User:Marjan Tomki SI/OR or no OR

Wikipeda(ns) often call(s) for experts to join, and contribute. There is also something about legacy Wikipedia claims to follow. Those people mentioned (below) didn't go without original reserch (OR). I am going to disus several aspects of that here.

What is written here might often be misspelled; I type blind with all 10 fingers, and if a key on keyboard is non-responsive and I mistype I might see that much later, and text might stay misspelled for a while.

I intend to abide to no OR requirement in articles, but that means I shall contribute little; probably no new articles and mostly just (propose) corrections of obvious mistakes in existing articles.

Wikipedia and original research problem

Inspirations to Wikipedia

Before, and when I joined WP I somehow got the idea WP's goal is to make as much as possible of accurate information available to anybody free of any unnecessary costs (access to internet is not generally free), and that users should be able to use it creatively (to develop new knowledge...) and also to be able to contribute to WP and humanity knowledge base. I also got the idea that experts are welcome (to spot and correct mistakes, mistranslations, misunderstandings...). I saw myself as a bit of an expert in some areas and was willing to contribute.

No expert without OR

I used to be called to problems as expert because I always did OR (original research), not because I sometimes in the past learned something and could claim which teacher taught it.

Yes, I would often start at what I was taught, or experienced; or learned by research previously. But all and any of that might be obsolete, or out of context for problem at hand. I searched (if that data existed) what was initial idea, who said it was wrong and what were his (their) arguments, and who said the idea was correct and how was that argumented. I searched where and how it was used, and what were outcomes, and analyzed what else could influence the problem at hand, and how...

I also looked about other published things of people in question (quite a bit of hoaxes were in question, before program spam filters got better - for INTRO training see e.g. resublimated tiotimoline)

Occam's razor is obsolete in my eyes (it evolved and was useful for drastically different context than where it is used, and as is interpreted now - but that discussion is also for another time and place).

I was also rigorous tester of things before they got to regular use - it should be so bomb proof that it should not only survive the bomb, but also report not only type and principle, but also inventory number and the operator of any bomb it was hit by, if at all possible. See also Murphy's law(s) and John Paul Stapp.

Expamples:

• It happened that later programmer made "a minor change" in a module of a program I made, out of context. Another module in the program asked operator to notify me of discrepancy. I made that "trap" initially to notify me if I made a mistake while initially developing and testing intermodule communication; but it used no excess resouces, and could be (and finally proved to be) usefull, so I polished it a bit and left it in place for production.

I got that call from that program about 5 or more years after I moved on. The initial program build request also declared my task as "temporary solution" (patch) (because previous "permanent" solution made by other programer run for days of real time; it was designed well to give correct result, but not optimized). But it was intended for serious data (included consequences on voting register data base) and I did as best as I could, and my "temporary patch" seemed to be used for years regularly, with no need for maintenance.

I came after 5 years, looked at the message and into the program sources of both modules, and read the documentation I left. The change of later progammer was reverted to previous version (and it was the one I left), and a parameter switch I anticipated 5 years before was brought in use.

When I built, and brought that program in production use, there was a legal regulation in force that forbade a particular use. That - then forbidden - use made sense, and I foresaw it would become necessary; but because it was then legally forbidden, I created a parameter that only when stated, would allow program that use (when/if operator decided such use became legal/necessary) (and I of course documented it).

Because in those years that regulation was really found obsolete, and was abolished, that - long anticipated - parameter could be brought in standard, everyday use. Also, the programer in charge got some lectures how to do, and manage, things that way (smart girl welcomed those lectures, gulped them in, and used them extremelly well in her other work too; she's probably much better at that than me now).

• Another module's usage limit was 20 years (1.1.1980-1.1.2000, because of calendar anomaly), and notified users/operators to call me in 2000 (module was used well, but in quite another than initial context). I checked it's use, and expanded algorithm and allowed use to 1.1.2400 (and also modified the notification - from need to find me, to that of getting somebody understanding computers and programming), if module would be still in use. Of course I could modify the program so that y.2400 predicted anomaly was accounted for, but I wanted an outside - human or else - "eye" to look what new might people outside of the program sould negotiate about calendar.

