Jay Hanson wrote:
There are NO exceptions to
the laws of thermodynamics. Obviously, thermodynamics DOES apply
to social systems -- SCIENTISTS ARE APPLYING IT!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How in the world can anyone expect to understand social systems by
omitting universal laws. What kind of stupid philosophy is this?
Thomas:
Well, Jay, even though you are no longer posting and are taking a well
deserved rest from the pummeling we have all been giving you, the parting
shot of subject line inflames me like a domestic argument in which one (me)
irrationally has to have the last word.
The interesting thing about a paradigm shift is the conflict between what is
known as the truth, absolutely and for sure, without any question or any
further exploration and must stand as the last word and some new, apparently
contradictory evidence (which may or not be valid). The Catholic Church had
this response to Galileo.
I sort of started this thread, if I can cut through all the good postings
because of a book called the Web of Life I was reading by Fritjof Capra.
Now, I know that one book does not change the world, at least not a week
after publication. Second, it does not invalidate all the other good
written material before it. My original point was that there is a shift
going on at the highest levels of scientific thinking brought about by the
insights of "systems theory" and that I found much in this theory that
"felt" true to me. Not a very scientific position, but then, I'm a
humanist, not a scientist.
One of the shifts postulated was a repositioning of some of the "truths' of
the Newtonian world view by showing that certain laws are not universally
applicable and that in the field of social systems and biology, they are
finding that some "truths" like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics have perhaps,
some limitations on there universal applications. This does not mean that
it is invalid or wrong - a point you have been defending vehemently. It
just means that their context is being challenged from being universal in
it's generalizations of effects. I agree, in terms of a barrel of oil, or a
hunk of firewood, the 2nd Law works impeccably, but it may not necessarily
be generalized into the biology of a tree, which creates order out of chaos
in the form of a structure we call a tree. The mathematics has been found
to define the process of the accumulation of order which results in a tree.
This new mathematical view seems to challenge some of the generalizations
made on the 2nd Law and some very credible people are making statements that
support a redefinition. Will it happen? Neither you nor I, nor I might
add, anyone on this List knows what the scientific or systems model will
look like in 10 years or 100 years. It may be exactly like it is now and
"systems theory" may end up like vitalism, which is still not dead but now
in disrepute. However, one scientific breakthrough could swing the
arguments away from Newton and Systems thinking back to the concept of a
force we haven't discovered yet.
What this dialog has been for all of us, is an education in which we are
presented with new information. Because it is new, does not guarantee it's
"rightness", it just forms the basis for expanded learning. However, we
humans seem to have this emotional circuit called flight or fight, which
kicks in when we are challenged, both of which you have exhibited and which
I have at times exhibited. No judgment here, we are all the same in that
humans are not rational at all times. The fact, that we argue over facts is
an oxymoron, but then so are we.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
