Ummm, not quite. You could argue that some portion of science is
concerned with obtaining true answers to some questions asked, and there
might be explicit or implicit deception involved there. But another
large chunk is concerned with finding better questions to ask. If I
find, for example, that the models I have been using when combined give
nonsense answers, or that, say, more than 75% of recently posited stuff
in my field is not addressed by the models at hand at all, then I might
be justified in engaging in some phenomenology - e.g., are there better
questions that tell me where to look for new kinds of data and relate
those data in a more coherent way? It seems that under those
circumstances one is not only free to make stuff up and fudge parameters
around in order to test if some new kinds of coherence are possible, but
one is positively obligated to do so. You could call that both an
artistic AND a scientific path, but it's nevertheless fiction. If we can
tell a more compelling story, only then is it worth our time to marshal
other conceptual apparatus (e.g. scientific methodologies) to engage the
story (by continuously relating it to experience of the moment) to
consider how it might be true. But I think it may be confusing to call
the story itself an observation - it would be more a means of organizing
a scientific conversation about observations we have made and might make.
/"The universe is made of stories, not atoms" - Muriel Rukyser/
Eric:
>>I hope you are not arguing that cutting edge sci-fi writers should
get endowed chairs in physics on the basis of their scientific
accomplishments!
Sorry, but... http://www.gregorybenford.com/bio.php
Carl
On 10/18/10 6:21 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Again, Robert, this would be a weaker (and perhaps saner) version of
the thesis I am offering. Thanks, again, for your heroic attempts to
rescue me.
However, what I have in mind at the moment is a stronger thesis. It
goes something like this. Every attempt at objective scientific
observation necessarily has a fictional element. At the minimum, you
have to leave stuff out. Further, every attempt at fiction writing,
must tell the truth about something. (In fact, one can only lie,
within a broader framework of truth telling, I am guessing.) (The
best lies, of course, are truthful about everything except one crucial
and unexpected feature of the situation.) So, if you grant with me
that science is in the business of discovering the truth, and now you
grant that every artistic creation says something true about its
subject, then fiction writing has to be viewed as a potential
scientific method. If you add, now, the fact that the
methodological restrictions placed on psychologists so degrade their
ability to discover the truth by everyday scientific methods of
observation, measurement , sampling, comparison of results,
publication, etc., then you arrive at my suggestion that perhaps we
ought to consider fiction as a form of scientific observation.
One problem I see with this position is answering the question, “Just
what is, say, “Crows in a Cornfield” and observation of?” Crows in a
cornfield? Ok. What else?
By the way – speaking to Eric – I think this is fully consistent with
the New Realist position.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/nthompson
http://www.cusf.org
*From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
*On Behalf Of *Robert J. Cordingley
*Sent:* Monday, October 18, 2010 2:15 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Art is a Lie
Perhaps what I am hearing you say Nick is that by writing fiction (and
studying it) we can uncover something meaningful about the author's
mental makeup. Just as some therapies, I am told, recommend keeping
journals for later examination.
By studying readers' reactions to the same writing, I'm sure something
meaningful can be uncovered about the reader's mental makeup.
But then I know little about psychoanalysis and the existing methods
available.
Thanks
Robert
On 10/18/10 10:27 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Robert,
Thanks for offering me that escape route, but I cannot take it,
because I probably believe the IF-conditions. You are right to sense
that I need rescuing, because if I am abandoned by Eric, I am truly
abandoned.
I have to admit that what I laid out (below) are probably VALUES. In
other words, I am more prepared to argue from them than I am to argue
for them.
The basic idea is, though, that there aren’t kinds of truth; there is
JUST truth. So if somebody asserts that literature is source of
truth, then there MUST (on my values) be a way for science to get at
it. But now I have to go dandle.
Thanks Robert; thanks Eric.
Nick
*From:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Robert J. Cordingley
*Sent:* Monday, October 18, 2010 8:14 AM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Art is a Lie
It's hypothetical reasoning. Re-read the IF statements.
Robert C
On 10/18/10 7:54 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
Nick,
This is bizarre! "Fiction is a potential method in scientific
psychology." I cannot, for the life of me parse it. Is it equivalent
to saying: "Fiction is a potential method in scientific physics."?
Granted that science fiction has broadly anticipated many things that
are now part of scientific physics, but it also anticipated many
things that were not, and I hope you are not arguing that cutting edge
sci-fi writers should get endowed chairs in physics on the basis of
their scientific accomplishments!
When I recall you making criticisms along these lines, it was mostly
to frustrate doe-eyed grad students who wanted to save the world. You
argued, at those times, that if they wanted to help survivors of
genocide, they would be better off writing a gripping novel that
helped increase international attention to their plight; if they
wanted to help survivors get along better with genocide bystanders,
you would write a heart wrenching novel with a message of
reconciliation; etc. The last thing you should think in either of
these situations, you argued, is that everything is failing for the
lack of one more scientific study in social/personality psychology.
This arguement I completely agreed with. It does seem to argue for
some sort of deep relationship between fictional literature and "truth."
However, I have no idea what you are getting at now. Certainly one
could study fiction as an empirical psychologist, but that wouldn't
make fiction a "method". Are you trying to say that a valid way to do
scientific psychology is to make stuff up? No chance / you /are doing
that. What are you trying to get at?!?
Eric
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 12:42 AM, *"Nicholas Thompson"
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>* wrote:
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.
Nick
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps athttp://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps athttp://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
