Hi, Glen,
See larding below:
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 2:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?)
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.
[NST==>Glen. I started to write a long cranky note, claiming to disagree with this, but then I realized that I didn’t understand it. Unless, you are arguing … is this it? … that we can use a scientific abstraction to interpret an observation which we could not use to construct a scientific abstraction. <==nst] I don’t think that is what John had in mind, but we will have to see. I
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.
[NST==>Well we would need experimental or observational “control”, right? That’s how one observation becomes a sibling to another. <==nst]
The new question is: Is using scientific knowledge fundamentally distinct from building scientific knowledge?
[NST==>Mmmmmmm! That IS a question. <==nst]
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
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |