Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (58378)	1/28/2001 12:49:07 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Respond to of 71178

It does seem to me (from my really ignorant spot here on the floor at your all's feet) that all of the theories and all of the predictions and models do tend to overlook what Michael pointed out, there can be no pure models, no truly reliable predictions of anything, once you add in the element of man himself--not only in the area of creativity, but, as you point out, in the strange way people can become completely fanatical, beyond reason about something-- and act in a way that you look back on and say, huh? How do all these intellectuals get around that wild card when they come up with this stuff? Your very point is the foundation for von Mises and the "Austrian School" economists. Mises insisted that the starting point for the study of economics must be what he termed praxeology, "the general theory of human action". Austrians argue that much of what passes for economic analysis is nonsense, because some schools use tools appropriate for mechanics or physics rather than human behavior. Friedrich Hayek wrote a great little book on this subject called The Counter-Revolution of Science Had the South won, slavery would still have quickly ended in America. Slavery was losing all of its economic rationale in the late 1800s. It ended in Brazil, Cuba, and in all the western hemisphere by the 1880s. The British ended it in their Caribbean colonies by setting up a fund to compensate slave owners, thereby preventing the opposition of people who wouldn't look forward to being bankrupted. Only in America was the end of slavery accompanied by a terrible war that impoverished a major region of the country. We look forward to your being ensconced in a nursing home, so that we can finally get to read your book.

To: Rambi who wrote (58378)	1/29/2001 4:16:16 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 71178

Presenting a scientific paper at a respectable international meeting is joining the world of science. Today, such papers are published in abstract or in whole before the meeting and generally available on the net to anyone interested. At the meeting, the presenters (usually one per paper) discuss their papers and are criticized by experts. Some meetings have proceedings, volumes which include both the papers and the comments. These do not usually count as scientific publications (for purpose of promotion) but the prelinary paper must be rewritten, dealing with any cogent criticisms, and as well criticism of expert referees to whom the editor of the journal refers to proferred paper. If presentation is the important first baby step in establishing a scientific career, the beauty of your first journal publication is an adolescent stride. What does it mean? A young Ph.D. in a mediocre university, is expected to publish about six journal articles in his first few years as an assistant professor. If these are significant articles in important journals (the top 2 or 3 in any specific scientific field), the young professor may hope to receive tenure (if his teaching, service, and fund raising are adequate). Presentations themselves really count nothing in process (even if published in proceedings). Presentations are better than nothing, of course, and are quite impressive as foreshadowing the future for a college undergraduate. I would say that one such presentation virtually guarantees that CW can get into a top graduate school. He has already distinguished himself from most of the undergraduates at MIT and Stanford who will never accomplish this much. Notice how he was already overcome his nonadmission by Stanford. They were wrong. (Of course, we knew that already). For top universities, it is not so much the journal publication that counts, but the content of the articles. But regardless of genius, unless journal articles are published, it is almost impossible for a scientist to get into a good position. Einstein is the example here. He and his father tried everywhere in Europe to get a job as a physics docent. No luck. As soon as he starts publishing his papers on special relatively, Brownian movement, etc. he is flooded with offers. Meanwhile, he learned a lot about refrigeration as a clerk in the Swiss patent office (not that bad a job actually, is it Nick?). You should be proud as should CW. Does he still want to become CEO of a hitech firm, or would be be satisfied with a brilliant engineering and scientific career? Looks like he packs the goods. By the way, an "algorithm" is a recipe for a calculation. A good algorithm produces correct answers when such are available. It is robust, and hones in on the answer with as few iterations as possible. It is economical of computing resources. A good algorithm may be a permanent addition to man's knowledge. Despite the many great things contributed by the great mathematician Gauss, his method of least squares has probably been more important in practice than even differential geometry or the calculus of variations, developments of far greater imagination and complexity. Of course, even Doolittle was able to improve upon Gauss. Algorithms rule the roost for a limited period of time, and then are buried under mathematical progress. They form a necessary part of the history of applied mathematics. The edifice rises higher than it would have been without these foundations. So rejoice! You have given birth to one who helps lay another brick in the wall. May there be many more.