|
CMR: ( I quote your earlier points here
about 'science' to explain why I called them reductionistic.)
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation,
and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. 3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. #1 works with (observed/able) phenomena: models
according to our epistemic
enrichment at the time
of study. Identification, description, especially explanation
is topical, observing the
boundaries within which we stay put - disregarding the rest -
(whether known or unknown) within our reduced models.
This is what I call
'the reduction of the total'. It is even
enhanced in
#2, "restricted to the chosen class" -
while
#3 puts the crown on its reductionistic head:
applying activities [only?]
to the limited (topical,
boundary-enclosed) models.
If your vocabulary sais different from reduction
of the total into limited models, we have to smoke the calumet for using
different vocabularies in peace.
You wrote:
" A method with clearly
identified acceptable methodology. No more. No less."
And I seek understanding. I don't believe to find
it in your "scientism"<G>.
I may have used the wrong adverb: not "reductionist
science", only "science" as we know it.Conventional. It is a topically reduced
segregated-parcelled modeling of nature into topics all considered
as substantial units - while really in an interconnected total where
separating barriers exist only in our organizing effort.
Complexity is a loaded historical noumenon, almost
as unidentifiable as consciousness.
I am not talking about the "reductionistic limited
models" that are complex, have a theory and work in a formalism
of acknowledging the limited model values as 'complete values' in the equational
math treatment. If I have to use the word, I mean the complexity of the total in
unabridged interinfluencing reciprocity. The word allows flexible
semantics. I prefer to say wholeness. Not even 'hole-ism'.
It is hard to skip the belief-system we were
brainwashed into during our early studies.
Maybe you can find more in http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/SciRelMay00.html
This was written before I foramlized my thinking
about reductionism, but applicable.
And NO End of Science! The good
old reductionist edifice is very good and useful,
a NEW WAY of doing scientific activity may be in
the works. Give it 2-300 years.
"[Conventional]...science is significantly
less lousy than all the alternative approaches ..."
which is not good enough for me. Finally as you
could see from all the above:
I gladly agree with your final remark:
"I like, respect and even
largely share your apparent philosophy, John.
But it ain't
science."
I hope so and appreciate the preceding to
it. John M
|
