Re: Prigogine & Co.

I genuinely share Warren's intense aversion to trying to "prove" anything
about social processes based on processes in the natural sciences.  But what
if the natural science example in question is calling for humility or an
open-ended approach, rather than a narrow, positivist approach?

Also, when I teach about social change, for example, I critique the very
common notion of "mechanical quantitative change is all there is" by
explaining that sometimes there is fundamental change.............and I use
concepts like: watershed, point of no return, "if you burn a match you can't
just put it in the freezer and have it return to its previous state", or
that classic...... "critical mass". I suppose I'm using them more as
metaphor than as "proof".....even a universal concept like "change" doesn't
prove anything about any particular process......the match example offers no
evidence as to WHEN the match might ignite, for example.  So I generally
agree with Warren's caveats.....but with the understanding the natural
sciences is important to understanding the social sciences (and I say this
as someone who has angered many people with my intense opposition to the
ways "sociobiology" is generally promoted).  The new DNA research on
Neanderthals, indicating that we are descended not from them, but from a
group that migrated out of Africa fairly recently......that's certainly
relevant to discussing social phenomena and processes, such as the myth of
"biological race."

Just some thoughts,

Alan Spector

============================================================================
========



----- Original Message -----
From: <wwagar@binghamton.edu>
To: "Alan Spector" <spectors@netnitco.net>
Cc: "WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK" <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Prigogine & Co.


