I might be seeing where this could be going but the general technical term Dumb Stuff might be defiend as one or of the following: Bad manered drivers, procstratinating on tasks,not willing to properly fund education and science-just as examples.
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > Well, in my psychology, the answer to such a question takes the form of, > “what is the larger pattern of which my dumb stuff is a part?” > > > > N > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Gillian Densmore > *Sent:* Friday, May 18, 2012 6:09 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology > > > > Oh oh I have a potentialy unsolvable problem: how come people (me > included) constantly do dumb stuff? > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Newton famously said about action at a distance, "I frame no > hypotheses". I take this to mean something like the following: > > "I completely agree with you that I haven't explained gravity. Rather > I've shown that observations are consistent with the radical notion > that all matter attracts all other matter, here and in the heavens, > made quantitative by a one-over-r-squared force 'law'. On this basis I > have shown that the orbits of the planets and the behavior of the > tides and the fall of an apple, previously seen as completely > different phenomena, are 'explainable' within one single framework. > > I propose that we provisionally abandon the search for an > 'explanation' of gravity, which looks fruitless for now, and instead > concentrate on working out the consequences of the new framework. > Let's leave it as a task for future scientists to try to understand at > a deeper level than 'action-at-a-distance' what the real character of > gravity is. There has been altogether too much speculation, such as > maybe angels push the planets around. Let's get on with studying what > we can." > > I think Newton doesn't get nearly enough credit for this radical > standpoint, which made it possible to go forward. And of course we > know that eventually Einstein found a deep 'explanation' for gravity > in terms of the effects that matter has on space itself. There are > hints in the current string theory community of even deeper insights > into the nature of gravity. > > Bruce > > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Russ Abbott <[email protected]> > wrote: > > John, I like your gravity question. If this were Google+, I'd click its > +1 > > button. My wife, who studies these things, says that one of the > > fiercest contemporary criticisms of Newton's theories was that they > depended > > on a mysterious (magical?) action at a distance. > > > > -- Russ Abbott > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
