What is Language?
What is Science?
What is Engineering?
What is Metaphysics?
It seems that Glen is confronting us to sort these out a bit
more/differently than usual. I find your (Glen) presentation of these
concepts idiosyncratic but generally to good effect. I almost always
flinch and want to disagree at your first sentences, but by the end of
the paragraph or post, I usually appreciate the point you are making or
position you are taking. It almost always provides parallax and
sometimes clarification.
*Language:*
I *think* you (Glen) made the point that what *most of us* call language
would be the spoken/written tip of the proverbial iceberg, and that you
would claim that language is much more than that. I think using the
notion of "pointing at" only barely opens the can of language worms by
essentially coining "nouns" or "subject" and/or "object" symbols.
While I think that your definition of language is probably a good
motivation for the kernel or core of language or maybe only "proto"
language. I don't know that the ability to name things sufficiently
covers the span of language, but it is a "good start".
I defer to Bohm's Rheomode on what might perhaps be the next step in
complexity, perhaps that of defining (only symmetric?) relations
(predicates) between what we conventionally call Subject/Object. The
non-dualists here (of which Rich is the only hard-core one I have seen
self-identify, though I think Tory might accept that same term?) would
probably want our elaboration of "language" to stop at that point... and
not allow for the differentiation between subject and object... I'm
unclear on whether dualism is a valuable tool or an illusion or if I'm
thinking like Glen, maybe both?
/Sidenote.../
It seems to me that classical procedural programmers
would prefer the modern definition of "predicate" while the OO
programmers would prefer the more classical (where the
grammarial object is part of the predicate, but the OO Object is
the grammarial subject)? Seems like Glen/Marcus and a few others
might have an opinion/observation on this little sidenote...
*Science:*
I think you (again Glen) are saying that the core of science is the
Scientific Method? I agree that without the act (including the will,
the means and the ability?) to test hypotheses, I'm not sure what we
would have... possibly magick or alchemy? Possibly less than that.
I also accept your contention that much of what we call Science is
Metaphysics. I also share Glen's appreciation of metaphysics as a
context-provider for science itself.
*Engineering*:
A great deal of the *rest* of what we call Science is instead
Engineering. I'd contend that most of what passes for experimental
science is *engineering* in the sense that it is about constructing and
crafting various apparatti to establish a controlled context for testing
an hypothesis. The generation of the hypothesis (aside from the
intrinsic iterative nature of science) is outside of this engineering,
as is the interpretation of the results.
/In summary/...
We discuss (here and many other places) the role of Science without
distinction between what is Metaphysics, what is Mathematics, and what
is and what is Engineering. For the most part that is not a problem, as
we all share a common vernacular use of the term "Science" to roughly
mean "all things which touch Science". Medicine (a great deal of
Engineering/Technology and Social Practice) we tend to call Science.
Anything involving technology we tend to refer to as Science. And
anything requiring (or benefitting from?) Mathematics we tend to want to
refer to as Science.
I think this is not that interesting of a question... in Nick's terms I
think all that might be wanted here is some *local* (within this
community?) convergence on the use of the terms: "Science, Engineering,
Mathematics, Metaphysics". I think this has all been settled long ago
and all we are asking for between each other is some "you know what I
meant" class of understanding.
As for Language... I think *this* is a more interesting question of
which the former question(s) are strongly influenced.
Just my $US.02 (e.g. adjust downward in other currencies)
- Steve
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:19 AM:
The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out
what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that
knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would
you say it differently?
Yes. Science is the set of behaviors we use to refine our behaviors for
future behaving. Engineering is the set of behaviors we use to
(semi)permanently modify our surroundings.
Science is a process of self-modification, where the self is us, not
just me. Engineering is a process of other-modification.
Hence, medicine is in an interesting position. It's a little bit
science and a little bit engineering. Unfortunately, it's approached as
purely engineering.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote:
There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to
manipulate the world.
I disagree. I'd say that something like 90% of today's science is
something any individual can use to manipulate the world. The trick is
that you have to think scientifically. How can you _test_ E=MC^2? Most
people don't even think about how they might actually test that, because
they're _programmed_ to think it's some high-falutin' idea that they
can't use.
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:26 AM:
Is it possible to express knowledge without language? Doesn't
any expression of knowledge imply a language?
As I said before, the question boils down to the definition of language.
Is it "expressing knowledge" to, without writing or talking, bake a cake
while another person watches?
============================================================
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