>
> In response to Alan Spector's well-considered remarks, let me
> agree that Prigogine's research lends itself aptly to world-systems
> analysis.  So did Hegel's at-the-time state-of-the-art dialectical
> metaphysics lend itself well to Marxian analysis of the vicissitudes of
> world history, not to mention the seeming correspondence that Marx
> discovered between Darwin's theory of the origin of species and his own
> theses on class struggle.
>
> It is always wonderful when we can imagine we have found
> consilience between nature and society, a greater truth uniting all being.
> But there were numberless Hegelians who read Hegel quite differently from
> Marx, and numberless Darwinians who read Darwin quite differently from
> Marx, and Marx's empirical research and moral compass really didn't need
> either Hegel or Darwin to certify its enduring credibility.
>
> My point is that social scientists should be not just wary, but
> absolutely reluctant, to seek confirmation of their findings in the realm
> of the natural sciences.  The essential difference remains that natural
> scientists deal with inanimate stuff, and social scientists deal with
> animate us, i.e., human beings.  The gulf is measureless.
>
> Warren
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Alan Spector wrote:
>
> > I share Warren's concern about the mechanical application of physical
> > science models to social science, but I think Prigogine is more complex
than
> > that.
> >
> > I'm not an expert on physics, and I'm not about to defend Prigogine's
> > research, but my understanding of Prigogine is that he challenged both
> > simple reductionism and the simplistic use of the "Second Law of
> > Thermodynamics" which, when applied in a narrow way, leads some to
conclude
> > that everything is just disintegrating, "winding down", so to speak.
(That
> > view also opens the door for some people to assert that there must have
been
> > a conscious Being who "wound it up" to begin with.)
> >
> > If I remember correctly, Prigogine concluded that when systems
deteriorate,
> > collapse, and disintegrate, there is a small part of it which is not
only
> > retained, but actually has a higher level of complexity than before. If
I'm
> > accurately expressing his view here, that would seem to be in opposition
to
> > both the Mechanistic Optimism of the various "Modernization"
> > (pro-capitalist) ideologies which only see Joy in the future of
capitalist
> > expansion, and also in opposition to the Mechanistic Pessimism of the
> > Post-Modernist ideologies (which also resolve to being pro-capitalist as
> > they lead to despair and inaction and the conclusion that there is no
> > qualitative change possible).
> >
> > This is certainly different from some sociologist or economist trying to
> > predict social upheaval in West Asia based on watching some billiard
balls
> > bounce into each other and then formulating some bizarre mathematical
> > formula that explains nothing about the real world.
> >
> > It is noteworthy that when Prigogine released his findings in physics
> > research, no less a powerful media force than The New York Times, yup,
the
> > Times, wrote an editorial about it, CAUTIONING observers to NOT attempt
to
> > generalize those findings to the social world.....which meant: "Don't
even
> > THINK about making major social change........challenging the order (of
the
> > capitalist world) will only lead to continued disorder and not to a
better
> > world later."  So obviously, the pro-capitalist world thought his
research
> > was a bit of a challenge to the static, mechanical world view that they
try
> > to foist on the general populace.
> >
> > I don't have access to that editorial, but perhaps someone on WSN can
find
> > it.........I'd like to read it again.
> >
> > Alan Spector
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Trichur Ganesh" <tganesh@stlawu.edu>
> > To: <wwagar@binghamton.edu>
> > Cc: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 7:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: Prigogine & Co.
> >
> >
> > > I disagree with those who think that reading Prigogine or Stengers is
> > > tantamount to 'going down the reductionist road'.  There is nothing
> > > reductionist about Prigogine, there is nothing reductionist about
> > Stengers,
> > > and I do not suffer from Wagar's experience of  inferiority complexes
in
> > > saying so.  In any case where does he read a 'shrinking of social
> > phenomena to
> > > the dimensions of the natural'?  In Wallerstein's use of the concept
of
> > > 'bifurcation'?  But is that all that one may see in Prigogine?
Ganesh.
> > >
> > > wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > >         I wish it were possible to dissuade social scientists from
going
> > > > down the reductionist road yet one more time.  The interest
expressed in
> > > > Prigogine by various world-systems scholars is just another example
of
> > an
> > > > age-old determination to shrink social phenomena to the dimensions
> > > > of natural phenomena, which began at least as long ago as the
medieval
> > > > schoolmen (Aquinas et al.) with their convoluted treatises on
natural
> > law.
> > > >
> > > >         From the very earliest origins of social science (once known
as
> > > > "social physics") the Great Minds have done their best to collapse
> > > > the vast gulf between the behavior of atoms and the behavior of
human
> > > > beings in society.  I am a materialist, in the sense that I believe
> > human
> > > > beings are collections of atoms subject to the same vicissitudes as
all
> > > > other matter, but human beings, especially in their interactions,
are
> > > > immeasurably more complex, by so many orders of magnitude that even
> > rough
> > > > analogies between the two levels of being are almost certain to
prove
> > > > false.
> > > >
> > > >         Nevertheless, social scientists have always pursued the
> > > > will-o-the-wisp of scientific exactitude, imagining that they could
> > > > reduce the behavior of human beings in society to a set of laws or
> > > > abstractions grounded in mathematics and/or the natural sciences.
So
> > > > whether the inspiration is geometry, mechanics, gravity, the
felicific
> > > > calculus, the law of the three states, entropy, evolution, mutual
aid,
> > > > relativity, indeterminacy, organic systems theory, Godel's Proof,
chaos,
> > > > or whatever, and whether the basic science involved certifies the
> > > > existence or non-existence of free will, social scientists have time
and
> > > > again taken the bait and tried to anchor the findings of their
research
> > > > in the natural sciences.
> > > >
> > > >         This is not to say that human beings in society do not
behave in
> > > > ways that can be measured, classified, trimmed to generalizations,
and
> > > > sometimes even predicted.  We are not ants, but we also exhibit
> > > > patterns and regularities in our social behavior that deserve
careful
> > > > observation and analysis, including at the macroscopic level of
> > > > world-systems.  But why this urge to turn social science into
natural
> > > > science or conflate the two?  What strange inferiority complex
drives
> > > > social scientists to ape "real" scientists?
> > > >
> > > >         As for this unlikely bedding-down of Habermas with Derrida,
of a
> > > > moralist with an amoralist, I'm with Gert.  Most of the countries of
> > > > Europe belong to the core of the modern world-system, the rest are
> > > > scrambling to join it, and any hope of a "kinder, gentler" Europe
based
> > > > on a vote that didn't take place in the Security Council on the
issue
> > > > of whether or not to pound Iraq into the dust in March as opposed to
> > > > October, and with or without a few brigades of Frenchmen, is surely
> > > > misplaced.  The E.U. may or may not emerge as the next hegemon, but
it's
> > > > the demise of the modern world-system, not the next chapter (if any)
in
> > > > its bloody career, that really matters.
> > > >
> > > >         Warren
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >