely the fields of psychology and sociology will be greatly advanced by studying the phenomenon of human belief systems. Whether or not anything like a major social paradigm will arise, such as relativity, evolution, and digitization have been, remains to be seen.

Metaphysics of Probability

If you think about it, probability is a two edged sword. We already see this in our own existence, which is too highly unlikely to measure given our present lack of knowledge.

In simple limited coin flipping terms, there is always the chance that the coin will fall on its edge. (This actually happened to me once.)

Or that we will get 20 heads in a row.

What do we do in this case, when our Gaussian distribution is violated? We seek a way to get things back within our human sense of order.

And yet, the coin did land on its edge. Twenty heads in a row does come up. Books have been written on this, but right here I want to suggest that our concept of probability is such that the existence of God has plenty of room in between the numbers on the Gaussian curve.

In other words, God can easily slip us 20 heads whenever He wants, and we are free to ignore them as outliers, or to take them to the bank.