Think Tank Town

[Piranha]

When speaking to practitioners, many of them in the Hague say that while they respect what academics have to say, its often times quite difficult to put ivory-tower papers into practice.

I just know what you are talking about.
How things are 'the other way around' is food for thought ...

[John T. Fishel]

Academics have no greater claim on "truth" than anybody else. Some academics have done good and relevant work on issues of war and peace; others - far too many - have produced garbage. For example, a well regarded US academic specialist on national security issues suggested that a good doctoral dissertation question would be whether al Qaeda's attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon was timed so as to "minimize civilian casualties!"

That is, unfortunately, typical of too much academic work. Fortunately, nobody here is engaged in such fuzzy thinking, are they Marc, Sam....?

Cheers

JohnT

[selil]

As an academic my field is technology. So, I've got two strikes against me. I'm an egg head, and geek head. My teaching area is operating systems, network systems, and security systems. Hmm seems like some fairly systemic thinking. I've always claimed that I am NOT a computer scientist and that I am a technologist. That means I don't sit around thinking up new algorithms that Knuth already documented in his books. The consistent criticism is that academics are not applied, or they do nothing. My entire field is only applied, and I only do things.

Unfortunately that means publication opportunities are few and far between as the academic landscape is littered with "basic research" only journals. It also means that by default my discipline is extremely inter-disciplinary. Everybody is always grabbing onto pieces of what I do (Information technology) because it is pervasive. Everybody is a programmer. Sort of like everybody owns a lawn-mower but that doesn't make them a landscaper.

There is also the constant threat to what we do in my department to turn us into vocational school. That is not what we do. I try very hard to teach concepts instead of applications. Students balk at that. Then a year or two later a bottle of wine, a really nice letter, shows up because they used some primary concept of technology to solve a big problem. Cool.

If you look at my research it gets much worse. My area of "expertise" is information assurance and security with a concentration in computer forensics. My dissertation research (I'm a life long student) is tentatively "Cyber warfare as form of low-intensity conflict". I am applying many of the tools and techniques of small wars to the cyber warfare landscape as an applied method of waging cyber warfare.

I read your email and I am watching you right now......

just kidding....

maybe....

What I do as research can be taken and immediately applied to the real world because that is a tenet of my discipline. In my discipline we don't get money for basic research as primary investigators (PIs). We get called in by PIs when their data repositories are broke, their applications suck, or they can't figure out how to ctrl-alt-del . So a large body of the research we do in my discipline is about social uses of technology or efficient uses of technology.

So, in many ways I look down on those "Think Tanks" that say academics information is hard to put into use, as what I do is usually ready to be commoditized, and because of that I can't get any traction to fund my research from think tanks.

I think they would call that irony.

Crystal caffeinated clarity clearly this morning.

[John T. Fishel]

Obviously, your thoughts are hardly fuzzy. I like your dissertation topic and, I have a suspicion that OU Press might like it too when you turn it into a book.

Cheers

JohnT

[Ken White]

.............

[marct]

Hi John,

Well, personally I LIKE fuzzy thinking, but only if we are talking about Fuzzy Set thinking .

In many ways, my own research is at the exact opposite pole from Sam's: extremely theoretical (and philosophical). My actual focus is on "sense-making" and how people build up their perceptions of "reality" (aka mental maps, etc.). One of the biggest dangers I've found with having a focus like this is that it is way too easy to get lost inside your own head and sound not only "fuzzy" but inane / insane .

In a lot of ways, John, I'm not trying to make any claims about "truth"; I'm trying to formalize and establish grounds and limits for such claims.

I had an interesting discussion last night about unconscious logic models (deductive, inductive, abductive) and how they are hurting the Intelligence and Security sectors. Basically, I was arguing that a lot of the problems stem from applying the wrong logic model given the "data" available (and the "data" is a problem, too), and that led into some back and forth banter on how to do professional education.

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Hi John,

Well, personally I LIKE fuzzy thinking, but only if we are talking about Fuzzy Set thinking .

In many ways, my own research is at the exact opposite pole from Sam's: extremely theoretical (and philosophical). My actual focus is on "sense-making" and how people build up their perceptions of "reality" (aka mental maps, etc.). One of the biggest dangers I've found with having a focus like this is that it is way too easy to get lost inside your own head and sound not only "fuzzy" but inane / insane .

