Yes—I agree, though the article focused a bit more on somewhat intangibles[1] for me. Try to apply science to daily life. Rather than wondering and walking away or leaving it in the realm of unknowable—try to figure out how you might find out.
While the article does cultivate a similar approach, I think just applying these sorts of things to immediate daily life might be a more immediate way to visualize how the scientific method (and rationality in general) can be effective. Some that have happened to me:
What’s wrong with my garage door? It keeps stopping on the way down Inspect various components, form a hypothesis (unlubricated bearings) and test (lubricate bearings and raise/lower door several times). Begin again.
The insulation in my attic seems less than adequate (MN suggest a R-60 and I have about R-20). Calculate cost (~$200 for enough bags of blowing insulation + $50 for machine rental—energy tax credit of %30 off). Seems reasonable. Blow insulation (done) and compare energy bills (in process).
Disagreement with wife about which path is fastest. Form hypothesis and then next time we drive separately, agree to both drive the speed limit and see who gets home first.
Perhaps stupid cases. The point is that cultivating a “scientific” gets one in the habit of thinking “Let’s find out” in response to a question rather than “I think x” based on intuition or popular adage and then never finding your own data.
[1] By “intangible” I mean that the examples in the article struck me as things that are unlikely (for me) to come up on their own; I’ve got enough other items I’m thinking about solving as it is. In giving some other examples, I guess I’m trying to present the idea of just considering the testable obstacles already in one’s daily path. We probably have plenty of these already. What’s wrong with my computer? How can I fix x? This seems, to me, as a more “concrete” application with immediate results compared to me wondering about the Dow Jones adjusted rate. Though, I will say that I hope to carve out time to tackle those sorts of questions as well. For now, I’ll stick with the things I run smack into. I guess that’s just where I’m at.
Oh, man. Just getting people to think of their computer as being a constructed device amenable to prediction, rather than a malevolent box of evil out to make their life a misery, would be a major advance.
(As a sysadmin, I know that computers are actually in fact malevolent boxes of evil out to make your life a misery, and dealing with them is mostly a matter of who has the bigger spanner. But we want to start the masses gently.)
Perhaps we could shoot the malevolent boxes of evil amenable to prediction! This is a variety of bigger spanner. The secret sysadmin art is to understand the machine sufficiently well that you can glare at it, have it understand that you can and will strip it down to the case if it doesn’t behave, and have it start behaving. This is why when you call your sysadmin over about a problem, your PC starts working again.
It strikes me that “malevolent boxes of evil amenable to prediction” applies to many humans as well.
As a sysadmin, I know that computers are actually in fact malevolent boxes of evil out to make your life a misery, and dealing with them is mostly a matter of who has the bigger spanner. But we want to start the masses gently
Yes—I agree, though the article focused a bit more on somewhat intangibles[1] for me. Try to apply science to daily life. Rather than wondering and walking away or leaving it in the realm of unknowable—try to figure out how you might find out.
While the article does cultivate a similar approach, I think just applying these sorts of things to immediate daily life might be a more immediate way to visualize how the scientific method (and rationality in general) can be effective. Some that have happened to me:
What’s wrong with my garage door? It keeps stopping on the way down Inspect various components, form a hypothesis (unlubricated bearings) and test (lubricate bearings and raise/lower door several times). Begin again.
The insulation in my attic seems less than adequate (MN suggest a R-60 and I have about R-20). Calculate cost (~$200 for enough bags of blowing insulation + $50 for machine rental—energy tax credit of %30 off). Seems reasonable. Blow insulation (done) and compare energy bills (in process).
Disagreement with wife about which path is fastest. Form hypothesis and then next time we drive separately, agree to both drive the speed limit and see who gets home first.
Perhaps stupid cases. The point is that cultivating a “scientific” gets one in the habit of thinking “Let’s find out” in response to a question rather than “I think x” based on intuition or popular adage and then never finding your own data.
[1] By “intangible” I mean that the examples in the article struck me as things that are unlikely (for me) to come up on their own; I’ve got enough other items I’m thinking about solving as it is. In giving some other examples, I guess I’m trying to present the idea of just considering the testable obstacles already in one’s daily path. We probably have plenty of these already. What’s wrong with my computer? How can I fix x? This seems, to me, as a more “concrete” application with immediate results compared to me wondering about the Dow Jones adjusted rate. Though, I will say that I hope to carve out time to tackle those sorts of questions as well. For now, I’ll stick with the things I run smack into. I guess that’s just where I’m at.
Oh, man. Just getting people to think of their computer as being a constructed device amenable to prediction, rather than a malevolent box of evil out to make their life a misery, would be a major advance.
(As a sysadmin, I know that computers are actually in fact malevolent boxes of evil out to make your life a misery, and dealing with them is mostly a matter of who has the bigger spanner. But we want to start the masses gently.)
Perhaps we could shoot for “malevolent boxes of evil amenable to prediction”?
Perhaps we could shoot the malevolent boxes of evil amenable to prediction! This is a variety of bigger spanner. The secret sysadmin art is to understand the machine sufficiently well that you can glare at it, have it understand that you can and will strip it down to the case if it doesn’t behave, and have it start behaving. This is why when you call your sysadmin over about a problem, your PC starts working again.
It strikes me that “malevolent boxes of evil amenable to prediction” applies to many humans as well.
Humans are better approximated as malevolent tubes of evil.
Malevolent Hot Pockets (tm) of evil? Or maybe more of a nefarious calzone...
Nefarious Calzone is a totally awesome name for a melodrama villain.
Well said!