Friam

pluralism in science

Classic

List

Threaded

50 messages Options

123

Roger Critchlow-2

pluralism in science

There's an intriguing book review in Science this week:

Studying Human Behavior How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality by Helen E. Longino University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2013. 261 pp. S75. ISBN 9780226492872. Paper, $25, £16. ISBN 9780226492889.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6129/146.1.full?rss=1

The claim is that there is not and will not be a dominant paradigm for researching human behavior, there are multiple ways of establishing causes for behavior and that's just the way it is.

So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of organization, but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to different disciplines of study which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science.

So, what's scientific evidence now?

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: pluralism in science

This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

There's an intriguing book review in Science this week:

Studying Human Behavior How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality by Helen E. Longino University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2013. 261 pp. S75. ISBN 9780226492872. Paper, $25, £16. ISBN 9780226492889.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6129/146.1.full?rss=1

The claim is that there is not and will not be a dominant paradigm for researching human behavior, there are multiple ways of establishing causes for behavior and that's just the way it is.

So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of organization, but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to different disciplines of study which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science.

So, what's scientific evidence now?

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile

Steve Smith

Re: pluralism in science

Doug -

This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question.

Straight out of Wikipedia (for convenience, not because it is necessarily an infallible authority):

The philosophy of science is concerned with all the assumptions, foundations, methods, implications of science, and with the use and merit of science. This discipline sometimes overlaps metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, viz., when it explores whether scientific results comprise a study of truth.

I know you call this a serious question, but I think it might be argumentative, restating your declaration/assumption that philosophy has no value, at least not in the context of science? I think you are using a fallacious definition of the term philosophy perhaps.

Also out of Wikipedia (same caveats):

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.^[1]^[2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.^[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".

I know you well enough to believe that if you accept these definitions (of philosophy and philosophy of science) that you would acknowledge the value of both. Can you confirm or deny that apprehension? I suspect your suspicion of the terms/fields and their utility is based on a different understanding of the term(s). I suspect you use the term "philosophy" roughly in the same way I use the term "wanking".

I will acknowledge that many with limited or no formal training in science will resort to all sorts of specious rhetoric or sophistry to make claims about reality. However, I would claim that a similar number of us (you in this case?) use the term "Philosophy" roughly to describe the very same *small subset* of discourse/thinking.

Philosophy in general and philosophy of science in particular frame the relevance of science and it's limits. Many of the tools of science (mathematics, logic, formal reasoning) are not *part of Science*. Perhaps you use the term "philosophy" to mean all parts of philosophy that are NOT directly relevant to science (e.g. theology for sure, epistomology maybe, aesthetics probably, non-physical cosmology, ... etc.) perhaps you use "science" to describe science itself plus all of the parts of philosophy of direct relevance (physical cosmology, logic, mathematics, and possibly parts of language, epistimology, ontology and metaphysics). This use of "science" would then of course be tautological.

I'm sure there are others here more well educated in Philosophy than I. I'm sure I have made at least a few mis-statements or mis-implications in this shoot-from-the hip response.

I also think there are bigger implications to the discussion about Science vs Philosophy. Tory has brought up some of the issues of "Philosophy as studied/presented by the white male patriarchy" which opens own issues and I suspect some of our other more non-Western-leaning members (Dave Wade, Carl Tollander, Rich Murray, Sarbajit Roy, ???) may have *yet another* perspective to add.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: pluralism in science

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of organization,

>> but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to different disciplines of study

>> which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science.

This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question.

The author of the book is a faculty member at Stanford University who identifies as a philosopher of science. She wrote a book. She presumably teaches classes, writes scholarly articles, and reviews the writings of other scholars.

She identifies the different ways of studying human behavior as equally "scientific", while the popular science literature, the grant competition process, and the disciplines themselves tend to treat the alternatives as mutually exclusive possible truths, in a conflict from which one shall emerge triumphant.

So which question is the serious one? Taken together, you are expressing skepticism of philosophy by asking a question about values. That is as close to the origins of western philosophy as you can get without directly quoting Socrates.

