Re: Prigogine & Co.

At 08:32 PM 6/18/2003 -0400, wwagar@binghamton.edu
wrote:

        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

I agree with Warren that social scientists should be careful when
applying 
the principles of physics (Newton) or chemistry (Prigogine). 
However,  nomothetic
social science has emulated Newtonian mechanics for more than 150 years.
Is
Warren suggesting that we should discontinue any relationship with
hard
sciences and go back to establish the supremacy of philosophy?
Prigogine
suggests (as does Wallerstein, I believe) that philosophy can lead the
hard
sciences. Let's not forget the interdependence of all living things (as
Buddha
propounded). Systems theory implicitly affirmed a major element of
Buddhist
philosophy. 

--Shelton