Hi Glen, You did an admirable job of trying to be reasonable. Sarbajit may sound edgy but in large part he is essentially pointing to something substantive. He may embellish and inflame but nevertheless your response indicates your own awareness of the same issues.
What disturbs me is that both of you appear to be idealists. You are protecting ideals and seem prepared to tolerate some level of corruption. Sarbajit feels betrayed and wishes to condemn all that is tainted. While both of you are distracted the corruption continues undiminished. The corruption has been there since the very beginning and it is impossible for an ideal system to be constructed that is immune to corruption. I have been much possessed by the nature of corruptible systems. I have a very uncomfortable suspicion that any system capable of evolution is corruptible and in fact evolution is simply corruption, the positive or negative attributes are simply the consequence of observer perspective. The notion is uncomfortable, and perhaps demonstrable with computer simulations. I propose that all complex systems are corruptible and in fact it is a property of all systems capable of evolving. No doubt some one else has already reached the same conclusion so it is not my idea. If as some would suggest, all complex systems are broken and can function with damaged subsystems, that then implies that corruption is a tolerable defect and occasionally beneficial. As Sarbajit has pointed out, the system has more than a Single Point of Failure SPOF. And that the identification of SPOF's has inevitably failed to contend with systemic flaws. In fact focusing on SPOF's may actually create more in a perverse feed back loop. A classic example was the discovery that the only way to keep Spitfire pilots alive in air battles was to get rid of the armour. It gave them speed and added enormous fear to the pilot's performances. Today such a solution seems absolutely politically incorrect. Every incremental increase of armour had led to more deaths. Science has always been at the mercy of the rich and powerful. Quoting my Brother, "We are all just mercenaries building Pyramids to inflate the ego's of the pharaohs.If we weren't good at it they would dispose of us next time the Crown changes Hands" Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax vbur...@shaw.ca -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: March 31, 2010 1:37 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] holism vs. reductionism, again You make some interesting points; but they're phrased in a way that makes it difficult to respond. I'll just tick off a few things I think stand out. I don't think it's very easy to justify the assertion that any given biological system is non-computable. It seems to me that such a justification would have to be a _demonstration_ that something was non-computable. And based on the way computability is defined, such a demonstration would consist of showing that the system was definitely beyond the capabilities of a universal turing machine. Hence, determining which biological systems are computable and which are not doesn't seem like a simple task to me. Similarly, determining which parts of the data/info glut contributors will lead to the next leap of insight and which parts are just noise or trivial doesn't seem so simple to me, either. So, it seems to me that you're throwing the term "pseudo-science" around a little too loosely. Granted, there is a lot of pseudo-science out there. And it can be difficult to tell the difference because, invariably, one has to wade into the jargon and do a non-trivial amount of research to differentiate. And none of us has the time to do such delving into every discipline. And that's why we rely on social networks and reputation, perhaps too much at times. But it's working so far! In fact, I would assert that the rather mystical statements you make in your bullets (3) and (4) can be (somewhat) defended from a scientific perspective NOW; but that only a few hundred years ago, those statements could only come from mystics and the religious. No scientist would stake his reputation on these sorts of metaphysical statements. But because these "pseudo-science reductionist" methods are _working_, we can begin to build the case that those very same methods, while satisficing, are not accurate enough to capture the vanishing point that is reality. Of course, this is just a restatement of critical rationalism. While we _know_ that our "pseudo-science reductionist" methods will ultimately be proven inadequate, we also know that they each take us a tiny step closer to the limit. And to get over Zeno's paradox, we sporadically construct theories that repackage all or most of what's come before to take us a huge leap forward. But we'll never get there. And we've known that for quite some time (at least since the early 1900s). So, it seems that your (4) is a well accepted position to me, even amongst many of the scientists fully engaged in what you're calling "pseudo-science reductionist" methods. The old saying comes to mind: It may not be perfect; but it's the best we have! sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-03-31 04:13 AM: > Confining ourselves within the scientific boundaries you have set <grin> > > 1) I see so many non-computable biological examples everywhere and everyday, > that I ponder on the politics, compulsions and funding of university > driven academia that > result in the exponential explosion of niche "pseudo-science"artificial > sub-disciplines (reductionist specialties) . > > 2) The data that emanates from such a pseudo-science-reductionist model > / approach is > usually self serving garbage reminiscent of many blind men feeling up > the proverbial elephant. > > 3) The "pictures" which emerge from such data, is just a 2D > infinitesmally thin perceptive "slice" of an infinitely complex > "reality". Perception being a creative process to approximate the > infinite universe and determine some "order" (there may actually be > none) in nature's chaos The action of measuring in itself being a > creative process involving classification, discrimination etc > > 4) Science for me would begin from the recognition that we can never, > ever, "know" everything We would progress from this to the acceptance > that all "methods" - mechanistic, reductionist, holistic, empirical .. > blah--blah .. are only slices from reality, and not necessarily > intersecting slices, and to be accorded the degree of recognition which > we ordinarily give to images. The way science "solves", an example would > be the Archimidean tortoise paradox, is to "skip" a slice of the > infinite progression. Hypothetical presumptions requiring variable data > (I mean data from variables), or vice-versa, is a dangerous combination. > > Now stepping out a little from your boundary. > > There are many religions (primitive sciences) which ban images or idols > as representative of God/nature. As an observationalist, I see that some > of them seem to be growing at exponential rates comparable to the > explosion of reductionist sub-disciplines. Sciences based on > non-formalism (I know this could sound weird at first) actually just > empower the few "great minds" rather than secularising scientific > advancement to the point where "anybody can cook" (many little fish > swimming in their virtual synthetic ponds). -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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