-- rec --

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: pluralism in science

Relying to Steve & Roger:

No, for once I was not being argumentative, it was the "of science" part I was questioning. As compared, say, to a philosopher of religion, or morality, or human psychology. Continuing to use our favorite reference source, Wikipedia gives this definition for "Philosopher" (which, as it turns out, does not really differ substantively from mine):

A philosopher is a person with an extensive knowledge of philosophy who uses this knowledge in their work, typically to solve philosophical problems. Philosophy is concerned with studying the subject matter of fields such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, as well as social philosophy and political philosophy.

My definition of philosopher, btw, is "One who thinks deeply about important stuff."

Back to the original question, what benefits does a Philosopher of Science provide. Does he aid people like, say, George Smoot (Noble Prize in Physics, 2006) do cosmology better? Or, does he help a computer scientist develop better code or systems designs?

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of organization,

>> but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to different disciplines of study

>> which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science.

This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question.

The author of the book is a faculty member at Stanford University who identifies as a philosopher of science. She wrote a book. She presumably teaches classes, writes scholarly articles, and reviews the writings of other scholars.

She identifies the different ways of studying human behavior as equally "scientific", while the popular science literature, the grant competition process, and the disciplines themselves tend to treat the alternatives as mutually exclusive possible truths, in a conflict from which one shall emerge triumphant.

So which question is the serious one? Taken together, you are expressing skepticism of philosophy by asking a question about values. That is as close to the origins of western philosophy as you can get without directly quoting Socrates.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: pluralism in science

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

Roger,

Righto! We launch "Happiness Santa Fe" on Saturday ( go to our website, the Center for Emergent Diplomacy, or just go to Happiness Santa Fe for a calendar of events). We've had many recent conversations about how to encourage conditions for a shift in our mental models from consumerism and inequality toward compassion and generosity.

When I teach Complexity at Upaya in the Buddhist chaplaincy program I usually suggest that compassion is an emergent property of the biggest system of all--our brains. So I say, hey guys, just meditate more! We have hard neuroscience on how that works. But how do we change the initial conditions for a collective response? Perhaps one way is to measure human happiness and well-being differently by expanding GDP to include ecological and social indicators as the Bhutanese have been trying to do for decades. We tend to value what we measure.

You know, dear Roger, that I follow the research carefully. Thanks for this link. You guys study--we act and put it on the ground!!

Merle

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

There's an intriguing book review in Science this week:

Studying Human Behavior How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality by Helen E. Longino University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2013. 261 pp. S75. ISBN 9780226492872. Paper, $25, £16. ISBN 9780226492889.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6129/146.1.full?rss=1

The claim is that there is not and will not be a dominant paradigm for researching human behavior, there are multiple ways of establishing causes for behavior and that's just the way it is.

So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of organization, but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to different disciplines of study which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science.

So, what's scientific evidence now?

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merlelefkoff

Ron Newman

Re: pluralism in science

Merle,

I'm the developer of www.WorldHappinessMeter.com (WHM). How can I be involved in the Happiness Santa Fe launch on Saturday? I notice from your site that an in-depth survey is part of the festivities. One planned addition to WHM is a survey in order to gather data worldwide to save the need for boots on the ground.

Ron

--
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com
The World Happiness Meter

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Roger,

Righto! We launch "Happiness Santa Fe" on Saturday ( go to our website, the Center for Emergent Diplomacy, or just go to Happiness Santa Fe for a calendar of events). We've had many recent conversations about how to encourage conditions for a shift in our mental models from consumerism and inequality toward compassion and generosity.

When I teach Complexity at Upaya in the Buddhist chaplaincy program I usually suggest that compassion is an emergent property of the biggest system of all--our brains. So I say, hey guys, just meditate more! We have hard neuroscience on how that works. But how do we change the initial conditions for a collective response? Perhaps one way is to measure human happiness and well-being differently by expanding GDP to include ecological and social indicators as the Bhutanese have been trying to do for decades. We tend to value what we measure.

You know, dear Roger, that I follow the research carefully. Thanks for this link. You guys study--we act and put it on the ground!!

Merle

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

There's an intriguing book review in Science this week:

Studying Human Behavior How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality by Helen E. Longino University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2013. 261 pp. S75. ISBN 9780226492872. Paper, $25, £16. ISBN 9780226492889.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6129/146.1.full?rss=1

The claim is that there is not and will not be a dominant paradigm for researching human behavior, there are multiple ways of establishing causes for behavior and that's just the way it is.

So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of organization, but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to different disciplines of study which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science.

So, what's scientific evidence now?

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
[hidden email]
mobile: <a href="tel:%28303%29%20859-5609" value="+13038595609" target="_blank">(303) 859-5609
skype: merlelefkoff

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: pluralism in science

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

A philosopher of science is somebody who studies the logic of science, in the broadest sense of “logic”. Like anything else in philosophy, it can either be normative or descriptive: i.e., an attempt to discover what scientists should do, or what in fact they do. Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:31 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science

This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

There's an intriguing book review in Science this week:

Studying Human Behavior How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality by Helen E. Longino University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2013. 261 pp. S75. ISBN 9780226492872. Paper, $25, £16. ISBN 9780226492889.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6129/146.1.full?rss=1

The claim is that there is not and will not be a dominant paradigm for researching human behavior, there are multiple ways of establishing causes for behavior and that's just the way it is.

So, what's scientific evidence now?

-- rec --

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile

Nick Thompson

Re: pluralism in science

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve,

Why presuppose that the question is anything but a question?

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science

Doug -

This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question.

Straight out of Wikipedia (for convenience, not because it is necessarily an infallible authority):

The philosophy of science is concerned with all the assumptions, foundations, methods, implications of science, and with the use and merit of science. This discipline sometimes overlaps metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, viz., when it explores whether scientific results comprise a study of truth.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.^[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.^[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: pluralism in science

I've made him gun-shy, Nick.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve,

Why presuppose that the question is anything but a question?

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:39 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science

Doug -
This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question.

Straight out of Wikipedia (for convenience, not because it is necessarily an infallible authority):
The philosophy of science is concerned with all the assumptions, foundations, methods, implications of science, and with the use and merit of science. This discipline sometimes overlaps metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, viz., when it explores whether scientific results comprise a study of truth.

I know you call this a serious question, but I think it might be argumentative, restating your declaration/assumption that philosophy has no value, at least not in the context of science? I think you are using a fallacious definition of the term philosophy perhaps.

Also out of Wikipedia (same caveats):
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.^[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.^[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".

I know you well enough to believe that if you accept these definitions (of philosophy and philosophy of science) that you would acknowledge the value of both. Can you confirm or deny that apprehension? I suspect your suspicion of the terms/fields and their utility is based on a different understanding of the term(s). I suspect you use the term "philosophy" roughly in the same way I use the term "wanking".

I will acknowledge that many with limited or no formal training in science will resort to all sorts of specious rhetoric or sophistry to make claims about reality. However, I would claim that a similar number of us (you in this case?) use the term "Philosophy" roughly to describe the very same *small subset* of discourse/thinking.

Philosophy in general and philosophy of science in particular frame the relevance of science and it's limits. Many of the tools of science (mathematics, logic, formal reasoning) are not *part of Science*. Perhaps you use the term "philosophy" to mean all parts of philosophy that are NOT directly relevant to science (e.g. theology for sure, epistomology maybe, aesthetics probably, non-physical cosmology, ... etc.) perhaps you use "science" to describe science itself plus all of the parts of philosophy of direct relevance (physical cosmology, logic, mathematics, and possibly parts of language, epistimology, ontology and metaphysics). This use of "science" would then of course be tautological.

I'm sure there are others here more well educated in Philosophy than I. I'm sure I have made at least a few mis-statements or mis-implications in this shoot-from-the hip response.

I also think there are bigger implications to the discussion about Science vs Philosophy. Tory has brought up some of the issues of "Philosophy as studied/presented by the white male patriarchy" which opens own issues and I suspect some of our other more non-Western-leaning members (Dave Wade, Carl Tollander, Rich Murray, Sarbajit Roy, ???) may have *yet another* perspective to add.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile

Steve Smith

Re: pluralism in science

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Doug -

> what benefits does a Philosopher of Science provide.

