Friday, January 27, 2006
[148] ß [parallel discussion on
generative methodology (Judith Rosen)
[147] ß [parallel discussion on
generative methodology (Peter Krieg)
[368] ß [comment on four issues
(Richard Ballard)
[150] ß [Deeper discussion between
Judith Rosen and Peter Krieg on relationalism
Four Issues about Ontological
Modeling
Communication from Paul Werbos à [367]
Peter Krieg, and others
As I
have told Dick Ballard privately, a political solution to the impasse seems
required because of the real power of government funding
mechanisms.
If one
can not identify specific individuals within the government whose consistent
behavior is to redefine events, and do consistently place a specific viewpoint
in front of others; then there is no solution ... ever.
If one
cannot advance a theory of behavior that explains the collective consequences
of GSA officials and others, then one has no basis for a congressional investigation
of the facts related to dysfunction, waste and (conjectured) fraud. If
this attempt to
(1)
understand why there is inhibition of a viewpoint, and
(2)
understand and communicate a behavioral theory as to how this inhibition
functions;
is meet
by government official claims that the speaker is unbalanced and professionally
incompetent, then we have a cultural problem. If there is no legal recourse, then we have (I claim) a
Constitutional issue.
One may
decide to not solve this problem, or one can continue to try to work the
issue. It takes a long time to
understand how not to cause the type of reaction that is now occurring when you
and Ballard break affinity with me…. and do so in a way the misrepresents my
intent. (That is partially my fault,
but as I have said over and over again, no one is perfect. I try very hard at this leadership issue.)
If one
does not develop the case then one cannot address the root causes of the mess
that IT, computer science and government funding mechanism are
in. If one wants to believe that we are not in a manmade
mess, then perhaps you can ascribe the mess to some divine intention driving us
to a heaven or a hell. And then one my simply claim that there is no
mess.
I have
a proposed solution, and that is to end the social welfare of the computer
science departments in the US, by eliminating the 1.5 B in direct government to
university funding. This is not an
attack in individuals, it is a reform minded recommendation from a concerned
citizen.
I also
pointed out to Ballard, privately, that I should have separated my notice to
GSA officials over in whom have acted as Emperors - by ignoring the expression
of an alternative viewpoint - and acting to remove individuals (not just me)
from what are open forums - etc... I have couched this notification
in terms of Waste, Fraud and Abuse legislation, and in terms of the "false
claims" legislation. I have asked for a
Congressional Hearing. Again, these are not attacks on
individuals, if you want to see what an attack on an individual looks like look
at the posts by four individuals in the ONTAC forum regarding the vote to
remove me from the public forum.
The
context is (a detailed claim) that these individuals work (collaborate)
together, year in and year out, to deny the expression of viewpoints other than
a specific reductionist-type business controlled viewpoint that is unproductive
in the ONTAC and other GSA working groups. The claim is that this
behavior is rewarded in a number of specific ways.
The
reward of the behavior is both by the log term behavior of government groups
(GSA, NSF, NIST, DARPA and others) and the specific business interests (Mitre,
SAIC, PWC, BAH, etc.) This is a claim of a concerned citizen, not an
attack on individuals (as have been incorrectly represented).
The
result is that there is no forum anywhere (except in the bead games) where the issue of the
inhibition of the emerging scientific paradigm might develop. There
is no public forum where the issues can be discussed in a context
which is allowed to compete with the reductionist - business controlled
viewpoint. There is no feedback mechanism to alter the behavior of the government.
There is no avenue for the free expression of ideas. There is no
marketplace of competitive ideas.
Everyone
loses - except those directly involved in the false claims. They are
richly rewarded.
There
are two positive aspects to my effort
1)
actually causing some exposure to the fact that there is an inhibited viewpoint
and some discussion about the principles that distinguish this viewpoint from
the non-inhibited viewpoint (the massively funded viewpoint)
2)
those individuals, such as Dr Obrst and Dr Hendler who it might be said are
(claimed to be) responsible for the damage to the alternative viewpoint have a
notice that there is a issue and are given an opportunity to respond.
This
opportunity to respond is offered from a scientist with a PhD and could be
supported by extensive scientific discussion from other scientists. But
for there to be such a discussion the Emperors in power have to allow the
discussion, and this means at least not banning the alterative viewpoint from forums
such as the ONTAC forum where (again) there is a false claim that the forum is
open.
In both
cases, the government’s response is to ask that there not be a notice that
there is an issue.
This
seems un-acceptable based on the fact that the peer review and advise from
these individuals have direct causation in peer review committees and in other
ways. So the alternative
viewpoint is inhibited and has no way to bring the issue of inhibition up.
The
community, and of course I can not identify the members of the community
without again being accused of making political statements on behalf of these
individuals, as you and Ballard have done... and others have done; is inhibited
in real ways. The result of this inhibition can be (conjecturally)
seen in extreme avoidance behaviors (such as not wanting to upset the Emperors
of AI/KE and other Powers That Be).
So I am
perfectly willing to leave those behind who do not wish to walk forward with
me. The excellent discussion about relationalism and the technical
details about the Mark 3 , and the use of the Rosen definition of complexity
will go on with those who are willing; with notice to the government and others
as the second school is founded. The bead game discussion has left several
others behind because they were afraid of offending the Emperors. The Second School needs only those who are
willing to stand in the face of power.
Peter
Krieg and Richard Ballard will not be included in these discussions, and in the
future their name will not be mentioned as being part of the discussion, if
this is what you wish.
I am
impatient with weakness. The time that
it takes to understand the Mark 3 or the Pile system is enormous and frankly
there are limitations to both of these systems that will not be figured out
unless there is a willingness to work within a community. I greatly value the contribution to my own
thought, but each person has to decide issues related to politics.