Dear FISers,
Thanks to Loet for his modest proposal "Foundations of the Science of
(DIS) Order"... (when managing the list I really agree!).
The comments by Jerry are much appreciated, indeed: I am eagerly waiting
for opinions and criticisms on the "knowledge recombination" theme.
However, criticisms obliged, his whole approach to science and knowledge
looks to me very interesting though rather biased. Rhetorically, for
our foundations of info & knowledge we cannot rely on particular
philosophical positions (Peircean philosophy---sorry to disagree with
John too) but on scientific-disciplinary "facts" or theories. When Jerry
talks about "new interpretations of signs from nature" he is cavalierly
forgetting the action side, the practice: "In the beginning was the
deed!" (Faustian motto emphasized by neuroscientist Alain Berthoz in his
"The Brain's Sense of Movement", 2000---- the "fact" and not the
"concept"). In neuroscience, in ecological psychology & the motor
approach to consciousness, the perceptual cycle of action-perception
cannot be reduced to any of the two branches alone. In cognitive terms,
theory has always to accompany practice, and viceversa. Methologies,
measurements, etc., are a crucial ingredient of knowledge, that refer to
our own actions ---not just to "signs" of nature.
Is "recombination" a narrow window of social-cognitive dynamics? Not at
all. I am planning a contribution to the GIT 2010 conference in Varna,
more or less entitled: "Cognizing Commonalities in Cells, Nervous
Systems and Societies: The Knowledge Recombination Phenomenon". I will
quote from Brian Arthur (2009), in his recent (and new) approach to
Technology, so germane of Science: "Conventional thinking ascribes the
invention of technologies to "thinking outside the box," or vaguely to
genius or creativity, but this book shows that such explanations are
inadequate. Rather, technologies are put together from pieces —
themselves technologies — that already exist. Technologies therefore
share common ancestries and combine, morph, and combine again to create
further technologies. Technology evolves much as a coral reef builds
itself from activities of small organisms — it creates itself from
itself; all technologies are descended from earlier technologies..."
Mutatis mutandis, this would apply to science as well.
Please, opinions and criticisms are very welcome!
---Pedro
Jerry LR Chandler:
V547.13 (Pedro)
Pedro makes a valuable contribution to the discussion in this post by
seeking to place our present situation in a wider historical context.
All such efforts are to be applauded, IMHO.
The creation of new knowledge is, I believe, rather different than
painted by the simple notion of "recombination" invoked from the
hypothesis of Scott. Without doubt, many little steps of progress are
simple recombinants of parts within wholes. Combinatorics is a rich
branch of mathematics that offers unbounded potential for constructing
new wholes from an assortment of parts.
But, in the semantic domain, the question of whether a particular new
sentence is actually a progressive step or is merely a re-arrangement
of pre-existing knowledge is a difficult and often questionable
decision because of the large open neighborhood of interpretation
about non-numerical terms. The premier example of this is the
discourse in philosophy where arguments are iterated over centuries,
century after century, with little if any basic difference in meaning
or ostension.
The principle basis of construction of new knowledge is, I suggest,
new interpretations of signs from nature. It is the construction of
new methods of communicating knowledge that generates the rich
informative structures of modern communication. The development of new
sign systems, new logical and ostensive terms, is a slow process that
evolves over decades and centuries. Prime examples of this are the
sign systems for mathematics, for music, for chemistry, and for
electricity. In particular, in the past two hundred years, the sign
systems for chemistry (Dalton, Lavoisier, Berzelious) and for
electricity (Coulomb, Volta, Kirchoff) have led to networks of
quantitative relations of knowledge systems. I would hasten to add
that both of these sciences arose from the synthesis of the Western
European tongues with the classical Latin of Rome and equally
important the genesis of new ostensive terms founded in Greek. Of
course, the crisp logic of mathematical sign systems was essential to
distinguishing the mere internal mental images of belief from the
demonstrative signs systems of electricity and chemistry and genetics.
In short, the creation of new knowledge is an active process of
interpreting signs from nature in coherent numerical contexts. The
history of human symbolic communication as a record of thought,
started with the number system of the Sumerians and continues to
develop, after 5000 years, with the construction of new signs and
symbol systems. The works of C S Peirce continue to provide guidance
in straddling the abyss.
--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
