< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: Social Science, Science, and Empirical Study by Mike Alexander 10 July 2002 04:34 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
[Luke:] This is a very good
description [of chaos] you’ve given here. It does raise a question though; doesn’t
Complexity, Chaos, & Heisenberg (to some extent) represent really a paradigm
shift from the radically-empiricist, positivized, deterministic, materialistic,
et al, Science of yesteryear to the Science of today? …
[Mike:] No, I don't see one,
at least not in the Kuhnian sense. Quantum mechanics certainly was a
paradigm change but that's almost 80 years ago, hardly recent. Complexity
and Chaos are not new in a fundamental sense. What was new (about 40 years
ago) was the realization of just how complex a behavior can result from
extremely simple nonlinear equations. Chaos refers to the seemingly
random behavior that can result from a very
deterministic process (e.g. my billiard example) Complexity is
the study of seemingly random patterns for what might lie
underneath.
In Chaos the process that creates
the seemingly random pattern is not random; it is
deterministic--but it looks random. Could it be that other
things, that look random might actually it be controlled by some
underlying deterministic "law". People who study complexity are trying to
find such hypothetical laws. So far little has come out of chaos or
complexity, and perhaps nothing ever will. But one can't know what one
will find unless one looks, right? So some people are looking into these
things.
On the other hand, there was a
paradigm shift in the way some scientists felt about the
world. A 19th century scientist may have well believed
(felt) that, in principle, one could "calculate" how the weather (and other
things) would unfold into the future. Once the nature of the equations
became known we saw that an exactly correct model can fail to produce
exact predictions, or any useful predictions at all. That is, even if a
theory of everything could be found, there would still be uncertainty in the
world.
For example, suppose an exact (nonlinear) law
describing human thought was discovered that covered the basic synapse to
synapse neural process behind thought. Suppose what we are consciously
aware of as a thought is the result of dozens of such basic processes.
Then, even though the basic law describing thought is known, the product of that
process (after dozens of repetitions) would be unknowable, just as the
position of the billiard ball is unknowable after 10-30 ricochets. In
other words, people still have free will because you can't predict what they
will decide, even though you understand exactly, at the fundamental
level, what their brains do while they are making their
decision.
So
chaos has finished what quantum mechanics started; the destruction of the belief
(or faith if you will) that some 19th century scientists (and many
nonscientists) held that some day we would be able to understand (predict)
everything and so there was no longer any room for religion, moral
philosophy and other "nonscientific" ways of knowing. The result
of this destruction has been for scientists to largely "stick to their
knitting" and use their tools/methods on those problems for which
useful and interesting results can be obtained with a reasonable expenditure of
effort. [Luke:] It seems scientists have always
recognized the mysteriousness and majesty of the natural world around us in the
cosmos (indeed its multidimensionality); but there often seems a contradiction
between this appreciation of Science and its critical methodology/ presentation
as we’ve always learned to give it.
Take your discussion above for example. It certainly shows the nuts and bolts of
C,C, & H; but still Chaos and Complexity seem to even ‘transcend’ [as it
were] a description such as this.
For some reason these models better capture the mystery and wonder of the
universe in a way that Newtonian mechanics never could?
[Mike:] Here you are using terms like
"mysteriousness and majesty" and multidimensionality that have no clear
meaning.
[Luke:] What is it specifically about the
former that makes this reality so? … If scientists with their science (in the
19th cen. & before) had just as much of a sense and understanding of this
complexity and awe-inspiring multidimensionality to the universe, then why
couldn’t their presentation of science better reflect that
principle? Why does it tend to seem
like its only today that we’re recapturing in the framework of our
Science the same sense that early Renaissance, Medieval, and Ancient scholars –
not just in Europe – had when it came to comprehending the cosmos?
[Mike:] It's not a
return to Renaissance, Medieval and Ancient ways of thinking. Its simply a
realization that the tools of science, although powerful, are not
all-powerful. Scientists are still the empirically-focused materialists we
always were when we are doing science. But that doesn't mean we
necessarily are empirical materialists when we are doing other things, such as
loving our spouses, dealing with difficult people, or practicing our
religion.
[Luke:] Convenience [of
experimentation] is a big part of it; and laboratory experimentation is
fast. But the difference I think
comes down to something else besides – a matter of orientation. If science is a matter of better
understanding the nature of the universe via a precise study of its
phenomena through empirical investigation, then would it not be better to get at
the data of natural phenomena through the means of “natural
experiments” and investigating objects, systems, and processes in their
natural states? …
[Mike:] No. Studying a phenomenon
in situ will often not provide the information you need to understand what
is going one in a reasonable amount of time. If we can bring it into the
lab to study it, that's great, but sometimes you can't do that. For
historical sciences (like what Diamond does) you can't. Astronomers can't
either. Even if you can bring it into the lab that won't mean you will be
successful. You do your lab work and that gives you an idea of what
happens. You then have to go out and see if the same thing happens in the
real world (now that you have identified an important variable you know what to
look for). If it doesn't happen the way you predict then you missed
something and back to the lab you go. Its iterative, and one doesn't
always succeed. By going to the lab one does simplify the system,
sometimes fatally. One finds this out by failing to obtain an
accurate description even after many tries. A good example is
ecology.
