Feynman said that "Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is."
I agree. I'm not much interested in arguing whether science is just another perspective. What I think is important (and I guess that's just my perspective) is that we should do what we can to be sure we aren't fooling ourselves about what we believe and why we believe it. So for me science is the ultimate in self-awareness. Be aware of what you're doing and why you think what you are thinking. One may not always succeed, but that's the best one can do. And part of the standard scientific method is reproducibility, which in this context means that if one of us doesn't succeed in not fooling himself, perhaps others can figure out what went wrong. -- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles Cell phone: 310-621-3805 o Check out my blog at http://bluecatblog.wordpress.com/ On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > 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/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Victoria Hughes <[email protected]> > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<[email protected]> > *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<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technique> for > investigating phenomena <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon>, > acquiring new knowledge <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge>, or > correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a > method of inquiry <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry> must be based on > gathering observable <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable>, > empirical<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical> > and measurable > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure>evidence<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence> > subject > to specific principles of reasoning<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning> > .[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-0> A > scientific method consists of the collection of > data<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data> > through observation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation> and > experimentation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment>, and the > formulation and testing of hypotheses<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses> > .[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-1> > Although procedures vary from one field of > inquiry<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_science> to > another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other > methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose > hypotheses<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis> as > explanations of phenomena, and design > experimental<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment> > studies <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research> to test these hypotheses. > These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future > results. Theories <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science> 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<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28science%29> to > reduce biased <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias> interpretations of the > results. > Another basic expectation is to document, > archive<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_archiving> > and share <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing_%28Science%29> all > data and methodology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology> so they > are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing > other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to > reproduce <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility> them. This > practice, called *full disclosure*, also allows statistical measures of > the reliability<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_%28statistics%29> 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 >
============================================================ 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
