Dear Stan,
Wouldn't the inability to specify the number of categories mean that the
system is not properly specified? A human body, for example, is specified
only phenotypically? Would one not have to specify the number of categories
once one specifies in terms of what one wishes to describe/explain the
phenomena? (The human body is then an explandum, but the crucial
specification is the one of the explanantes.)
S: Yes. But you see, this loses its philosophical interest in favor
of some pragmatic task.
Marx, 11th Thesis ad Feuerbach. Pragmatic puzzles are more difficult than
philosophical considerations.
My main argument, however, was that we do not have a parsimonous alternative
at the methodological level. In the social sciences, for example, one is
able to decompose the static complexity using multi-variate analysis or to a
very limited extent to do time-series analysis with two co-variates. When
there are three sources of variance, it often becomes too complex for the
methodological apparatus (e.g., SPSS). This brought me to entropy statistics
long ago. One can extend the dimensionality by writing the number of
subscripts. The time dimension can additionally be brought in as another set
of subscripts (t, t-1, t+1, etc.). In addition to the Shannon formulas, one
can elaborate into Kullback-Leibler, etc.
It is a pity if this would not work also for biological systems.
S: I suspect that a clever experimental design could handle it.
Yes: that is the scientific enterprise.
I sometimes get the impression that with these Piercean notions which you
propose as an alternative, vitalism comes back on stage as another
(non-mechanistic) explanatory scheme. Perhaps, this would explain the
differences of opinion that pop up on this list from time to time. For
example, I would consider your systems of interpretance -- yes, I read your
book! -- as theoretical, while you may wish to consider them as a (Piercean)
methodology.
S: On this vitalism issue:
(a) my main point on this has been to push the importance of vagueness,
which though very difficult to handle technologically, is a rich property of
natural things, including 'parole' as opposed to 'langue'. You can see, I
think, how this applies above.
(b) On vitalism, I have deconstructed this recently for an encyclopedia. I
will send you a copy separately. Basically my point is that vitalism was an
early glimpse of the problem (for science) of historicity.
Yes, I understand: it can then function as a heuristics. The Piercean
notions are most useful as heuristics. The problem with history, however, is
that it is the case which already happened, and thus it cannot be explained.
Evolutionary mechanisms may help us to understand what could have happened.
They require a clear algorithmic specification of the complex system under
study in terms of its composing subdynamics (Herbert Simon). This
reconstruction remains a hypothesis in terms of its epistemological status.
Philosophical systems tend to reify these hypotheses, in my opinion.
I hope that this is some kind of a reaction which clarifies the differences
of opinion.
With best wishes,
Loet
Pedro said:
I keep thinking that the pragmatic way that disciplines interact is
important regarding any order/disorder characterization. For instance, let
me return to the "water droplet" I mentioned weeks ago.
When the water droplet "decides" on its motion, it may be receiving several
strong dynamic influences (from the very local, to the most general: a
punctual splash, a wave, winds, a tide, a tsunami...). The case is that the
concept of "force" running throughout all scales allows the integration or
better the "averaging" of any dynamic influence impinging on the system.
S: I would opt for 'integrate; inasmuch as these forces are found at
different scales in different strengths. Thus, I think that the average of
1000 and 0.01 will not contribute to anything.
If the local and general influences cancel among themselves, the droplet
will just stay.
S: I think this is not quite just right. The Second Law will invite
something to happen to dissipate some of its embodied energies. I think
evaporation is the most likely.
A remark to make is that the different categories of forces which are
efficiently present will be brought to the analysis by particular
disciplines (if some relevant factor or discipline was missing in our
analysis, the prediction will fail).
The difference with the human case is interesting. Let us imagine an
individual in a big building, staying at the 25 th flour. Some parties are
soliciting him/her say for a dinner at the penthouse (50 flour), while
other parties are inviting to a concert at the Atrium (ground flour). Will
the individual happily rest on the average 25 th flour, motionless like the
droplet? Nope. It is an "informational entity", and in order to make sense
of his/her moving-reactions to "meaningful" informations received, we need
the overall reference of his life cycle (or an abbreviated set of states,
preferences, experiences, etc.). Again, in the scientific analysis a
plurality of disciplines are called, even for very trivial cases.
Alas, providing the integrative guidelines for the merely mechanical
response is pretty well established in our system of knowledge, but a
similar construct for informational entities is missing yet. Maybe that
quotation from Whitehead I stated days ago deserves more attention
("operations of thought are like cavalry charges...") in order to continue
the discussion. Seriously, how science, the sciences, are affected by the
limitations of the individual?
S: Completely. Science cannot fathom individual cases. It can only
deal with ensembles using various statistical methods.
STAN
Best wishes,
Loet
_____
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Visiting Professor 2007-2010, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>
ISTIC, Beijing; Honorary Fellow 2007-2010, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>
SPRU, University of Sussex
Now available:
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378>
The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$
18.95;
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956>
The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society ;
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816>
The Challenge of Scientometrics
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected]
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
