Confining ourselves within the scientific boundaries you have set <grin>
1) I see so many non-computable biological examples everywhere and everyday, that I ponder on the politics, compulsions and funding of university driven academia that result in the exponential explosion of niche "pseudo-science"artificial sub-disciplines (reductionist specialties) . 2) The data that emanates from such a pseudo-science-reductionist model / approach is usually self serving garbage reminiscent of many blind men feeling up the proverbial elephant. 3) The "pictures" which emerge from such data, is just a 2D infinitesmally thin perceptive "slice" of an infinitely complex "reality". Perception being a creative process to approximate the infinite universe and determine some "order" (there may actually be none) in nature's chaos The action of measuring in itself being a creative process involving classification, discrimination etc 4) Science for me would begin from the recognition that we can never, ever, "know" everything We would progress from this to the acceptance that all "methods" - mechanistic, reductionist, holistic, empirical .. blah--blah .. are only slices from reality, and not necessarily intersecting slices, and to be accorded the degree of recognition which we ordinarily give to images. The way science "solves", an example would be the Archimidean tortoise paradox, is to "skip" a slice of the infinite progression. Hypothetical presumptions requiring variable data (I mean data from variables), or vice-versa, is a dangerous combination. Now stepping out a little from your boundary. There are many religions (primitive sciences) which ban images or idols as representative of God/nature. As an observationalist, I see that some of them seem to be growing at exponential rates comparable to the explosion of reductionist sub-disciplines. Sciences based on non-formalism (I know this could sound weird at first) actually just empower the few "great minds" rather than secularising scientific advancement to the point where "anybody can cook" (many little fish swimming in their virtual synthetic ponds). On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:03 AM, glen e. p. ropella < [email protected]> wrote: > sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-03-30 12:15 PM: > > > > Derek Gatherer wrote: > >> "If Darwinian reductionism really does transcend the old > >> reductionist-holist dichotomy, systems biology would be the ideal > >> place to demonstrate it. Likewise, we are now in a position to test > >> Rosen’s theories about noncomputable network structures, and to search > >> for real biological examples of them. Just as experimental programmes > >> were essential to the victories of mechanism in the 1910s and > >> neo-Darwinism in the 1930s, only those theories that immediately > >> suggest relatively easy experiments will be winners." > > That remark about being in a position to test Rosen's theories seems a > bit optimistic to me. > > > Biological systems can be treated holistically, or empirically or > > reductionistically - the "dichotomy" is superficial. > > I'm not so sure it's superficial. I would agree that there are ways to > mix and move between them; but whether the "treatment" is superficial or > not depends quite a bit on the practical details of that treatment. > After all, science is about what we _do_, not what we think we know. > > > Unfortunately, > > in my view, and apparently in Rosen's too - the modern trend towards > > reductionism in (say) biology has resulted in an explosion of > > information / data (masquerading as science) generated from "easy > > experiments" which focus on the.perceivable (light matter) and > > ignores the dark matter (or vitalism) which cannot be fully detected > > by us as yet. > > It sounds like you're saying that the explosion in info/data is not > scientifically useful. If that's what you're saying, I disagree. Just > like anything else, I think science is 99% perspiration and 1% > inspiration. (Of course, maybe I think that because I'm a zombie devoid > of inspirational thought. ;-) All that info/data may not seem useful, > yet; but as long as we can keep track of it (which is easier said than > done), we'll eventually gain the insight to use it. There's a great > tradition of observationalists just sitting around logging observations > with little inspiration to justify all the logging. In many ways, these > efforts are more important than that which provides the inspiration. > Anyone can "see" the picture when it's all already laid out in front of > them. [grin] It takes serious commitment to drag oneself to the lab > every day and log measurements with little to no long-term vision! > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > 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
