Glen wrote:
that Nick 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.
When I first encountered these terms in the psychological literature I
noted the parallels to "analytic" and "synthetic" approaches in the
"harder" Sciences. Do you have any thoughts about that?
Scope incommensurability is the deeper problem.
I do think that mis-scoping is a big problem and it plagues both sides
of the aisle. But then there is always a bit of the Goldilocks dilemma
at work: "Too much" vs "Too little" and rarely enough "Just Right".
When the Santa Fe Standard bumper sticker when from "Visualize World
Peace" (and the "whirled peas" variant) to "Think Global, Act Local", I
was mildly heartened. It captured at least one aspect of the scoping
bias, though if taken literally just throws everything off kilter in the
other direction.
- Steve
============================================================
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
