Code/excitation soup

This week I've noticed two narratives that drop an important ball: They blur the distinction between: (i) excitations in the world around and (ii) the concepts that we use to communicate about those excitations.

The first one, no surprise, involves the current (perennial) focus on national politics. Here, with new intensity, candidates are being cartoonified as media monkeys while the opportunity to discuss data and concepts for dealing with the world around passes by. If questions like "Do you have the needed experience?" have no operational meaning, why on earth would people keep asking them while questions about our affect on the global pool of ideas go unasked?

The second, interestingly enough, arose with media discussions (in NPR's On Point) about the large hadron collider (LHC) coming on-line at CERN. It was fun to listen to some top physicists try to answer questions for the lay public, one element of disconnect being expressed in the query: Are the questions that will be answered mainly for physicists?

In this case I was reminded of the invisibility of "concepts as tools" in the way that theorists often talk. Let's translate this to a question that everyone understands: "How many extended spatial dimensions do you experience?" The answer, of course, is that three is an operationally-useful everyday answer to this question. The collider might help identify conditions under which different answers will be useful as well.

However, the question is normally posed by theorists not as "What answer is useful when?" but "How many ARE there?". It's almost as though they think that ideas shared by humans don't model the world, but instead constitute the world. Is that as bad as pretending that candidates are no more than their response to a journalist's ill-defined question?