Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > But > all that's really required to make it science is to declare the > mechanisms of the codec and the properties being observed. Refusing to > accept any declaration (and to my mind it is valid to call this > `simplification'), is to prefer magic.
No, it goes beyond _declaring_ mechanisms and properties being observed. That's the whole point of the thread, I think. Human behavior, e.g. the scientific method, is not so easily declared. One has to be trained. And that training includes implicit as well as explicit knowledge. So, there are entire cultures around various experimental procedures that cannot be finitely, completely declared. And that implicit knowledge of application is part of the encoding/decoding needed when a "law" is applied. It's not a refusal to accept any declaration so much as it's a refusal to admit that all things can be completely formalized. Obviously, anyone who buys into the scientific method, in general, will accept that some declaration is possible and always that _more_ declaration is desired. But, only a few of us believe that science could be pursued by a specified automaton. I.e. only a few of us are committed, pure, formalists who believe everything is susceptible to a computational (semantic-free) process. The rest of us admit that implicit and undeclarable knowledge is part of the codec for any abstracted law. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