My simple answer would be "context" ?

Fish don't need to have a formal understanding of water, nor birds a formal understanding of air, and one might say that scientific practitioners needn't have a formal understanding of theories of (scientific) knowledge to navigate and exist effectively in the very milieu that they are entirely dependent upon.

Using your definition, a philosopher of "one who thinks deeply about Science". One can seek answers to scientific questions without any resort to the philosophy of science I suppose, but I am not sure one can form scientific questions without at least an implicit understanding of the nature and limits of scientific inquiry and knowledge. It is fair to ask whether the two are separated *in practice* , I would say that in *good science*, both are practiced in tandem.

I suppose *some* scientists do not think deeply *about* the context of their work, the limits of their practice, knowledge or even it's applicability. That is to say, they do not practice the philosophy of science, although they do depend heavily on the fact that others *have* done so quite elaborately. This is what a factory model of "education" all the way through Doctoral programs can give you.

I suspect George Smoot does "think deeply about scientific knowledge and processes", or at least cosmology. I met him when I was at LBL and he actually reminded me a bit of you (in appearance). As a cosmologist, the very fundamental questions he is pursuing are defined *by* physical cosmology which is part of the philosophy of science. The Copernican Principle that the earth does not represent a special or unique place in the cosmos is an example of scientific philosophy... (un)surprisingly, it was generally assumed by all (many, most?) that celestial objects were qualitatively different from earthly ones. Copernicus *used* scientific methods to demonstrate the principle, but to even contrive the question in the first place was *outside* of science. Many points of scientific philosophy seem "obvious in hindsight" but I contend are anything *but* until they have been discovered, recognized, mulled over, argued, considered, debated, etc.

A lot of our discussion here about evidence is an epistimological question (the nature of knowledge), not a scientific one. It has incredible, direct application in the practice of science, but "thinking deeply about important things like 'what constitutes evidence'" is not science itself.

As for Computer Science? A huge amount of what we *call* Computer Science is at best Computer Engineering, or Computer Technology or often applications of Logic and Mathematics. There are professors of Computer Science here who can answer that question better than I, I am sure.

I measure you as a "Logical Positivist" or "Logical Empiricist" in practice and you probably hold no difference between your practice and your principles (one of the six contradictory if not impossible things *I* believe each morning religiously before during and *after* breakfast).

Logical positivism or logical empiricism are variants of neopositivism that embraced verificationism, a theory of knowledge combining strong empiricism—basing all knowledge on sensory experience—with mathematical logic and linguistics so that scientific statements could be conclusively proved false or true.

Many members of the Vienna Circle, (whence logical positivism arose) were more well known for the mathematics (Bergman, von Mises, etc.) and/or scientific (Mach (posthumeously), Schlick) contributions than their philosophical ones, but it was at it's heart a philosophical society, studying (developing) primarily the philosophy of science. The Berlin circle, less well known but peers with the Vienna folks, included the likes of David Hilbert.

My experience is that most (contemporary, casual?) neopositivists (toward which I lean strongly myself) tend to believe that their way of viewing the world is self-evident, unequivocal, and not really in need of further discussion.   I, of course, am willing to discuss anything at any length (aka Dog With Bone and Beat the Dead Horse Slowly patterns).

I haven't quite sorted Glen out, but I think he only plays neopositivist while riding his motorcycle on loose or otherwise slick surfaces, and the rest of the time has a somewhat less physicalist-centric view of life, the universe and everything?

I suspect that Rich, for example, is far from being a neopositivist. I *think* neopositivists are materialists (or more generally physicalists) and I am pretty sure that Rich admits to phenomena that we can experience which are NOT rooted in material or physical sources (e.g. psi, morphic fields, etc.).   In fact, I think this is the core of the TED uproar... Sheldrake, et al.

