"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

OK, Martin. I just finished reading a fairly weighty book that put
M-theory into context, and I'm aware of the current developments in the
algebra of branes, but I'm certainly not going to argue it with you. For
me, it would be even nuttier than arguing about global warming. I know
nothing about the depths of climatology and I know even less about
theoretical physics. And the more I read (a fair amount for a layman) the
more I realize that I don't know. The interesting thing is that I've
reached the point where it appears that no one else knows, either. g



You win the big prize, Ed.

Anything from the top shelf.

There is what you know that you know,
What you know you don't know,
What you don't know you know,
And what you don't know you don't know.

That last one trips up so many people, so often...

g I read these books, like I read journal articles about medical research
and a couple about climatology, and except for the medicine, I can't say I
know any more about the first and last subjects than I knew beforehand.

But there is a benefit to it. One is something you suggest above, which is
to get a better idea of what you don't know -- even if you know you'll never
know it. In theoretical physics it can be a real eye-opener to read a good
layman's account of the current state of the art, because the sheer volume
of things I don't know is enough to warn me off from trying too hard. That
doubtless has saved me a lot of time and frustration. d8-)

There's something else, which I've thought of writing about but I can't
quite put it down yet. It's something like music. If you're lucky enough to
get your hands on a really well-written book that's a bit over your head,
about a subject that's way over your head, it might communicate the music,
or maybe the poetry, of the subject. And that can give you a strong idea of
what the subject contains, what kinds of people are doing it, what they know
and not, and what they want to know and maybe will, or maybe won't, at some
future time.

In other words, you can get the geography, or something like that, of a
field, even when you won't ever be able to do it yourself. I like that about
Smolin's book about physics, for example. It's beautifully written and
musical as hell. Or poetic. But I don't really know any more about
theoretical physics, per se, having read it. I think I know what I really
need to know about the subject, however; not its content, but its
phenomenology. But that word maybe is too grand for what I mean. This
happens to me often when I'm reading 20th century German philosophy or
French literary theory, too. Great music, but I still don't know what
they're talking about. g

Anyway, if I ever can find the right words to describe it, I'll try to do
something with the idea.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
OK, Martin. I just finished reading a fairly weighty book that put
M-theory into context, and I'm aware of the current developments in the
algebra of branes, but I'm certainly not going to argue it with you. For
me, it would be even nuttier than arguing about global warming. I know
nothing about the depths of climatology and I know even less about
theoretical physics. And the more I read (a fair amount for a layman) the
more I realize that I don't know. The interesting thing is that I've
reached the point where it appears that no one else knows, either. g


You win the big prize, Ed.

Anything from the top shelf.

There is what you know that you know,
What you know you don't know,
What you don't know you know,
And what you don't know you don't know.

That last one trips up so many people, so often...

g I read these books, like I read journal articles about medical research
and a couple about climatology, and except for the medicine, I can't say I
know any more about the first and last subjects than I knew beforehand.

But there is a benefit to it. One is something you suggest above, which is
to get a better idea of what you don't know -- even if you know you'll never
know it. In theoretical physics it can be a real eye-opener to read a good
layman's account of the current state of the art, because the sheer volume
of things I don't know is enough to warn me off from trying too hard. That
doubtless has saved me a lot of time and frustration. d8-)

There's something else, which I've thought of writing about but I can't
quite put it down yet. It's something like music. If you're lucky enough to
get your hands on a really well-written book that's a bit over your head,
about a subject that's way over your head, it might communicate the music,
or maybe the poetry, of the subject. And that can give you a strong idea of
what the subject contains, what kinds of people are doing it, what they know
and not, and what they want to know and maybe will, or maybe won't, at some
future time.

In other words, you can get the geography, or something like that, of a
field, even when you won't ever be able to do it yourself. I like that about
Smolin's book about physics, for example. It's beautifully written and
musical as hell. Or poetic. But I don't really know any more about
theoretical physics, per se, having read it. I think I know what I really
need to know about the subject, however; not its content, but its
phenomenology. But that word maybe is too grand for what I mean. This
happens to me often when I'm reading 20th century German philosophy or
French literary theory, too. Great music, but I still don't know what
they're talking about. g

Anyway, if I ever can find the right words to describe it, I'll try to do
something with the idea.



I think you have a pretty good start right there.