During dealing with the "problem at hand" I used to document the progress - not necessarily in formal way, also scribling at "brainstorming" etc. - but I did.

When things were finished (in full operation), and before I moved on to next problem, I distilled that and tersely documeted anything I found out, and might need to know If I had to do anything with that later - because when finished and documented, I trained myself to drop most of details of previous problem from my mind - to be able to read in next one.

That helped two ways: I rarely had to do maintenance on things I finished (if bombproofing was required to be inactive for normal use for speed, or resources sake, or boss or legal request etc. etc., there was in documentation how it should be switched on when needed; methodology for possible additional features was also already documented in such a way it could be added without making everything existing obolete...) and I could go cleanly to new problems; if I was asked to intervene later anyway I just had to read documentation I left, to start again (usually just to switch something on, or add a module that was often already prepared and tested, and was of course to be retested, mainly because something else might be changed - and usually also to train next programmer then in charge of mantaining the program).

So I was not "chained to a plow" to do the same task every year, but could solve problem after problem, which I liked, and could also live from.

It was not the results (data) of my previous knowledge, it was an accumulation of methodologies (and acquiring, and creating, new ones) with which I did the research around the problem at hand that made people who needed me call me expert.

Philosophy of science, scholarshhip, engeneering

Science

search for knowledge; problem is that this is currently seen as idealistic, unpractical and - because of misuse of the world - useless (problem of funding, property on knowledge, classified knowledge, problem of hiperspecialization and not understanding context and/or possible side effects etc. - see Manhattan project etc.). What advertisment industry does to meaning of science (misusing the word in publicities) is another story, and picture of narrow focussed scientists ("in their ivory towers", unaffected by reality, useless for practical purposes...) another one. I had been badnamed "scientist" (meaning heavily overread ivory tower guy with no practical experience) in such a way (but lived most of my life from troubleshooting practical problems). But there realy exist "scientists" that crave for fame (including publish or perish race, or are ready to "find out" and publish whatever the financier requests regardless what research shows) who influence their environment to get the impression "scientist" is really a bad word, and not to be used in polite society.

Scholarship

factographic history of science (sholastica, as used to hinder catholic influenced science at least from renaissance on).

Engeneering

that is practical use of knowledge, sometimes (often) without detailed understanding). Problem is that (even more narrow, specialist...) practical knowledge without understanding context (why and how something happens or works) might have side effects (that could be usefull or disastrous, depending on occasion).

I could always work with such, if I could get in direct contact with them (so they could check what I could do and what by my actions I intended to do, not what I could or would talk about), but often not otherwise (without such contact they might even feel threatened, afraid, hatefull).

Carl Sagan as inspiration

I recall I read somewhere in Wikipedia (WP) that Carl Sagan (Kosmos etc.) was ispiration for what was the WP goal to achieve. .

I accepted a lot of his way and goals, as I understood them. He laid out the knowledge as a story of how and why a particular discovery or invention evolved, and my impression was that his intention was to teach that methodology even (much) more than the factography.

Jules Verne

I read a lot of his works as a child, probably from when I could read. From most of them I primarily remembered (and tried in my environment) the methodologies used (Misterious Island was one of the most influential).

From there I took impression science is primary methodology; equipment can be almost always built, if you know how.

Nečajev - Povesti o elementih

Nečajev: stories about (chemical) elements

POVESTI O ELEMENTIH – I. Nečajev

Iz ruščine prevedel Stanko Janež

MK 1947, 132 strani, trda vezava

I see this was also used as a base for a 2013 comic book Skrivnostni svet elementov : razvoj sodobne kemije v stripu in Slovenian language. Original was in Rusian - see refs. I got that book in Slovenian 10+y used (don't remember from where). It made chemistry - and science in general - both understandable, interesting and practically usefull. And I got the context why and how those discoveries had being done. Probably most significant, I got the idea what kind of scientifical literature to search for.