As a philosopher (using your definition) I am pretty weak... I tend to think broadly (rather than deeply) about random, sometimes remunerable or entertaining, but rarely fundamenatally important stuff.   My engagement in science is equally weak... I tend much more toward engineer or more to the point, semi-skilled hacker. My hypothesis generation and testing ends up looking more like "cut and try" and I am of the "measure thrice, cut twice" school of carpentry. I keep a 2x4 stretcher handy and use it often. I don't think much about lambda calculus or closures when I program. I do understand algorithmic complexity and often do even analyze my algorithms for it but usually only after I realize I have a problem.

oh yeah... P&L and 2012 tax liabilities.. April 15, bah!
- Steve

Relying to Steve & Roger:

No, for once I was not being argumentative, it was the "of science" part I was questioning. As compared, say, to a philosopher of religion, or morality, or human psychology. Continuing to use our favorite reference source, Wikipedia gives this definition for "Philosopher" (which, as it turns out, does not really differ substantively from mine):

A philosopher is a person with an extensive knowledge of philosophy who uses this knowledge in their work, typically to solve philosophical problems. Philosophy is concerned with studying the subject matter of fields such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, as well as social philosophy and political philosophy.

My definition of philosopher, btw, is "One who thinks deeply about important stuff."

Back to the original question, what benefits does a Philosopher of Science provide. Does he aid people like, say, George Smoot (Noble Prize in Physics, 2006) do cosmology better? Or, does he help a computer scientist develop better code or systems designs?

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of organization,

>> but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to different disciplines of study

>> which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science.

This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question.

The author of the book is a faculty member at Stanford University who identifies as a philosopher of science. She wrote a book. She presumably teaches classes, writes scholarly articles, and reviews the writings of other scholars.

She identifies the different ways of studying human behavior as equally "scientific", while the popular science literature, the grant competition process, and the disciplines themselves tend to treat the alternatives as mutually exclusive possible truths, in a conflict from which one shall emerge triumphant.

So which question is the serious one? Taken together, you are expressing skepticism of philosophy by asking a question about values. That is as close to the origins of western philosophy as you can get without directly quoting Socrates.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: pluralism in science

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

Roger,

I guess my hackles went up a bit at the notion that something gets to be scientific based on the judgment of a philosopher of science. Most of the philosci I have read has been based on trying to get at the essence of what scientists do when they are successful.

Every scientist gets taught a lot of philosophy of science in their introductory courses … the particular scientific ideology that infuses their specialty. Much of this is harmless within the field, but turns out to be absolute junk when it is exported to other fields, as when psychologist have physics envy. There is a lot of this sort of ideology that floats around the table at FRIAM. There is something about having this sort of thing inflicted on one in graduate school that makes one want to inflict it on others. So one of the values of having a good philosopher of science around for is to undermine the assertions of specialists in one field or another, or of one school or another within a field, that there is one, and only one way, to do science. An example was Joshua Epstein’s assertion, some years back, that “Good theories don’t predict”, which apparently was gospel in the simulation crowd, and flaming nonsense elsewhere.

The other peril in all of this is the scientist who asserts that he has no philosophy … he just does good science.

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of organization,

>> but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to different disciplines of study

>> which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science.

This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question.

-- rec --

Steve Smith

Re: pluralism in science

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick -

Steve,

Why presuppose that the question is anything but a question?

Is this a rhetorical question? (begin recursion)

We *are* talking about Doug here, aren't we? <grin>.

Doug who attributes the clever use of "Big Bold Naivete" to yourself uses it himself in his own special version of the Socratic (the most famous western philosopher of all?) method. Admirals and directors of National Laboratories and Google Executives have been brought to their knees by his methods. What makes you think he can't bring all of FRIAM down as easily?

Oh... also, deliberately misunderstanding Doug provides me with a never ending opportunity to rattle on open ended about anything I feel like.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: pluralism in science

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Doug,

I guess I think that Wikipedia has failed you in this particular case.

Notice that the definition is …. Tautological …. . It merely repeats the definiendum in the definiens. See the current conversation between Glen and I about tautologies.

Basically, I think it’s fair to say, if it’s meta, it’s philosophy. The attempt to elucidate or justify the basic principles by which any discipline goes about its work would be philosophy.

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science

Relying to Steve & Roger:

A philosopher is a person with an extensive knowledge of philosophy who uses this knowledge in their work, typically to solve philosophical problems. Philosophy is concerned with studying the subject matter of fields such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, as well as social philosophy and political philosophy.

My definition of philosopher, btw, is "One who thinks deeply about important stuff."

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of organization,

>> but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to different disciplines of study

>> which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science.

This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question.

-- rec --

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile

Nick Thompson

Re: pluralism in science

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

S. I don’t think it makes sense to seal a person into prior positions. N

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science

Nick -

Steve,

Why presuppose that the question is anything but a question?

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: pluralism in science

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

The issue here is that we have a variety of ways of studying human behavior each of which claims to be good science done by good scientists.

One philosopher of science (Kuhn) says the study of human behavior is immature, when it's really good science it will settle on the correct method.

Another philosopher of science (Longino) says maybe there isn't a single correct method, maybe there are multiple correct methods.

The scientist says my method is the correct method! Fund me!

The popular science journalist writes it up as a horse race or prize fight or political campaign.

-- rec --

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Roger,

I guess my hackles went up a bit at the notion that something gets to be scientific based on the judgment of a philosopher of science. Most of the philosci I have read has been based on trying to get at the essence of what scientists do when they are successful.

Every scientist gets taught a lot of philosophy of science in their introductory courses … the particular scientific ideology that infuses their specialty. Much of this is harmless within the field, but turns out to be absolute junk when it is exported to other fields, as when psychologist have physics envy. There is a lot of this sort of ideology that floats around the table at FRIAM. There is something about having this sort of thing inflicted on one in graduate school that makes one want to inflict it on others. So one of the values of having a good philosopher of science around for is to undermine the assertions of specialists in one field or another, or of one school or another within a field, that there is one, and only one way, to do science. An example was Joshua Epstein’s assertion, some years back, that “Good theories don’t predict”, which apparently was gospel in the simulation crowd, and flaming nonsense elsewhere.

The other peril in all of this is the scientist who asserts that he has no philosophy … he just does good science.

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:40 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of organization,

>> but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to different disciplines of study

>> which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science.

This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question.

The author of the book is a faculty member at Stanford University who identifies as a philosopher of science. She wrote a book. She presumably teaches classes, writes scholarly articles, and reviews the writings of other scholars.

She identifies the different ways of studying human behavior as equally "scientific", while the popular science literature, the grant competition process, and the disciplines themselves tend to treat the alternatives as mutually exclusive possible truths, in a conflict from which one shall emerge triumphant.

So which question is the serious one? Taken together, you are expressing skepticism of philosophy by asking a question about values. That is as close to the origins of western philosophy as you can get without directly quoting Socrates.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: pluralism in science

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

N.
I agree, in all cases except for Doug's. (example of "for every rule there is an exception, including this rule").

For example... he always brings his lovely wife, good booze and good stories when he comes do dinner... and I'm holding him to all three.

Though I appreciate your holding out for the possibility that I will one day master the art of succinct responses.

.S

S. I don’t think it makes sense to seal a person into prior positions. N

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science

Nick -

Steve,

Why presuppose that the question is anything but a question?

Is this a rhetorical question? (begin recursion)

We *are* talking about Doug here, aren't we? <grin>.

Doug who attributes the clever use of "Big Bold Naivete" to yourself uses it himself in his own special version of the Socratic (the most famous western philosopher of all?) method. Admirals and directors of National Laboratories and Google Executives have been brought to their knees by his methods. What makes you think he can't bring all of FRIAM down as easily?

Oh... also, deliberately misunderstanding Doug provides me with a never ending opportunity to rattle on open ended about anything I feel like.

- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: pluralism in science

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

The Village Pragmatist believes that in time, perhaps an extremely long time, that scientists will converge on the right method, just as they will converge on the final opinion and that, by definition, will be the Truth. (Glen – that would be a tautology)

But I think, also, that the Village Pragmatist might question the notion of a single right method for a field as diverse as psychology. Method for doing what? The VP would ask. What is it that we are hoping to do with our method?

