Re: Prigogine & Co.

Nature, I argue, is not "inanimate", and here is the place where I disagree
with Wagar.  Why should nature be considered a lifeless domain - even
if some 'natural scientists' see it that way?  Why should social scientists
see nature as inanimate and find 'animateness' only in human beings? 
I find this a really forced separation and hence cannot help disagreeing
with Wagar's perspective.  Ganesh.

Shelton Gunaratne wrote:

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