The first scientific revolution, forged and championed by such luminaries as Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei and others. The first scientific revolution emphasised the gathering of and reliance upon empirical evidence. Observations would be quantified, measured, isolated, and repeated. The first scientific revolution bequeathed to the world the first scientific method: observe a phenomenon, identify independent and dependent variables, create an experiment, alter the independent variable(s) and observe any changes to the dependent variables, draw causal conclusions. Repeat and expand as necessary to form and confirm a theory.
The second scientific revolution, begun in the social and life sciences: statistical analysis. When a phenomenon becomes impossible to recreate in a controlled, laboratory environment, the investigator may instead choose to observe the phenomenon repeatedly in an outside environment. Data are collected, tabulated, and analysed as a statistical universe. Correlations are noted and causal conclusions are drawn. Studies are repeated and expanded to form and confirm theories.
The third scientific revolution, made possible by microcomputing: scientific modelling. A set of conditions regarding a phenomena are observed. Those data are used to formulate a set of initial conditions in an abstract, computational model. The model is allowed to operate, and consequent conditions of the model are derived. Those consequent conditions are checked against observed consequent conditions of the phenomenon being modeled. If the modeled consequential conditions closely match the observed consequential conditions, then the operations of the model serve as the basis for drawing causal conclusions and the formulation of theories.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Non-verbal Communication
One continuing difficulty with communication is in the fact that our mechanisms of conveying meaning lag behind the change in social behaviors and conditions. Coupled with the fact that almost every means of communicating becomes subverted by those who wish to deceive, it is sometimes a wonder that any meaningful exchange occurs at all.
Witness my experience of last night. I was returning home from my place of employment, and needed to stop at a bank branch to use the ATM. The time was around 12:30 AM when I pulled into the bank's parking lot. The night was dark, and cold, though not unpleasantly so. As I entered the parking lot, a young woman crossed my path and entered the bank, presumably with the intent of using the ATM herself.
Conventional mores suggest that it was my role to wait patiently, and use the ATM in turn after she had finished. There was little difficulty in me for that. However, what ought I do to signal my intent to do so?
As is habitual, I was dressed in black. Much of my outerwear is black leather, and the overall tone is somewhat quasi-military. My general manner of dress conveys a set of tribal signals, and makes use of certain ingrained archetypes to send preconscious signals of danger to many members of the mainstream culture. In short, I sometimes frighten people. There are certain reasons why I do this, and allow it to happen, but those reasons did not apply to this situation.
How then was I to convey that I had no intent in this situation to be dangerous? I lacked any intent or inclination to assault, rob, rape, or kill this young woman. I merely wished to use the ATM when she had finished her transactions. However, I was conscious of the suggestion that my intent was not clear.
Was I to follow her into the building, waiting some socially acceptable distance away? Or should I wait outside, knowing that doing so might be construed as "lurking in the shadows?" I decided to wait outside, underneath a street light, with my hands visible and a stance that suggested restful waiting; a stance hat was not poised for sudden movements. I offered her a "good evening" as she left the building, and moved slowly and with copious personal seperation into the building.
I hope I didn't frighten her. Doing so was not my intent.
Witness my experience of last night. I was returning home from my place of employment, and needed to stop at a bank branch to use the ATM. The time was around 12:30 AM when I pulled into the bank's parking lot. The night was dark, and cold, though not unpleasantly so. As I entered the parking lot, a young woman crossed my path and entered the bank, presumably with the intent of using the ATM herself.
Conventional mores suggest that it was my role to wait patiently, and use the ATM in turn after she had finished. There was little difficulty in me for that. However, what ought I do to signal my intent to do so?
As is habitual, I was dressed in black. Much of my outerwear is black leather, and the overall tone is somewhat quasi-military. My general manner of dress conveys a set of tribal signals, and makes use of certain ingrained archetypes to send preconscious signals of danger to many members of the mainstream culture. In short, I sometimes frighten people. There are certain reasons why I do this, and allow it to happen, but those reasons did not apply to this situation.
How then was I to convey that I had no intent in this situation to be dangerous? I lacked any intent or inclination to assault, rob, rape, or kill this young woman. I merely wished to use the ATM when she had finished her transactions. However, I was conscious of the suggestion that my intent was not clear.
Was I to follow her into the building, waiting some socially acceptable distance away? Or should I wait outside, knowing that doing so might be construed as "lurking in the shadows?" I decided to wait outside, underneath a street light, with my hands visible and a stance that suggested restful waiting; a stance hat was not poised for sudden movements. I offered her a "good evening" as she left the building, and moved slowly and with copious personal seperation into the building.
I hope I didn't frighten her. Doing so was not my intent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)