In a lot of ways, John, I'm not trying to make any claims about "truth"; I'm trying to formalize and establish grounds and limits for such claims.

I had an interesting discussion last night about unconscious logic models (deductive, inductive, abductive) and how they are hurting the Intelligence and Security sectors. Basically, I was arguing that a lot of the problems stem from applying the wrong logic model given the "data" available (and the "data" is a problem, too), and that led into some back and forth banter on how to do professional education.

Very well put sir.

Have long observed an increasing focus on such quaintities as "computer projections", "darwinian models" & the such which are quite counter-scientific, theoretical at best.

Yankee arrogance tends toward both generalisation & imposition. In this way too much science can be applied to subjects; i.e. global warming, macroevolution, agriculture or conflict resolution would be my four primary examples, where some artfulness/philosophy is called for. Remember system analysis can only be applied when we can completely understand the system, quantitatively. It takes a big man to admit it but one of the most important epiphanies that we as a culture need to relearn is "we don't know everything". Some sciences needs to return to a curiosity/observation based discipline not a blind faith/projection based one. Does anyone besides me realise the importance of the so called "scientific method", steps one through five (today they've turned into 1. develop a hypothesis, 2. never make any related observations, 3. construct a theoretical model of it, 4. publish it, 5. get taxpayer subsidies to advance it as if it were factual) Too many present "input focuses" are poorly wrought because they are based on models not realities.

Agreed ? Or do I much mistake ?

[marct]

Hi Bullmoose,

Very well put sir.

Thanks.

Have long observed an increasing focus on such quaintities as "computer projections", "darwinian models" & the such which are quite counter-scientific, theoretical at best.

Technically, all science is "theoretical". "Science", both as a philosophical and epistemological position, is basically what the theologians used to call a via negativa (the old "God is not..." type of investigation). That was certainly the Baconian understanding of "science", and it was based pretty heavily on inductive logic. In general, most computer predictions (at least all of the probabilistic ones), and most Darwinian models are based on inductive logic models. In other words, they are scientific .

Yankee arrogance tends toward both generalisation & imposition. In this way too much science can be applied to subjects; i.e. global warming, macroevolution, agriculture or conflict resolution would be my four primary examples, where some artfulness/philosophy is called for. Remember system analysis can only be applied when we can completely understand the system, quantitatively.

Well, I certainly wouldn't make the assumption that systems analysis = science, at lest as a 1:1 correlation. As with any form of modeling or theory building, systems analysis is only as good as the model of the system they are using which, in many cases, is pretty poor .

Some sciences needs to return to a curiosity/observation based discipline not a blind faith/projection based one.

One of the things that truly amuses me is the totally artificial disctinctions between "hard" and "soft" sciences. One of my more favorite colleagues is the head of our (Carleton University's) department of biology. We usually meet up for beers and chat about what he and his friends and colleagues are doing - what's new, what hasn't been published yet, etc. The amount of change I've seen in basic models of, say, genetic material propagation over the past 5 years alone is amazing, and the attitude is very much in the "curiosity" mode.

Does anyone besides me realise the importance of the so called "scientific method", steps one through five (today they've turned into 1. develop a hypothesis, 2. never make any related observations, 3. construct a theoretical model of it, 4. publish it, 5. get taxpayer subsidies to advance it as if it were factual) Too many present "input focuses" are poorly wrought because they are based on models not realities.

Agreed ? Or do I much mistake ?

Well, from my side of the academic street, I would put it at

1. Start with a theory
2. Submit a proposal for funding which requires you to say beforehand exactly what you will find
3. Develope hypotheses if that will help you get funding / published
4. Collect the data that is defined as such by your theory; junk any that disagrees with the theory ("outliers")
5. Publish the same research in 20 different articles and 3-4 books.

Then again, I may be just a touch cycnical .

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Hi Bullmoose,



...

Well, from my side of the academic street, I would put it at

1. Start with a theory
2. Submit a proposal for funding which requires you to say beforehand exactly what you will find
3. Develope hypotheses if that will help you get funding / published
4. Collect the data that is defined as such by your theory; junk any that disagrees with the theory ("outliers")
5. Publish the same research in 20 different articles and 3-4 books.

