Posted by
gepr on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Fwd-Complejidad-en-economia-tp7587092p7587196.html
Great answer! However, it passes the buck to a new question. You seem to be implying that the only things that are "scientifically meaningful" are the things that _construct_ science. John's game doesn't (necessarily) involve the construction of scientific meaning. I read it purely as _applied science_ ... the usage of scientific knowledge previously constructed. Hence, for me, all those observations are (1) scientifically meaningful.
To boot, if the system were instrumented, this new datum could be added to the siblings, making it a repetition of previous experiments. So, had John laid that out explicitly, then this would be a candidate for the construction of scientific knowledge. (He did _imply_ it by mentioning things like blood pressure, which is difficult to judge without instrumentation.
The new question is: Is using scientific knowledge fundamentally distinct from building scientific knowledge? But more related to Russ' intentions for the thread, the question becomes "How much intra-organism hysteresis can our scientific methods handle?" Or, the dual question: To what extent can we deal with inter-individual variation? It's this topic, as a whole, and this last question, in particular, that force me to argue that medicine is not science. It's engineering ... aka applied science.
On 02/29/2016 10:44 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> I don't think yours is a well formed question. All observations are
> scientific, if they are in principle repeatable. Now, here we strike the
> first problem because in point of fact, no observation is repeatable. (We
> never step in the same stream twice, etc.) So, the only way we can
> actually approach a question scientifically is raise the question to a level
> of abstraction where repeatability is a possibility. So, if we are asking,
> "What are humans doing when they lose their ways on country roads, consult
> maps, and then find their ways again, . What is going on? Well, the
> circumstances make it difficult to design an observational program (lurk by
> detours in country roads with binoculars?) or an experiment (put people in
> instrumented cars and then randomly switch the road signs around?).
>
> So, scientists abstract the problem the problem even further.
>[...]
> subject's activities when he actually has the objects in hand. But notice
> that this is a question about the brain's activities and the subject's
> activities, and "the mind" has dropped out of the equation.
>
> I have to go. Best I could do on short notice. I think perhaps the most
> interesting thing I have said here is, "No singular observation is ever
> scientific; to be scientific, all observations have to be part of an
> experimental program concerning an abstraction." I wonder if I believe it.
--
⇔ glen
============================================================
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
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen