Its like riding a bicycle
If you ride too slow you lose balance; if you ride too fast you lose control.
-
Many of us engaged in research are so busy with “figuring out” stuff that we rarely have time to step back and figure out the process of figuring out itself. In this brief article I’ll try to turn the lens onto itself by using an analogy with learning to drive a car.
a) Logical Rigor: Some people need to know all the traffic rules to learn to drive. Whenever faced with a tricky situation, they’ll refer to the rigorous rules to show them the way. Suppose such a driver has learnt driving in the U.S. and is asked to drive in India, he will first try to understand how many of the U.S. traffic rules apply in India. Then he will try to map the differences, if any, in terms of the U.S. rules that he already knows.
In the world of “figuring out”, these are the disciples of rigorous logic. It is indeed quite amazing that the fabric of nature can be expressed through the rigour of mathematics and that mathematical rules discovered in one branch of human knowledge apply with minor changes to other unrelated branches (much like traffic rules in India and the US); well, but that is how reality is!
b) Experimentation: Some people need to drive on the road before they learn how to drive correctly. They will violate speed rules to discover speed limits, drive on wrong lanes to understand the correct direction of traffic and so on. They need to check whether what happens on the real road matches with what is mentioned in the traffic rulebook.
In the real world, these are the experimentalists. They are the ones on the fields and in the labs, verifying hypotheses against the realities of nature.
c) Intuition: This is the third technique to learn driving and frankly, is the least understood of the three. Students of this school may fiddle a little at the steering wheel, they may read a few traffic rules here and there, or might play around with the car on the road for a while; and somehow in the process of doing such apparently quirky things they get a hang of how to drive.
These are the intuitionists of science. They are the ones fiddling around with stuff according to no prescribed rules and possess the remarkable ability to divine the picture of the whole from random jumbled fragments.
In a certain sense, it is as if the intuitionists are the adventurers discovering new habitable territory; the disciples of rigour are the manufacturers of the equipment required for discovery, and the experimentalists are the final arbitrageurs of habitability.
In the world of science, the above three are not watertight categories really, and most researchers possess a combination. The intuitionist often keeps experimenting to build his intuition; the experimenter requires mathematical knowledge to decide what rules to check against the realities of nature, and the logical theoretician tries to stay updated on empirical results.
Yet despite all the skill set mix-ups, I’m ready to take a wager for any amount that if you talk to a genuine researcher, you’ll notice one of the three streaks dominating.
Of course, me and me alone decides who is genuine enough for our bet! :)
The typical justification is that it's "normal" and you're not "man enough" if such thoughts don't arise spontaneously in you and it's just natural to express it. And mind you, this is coming not from illiterate fools but the creme-de-lemme of our system.
Utterly, completely ridiculous.
She is on that stage for a purpose, and that purpose is not even remotely related to being the object of those comments. Get that basic fact right.
A key feature of human evolution has been our ability of understanding the fellow human being, and the respect arising out of that understanding. That's how we've thrived in collective units - as social beings. True, we've struggled both at the individual level and the societal level to develop this sort of understanding, and given the diversity of human nature, this struggle is natural. Yet the key has been to try and evolve the understanding before disengagement might happen. And once the understanding is in place. respect flows out naturally; by respect I do not mean an agreement or becoming the best of pals etc., it is just an equilibrium state decision where all involved defer to the freedom of the other naturally without violating their own freedom and without the impostion of an external will.
By passing that lewd comment, you're showing a complete lack of (plus desire for) understanding, and infringing on her freedom. By disrespecting her, you're disrespecting yourself and the civilisation which has given rise to you.
As another example of what I 'm trying to say (in a different context), just check this inane locust-commenting on Jaya's blog ( IV III II I ), a perfect case of stubborn insistence on not understanding despite repeatedly being shown the light of logic. Her patience must be praised.
And one line of argument could be that "the set of choices" available too should depend on the "inherent" stuff. That'd complicate the situation, necessiate the role of an arbiter...very, very risky.
Are humans "inherently" different, are they "rational"...I don't know!