From jbristol at CSDB.ORG Tue Dec 1 16:00:56 2009 From: jbristol at CSDB.ORG (James Bristol) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:00:56 -0700 Subject: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. Message-ID: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> A creative writing class at our school is trying to create new idioms. You could say we are cloning fleas, inasmuch as there already are enough idioms out there (cloning fleas is one of our new idioms, meaning to create something of which there is already a sufficiency, or working at a project with no beneficial applications!)...but the creative mind cannot be limited by practicality. So far we have the following scientific idioms: "Wearing a psychedelic lab coat" for an experimenter who is way out there, and of course, "cloning fleas." Does anyone else have a scientific idiom we could use in our dictionary of scientific idioms? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agassi at erols.com Tue Dec 1 16:27:58 2009 From: agassi at erols.com (Aaron Agassi) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:27:58 -0500 Subject: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. In-Reply-To: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> References: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> Message-ID: <000001ca72dd$eb3ef0f0$c1bcd2d0$@com> Cloning fleas might also refer to the propagation of anything small, picayune or irritant. -Not to be confused with marshalling gadflies, wherein there might actually be any real point expressed. And a tie-dyed lab coat might reference virtually any staring at goats. From: mad-scientists-bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG [mailto:mad-scientists-bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG] On Behalf Of James Bristol Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 18:01 To: 'mad-scientists at Mad-Scientists.ORG' Subject: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. A creative writing class at our school is trying to create new idioms. You could say we are cloning fleas, inasmuch as there already are enough idioms out there (cloning fleas is one of our new idioms, meaning to create something of which there is already a sufficiency, or working at a project with no beneficial applications!).but the creative mind cannot be limited by practicality. So far we have the following scientific idioms: "Wearing a psychedelic lab coat" for an experimenter who is way out there, and of course, "cloning fleas." Does anyone else have a scientific idiom we could use in our dictionary of scientific idioms? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From celestialcognition at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 22:19:39 2009 From: celestialcognition at gmail.com (Benjamin Caplan) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:19:39 -0600 Subject: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. In-Reply-To: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> References: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> Message-ID: <4B15F8EB.4030205@gmail.com> James Bristol wrote: > A creative writing class at our school is trying to create new > idioms. You could say we are cloning fleas, inasmuch as there already > are enough idioms out there (cloning fleas is one of our new idioms, > meaning to create something of which there is already a sufficiency, > or working at a project with no beneficial applications!)...but the > creative mind cannot be limited by practicality. So far we have the > following scientific idioms: "Wearing a psychedelic lab coat" for an > experimenter who is way out there, and of course, "cloning fleas." > Does anyone else have a scientific idiom we could use in our > dictionary of scientific idioms? Arguing primality to paperclippers: A failure of rhetoric in which one employs arguments that oneself finds persuasive, rather than arguments that would be persuasive to one's audience. (References Overcoming Bias/Less Wrong.) Coat-and-goggles scientist: Analogous to a religious televangelist, a "scientist" more interested in a sciency public image than actual scientific research. Sometimes pejorative, especially if directed at the host of an educational program. Mad in plain sight: A scientist doing work with potentially supervillain-level implications/applications, but whose said work is published uncontroversially in respectable journals. Likely fields include human prosthetics, bioengineering, and psychiatric pharmaceutical research. Chasing swans: To focus fiercely on observations that don't fit one's models ("black swans"). One of the key behaviors of real scientists that differentiate us from Hollywood Rationalists. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From agassi at erols.com Wed Dec 2 04:15:12 2009 From: agassi at erols.com (Aaron Agassi) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 06:15:12 -0500 Subject: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. In-Reply-To: <4B15F8EB.4030205@gmail.com> References: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> <4B15F8EB.4030205@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301ca7340$b7894bd0$269be370$@com> > -----Original Message----- > From: mad-scientists-bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG [mailto:mad-scientists- > bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG] On Behalf Of Benjamin Caplan > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 00:20 > To: Mad-Scientists Discussion List > Subject: Re: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. > > James Bristol wrote: > Chasing swans: > To focus fiercely on observations that don't fit one's models ("black > swans"). One of the key behaviors of real scientists that differentiate > us from Hollywood Rationalists. What, because 'refutation' is just too big a word? From celestialcognition at gmail.com Wed Dec 2 05:04:01 2009 From: celestialcognition at gmail.com (Benjamin Caplan) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:04:01 -0600 Subject: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. In-Reply-To: <000301ca7340$b7894bd0$269be370$@com> References: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> <4B15F8EB.4030205@gmail.com> <000301ca7340$b7894bd0$269be370$@com> Message-ID: <4B1657B1.70704@gmail.com> Aaron Agassi wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> Chasing swans: >> To focus fiercely on observations that don't fit one's models ("black >> swans"). One of the key behaviors of real scientists that differentiate >> us from Hollywood Rationalists. > > What, because 'refutation' is just too big a word? No, "chasing swans" specifically refers to the point where you don't yet know whether the outlier data is a statistical fluke or an experimental misdesign or a genuinely new principle or what. Also, it's not a proper black-swan if it's _easily_ explained away. Refutation is one possible outcome of chasing swans. Scientific revolution is another. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From agassi at erols.com Wed Dec 2 10:09:46 2009 From: agassi at erols.com (Aaron Agassi) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:09:46 -0500 Subject: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. In-Reply-To: <4B1657B1.70704@gmail.com> References: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> <4B15F8EB.4030205@gmail.com> <000301ca7340$b7894bd0$269be370$@com> <4B1657B1.70704@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001b01ca7372$40278c00$c076a400$@com> > -----Original Message----- > From: mad-scientists-bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG [mailto:mad-scientists- > bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG] On Behalf Of Benjamin Caplan > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 07:04 > To: Mad-Scientists Discussion List > Subject: Re: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. > > Aaron Agassi wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> Chasing swans: > >> To focus fiercely on observations that don't fit one's models > >> ("black swans"). One of the key behaviors of real scientists that > >> differentiate us from Hollywood Rationalists. > > > > What, because 'refutation' is just too big a word? > > No, "chasing swans" specifically refers to the point where you don't > yet know whether the outlier data is a statistical fluke or an > experimental misdesign or a genuinely new principle or what. > > Also, it's not a proper black-swan if it's _easily_ explained away. > > Refutation is one possible outcome of chasing swans. Scientific > revolution is another. That's still seeking refutation. Why obfuscate? Popper's black swans are only a parable to illustrate how no compilation of corroboration, no matter how extensive, can ever be completely certain. From celestialcognition at gmail.com Wed Dec 2 15:09:26 2009 From: celestialcognition at gmail.com (Benjamin Caplan) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:09:26 -0600 Subject: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. In-Reply-To: <001b01ca7372$40278c00$c076a400$@com> References: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> <4B15F8EB.4030205@gmail.com> <000301ca7340$b7894bd0$269be370$@com> <4B1657B1.70704@gmail.com> <001b01ca7372$40278c00$c076a400$@com> Message-ID: <4B16E596.6070005@gmail.com> Aaron Agassi wrote: > Benjamin Caplan wrote: >>> Aaron Agassi wrote: >>> Benjamin Caplan wrote: >>>> Chasing swans: To focus fiercely on >>>> observations that don't fit one's models ("black swans"). One >>>> of the key behaviors of real scientists that differentiate us >>>> from Hollywood Rationalists. >>> >>> What, because 'refutation' is just too big a word? >> >> No, "chasing swans" specifically refers to the point where you >> don't yet know whether the outlier data is a statistical fluke or >> an experimental misdesign or a genuinely new principle or what. >> >> Also, it's not a proper black-swan if it's _easily_ explained away. >> >> Refutation is one possible outcome of chasing swans. Scientific >> revolution is another. > > That's still seeking refutation. Why obfuscate? > > Popper's black swans are only a parable to illustrate how no > compilation of corroboration, no matter how extensive, can ever be > completely certain. No. If you're "seeking refutation", then you've decided beforehand what outcome you want to find. This is the Doing-It-Wrong version of scientific inquiry. Chasing swans is everything between "That's funny..." and "Aha!" -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jbristol at CSDB.ORG Wed Dec 2 15:25:50 2009 From: jbristol at CSDB.ORG (James Bristol) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:25:50 -0700 Subject: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. In-Reply-To: <4B16E596.6070005@gmail.com> References: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> <4B15F8EB.4030205@gmail.com> <000301ca7340$b7894bd0$269be370$@com> <4B1657B1.70704@gmail.com> <001b01ca7372$40278c00$c076a400$@com> <4B16E596.6070005@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7AD@Rattler.CSDB.CO> I appreciate the idioms I've gotten so far...but could do without the bickering.... -----Original Message----- From: mad-scientists-bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG [mailto:mad-scientists-bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG] On Behalf Of Benjamin Caplan Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 3:09 PM To: Mad-Scientists Discussion List Subject: Re: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. Aaron Agassi wrote: > Benjamin Caplan wrote: >>> Aaron Agassi wrote: >>> Benjamin Caplan wrote: >>>> Chasing swans: To focus fiercely on >>>> observations that don't fit one's models ("black swans"). One >>>> of the key behaviors of real scientists that differentiate us >>>> from Hollywood Rationalists. >>> >>> What, because 'refutation' is just too big a word? >> >> No, "chasing swans" specifically refers to the point where you >> don't yet know whether the outlier data is a statistical fluke or >> an experimental misdesign or a genuinely new principle or what. >> >> Also, it's not a proper black-swan if it's _easily_ explained away. >> >> Refutation is one possible outcome of chasing swans. Scientific >> revolution is another. > > That's