Then again, I may be just a touch cycnical .

My goodness, quite hilarious and insightful.

Either way I see great detriment to us all due to the Scientific method's late transformation into the Scientific Business Model.

However, I suppose we cannot return to the day when c. pre WWI all science was the hobby of the elite & no one else ever touched it, can we?

Or might I agree with Ben Stein that today its simply in the hands of a different elite ? I know not.

I do not care for the totalitarianism inherent in the system today, i.e. close governmental oversight & inentivisation, cover-ups, silencing & institutional retribution, so I suppose a middle ground of some type is necessary, also a strong collegiate culture which is eroded in the US by "poison ivy" the professional guilds & yankee arrogance, in my uneducated opinion.

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Hi Bullmoose,



...

Well, from my side of the academic street, I would put it at

1. Start with a theory
2. Submit a proposal for funding which requires you to say beforehand exactly what you will find
3. Develope hypotheses if that will help you get funding / published
4. Collect the data that is defined as such by your theory; junk any that disagrees with the theory ("outliers")
5. Publish the same research in 20 different articles and 3-4 books.

Then again, I may be just a touch cycnical .

My goodness, quite hilarious and insightful.

Either way I see great detriment to us all due to the Scientific method's late transformation into the Scientific Business Model.

However, I suppose we cannot return to the day when c. pre WWI all science was the hobby of the elite & no one else ever touched it, can we?

Or might I agree with Ben Stein that today its simply in the hands of a different elite ? I know not.

I do not care for the totalitarian spirit inherent in the system today, i.e. close governmental oversight & incentivisation, cover-ups, silencing & institutional retribution, so I suppose a middle ground of some type is necessary, also a strong collegiate culture which is eroded in the US by "poison ivy" the professional guilds & yankee arrogance, in my uneducated opinion.

[marct]

My goodness, quite hilarious and insightful.

The scary part is that I actually got that model from a friend who uses it !

Either way I see great detriment to us all due to the Scientific method's late transformation into the Scientific Business Model.

However, I suppose we cannot return to the day when c. pre WWI all science was the hobby of the elite & no one else ever touched it, can we?

Aaah, the Good Old Days... if you were part of the elite .

I tend to agree that the Scientific Business Model is both bad science (it's actually a direct form of deductive logic most of the time and more related to the theology of, say, Aquinus than the science of Bacon), and bad business - to say nothing about what happens when it is applied to warfare!

It isn't only the science, it is the entire milleau in which science operates in both private corporations (baring a few), governments and academia. Increased bureaucratization demands increased predictability - translation: the bureaucrats need certainty even if it isn't appropriate.

It's one of the reasons why I tend to distinguish between "academics" and "scholars"; academics work within a bureaucratic organization and are subject to its regulation. Scholars, who may or may not be academics, just don't let bureaucratic regulation govern their lives.

[selil]

It's one of the reasons why I tend to distinguish between "academics" and "scholars"; academics work within a bureaucratic organization and are subject to its regulation. Scholars, who may or may not be academics, just don't let bureaucratic regulation govern their lives.

Scholars blog.

[marct]

Scholars blog.

Well, those of us who know how do .

[William F. Owen]

Well, from my side of the academic street, I would put it at

1. Start with a theory
2. Submit a proposal for funding which requires you to say beforehand exactly what you will find
3. Develope hypotheses if that will help you get funding / published
4. Collect the data that is defined as such by your theory; junk any that disagrees with the theory ("outliers")
5. Publish the same research in 20 different articles and 3-4 books.

Then again, I may be just a touch cycnical .

I'll add to this if I may.

• Make sure your theory subscribes to something that has lots of "fashion sense."
• Never admit that war is, necessarily, the act of killing, and doing harm so as to break the collective will of the target.
• Use words like "influence" and "non-kinetic."
• Emphasise the role of people who have absolutely no idea about the utility of lethal force.
• Make sure you have an agenda, that works to your benefit, and to the detriment of any armed force.

Rant over. Guns to rest. Closing down this means. Listening out on schedule.

[marct]

Rant over. Guns to rest. Closing down this means. Listening out on schedule.

Rant? What rant? That's just basic academic survival sense !