Tory,
How interesting that you wrote this BEFORE I wrote my appeal for articulation!
Before you asked the question, I would have assumed that both Russ and I would
defend the scientific method stoutly... indeed, defend the possibility of a
scientific method, of a reaching toward objectivity, even in the absence of any
ability to know what objectivity means, given that we both see observers as
giving fallible accounts of the words around them and neither of us is really
comfortable with a God's eye view. But how the dickens could either of us do
that?
A strange man by the name of Jacob von Uexkull wrote a strange paper long ago
that became the foundation for the field of ethology. In that paper he argued
that every kind of animal lives within a life space of its own creation. This
led to all that wonderful research in ethology that demonstrated that animals
living in exactly the same physical worlds that we live in respond in ways that
suggest that what they see in those worlds is remarkably different what we see.
Lorenz was pleased to point out that in the "umvelt" of his pet jackdaw (a
small European crow) there was no such object as another jack daw... not as
such. For the purposes of species defense, Lorenz's black bathing trunks made
a perfectly good jackdaw, and for the purposes of courtship, Lorenz himself
made a perfectly good jackdaw. Only for the purposes of formation-flying was
another bird required (and even that could be perfectly well fulfilled by
another corvid). It would be as if you had a good friend who was a cooking
buddy, and a tennis-playing buddy and a movie going buddy, but you never gave
any indication by your behavior toward her that she was one in the same person.
Von Uexkull has this heart-stopping passage at the end of his essay in which
he suggests that what we gamely refer to as the objective world is what the
life worlds of all creatures, taken together, asyntotically converge on.
From this objective world each creature picks out what it needs just as a child
picks the raisins out of plumb cake at Christmas.
How could you build a science on that? Indeed! But ethology was built upon
it, and thrived for half a century before it was finally beaten into the bland
cake that now constitutes animal behavior research.
So, I conclude, somewhat reluctantly, that science is a kind of game played by
people who share a paradigm. The problem with that view is of course, as Frank
Wimberley points out to me every time I start talking this way, that scientists
do get better at stuff, and the paradigm view doesn't really account for that.
Thomas Kuhn, I am told, regretted this interpretation of his Scientific
Revolutions and wrote at length to correct it. I wonder if anybody reading
this message knows that work.
Anyway, thanks for your "intervention"
All the best,
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
----- Original Message -----
From: Victoria Hughes
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 6/26/2009 7:06:48 PM
Subject: [FRIAM] Re- Direct Conversation
Russ wrote-
The question then is how do we understand/explain/talk about such phenomena
from a scientific perspective.
Perhaps this is the sticking point. The "scientific perspective".
The way 'science' is being applied here doesn't seem to be working.
How are you each using it? Do you agree on that?
It looks like you have to agree on something somewhere in order to establish a
base from which to investigate less-agreed-upon things.
Perhaps the issue lies is the definition of science and its workings; how you
are using it: and needs to be examined and expanded or altered to suit the
facts.
>From out here:
You all are obviously 'first persons' for all human needs and interactions. You
walk and talk, etc. You know how to understand and act from this first-person
place without any thought at all. You know how to observe and interpolate,
rightly or wrongly. You already know and do these things, yes.
The issue arises when you investigate how you do these things.
You are clearly discussing all this from a first person perspective, in that
you are clear about your particular take on the issue (at least you are
consistent) and unable to see the other's perspective with the same ease you
see your own.
If there were a 'third person perspective' in here, wouldn't the discussion be
more accessible to all of you, since there would be no a priori first person
identity with the issues?
What if scientific method could offer you two some neutral agreed-on ground to
start with?
Maybe look into examining / changing your ideas of what scientific
investigation is.
Below the wiki def of scientific method. (my font size change)
? Do either or both of you [think/know/feel ] Is it possible to be objective
about your own objectifying? Can we truly be unbiased about our own awareness /
existance? is that evolutionarily viable? (As long as you are not a Vulcan, at
least?)
Having followed this discussion with interest, if not always agreement, I am
beginning to feel like one of those people hanging over the railings at a
rodeo; watching breathlessly, hooting and hollering, eyes widening at
unexpected moves... Figured I might drop something in the ring and see what
happens. Usually, of course, these actions go unnoticed by the riders,
understandably focused on things much closer to home. Ahem. As it were.
Tory
ps: Nick, the torrential rains moved west, fyi.
Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena,
acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To
be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering
observable, empirical and measurableevidence subject to specific principles of
reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through
observation andexperimentation, and the formulation and testing of
hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable
features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge.
Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and
design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be
repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that
encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a
coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups
of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction
that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results.
Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and
methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists,
thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by
attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also
allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
============================================================
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