still seeking refutation. Why obfuscate? > > Popper's black swans are only a parable to illustrate how no > compilation of corroboration, no matter how extensive, can ever be > completely certain. No. If you're "seeking refutation", then you've decided beforehand what outcome you want to find. This is the Doing-It-Wrong version of scientific inquiry. Chasing swans is everything between "That's funny..." and "Aha!" From celestialcognition at gmail.com Wed Dec 2 15:34:21 2009 From: celestialcognition at gmail.com (Benjamin Caplan) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:34:21 -0600 Subject: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. In-Reply-To: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7AD@Rattler.CSDB.CO> References: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> <4B15F8EB.4030205@gmail.com> <000301ca7340$b7894bd0$269be370$@com> <4B1657B1.70704@gmail.com> <001b01ca7372$40278c00$c076a400$@com> <4B16E596.6070005@gmail.com> <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7AD@Rattler.CSDB.CO> Message-ID: <4B16EB6D.5030604@gmail.com> James Bristol wrote: > I appreciate the idioms I've gotten so far...but could do without the bickering.... Yeah, sorry. Throwing dictionaries: Heated arguments about trivial matters; often, disputes of definition. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From agassi at erols.com Wed Dec 2 19:37:00 2009 From: agassi at erols.com (Aaron Agassi) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 21:37:00 -0500 Subject: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. In-Reply-To: <4B16E596.6070005@gmail.com> References: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> <4B15F8EB.4030205@gmail.com> <000301ca7340$b7894bd0$269be370$@com> <4B1657B1.70704@gmail.com> <001b01ca7372$40278c00$c076a400$@com> <4B16E596.6070005@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000901ca73c1$7e021af0$7a0650d0$@com> > -----Original Message----- > From: mad-scientists-bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG [mailto:mad-scientists- > bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG] On Behalf Of Benjamin Caplan > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 17:09 > To: Mad-Scientists Discussion List > Subject: Re: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. > > Aaron Agassi wrote: > > Benjamin Caplan wrote: > >>> Aaron Agassi wrote: > >>> Benjamin Caplan wrote: > >>>> Chasing swans: To focus fiercely on observations that don't fit > >>>> one's models ("black swans"). One of the key behaviors of real > >>>> scientists that differentiate us from Hollywood Rationalists. > >>> > >>> What, because 'refutation' is just too big a word? > >> > >> No, "chasing swans" specifically refers to the point where you don't > >> yet know whether the outlier data is a statistical fluke or an > >> experimental misdesign or a genuinely new principle or what. > >> > >> Also, it's not a proper black-swan if it's _easily_ explained away. > >> > >> Refutation is one possible outcome of chasing swans. Scientific > >> revolution is another. > > > > That's still seeking refutation. Why obfuscate? > > > > Popper's black swans are only a parable to illustrate how no > > compilation of corroboration, no matter how extensive, can ever be > > completely certain. > > No. If you're "seeking refutation", then you've decided beforehand what > outcome you want to find. This is the Doing-It-Wrong version of > scientific inquiry. > > Chasing swans is everything between "That's funny..." and "Aha!" Seeking support and seeking refutation are both essential. Bias cannot be avoided before hand, because only context renders anything intelligible at all. Thus, the only hope that remains is for errors can only be detected and corrected afterwards, as we go. A successful research is one that reduces the field of remaining viable hypotheses. From agassi at erols.com Wed Dec 2 19:38:15 2009 From: agassi at erols.com (Aaron Agassi) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 21:38:15 -0500 Subject: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. In-Reply-To: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7AD@Rattler.CSDB.CO> References: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> <4B15F8EB.4030205@gmail.com> <000301ca7340$b7894bd0$269be370$@com> <4B1657B1.70704@gmail.com> <001b01ca7372$40278c00$c076a400$@com> <4B16E596.6070005@gmail.com> <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7AD@Rattler.CSDB.CO> Message-ID: <000a01ca73c1$aa9738c0$ffc5aa40$@com> We used to call it: controversy. > -----Original Message----- > From: mad-scientists-bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG [mailto:mad-scientists- > bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG] On Behalf Of James Bristol > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 17:26 > To: 'Mad-Scientists Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. > > I appreciate the idioms I've gotten so far...but could do without the > bickering.... > From agassi at erols.com Wed Dec 2 19:43:39 2009 From: agassi at erols.com (Aaron Agassi) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 21:43:39 -0500 Subject: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. In-Reply-To: <4B16EB6D.5030604@gmail.com> References: <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7A3@Rattler.CSDB.CO> <4B15F8EB.4030205@gmail.com> <000301ca7340$b7894bd0$269be370$@com> <4B1657B1.70704@gmail.com> <001b01ca7372$40278c00$c076a400$@com> <4B16E596.6070005@gmail.com> <3EEF2F82E5CFA84BA170D4FCB0AEE42D052C9DA7AD@Rattler.CSDB.CO> <4B16EB6D.5030604@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000b01ca73c2$6b4341e0$41c9c5a0$@com> > -----Original Message----- > From: mad-scientists-bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG [mailto:mad-scientists- > bounces at Mad-Scientists.ORG] On Behalf Of Benjamin Caplan > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 17:34 > To: Mad-Scientists Discussion List > Subject: Re: [Mad-Scientists] idioms - please post to list. > > > Throwing dictionaries: > Heated arguments about trivial matters; often, disputes of > definition. > Better: hurling reference tomes