By definition science isn't applied. Whether or not new scientific results have application is a different question.
My claim is that understanding the underlying mechanisms of emergence is a scientific question in the same way that understanding the underlying mechanisms of what makes some substances elements and other compounds is a scientific question. Certainly there are applications of that knowledge. But the knowledge itself is simply science. How can it be disappointing if the answer to "what is emergence?" also turns out to be new scientific knowledge? I would find it disappointing if it turns out to be anything else, One of the possibilities for "anything else" is that emergence is something that occurs (only) in our heads and has nothing to do with the observed phenomena themselves. That's the emergence-is-ontological vs. emergence-is-epistemological argument. My position is that emergence is ontological, i.e., that emergence reflects objective aspects of the nature and is not just a matter of how we look at things. -- Russ A On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Robert Holmes <rob...@holmesacosta.com>wrote: > Merely an expression of a personal preference: if "there is no point" is > true, it tells me that emergence is and can only ever be pure science. As a > practitioner, I prefer my science applied -- R > > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Robert, Why do you hope my answer is not true? >> >> -- Russ A >> >>
============================================================ 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
