On anthropomorphism in science (1985)
cs.utexas.edu
On anthropomorphism in science (1985)
1–10 of 64 posts
Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)
#2> (Delivered at The Philosophers’ Lunch, 25 September 1985)
Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)
#3I have a coworker who describes everything in a very anthropomorphic and casual way, and their code is excessively imperative: everything is accomplished through conditionals rather than by designing the code in such a way that functions only run on data structures that they support.
I would share this with him, but I imagine it would go completely over his head.
> The implied abstraction, in which time has disappeared from the picture, is however beyond the computing scientist imbued with the operational approach that the anthropomorphic metaphor induces. In a very real and tragic sense he has a mental block: his anthropomorphic thinking erects an insurmountable barrier between him and the only effective way in which his work can be done well.
Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)
#4"But then Galileo made the troubling discovery that the heavier stone does not fall any faster than the lighter one."
It does fall faster, if you drop both stones in the atmosphere; the heavier stone has more mass per unit of surface area, to better overcome a constant level of air resistance.
Aristotle's physics were based on pretty accurate observation of the pre-industrial world, although they're surprisingly short on first principles. The really serious shortcomings were mostly related to impetus, the Aristotelian theory of motion -- it accidentally models friction well for objects in continuous contact with the ground, but it's very hard for Aristotelian physics to explain why an arrow keeps flying after it leaves the bowstring, and even gains speed after its apogee.
Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)
#5This issue is pernicious in the biological sciences. Evolution is often depicted as having a will and is referred to as a marvelous creator which completely misses the point of evolution, a system driven by simple instructions that over time create emergent complexity (like a cellular automata). People assume that their is some mechanism for adaptation exercised. Adaptation happens at the species level and the only thing exercised is survival.
Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)
#6This issue is pernicious in the biological sciences. Evolution is often depicted as having a will and is referred to as a marvelous creator which completely misses the point of evolution, a system driven by simple instructions that over time create emergent complexity (like a cellular automata). People assume that their is some mechanism for adaptation exercised. Adaptation happens at the species level and the only t…
Does a baby have a will? How about a cat? Bacterium?
I'm actually curious why people believe one emergent system does (eg, people) but another doesn't (eg, evolution/biosphere).
What lets you determine when a composite object or pattern in an automata has crossed that threshold?
Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)
#7This issue is pernicious in the biological sciences. Evolution is often depicted as having a will and is referred to as a marvelous creator which completely misses the point of evolution, a system driven by simple instructions that over time create emergent complexity (like a cellular automata). People assume that their is some mechanism for adaptation exercised. Adaptation happens at the species level and the only t…
In my experience that claim gets one an earful from biologists. (However it is of course always interesting what people in the different fields tell themselves all the time, because that are the easy mistakes.)
Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)
#8I have a coworker who describes everything in a very anthropomorphic and casual way, and their code is excessively imperative: everything is accomplished through conditionals rather than by designing the code in such a way that functions only run on data structures that they support. I would share this with him, but I imagine it would go completely over his head. > The implied abstraction, in which time has disappear…
I was a foreign language specialist in the military. When we were learning a new language, a few of the students hit a wall because they were approaching the material as "analogous to English." You can't think that way with most non-romance languages.
I'm now doing sysadmin work, and do a little bit of scripting here and there while working on teaching myself Python and C. Do you have any advice to avoid the kind of anthropomorphic thinking you mentioned your coworker does? The last thing I want to do is learn the "wrong way" and potentially struggle to rethink how to code.
Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)
#9This issue is pernicious in the biological sciences. Evolution is often depicted as having a will and is referred to as a marvelous creator which completely misses the point of evolution, a system driven by simple instructions that over time create emergent complexity (like a cellular automata). People assume that their is some mechanism for adaptation exercised. Adaptation happens at the species level and the only t…
Does a baby have a will? How about a cat? Bacterium? I'm actually curious why people believe one emergent system does (eg, people) but another doesn't (eg, evolution/biosphere). What lets you determine when a composite object or pattern in an automata has crossed that threshold?
> What lets you determine when a composite object or pattern in an automata has crossed that threshold?
There isn't really a threshold beyond that pattern or object somehow communicating to you that it does indeed possess a will or some form of consciousness. The default assumption is to assume it doesn't until it shows it does instead of invoking an animist world view that imbues a spirit to every complex phenomenon (weather, death, etc.)
I'm in agreement with you though in general. It is arrogant to think that humans are at the terminal end of emergent complexity. Maybe our minds are too limited to conceive of something arising from a global or galactic scale.
Are our individual cells aware of the person?
Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)
#10This issue is pernicious in the biological sciences. Evolution is often depicted as having a will and is referred to as a marvelous creator which completely misses the point of evolution, a system driven by simple instructions that over time create emergent complexity (like a cellular automata). People assume that their is some mechanism for adaptation exercised. Adaptation happens at the species level and the only t…
That one has always annoyed me a bit, too. I think it is partly to sugar-coat the mechanisms for humans. "Adaption" sounds much nicer when one thinks of adapting to a hotter climate or a smaller paycheck than what actually happens.