Re: Domain Hierarchy
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:22 AM, trent shipley wrote: > I once read a quote that went something like, "No action against > climate change has ever been taken that resulted in material economic > injury to those who took the action." > > This lead me to think that despite the knowledge about climate change > at a physical level, humans make decisions based on the domains (not > the sciences) of psychology, economics, and politics. > > Climate change then, is not a hard science problem, it is an economic > and political problem. The solution can't be had through privation, > no matter how much scientists say extreme conservation may be > necessary, but has to involve a path through shared prosperity. Oh my, do I agree with you! After considering the problems since 1975, I think there is a solution based on new technology. Some of the new technology, the Skylon rocket plane, has hundreds of millions ($) committed to it. I referenced it in a previous posting today on this list. > The second thing it made me think is that while it cannot be said that > one science is more important than another, the discursive domains > indexed by sciences can be ranked as more or less foundational or > derived, or more pejoratively as reductionist or ramified. > > Society > Politics > Economics > Psychology > Biology > Chemistry > Physics That's a good list. I think the first four are emergent from evolutionary psychology. That in turn is based on evolutionary biology, which is emergent from chemistry and physics. > (Everything is, of course, mediated by psychology, but leaving that > aside.) As you go down the scale knowledge becomes more precise and > attainable, but relevance to daily experience lessens. As you go up > the scale, the ramified complexity of the domain makes knowledge > imprecise, but the lived relevance is high. This explains the > frustration of natural scientists who find good science rendered > irrelevant in the face of psychology,economics, politics, and society. That's well stated. And then there are the engineers (like me) who just want to solve the damned problems. It's just an economic/engineering problem to get the cost of renewable energy down. It's not like the sun doesn't put out enough energy. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Domain Hierarchy
I have a degree in Mathematics. I consider it more of an art than a science. Math is a linguistic game that fortuitously has practical applications. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:44 PM, David Hobby wrote: > On 3/3/2014 10:37 PM, trent shipley wrote: >> >> ... >> >> The second thing it made me think is that while it cannot be said that >> one science is more important than another, the discursive domains >> indexed by sciences can be ranked as more or less foundational or >> derived, or more pejoratively as reductionist or ramified. >> >> Society >> Politics >> Economics >> Psychology >> Biology >> Chemistry >> Physics >> > > Trent-- > > You left out Mathematics? > http://xkcd.com/435/ > > ---David > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Domain Hierarchy
On 3/3/2014 10:37 PM, trent shipley wrote: ... The second thing it made me think is that while it cannot be said that one science is more important than another, the discursive domains indexed by sciences can be ranked as more or less foundational or derived, or more pejoratively as reductionist or ramified. Society Politics Economics Psychology Biology Chemistry Physics Trent-- You left out Mathematics? http://xkcd.com/435/ ---David ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Domain Hierarchy
I once read a quote that went something like, "No action against climate change has ever been taken that resulted in material economic injury to those who took the action." This lead me to think that despite the knowledge about climate change at a physical level, humans make decisions based on the domains (not the sciences) of psychology, economics, and politics. Climate change then, is not a hard science problem, it is an economic and political problem. The solution can't be had through privation, no matter how much scientists say extreme conservation may be necessary, but has to involve a path through shared prosperity. The second thing it made me think is that while it cannot be said that one science is more important than another, the discursive domains indexed by sciences can be ranked as more or less foundational or derived, or more pejoratively as reductionist or ramified. Society Politics Economics Psychology Biology Chemistry Physics (Everything is, of course, mediated by psychology, but leaving that aside.) As you go down the scale knowledge becomes more precise and attainable, but relevance to daily experience lessens. As you go up the scale, the ramified complexity of the domain makes knowledge imprecise, but the lived relevance is high. This explains the frustration of natural scientists who find good science rendered irrelevant in the face of psychology,economics, politics, and society. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
