Owen, I am not comfortable with the distinction between creation and talking. One way or another, most people talk to create. If you are perhaps referring to the distinction between theory and practice ... between thinking about stuff and doing stuff, then I think you have a hold of something here. The most exciting work is the result of a nice balance between these two activiites, and dumb work results when we get out of balance. .
I think our effort to move ahead on netlogo models to demonstrate fundamental principles of complexity foundered on our inabililty to come to a common understanding of order ... the very issue that we have been discussing here. Remember we were never quite sure what we meant by order ... as in "order"parameter. As Glen suggested for us here, here, it was probably time to start examining some cases in the Wedtech discussions....in other words, we may have talked too long and we needed to DO something to correct the balance. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Owen Densmore <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Cc: aku <[email protected]> > Date: 7/11/2009 4:32:02 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science > > > 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
============================================================ 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
