Dear Krassimir,
It seems important to me to distinguish between beliefs and scientific communications. Beliefs can be attributed to agents or groups of agents (such as communities and churches). Of course, scientific communities can also be delineated in terms of beliefs they share. Scientific communications, however, can circulate and uncouple from the original communicators. The communications are specifically coded. These (symbolically generalized) codes of communication are attributes to the communications and not to the communicators. At this level, scientific communications can be distinguished from religious communications (such as, for example, the Gospel). Much of the confusion nowadays about creationism and intellectual design is generated by insufficiently making these distinctions. The sciences, on the one side, can function as belief systems, but the more interesting perspective is the one of considering them as systems of rationalized expectations. These rationalized expectations are carried not by individual agents or collectives, but by scholarly discourses i.e. communication systems. In pre-modern systems (such as for example the Church before the Reformation) this differentiation between the different codes of communication and the integration into one (Christian) community was foregrounded. Interestingly, for example, Galilei argued against the cardinals that his insights were not only hypotheses, but true. In the 17th century one wished to consider natural philosophy to be consistent with religion. Epistemologically, I would nowadays side with the cardinals. J Only they have the truth in stock. Best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:58 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] The Background to Modern Science--From Krassimir Markov Message from Krassimir Markov: --------------------------------------------------------------- a response to "The Background to Modern Science" Introduction The interrelations between scientific and non-scientific creating and perceiving the information and information models as well the proper attitude to the world cultural heritage is one of the main problems to be investigated. The world common information bases make possible to exchange information of any kind. Some information could not be proved easy, some is assumed as "clear". What is the proper attitude to the ocean of the information we create and perceive? In addition, now we have a new phenomenon artificially created information. The interrelations between scientific and non-scientific creating and perceiving the information and information models as well the proper attitude to the world cultural heritage is one of the main problems to be investigated. The world common information bases make possible to exchange information of any kind. Some information could not be proved easy, some is assumed as "clear". What is the proper attitude to the ocean of the information we create and perceive? In addition, now we have a new phenomenon artificially created information. The Modern Societies Every group of information subjects, people in particular, forms a society if there is an agreement for information interactions, by means of which they could communicate. An important element of this agreement is the availability of a common information base. We should not picture the information base like a number of drives with a certain data recorded, although it is the way it has been since the beginning it was recorded on clay plates, papyrus, paper. The ability for digital storage of the data lays the beginnings of the genesis of the modern societies. It is obvious that, there are as many societies as many different information bases exist, and a single person could belong to more than one society. The Beliefs Defining beliefs, as it should correspond to thousands-years old concepts is complicated and needs an introductory example. More than a century ago, on the Christmas Eve, the editor-in-chief of a big New York newspaper received the following letter: Dear Mr. Editor, My name is Virginia, I am 8 years old, and I want to ask you one question. Does Santa Claus really exist? Mom and dad say he does. The children at school however, say he does not and that he is only an invention for kids, which are not grown-up enough to know he is not real. My dad reads your newspaper every day from end to end. You must be a very clever man to write so much and so interesting things every day. So tell me is Santa Claus real? That year, on the first page of the Christmas edition of the newspaper there was a big article by the editor named Yes, Virginia, Santa Claus really exists. We may ask ourselves What is Santa Claus?. We could answer: Santa Claus is an information model, which, if followed one could achieve very delightful results. That is why he does not die. Santa Claus exists as long as there are people who follow the model. It is not simple but rather a subject with a great variety of personifications. From the jolly old man, who the Coca-Cola company dressed in red, and the Pepsi company in blue, to the vivid character of the Russian Ded Moroz whos wearing a huge fur-coat, a boyar hat and has a down-to-the-waist beard (some of the distinctions between Santa Claus and Ded Moroz are pointed out in [Ded Moroz]). Believing in Santa Claus is actually accepting and following of one of the variations of his information model. The difference between the beliefs and the science Every belief is a totality of information models, which are assumed and followed. Where is the difference between the belief and the science, which is also a combination of information models to be followed? The answer is in the way we perceive these models and the attitude to them. There are two approaches a hard and an easy one. The easy one is wonderfully described by the motto of the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury, lately canonized as St. Anselm (1033-1109): "Credo, ut intelligam!" (I believe in order to understand) [St.Anselm]. You have to believe in the model, so you could understand and follow it. This is the religious approach every subjective notion can turn into a commonly accepted model or dogma, as long as there is someone to believe in it and follow it implicitly. The difficult approach is described with the phrase "Intelligo, ut credam !" (I understand in order to believe), used by the German reformer Thomas Muentzer (~1490-1525) [Muentzer]. You have to understand the model and only after then to trust it if possible. This is the scientific approach every science builds information models hypothesizes, which are repeatedly tested before assumed to be true. The scientificapproach includes a permanent revaluation and improvement of the existing models according to the permanently changing environment. Conclusion In every society, building and exchanging of information models are basic activities. Whether they are perceived with the easy or the difficult approach is a question only of the circumstances, executors and users. Keeping in mind the limited abilities of the human brain, we can presume that the easy approach would probably dominate. Just a small part of the humanity would be able to build and understand the difficult scientific information models. The users will not have the strength to test the models for themselves so the only option left would be to believe in order to understand. The role and the importance of particular beliefs in a certain society are determined by the influence of the people ready to doubt the religious information models, on the others who easily and blindly follow the dogmas. Let remark that in the scientific world the easy approach is everyday practice. We all believe that the scientific works represent proved facts (maybe by authors). However, who knows? We trust in authorities. Several days ago, I received from FIS-list a critique just that I do not trust in authorities in physics. Let remember the Lobachevsky's main achievement, which is the development (independently from János Bolyai) of a non-Euclidean geometry, also referred to as Lobachevskian geometry. Sometimes we have to doubt! That is why the background to modern science is in the wisdom of St. Augustin (354-430): "Intelligo ut credam, credo ut intelligam!" [St. Agustin], i.e. in the harmony and dialectical unity of the scientific and beliefs approaches. Bibliography [Ded Moroz] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ded_Moroz [St.Anselm] http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/middleages.html , http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/hop30.htm [Muentzer] http://www.thomas-muentzer.de/, http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-muentzer [St.Agustín] http://www.sant-agostino.it/links/inglese/index.htm , http://www.conoze.com/doc.php?doc=157 Friendly regards Krassimir
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
