Doug,
Right! And that is what is creepy about Peirce's metaphysics. But anybody who does metaphysics ends up with a black eye. And if you remember where he got his faith in science it was watching chemists figure out the periodic table. Eventually they converged. And while we never can be sure that what they converged on won't come completely apart next Thursday, that convergence is the best we got. Remember, the Village Pragmatist is a "fallibilist". He knows that some of the things he believes, even some of those he believes with a lot of confidence, are bound to be wrong. It's the only metaphysics worth having. N Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:01 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science Well, Nick, as long as you are talking along evolutionary time scales, eventually we will all be able to tell right from wrong as well. My recommendation is to not hold your breath on this, though. --Doug On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Nicholas Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: The Village Pragmatist believes that in time, perhaps an extremely long time, that scientists will converge on the right method, just as they will converge on the final opinion and that, by definition, will be the Truth. (Glen - that would be a tautology) But I think, also, that the Village Pragmatist might question the notion of a single right method for a field as diverse as psychology. Method for doing what? The VP would ask. What is it that we are hoping to do with our method? On Peirce's account, knowledge is about self control . really, about the control of the environment that is impinging on us. When we do this, what comes back at us? If I want that to happen, what do I do? So, scientists will converge on is a particular relation between how the environment will respond when we poke it in a particular way and any conception that stands for that relation ... like the periodic table, for instance. Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:42 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science The issue here is that we have a variety of ways of studying human behavior each of which claims to be good science done by good scientists. One philosopher of science (Kuhn) says the study of human behavior is immature, when it's really good science it will settle on the correct method. Another philosopher of science (Longino) says maybe there isn't a single correct method, maybe there are multiple correct methods. The scientist says my method is the correct method! Fund me! The popular science journalist writes it up as a horse race or prize fight or political campaign. -- rec -- On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Nicholas Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: Roger, I guess my hackles went up a bit at the notion that something gets to be scientific based on the judgment of a philosopher of science. Most of the philosci I have read has been based on trying to get at the essence of what scientists do when they are successful. Every scientist gets taught a lot of philosophy of science in their introductory courses . the particular scientific ideology that infuses their specialty. Much of this is harmless within the field, but turns out to be absolute junk when it is exported to other fields, as when psychologist have physics envy. There is a lot of this sort of ideology that floats around the table at FRIAM. There is something about having this sort of thing inflicted on one in graduate school that makes one want to inflict it on others. So one of the values of having a good philosopher of science around for is to undermine the assertions of specialists in one field or another, or of one school or another within a field, that there is one, and only one way, to do science. An example was Joshua Epstein's assertion, some years back, that "Good theories don't predict", which apparently was gospel in the simulation crowd, and flaming nonsense elsewhere. The other peril in all of this is the scientist who asserts that he has no philosophy . he just does good science. Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:40 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] pluralism in science On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Douglas Roberts <d...@parrot-farm.net> wrote: >> So not only do phenomena worth studying emerge at different levels of organization, >> but the emerging phenomena at a level of organization are amenable to different disciplines of study >> which may all be judged "scientific" by a philosopher of science. This phrase struck me, and this will sound like a dumb question, but humor me: What is a philosopher of science? And what value do they provide? Serious question. The author of the book is a faculty member at Stanford University who identifies as a philosopher of science. She wrote a book. She presumably teaches classes, writes scholarly articles, and reviews the writings of other scholars. She identifies the different ways of studying human behavior as equally "scientific", while the popular science literature, the grant competition process, and the disciplines themselves tend to treat the alternatives as mutually exclusive possible truths, in a conflict from which one shall emerge triumphant. So which question is the serious one? Taken together, you are expressing skepticism of philosophy by asking a question about values. That is as close to the origins of western philosophy as you can get without directly quoting Socrates. -- rec -- ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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 -- Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile
============================================================ 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
