The Engineering Rankings vs. Physics Theory

This ranking v. theory post is old, so I imagine receiving a reading of further comment is longest odds. Given the importance of the issues we will try nevertheless.

I have reviewed both the Morse and Bejan contributions to the question of physics theory and university program ranking, and would offer as a tentative conclusion, that both correct.

Morse observes that in the cases of which he is aware -- on what others could he comment? -- it has taken major change to a program to alter the perceptions of quality that lead to a change in rankings. All should (and Prof Bejan does) grant as much. This does not, however speak to the exclusivity of major change as mechanism leading to altered perception, etc., or to the possibility of further complexities that might underlie it. In this regard, Prof. Bejan's blocked river analogy is apt.

What is somewhat troubling, and prompts my comment, is the apparent smugness that seems present in the Morse evaluation of the possibility that complexity of mechanism might also be involved. I would suggest that while is is best practice to assume simplicity, it is intellectually and scientifically dangerous to demand or impose it; Occam is but a starting point, and there is no gainsaying Nature's periodic, if not frequent, defiance of this dictum.

Finally, I would suggest that the real question regarding Prof Bejan's reported observations is whether they provide a sound basis for hypothesis, which can then be explored through further research. (Pronouncements alone do not lend themselves to this.)

Perhaps the critique here is, simply, a critique of medium; neither of message, or messenger, but mode -- a statement of the nature of the venues in which each chooses to work.

Prof Bejan's work in academia, by it's nature, positions it to discover, at times, the obvious (Prof. Amaral's work at NICO on the complexity of emailing patterns being a ready example). One would hope that when this occurs, it is acknowledged; Prof. Bejan does seem to do this (though acknowledgment is somewhat diminished by the salesmanship required of modern science reporting). That only obvious mechanisms operate in some cases does not address whether, in others, the underlying mechanisms are **not** obvious (Morse notwithstanding). History does address this: many crucial leaps in the sciences have occurred because observant practitioners -- and indeed, physics theorists -- have attended to exceptions.

And the Morse medium -- well, is it not something of the demand of blogs, to simply offer comment on the work of others, commentary which by it's nature (and audience, and market-demands) lends itself more to the superficial than to the complex?

Chacun son goût. Mais, I for one would prefer that my physicians and surgeon, my public policy specialists and urban planners, and yes, even those who comment on how program rankings change, be involved in (or at least attend to) research into their respective areas and questions.

M-E Duban of IL 11:54AM June 28, 2009