Of course one of the many problems with (and perhaps benefits of)
human languages is that they are incredibly imprecise and flexible.
Obviously Russ A has at least a slightly different definition of
science than that of Robert. We could debate the merits of each
definition in our own particular world views, but that would take us
down the same rat hole that we've witnessed lately with regards to
emergence. According to my trusty OS X dictionary, science is "the
intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study
of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world
through observation and experiment" (pretty much matches what I've
usually seen as its definition). I've always considered science to be
a way of approaching problem solving, i.e. "the scientific method"
encompassed by the above definition. The method can be used regardless
of one's motive of using it, e.g. greater understanding of some
phenomenon in order to solve some "practical" problem, or greater
understanding for the simple motivation of wanting to increase the
extent of "human understanding."
;; Gary
On Oct 11, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
By definition science isn't applied. Whether or not new scientific
results have application is a different question. [...]
-- 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
============================================================
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
