Hehehe...."how" and "where" I hear you ask?
oh...you know...showing off some uber classy lingo I picked up... ;) Actually, these two unfortunate metaphors were the worst thing about an otherwise amazing evening I just experienced at the Royal Society. (It is actually hilarious to hear people discussing the 'valley of death' and what it means to overcome "it", rather, than directly addressing the difficulties that stand in the way of say creating a successful business from a wonderful piece of research: the valley of death this, and the valley of death that...ahaaa)
Jokes aside, I am awed from the discussion that I was just exposed to. Objectively speaking it was not particularly full of substance, i.e. statements that are testable, concrete and philosophically charged, but perhaps this is because my ears are not accustomed to hearing politically motivated and/or exposing statements. And actually, the discussions were so far above my 'pay bracket' that it was a little fantastical. However, what I felt was a genuine and sincere attempt to project ideas and receive feedback.
A few points/statements that did get me thinking are:
1. A definition of "invention" that I had not previously ever encountered, and actually not really sure what to make of: "invention is transfer of money into knowledge"... Really? that is not the street meaning of it, at least not yet. Invention to myself means the materialisation of thought. Cash/economy have nothing to do with this process. However, it is an interesting take on the word.
2. An interesting statement: Engineering is construction of complex systems. Which got me thinking that perhaps: Science is the de-construction of complex systems.
3. Additionally, on the specific subject of scientific enterprise, I wonder in comparison with engineering, science is not a 'passive enterprise'. In the sense that it is involved with the ordering of data. I personally consider that scientists are people who are good 'reducing agents' - good at turning data into information. In my own (perhaps poor metaphor), I consider the unknown workings of nature as a high entropy system, and scientists are basically people who are good at putting things into order, classification, and discerning trends. Scientists don't actually make anything - hence the use of the word passive. In contrast engineering enterprise, is using scientific effort (descriptions of how to order and predict nature) to create material objects.
And finally two thoughts which I am not too comfortable with, and perhaps will explore at a later date more fully, as they have not yet crystallised within me yet:
a) I posted a while back now about they fact that we (citizens of western countries) exercise our democratic rights about once every few years (in general). And there is this general consensus amongst us (at least it was drummed into my and my classmates ins school) - that every vote counts, you can make a difference etc. The existence of large companies, companies with turnovers greater than many countries, this view of the workings of a democracy is a little naive. Their voting power is far greater, more efficient at altering the course of the economy and consequently our lives than we can ever achieve with a ballot paper every few years (okay, you say this is obvious - but today I actually 'felt' this for the first time to the bone). The saving grace is that a company is not a person, and as employees we exercise our democratic right every day when we get into work.
b) What social services are funded by public money? (I have to look this up.) I ask this because I am wary about this idea that science that is publicly funded owes something to the public. "Open access" is an applicable term here. There are many services/projects that are publicly funded and yet remain and need to remain out of the public domain - take MI6 or whatever the secret service is called here... it is undoubtedly funded by public money, but I doubt if it will ever will be open access. Anyway, this is likely a nonsensical statement, I'm just trying to 'download'.
Well, there you are, just a few random thoughts about the night. Very different experience from the meetings I have previously attended. I don't think I really learnt anything except to get a confirmation of a feeling that had recently been germinating - and that is the UK is in safe hands. You guys have a lot of brilliantly smart people. Oh, I am going to start gushing now :)
oh...you know...showing off some uber classy lingo I picked up... ;) Actually, these two unfortunate metaphors were the worst thing about an otherwise amazing evening I just experienced at the Royal Society. (It is actually hilarious to hear people discussing the 'valley of death' and what it means to overcome "it", rather, than directly addressing the difficulties that stand in the way of say creating a successful business from a wonderful piece of research: the valley of death this, and the valley of death that...ahaaa)
Jokes aside, I am awed from the discussion that I was just exposed to. Objectively speaking it was not particularly full of substance, i.e. statements that are testable, concrete and philosophically charged, but perhaps this is because my ears are not accustomed to hearing politically motivated and/or exposing statements. And actually, the discussions were so far above my 'pay bracket' that it was a little fantastical. However, what I felt was a genuine and sincere attempt to project ideas and receive feedback.
A few points/statements that did get me thinking are:
1. A definition of "invention" that I had not previously ever encountered, and actually not really sure what to make of: "invention is transfer of money into knowledge"... Really? that is not the street meaning of it, at least not yet. Invention to myself means the materialisation of thought. Cash/economy have nothing to do with this process. However, it is an interesting take on the word.
2. An interesting statement: Engineering is construction of complex systems. Which got me thinking that perhaps: Science is the de-construction of complex systems.
3. Additionally, on the specific subject of scientific enterprise, I wonder in comparison with engineering, science is not a 'passive enterprise'. In the sense that it is involved with the ordering of data. I personally consider that scientists are people who are good 'reducing agents' - good at turning data into information. In my own (perhaps poor metaphor), I consider the unknown workings of nature as a high entropy system, and scientists are basically people who are good at putting things into order, classification, and discerning trends. Scientists don't actually make anything - hence the use of the word passive. In contrast engineering enterprise, is using scientific effort (descriptions of how to order and predict nature) to create material objects.
And finally two thoughts which I am not too comfortable with, and perhaps will explore at a later date more fully, as they have not yet crystallised within me yet:
a) I posted a while back now about they fact that we (citizens of western countries) exercise our democratic rights about once every few years (in general). And there is this general consensus amongst us (at least it was drummed into my and my classmates ins school) - that every vote counts, you can make a difference etc. The existence of large companies, companies with turnovers greater than many countries, this view of the workings of a democracy is a little naive. Their voting power is far greater, more efficient at altering the course of the economy and consequently our lives than we can ever achieve with a ballot paper every few years (okay, you say this is obvious - but today I actually 'felt' this for the first time to the bone). The saving grace is that a company is not a person, and as employees we exercise our democratic right every day when we get into work.
b) What social services are funded by public money? (I have to look this up.) I ask this because I am wary about this idea that science that is publicly funded owes something to the public. "Open access" is an applicable term here. There are many services/projects that are publicly funded and yet remain and need to remain out of the public domain - take MI6 or whatever the secret service is called here... it is undoubtedly funded by public money, but I doubt if it will ever will be open access. Anyway, this is likely a nonsensical statement, I'm just trying to 'download'.
Well, there you are, just a few random thoughts about the night. Very different experience from the meetings I have previously attended. I don't think I really learnt anything except to get a confirmation of a feeling that had recently been germinating - and that is the UK is in safe hands. You guys have a lot of brilliantly smart people. Oh, I am going to start gushing now :)
No comments:
Post a Comment