< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: Social Science, Science, and Empirical Study by francesco ranci 10 July 2002 13:05 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
From my point of view Deterministic Laws and Probabilistic Laws are different in that the former are made of one verbal construction (examples: "men die", "men speak", "men eat") while the latter use more than one ("men live or die", "men speak English, Italian, Chinese, or other languages", "men eat a fraction of one, one, two, three, or more times every day"). Francesco --- Mike Alexander <malexan@net-link.net> wrote: > [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 === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |