Posted by
Steve Smith on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-comm-was-Re-FW-Re-Emergence-Seminar-BritishEmergence-tp3654051p3666374.html
...
I remember old-timers (heh, heh, heh) telling me stories
about the initial release of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific
Revolutions. My
understanding is that a reasonable percentage (say 5-15%) of scientists
simply
could not go about their business after reading Kuhn. This because the
book, on
some level, shattered their ability to believe what they were doing was
real.
Eric
I have heard anecdotes of the same result among Mathematicians when
Godel's Incompleteness theorem came out... up to that time, many
mathematicians were quite happy to spend their entire lives trying to
prove (or disprove) this or that with the conviction that this or that
actually could be proven (or disproven). But apparently, when faced
with the *proven* possibility that the problem they had dedicated thier
lives (or just a decade or two) to might not be amenable to
mathematical proof, some of them lost heart.
I was trained as a Mathematician and Physicist but never really
practiced as either, though the skills and perspectives of both
disciplines proved hugely useful. I personally remember the huge
seduction in Physics of believing that the things we might model and
test by experiment were *real*... that somehow because I could measure
a specific quantity to a certain degree of accuracy and that I could
set up a given set of conditions and with an uncanny degree of
predictability, specific phenomena could be observed, that this
*defined* an objective reality.
Until Maxwell, *Aether* was real... and not long before that
*Phlogiston* and the Absolutes of *Space and Time* didn't dissolve (at
least become Relative) until Einstein and even he rolled his eyes at
the accepted (God and his Dice) implications of Quantum Theory.
I'm not sure where to weigh in on the word game of whether "Reality"
has any meaning. Like the ultra-rational-villian character in The
Princess Bride who kept uttering "Inconceivable!" at every turn who was
finally corrected by his sidekick with "boss, I don't think that word
means what you think it means!"... I suspect that we (subtly?) misuse
the term "reality" all of the time.
I came to embrace this wonderful paradox in science... but it may be
another facet of my general "morbid fascination" with the human
condition:
Science offers the most obvious/best hope for measuring/defining an
objective reality, yet its very methods are defined to *not* ever be
able to yield conclusive, unquestionable, will-hold-forever,
cannot-be-questioned results. All scientific results are, by
definition, contingent.
Various other approaches to defining or apprehending "reality" do not
have this problem... they are quite capable of (seem to be defined
around) making unequivocal, conclusive statements that need never be
rescinded or revised. While they may reference factual observations
and logical chains of reasoning, they are not bound by them. Just
read any creationist or intelligent design literature and you will see
this odd split.
Mysticism and its variants (sadly, most commonly encountered in our
culture through "newage" or "westernized eastern philosophy") may offer
a useful complement to the variations of logical positivism associated
with western scientific thought, but I'm still at a loss to find the
bridge. There may be no bridge, but something more like a
juxtaposition or complex orbit.
Popular culture (in this era) seems quite enamored with mathematics,
science, etc... such things have become quite popular (perhaps nearly
as much as during the age of Enlightenment (at least among
gentlemen). But that does not mean that the average person actually
invests themselves in the scientific perspective beyond a superficial
level. They may want to associate themselves with it and enjoy the
fruits of its utility, but not engage in it's practice. I do not know
the numbers but most here recognize that they were in the minority in
grammar school and even in college... that only a small fraction of our
peers were interested in the disciplines of mathematics and science.
How many times have we heard "I don't do math" or "I'm not good at
Science">
We could, dismissively, say that "we the elite" were the few with the
intelligence and/or dedication to master these disciplines and all
others are merely lazy or stupid. Or we could acknowledge that there
might be something more fundamental going on. But I'm not sure what
that is. And I'm not sure this group is going to discuss it... because
it is somewhat confrontational to our own identities. We identify at
different levels with rational thought and objective reality... and it
is hard to contemplate anything that confronts these two very much. I
think the current squabble over the use of the term "reality" shows how
hard this is to think about.
I am forever thankful to Paul Feyerabend's work in the Philosophy of
Science (Scientific Anarchism) for providing the question of whether
or how Scientific Thought (and Method) can resolve itself with
Humanitarian perspectives and his questioning of some of the
self-serving mythos that Science applies to itself (see Against Method,
1975).
In direct confrontation to many of the personalities on this list (some
whom I consider personal friends), Feyerabend lamented the lack of
philosophical grounding of the new crop of post WWII Physicists
(including notably, Richard Feynman). I myself suffer from a
significant lack of such grounding, despite actually being interested
in and often in pursuit of the same. I appreciate those others on
this list who seem to share their own variations of this awareness,
starting with those who speak up against the collective but extending
to those who remain quiet in their reservations and questions.
The fact that like the iconic arcade game "Whack-a-Mole" , these
"philosophical questions" keep raising their unkempt heads on this list
gives me hope. I know it often feels like so much unnecessary noise,
but I think there are legitimate reasons that it doesn't go away.
While I cannot participate in most/many of the discussions (notably,
Nick's Emergence Salon) for practical reasons, I am very happy to be
within earshot of all the happy babble (I mean this fondly and
respectfully, not dismissively).
- Steve
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org