Out of curiosity: have you read any of the Emergence book?
Out of a naive desire to see if there was anything to the philosophic
side of things, I started in on it (there is a digital copy if you'd
like .. and we posted the first chapter earlier). I'm not moved by
the first chapter. 23 more to go.
I find myself puzzled by the philosophic approach .. at least until it
achieves its goal of posing an interesting question that we poor
mechanical constructive folks can tackle.
(This is from Glen's great post a while back which contains:
Because philosophy is a frontier, wilderness activity, where prior
work is less important than solving some case specific, imminent,
problem. See:
http://n2.nabble.com/Analytic-philosophy-Wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia-td3235494.html)
So I now look at the philosophic approach being one of mining for
great questions. A distortion, I realize, but at least functional/
constructive for me.
Does Feyerabend's work satisfy?
-- Owen
On Sep 17, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
...
I remember old-timers (heh, heh, heh) telling me stories about the
initial release of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. My
understanding is that a reasonable percentage (say 5-15%) of
scientists simply could not go about their business after reading
Kuhn. This because the book, on some level, shattered their ability
to believe what they were doing was real.
Eric
I have heard anecdotes of the same result among Mathematicians when
Godel's Incompleteness theorem came out... up to that time, many
mathematicians were quite happy to spend their entire lives trying
to prove (or disprove) this or that with the conviction that this or
that actually could be proven (or disproven). But apparently, when
faced with the *proven* possibility that the problem they had
dedicated thier lives (or just a decade or two) to might not be
amenable to mathematical proof, some of them lost heart.
I was trained as a Mathematician and Physicist but never really
practiced as either, though the skills and perspectives of both
disciplines proved hugely useful. I personally remember the huge
seduction in Physics of believing that the things we might model and
test by experiment were *real*... that somehow because I could
measure a specific quantity to a certain degree of accuracy and that
I could set up a given set of conditions and with an uncanny degree
of predictability, specific phenomena could be observed, that this
*defined* an objective reality.
Until Maxwell, *Aether* was real... and not long before that
*Phlogiston* and the Absolutes of *Space and Time* didn't dissolve
(at least become Relative) until Einstein and even he rolled his
eyes at the accepted (God and his Dice) implications of Quantum
Theory.
I'm not sure where to weigh in on the word game of whether "Reality"
has any meaning. Like the ultra-rational-villian character in The
Princess Bride who kept uttering "Inconceivable!" at every turn who
was finally corrected by his sidekick with "boss, I don't think that
word means what you think it means!"... I suspect that we (subtly?)
misuse the term "reality" all of the time.
I came to embrace this wonderful paradox in science... but it may be
another facet of my general "morbid fascination" with the human
condition:
Science offers the most obvious/best hope for measuring/defining an
objective reality, yet its very methods are defined to *not* ever be
able to yield conclusive, unquestionable, will-hold-forever, cannot-
be-questioned results. All scientific results are, by definition,
contingent.
Various other approaches to defining or apprehending "reality" do
not have this problem... they are quite capable of (seem to be
defined around) making unequivocal, conclusive statements that need
never be rescinded or revised. While they may reference factual
observations and logical chains of reasoning, they are not bound by
them. Just read any creationist or intelligent design literature
and you will see this odd split.
Mysticism and its variants (sadly, most commonly encountered in our
culture through "newage" or "westernized eastern philosophy") may
offer a useful complement to the variations of logical positivism
associated with western scientific thought, but I'm still at a loss
to find the bridge. There may be no bridge, but something more like
a juxtaposition or complex orbit.
Popular culture (in this era) seems quite enamored with mathematics,
science, etc... such things have become quite popular (perhaps
nearly as much as during the age of Enlightenment (at least among
gentlemen). But that does not mean that the average person
actually invests themselves in the scientific perspective beyond a
superficial level. They may want to associate themselves with it
and enjoy the fruits of its utility, but not engage in it's
practice. I do not know the numbers but most here recognize that
they were in the minority in grammar school and even in college...
that only a small fraction of our peers were interested in the
disciplines of mathematics and science. How many times have we
heard "I don't do math" or "I'm not good at Science">
We could, dismissively, say that "we the elite" were the few with
the intelligence and/or dedication to master these disciplines and
all others are merely lazy or stupid. Or we could acknowledge that
there might be something more fundamental going on. But I'm not
sure what that is. And I'm not sure this group is going to discuss
it... because it is somewhat confrontational to our own identities.
We identify at different levels with rational thought and objective
reality... and it is hard to contemplate anything that confronts
these two very much. I think the current squabble over the use of
the term "reality" shows how hard this is to think about.
I am forever thankful to Paul Feyerabend's work in the Philosophy of
Science (Scientific Anarchism) for providing the question of
whether or how Scientific Thought (and Method) can resolve itself
with Humanitarian perspectives and his questioning of some of the
self-serving mythos that Science applies to itself (see Against
Method, 1975).
In direct confrontation to many of the personalities on this list
(some whom I consider personal friends), Feyerabend lamented the
lack of philosophical grounding of the new crop of post WWII
Physicists (including notably, Richard Feynman). I myself suffer
from a significant lack of such grounding, despite actually being
interested in and often in pursuit of the same. I appreciate
those others on this list who seem to share their own variations of
this awareness, starting with those who speak up against the
collective but extending to those who remain quiet in their
reservations and questions.
The fact that like the iconic arcade game "Whack-a-Mole" , these
"philosophical questions" keep raising their unkempt heads on this
list gives me hope. I know it often feels like so much unnecessary
noise, but I think there are legitimate reasons that it doesn't go
away. While I cannot participate in most/many of the discussions
(notably, Nick's Emergence Salon) for practical reasons, I am very
happy to be within earshot of all the happy babble (I mean this
fondly and respectfully, not dismissively).
- Steve
- Steve
============================================================
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
