I took it to mean that: a) scientific knowledge is the only authentic knowledge, b) _if_ there is is knowledge in fiction, then it is scientific knowledge (by definition), and most importantly, c) if we fail to devise any falsifiable hypotheses from fiction, then we've demonstrated there is no knowledge in fiction.
Given that setup, we should try to formulate a falsifiable hypothesis from/about some fictional work. If we succeed, regardless of whether the hypothesis is falsified or not, the fiction contains knowledge. To me, it's obvious that fiction contains (perhaps _is) knowledge because, to me, all knowledge is based on models and all models are fiction. Even the most validated models of all time, relativity and QM, are fiction. We just haven't found the circumstances that will show them to be false. Something must be said about precision, though, over and above accuracy. Ulysses and QM are both fiction; but QM is precise. A prediction could probably be made from Ulysses; but it wouldn't be a precise prediction, probably because the semantic grounding in Ulysses is relational rather than absolute. And that brings us to the 3rd relevant spectrum: abstract vs. concrete. Although QM can make precise predictions, it cannot make concrete predictions. Any quantum is replacable by any other quantum. However, Ulysses may well admit to concrete prediction (e.g. The Irish are lunatics?). So, Ulysses would be accurate, imprecise, and concrete. QM would be accurate, precise, and abstract. It would be fun to place other fictions in this 3d "space". 8^) Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-10-17 09:42 PM: > I would like, if only as a matter of principle, to rise to the defense of all > those techno-barbarians on the list who cannot find voice to defend > themselves, but I can only say that … > > IF there is something valuable in fiction, if it indeed fosters or transmits > knowledge, > > Then fiction is a potential method in scientific psychology. > > To twist Stephen J. Gould’s words a bit: They are Overlapping Magisteria. > > There is no knowledge that is not potentially scientific knowledge. -- 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
