I'm not clear on why there is such a culture clash on this list
around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...
I think the conflict may be nearly trivial: constructing things.
Many of us, especially at the sfComplex, were hoping to create a
synergistic community, where the whole was greater than its parts.
Specifically, cross-discipline projects (Stephen's Hollywood model)
creating fascinating technology with complexity being a foundational
piece. The TED conferences in the complex domain.
The philosophical conversations thus far have not contributed to this,
and indeed have created a second culture: folks who want to talk about
things.
Talking is great, but for some of us becomes a distraction when not
helping create a foundation for creating things.
There is a good example of a middle ground. Nick had the Moth (My way
or the highway) alternative to the traditional iterated prisoner's
dilemma. It was concrete enough to result in a project and a couple
of papers.
So my hunch is that the "Please God No" reaction is along that line:
many if not most of us are interested in creating things.
Thus to make the conversations more acceptable, it would be reasonable
for it to suggest an investigation or project. The failure to
summarize is just an example of how non-constructive the philosophic
conversations have been.
-- Owen
On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
I'm not clear on why there is such a culture clash on this list
around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...
I know only of one specific person on the list who has a
significantly alternate perspective.
Whether we know of them (formally) or not, there are philosophical
traditions which we are products of.
Most of us here are interested in the topics of mathematics,
science, language, etc. *because* we were exposed to these ideas
and modes of thought from an early age and from many angles. Even
if we grew up in a household where there was a modicum of magical
thinking and animism around us, the larger world, and most *any*
practical-minded western family today is going to be acting and
speaking with a lot of rational and empirical modes.
We got that way by being raised in a time and culture where that is
how most people (try to) understand the world. If were were
trained in mathematics or the sciences, we were almost surely
trained by people who were grounded deeply in this philosophy.
Most of us here are empiricists and rationalists, which roughly
implies that we are logical positivists. These are philosophical
traditions. Philosophy (in this case, Western tradition) is a method
or system of organizing the human experience.
Epistemology is the branch of (Western) Philosophy concerned with
the nature and the limitations of human knowledge. Metaphysics is
the branch concerned with the fundamental nature of being and the
world. Science and Mathematics reside almost exclusively within
Metaphysics and Epistimology. There are aspects of both which touch
on (or are informed by) Aesthetics and Ethics, but the meat is in
the study of knowledge and the study of the world.
Most criticism I hear (here and otherwise, explicit or implicit)
seems to come down to one of two (mis)understandings:
• Serious sounding talk about anything we don't understand is
"Philosophy" and we either therefore hold it in awe or (more often)
dismiss it. For some folks (few on this list), the same treatment
is given to "Mathematics" and "Science" for approximately the same
reasons.
• The "white males" who show up most notably throughout our history
as the shapers of Philosophy (and Mathematics and Science) were
products of their social/cultural milieu and their personal failings
in the realm of human and social equality, justice, etc. do not
necessarily discredit the work that is associated with them.
Why can't we simply accept that most of us have a particular
attachment and fondness for the empirical and rational subsets of
philosophy and that the *rest* of it is mostly outside of our
experience and perhaps interest. And *within* these subdomains of
Philosophy, why can't we admit that our specific methods are derived
from the more general ones of metaphysics, epistomology, and
sometimes aesthetics and ethics?
For those who have experience/interest in other systems than Western
Philosophy, I think similar things are true, with the most notable
exception (in my observation) that empiricism and rationality do not
play as central of a role. It seems *precisely* this which draws
many (not so many here, but many in the larger world) to other
traditions...
It is outside the scope of this particular posting to go into the
merits of Empiricism and Rationality _vs_ other modes of knowledge
and experience except to say that this particular Choir (FRIAM
members) who for the most part sings *only* in the keys of E and R
to be squabbling as if some of us are in a completely different key
when in fact, the only problem is that few if any of us have perfect
pitch.
- Steve
I think I need to take a long Motorcycle Ride (stopping to clean my
plugs, adjust my valves, synchronize my carburators, lubricate my
chain, and tear down and rebuild my forks at least once along the
way).
============================================================
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