On Peirce’s account, knowledge is about self control … really, about the control of the environment that is impinging on us. When we do this, what comes back at us? If I want that to happen, what do I do? So, scientists will converge on is a particular relation between how the environment will respond when we poke it in a particular way and any conception that stands for that relation ….. like the periodic table, for instance.

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science

The issue here is that we have a variety of ways of studying human behavior each of which claims to be good science done by good scientists.

One philosopher of science (Kuhn) says the study of human behavior is immature, when it's really good science it will settle on the correct method.

Another philosopher of science (Longino) says maybe there isn't a single correct method, maybe there are multiple correct methods.

The scientist says my method is the correct method! Fund me!

The popular science journalist writes it up as a horse race or prize fight or political campaign.

-- rec --

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Roger,

The other peril in all of this is the scientist who asserts that he has no philosophy … he just does good science.

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:40 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of organization,

>> but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to different disciplines of study

>> which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science.

This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question.

-- rec --

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: pluralism in science

Well, Nick, as long as you are talking along evolutionary time scales, eventually we will all be able to tell right from wrong as well.

My recommendation is to not hold your breath on this, though.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

The Village Pragmatist believes that in time, perhaps an extremely long time, that scientists will converge on the right method, just as they will converge on the final opinion and that, by definition, will be the Truth. (Glen – that would be a tautology)

But I think, also, that the Village Pragmatist might question the notion of a single right method for a field as diverse as psychology. Method for doing what? The VP would ask. What is it that we are hoping to do with our method?

On Peirce’s account, knowledge is about self control … really, about the control of the environment that is impinging on us. When we do this, what comes back at us? If I want that to happen, what do I do? So, scientists will converge on is a particular relation between how the environment will respond when we poke it in a particular way and any conception that stands for that relation ….. like the periodic table, for instance.

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:42 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science

The issue here is that we have a variety of ways of studying human behavior each of which claims to be good science done by good scientists.

One philosopher of science (Kuhn) says the study of human behavior is immature, when it's really good science it will settle on the correct method.

Another philosopher of science (Longino) says maybe there isn't a single correct method, maybe there are multiple correct methods.

The scientist says my method is the correct method! Fund me!

The popular science journalist writes it up as a horse race or prize fight or political campaign.

-- rec --

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Roger,

I guess my hackles went up a bit at the notion that something gets to be scientific based on the judgment of a philosopher of science. Most of the philosci I have read has been based on trying to get at the essence of what scientists do when they are successful.

Every scientist gets taught a lot of philosophy of science in their introductory courses … the particular scientific ideology that infuses their specialty. Much of this is harmless within the field, but turns out to be absolute junk when it is exported to other fields, as when psychologist have physics envy. There is a lot of this sort of ideology that floats around the table at FRIAM. There is something about having this sort of thing inflicted on one in graduate school that makes one want to inflict it on others. So one of the values of having a good philosopher of science around for is to undermine the assertions of specialists in one field or another, or of one school or another within a field, that there is one, and only one way, to do science. An example was Joshua Epstein’s assertion, some years back, that “Good theories don’t predict”, which apparently was gospel in the simulation crowd, and flaming nonsense elsewhere.

The other peril in all of this is the scientist who asserts that he has no philosophy … he just does good science.

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:40 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of organization,

>> but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to different disciplines of study

>> which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science.

This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question.

The author of the book is a faculty member at Stanford University who identifies as a philosopher of science. She wrote a book. She presumably teaches classes, writes scholarly articles, and reviews the writings of other scholars.

She identifies the different ways of studying human behavior as equally "scientific", while the popular science literature, the grant competition process, and the disciplines themselves tend to treat the alternatives as mutually exclusive possible truths, in a conflict from which one shall emerge triumphant.

So which question is the serious one? Taken together, you are expressing skepticism of philosophy by asking a question about values. That is as close to the origins of western philosophy as you can get without directly quoting Socrates.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile

Russell Standish-2

Re: pluralism in science

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:30:44PM -0600, Douglas Roberts wrote:
> This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor
> me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide?
> Serious question.
>

About as much value as ornithologists provide to birds, I expect. (Channeling
Dick Feynmann here...).

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email]
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

123