On 09/23/2015 05:37 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I think you have nailed one of the origins of science-doubters: the relation > between the nomothetic and the idiographic
Thanks. It's nice to know the names. I think science-doubting is just one symptom, though. The deeper problem has something to do with "schizophrenic" components of a system, where the split is caused by incommensurate scopes. For example, humans behaviors are systemic (as Marcus points out where people react to their environment first, then rationalize it later) in their behavior. Their behaviors have 1 scope, extent of impact. E.g. lawn fertilizer run-off. Then their ideological scope is different, usually smaller. The things in their heads don't extend as far as the impact of their behavior. And vice versa sometimes. There are idealists whose actions have very small scope, thinking very big thoughts, but their actions blow away with a strong breeze. Scope incommensurability is the deeper problem. > Having said that, am I allowed to say, "Crap! I wish you didn't have cancer!' Of course. Thanks. But just to be argumentative, that's like saying you wish I didn't have blue eyes. Or, better yet, you wish I weren't bald. >8^) My cancer is a part of me. I probably wouldn't feel as strongly about it if it were a tumor-forming type of cancer. But since it's systemic, spread throughout my lymph system (part of how we tell self from non-self), it's definitely part of me. It is me. I am cancer. It's probably not true of all cancers, though. Here's a similar interesting tidbit: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43041/title/Cancer-Driving-Mutations-Common-in-Normal-Skin-Cells/ -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Look beyond your own horizons ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