Ecological systems can have too many
interconnections to study them in labs, even very large ones. Hence a lot
of observation is needed. Lab work can still be used to look at relatively
independent pieces of the whole system.
[Luke:] Wouldn’t it make sense that, if we
had a completely exact understanding of natural phenomena and even the ability
to physically apply that understanding, we should be able to completely master
the holistic and integrating dynamics of such natural phenomena? …
[Mike:] No, it wouldn't in all cases.
For some yes, for others no. (See discussion of chaos above).
[Luke:] Is there a specific difference
to be had between the empiric methods of say “clockmakers” and those of
“astronomers, etc.” as dealt with in the movie Longitude about the
horologist John Harrison who solved the problem of getting longitude at sea by
the use of his invented sea clock/chronometer? I’m not talking about generalization
versus specialization here as much as I am talking about the empirical
orientation of those who use an understanding of ‘science’ to do/make something
(techne/praxis) versus those who use an understanding of science to discover the
workings of the universe, its laws and principles (episteme/scientia/ & noesis =
‘understanding’)? What do you think
about these points?}
[Mike:] No. Both
scientists and engineers (like Harrison) are empiricists. I have a B.S. in
chemistry (scientia) and a Ph. D. in chemical engineering (techne/praxis) so I
have a foot in both worlds. The difference between us is in motivation,
not our methods of knowing. Scientists wish for knowledge for the sake of
knowledge. Engineers wish for knowledge for the sake of people.
[Luke:] Yes, I like this
explanation of yours also. Here’s
my question. I do believe a lot of
times Science’s critics among religionists, creationists, some ID theorists, and
scholars of pre-Scientific Revolution Western thought – the latter tending to be
mainly tending to be Medieval/Classics of Greece and Rome among whom stand
philosophers, theologians, and literary thinkers – have an axe to grind against
the discipline. Besides the obvious
issue of “religious” and immaterial “spiritual” concerns, what other factors
stand to divide this community from the scientific community? That’s to say, what else might be behind
their making this argument that lab work = true science and true empiric
study? What does it stand for these
people to gain by discrediting Science, pointing out its “contradictions”, and
pressing the scientific community itself to keep itself in the lab?
[Mike:] Science has been
very successful in describing aspects of the world that have allowed engineers
and non-scientists to vastly increase human mastery over large chunks of our
material life. As a result, science has gained a lot of
credibility and financial
support. So some of the criticism reflects envy.
But science has also demolished
the old explanations for natural aspects of our world than once came from
religion (e.g. creation stories and biblical cosmology). God is dead,
according to Nietsche, meaning that belief in God is no longer tenable amongst
thinkers/philosophers. Yet the enlightenment project, in which scientific
rationality was to replace religious superstition, has foundered
upon a sea of uncertainty arising from chaos and quantum mechanics.
Science isn't going to provide all the answers. It never suggested that it
could. It was people, who having discarded their naive faith in God,
sought to replace it with an equally naive faith in science.
When this faith was disappointed
they became disenchanted with science. But science has obvious utility,
and so they wish to restrict it to the narrowest purview possible, hence the
focus on lab work as if the laboratory is somehow central to the pursuit of
science.
[Luke:] That is to say, it’s about episteme,
scientia, and noesis [to use the Classical Greek expressions for
true knowledge, the true systematically reasoned inquiry into the
entities of our world, and the true understanding of such things – in
this case regarding human behavior and the state of human nature]. It’s, in some sense, less about –
or at least secondarily about – doing something and/or making something
(embodied in the terms techne and praxis) as it about delving into
the true nature of the things we study and their systematic dynamics as real
things.
So
there’s a real formal distinction to be considered here between our
object-as-is and the ways in which people use this object-as-is to their own
ends (read “self interest”).
[Mike:] I think it comes down to
this: How do you convince others that you understand something that
they do not? A powerfully charismatic or
talented individual might be able to convince others that he
understands simply by the force of his personality or the power of
his talent, as a prophet or artist might do. But even prophets
often include practical demonstrations of their special knowledge such
miracle-working or faith healing.
For most of us, nobody will believe we have
any special understanding unless we include a demonstration. For
scientists his demonstration employs what you call praxis and
techne. We do something (like make a prediction) or make something (like a
useful invention that makes use of our special
knowledge). These demonstrations, if sufficiently impressive, win converts
to a new understanding (e.g. hypothesis, theory or paradigm) much as the
miracle-working and faith healing of a prophet wins converts to their
religion.
Praxis/techne, or empircism is fundamentally
part of science and cannot be separated. Not only is empirical
observation/experimentation often (but not always) used to obtain
understanding in science, it is always used to perform the
demonstrations of the new understanding necessary to gain converts. So we
have Einstein developing his theory of relativity entirely from "thought
experiments" (a creative activity not really different from what an artist does)
but he then shifts to praxis and makes specific, testable predictions.
Experimental physicists (masters of techne and praxis)
then set out to see if Einstein is right. When they validate his
predictions his theory gains
followers. |
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |