82,900
edits
Seeing Like a State: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
There are two interesting observations here. The first is that [[metis]] is much more ''efficient''. You could — if you accept the reductionist stance — solve any problem with the right calculations, but the necessary data and processing power would be huge: but practical knowledge — [[metis]] — is “as economical and accurate as it needs to be, no more and no less, for addressing the problem at hand.” | There are two interesting observations here. The first is that [[metis]] is much more ''efficient''. You could — if you accept the reductionist stance — solve any problem with the right calculations, but the necessary data and processing power would be huge: but practical knowledge — [[metis]] — is “as economical and accurate as it needs to be, no more and no less, for addressing the problem at hand.” | ||
This is the difference, says Scott, between Red Adair<ref>Younger readers may not remember this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Adair legend of the fire-fighting community]. </ref> and an articled clerk. There are some skills you cannot acquire except through experience. Likewise learning to sail, ride a bike, or play a musical instrument | This is the difference, says Scott, between Red Adair<ref>Younger readers may not remember this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Adair legend of the fire-fighting community]. </ref> and an articled clerk. There are some skills you cannot acquire except through experience. Likewise, learning to sail, ride a bike, or play a musical instrument. You could spend as much time as you like with textbooks, but you will never master riding a bike until you have done enough practical rehearsal. | ||
Which brings us to the last connection: that to [[complexity theory]], [[systems analysis]] and [[normal accident]]s theory. All of these come to the same conclusion: if you are dealing with [[complex systems]], especially [[tightly-coupled]] ones with [[non-linear]] interactions, you ''cannot'' solve these with [[algorithm|algorithms]], no matter how much data and no matter how sophisticated is your conceptual scheme. The ''only'' way to manage these risks is with experts on the ground, who are empowered to exercise their judgment and make provisional decisions, and to adjust them as a situation unfolds. That is, with [[metis]]. If your conceptual scheme has systematically eliminated [[metis]] from your operation, you may carry on in times of peace and equability, but should a crisis come, you are ''stuffed''. | Which brings us to the last connection: that to [[complexity theory]], [[systems analysis]] and [[normal accident]]s theory. All of these come to the same conclusion: if you are dealing with [[complex systems]], especially [[tightly-coupled]] ones with [[non-linear]] interactions, you ''cannot'' solve these with [[algorithm|algorithms]], no matter how much data and no matter how sophisticated is your conceptual scheme. The ''only'' way to manage these risks is with experts on the ground, who are empowered to exercise their judgment and make provisional decisions, and to adjust them as a situation unfolds. That is, with [[metis]]. If your conceptual scheme has systematically eliminated [[metis]] from your operation, you may carry on in times of peace and equability, but should a crisis come, you are ''stuffed''. | ||