Where's the meat?

[Doctordick]

Some people seem to think my work is pretty worthless. :( Well, I will allow them their opinions; however, I just ran across something Albert Einstein apparently said:

The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.

--Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

If that is indeed an actual expression of the “grand aim of science” then I think I have pretty well established a new “bar”. :shrug: That would imply that anyone who thinks my stuff is worthless pretty well thinks science itself must be worthless. :doh: Everybody to their own opinion!

 

Have fun -- Dick ;)

[InfiniteNow]

Dick - Why do you hold the impression that others see your work as worthless? That thought has never once crossed my mind during all these years I've been reviewing your posts.

[lemit]

Hey! Who are those people who say your ideas are worthless? Don't pay attention to them! We all know you are a good person!

 

Now that your ego is assuaged (accurately), the Einstein quote reminds me of the usual understanding of Occam's razor, that we should find an explanation that is simplest and answers the greatest number of questions at the same time.

 

I think you and Einstein are onto something. So I guess there are three of us? Oh, I suppose Occam makes four.

 

--lemit

[freeztar]

I agree.

 

I have never thought your posts were worthless. Where are you getting this idea from?

 

Of course, when you told me it wasn't worth my time to pursue your ideas, I just smiled and walked away, but that's a different story...;)

[CraigD]

Some people seem to think my work is pretty worthless.

The fourth to say so within a couple of hours of you posting this, I don’t consider your work worthless!

 

I admit, however, that after some effort to “get” them some time ago, I stopped actively participating in threads focusing on your original work, not because I thought your work was flawed or without worth, but because I felt I didn’t, and likely would continue not to, get it. My gut feeling (or “squirrel decision” if you will ) is that you’re smarter, harder working, and more accomplished than me, your work, simply put, over my head. :lol:

 

If you’ll accept some advice from me as one who’s frequently found himself on the other side of a failure of comprehension, and permit me to spare the telling of my many anecdotal tales on the subject, I’ll offer the following:

 

Mathematical formalism, philosophy, and scientific theory share a critical quality with things like novelties hawked by a sidewalk merchant. They must, with rare exception, be sold. In other words, they are commodities.

 

Although the psychodynamic of this are informal – one might, less charitably, say irrational – they nonetheless exists, falling as best I can tell somewhere among the disciplines of business, psychology, and primate behavioral zoology.

 

A consequence of this psychodynamic is that, person-by-person, the success of the same depends on the perceived worth of the commodity vs. the perceived cost. In the case of math and science as typically “traded” at sites like hypography, the cost is usually the “buyer’s” time and effort. As a consequence, it’s easier to sell “cheap” ideas (eg: aphorisms) than costly ones (eg: scientific fundamentals)

 

The exception to this “cheap sells more easily than expensive” law depends on the perceived value half of the two sale determining factors. If the salesperson can convince the buyer that a commodity has tremendous worth – in the case of a street vendor, say, an appliance that will slice, dice, vacuum the carpet and clean windows, in the case of a scientist, say, a theory that can explain everything – the buyer will pay any price – in the first case, all the cash he or she can muster, in the latter, all of his or her study time and effort.

 

In addition to the utility component of perceived worth implied above, math, philosophy, and science usually have a compelling aesthetic component. Even if a system or theory has no obvious practical application, it may be perceived as very valuable to people who find it beautiful, deep, or elegant.

 

In mathematical physics, according to many critics (and even some proponents) string theory is an example of a class of commodities for which nearly every buyer is willing to pay everything, as evidenced by the percentage of PHD candidates studying it (for a discussion of this, see Lee Smolin’s 2006 The Trouble with Physics).

 

Regardless of the commodity, its buyer, and the components contributing to its peceived worth, the principles behind successfully selling it are much the same, and include: know that the buyer wants; present the qualities of the commodity matching them.

 

Sometimes, even, the infamous sales technique of the bait and switch is key to success. IMHO, this is how math and science is taught to the large majority of students, primarily in grades 1-12 and undergraduate college, via a “pitch” that goes something like “math and science will allow you to solve every problem you’ll ever encounter”. Once that hook has set, it’s revealed “well, only if you dedicate your life to its study, and solve myriad generations-old fundamental problems that have eluded humanities greatest geniuses”, by which time the hope is that the “mark” – the student – has become enthralled by the commodity’s beauty so much that he or she can’t let it go.

 

I hope my words have been of some encouragement to you Dick. Keep peddling you ideas, but I strongly recommend you being very mindful of the importance of salesmanship.

[Turtle]

Some people seem to think my work is pretty worthless. :( Well, I will allow them their opinions; however, I just ran across something Albert Einstein apparently said:

The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.

If that is indeed an actual expression of the “grand aim of science” then I think I have pretty well established a new “bar”. :lol: That would imply that anyone who thinks my stuff is worthless pretty well thinks science itself must be worthless. :bat: Everybody to their own opinion!

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

:hyper: ricky ricky ricky! i luv ya man! i have to say for someone who always finishes imploring the reader to have fun, when aforementioned reader(s) respond with some, you throw your heart on your sleeve & get all justificatory. if i weren't an old man myself i might think it's an age thing. :hyper:

 

where's buffy when ya need an obscure reference explained? :cheer: :hihi: i'll do it myself i guess. first, the title of this thread, prompted by moi, is a misquote of a phrase i used in another thread when talking to another guy about your intriguing work good fun dr dick. the phrase is not "where's the meat?", it is "where's the beef?". this is in reference to a series of wendy's hamburger joint commercials, wherein, the competitors product does have beef, but it is hidden inside an enormous bun.

 

i have thought, and continue to think, that it is a worthwhile aim to look inside your enormous bun richard, as it is more fun than not. . . . . . . . .

 

YouTube - Where's the Beef http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0