Paul De Kruif

I got my hands on his books Microbe hunters, Men against death, and The fight for life in Slovenian about age 10.

My niece read them a generation later, also as a kid, and that (together with Nečaev mentioned above) initiated her interest to bio sciences, and motivated her to study and PhD in molecular genetics later. I found later she also found De Kruif's book A man against insanity : the birth of drug therapy in a rural Michigan asylum - a story that showed me a glimpse into the context of mental ilnesses in times before science, and (one of) the begining(s) of the change there.

When methodology and interdisciplinarity were seen as significant, De Kruif was often seen as usefull introduction and was also often quoted, even if his books were intended to be understandable to lay readership too.

The Microbe Hunters - SAGE Journals https://journals.sagepub.com › doi › pdf

I must find a link to this, too. Another usefull recent source shows his work is still interesting. Data at his obituary could be usefull too.

A really good source for WP article about him shall probably be his (2020 published, I think) biography.

Isaac Asimov

Most of what he had published was probably science fiction, but he was a scientist (biochemistry) too, and an extremely smart (top of the IQ scale on the contemporary test) and voracious reader of scientific and historical materials.

When he started writing professionally, he pretty much stopped reading new (current) literature to not unintentionally "steal" (plagiarize) ideas of his concurrent authors. Scientific and historical papers made no limitation there and he read (and understood, and used historical data etc.) a lot.

One of results was Asymov's Biographic Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, which also presents knowledge as a story in motion (who, how, why...), and how the same (wo)men may have made both genial correct conclusions, and stubbornly wrong ones. It also shows how also some mistake could be usefull (or even vital) for next discoveries and conclusions.

It is not data (factography - who said or wrote what, and when) that is primary (even when it was often usefull), the methodology of searching - and the refinement of this methodology - is.

In my (Slovenian) copy the last entry (before that about author, Asimov, himself) was 1195 Carl Sagan.

In the article about the author, Asimov wrote that he published first non-fiction book with two colegues about biochemistry (field where he achieved his PhD), and that Ley (who also wrote a lot about science for general public) and L. Sprague de Camp suggested him to also write books that help make science popular, and so he did, and well (IMO).

Michael Faraday

Long story short, his Chemical History of the Candle is a masterpiece of paedagogics (beside being scientifically right). This is a facsimile of his lectures for children - and he said something like: "To the adults in the audience: I shal speak to the youngsters as if I were a youngster myself. Who doesn't like it is free to leave." And he spoke to them - a grown man - with enthusiasm of youth, fully honoring their abilities to understand and will to learn, and I don't recall one place where he implied (less said) something is as he said, because he said so.Michael Faraday: The Chemical history of the candle

And the truth was evident - he showed it by experiments, and they were encouraged to verify the truth by trying by themselves.

Science, methodology of science, not scholastics, again.

Feynmann

I don't recall in which of his books, but I clearly recall him empahsize the influence of his father, seller of army uniforms (if I recall correctly). With his father he walked around through the life as a kid, asking questions "what is making this bird itchy so it scratches itself, what is the reason for - anything and everything...". They used to ask the questions and tried to find answers.

His methodologies for search for answers evolved, but the seed for questions was planted by his father.

Max Talmud

Similar function for Albert Einstein as a child probably had Max Talmud or Talmann. He answered questions and when his knowledge fell short, directed to suitable resources. He was an oftalmologist when grown, but if I remember correctly, when Einstein published some of his best known theories, hi wrote commentaries that made them understandable to laymen.

Conclusions

I am neither Einstein, Faraday, Feinmann, Sagan... But I can, and will be a mentor like Max Talmud, or Fander (person the title refers to, from Eric Frank Russel's story Dear Devill), whenever and wherehever I can. Whenever seeds I plant outgrow me (and are not misused) I have succeeded in my mission.