http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-comm-was-Re-FW-Re-Emergence-Seminar-BritishEmergence-tp3654051p3666492.html
like .. and we posted the first chapter earlier). I'm not moved by
the first chapter. 23 more to go.
I find myself puzzled by the philosophic approach .. at least until it
problem. See:
great questions. A distortion, I realize, but at least functional/
> ...
>>
>> 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.orgMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College