Hi, Glen,
See larding below: Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 2:15 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?) Great answer! However, it passes the buck to a new question. You seem to be implying that the only things that are "scientifically meaningful" are the things that _construct_ science. John's game doesn't (necessarily) involve the construction of scientific meaning. I read it purely as _applied science_ ... the usage of scientific knowledge previously constructed. Hence, for me, all those observations are (1) scientifically meaningful. [NST==>Glen. I started to write a long cranky note, claiming to disagree with this, but then I realized that I didn’t understand it. Unless, you are arguing … is this it? … that we can use a scientific abstraction to interpret an observation which we could not use to construct a scientific abstraction. <==nst] I don’t think that is what John had in mind, but we will have to see. I To boot, if the system were instrumented, this new datum could be added to the siblings, making it a repetition of previous experiments. So, had John laid that out explicitly, then this would be a candidate for the construction of scientific knowledge. (He did _imply_ it by mentioning things like blood pressure, which is difficult to judge without instrumentation. [NST==>Well we would need experimental or observational “control”, right? That’s how one observation becomes a sibling to another. <==nst] The new question is: Is using scientific knowledge fundamentally distinct from building scientific knowledge? [NST==>Mmmmmmm! That IS a question. <==nst] But more related to Russ' intentions for the thread, the question becomes "How much intra-organism hysteresis can our scientific methods handle?" Or, the dual question: To what extent can we deal with inter-individual variation? It's this topic, as a whole, and this last question, in particular, that force me to argue that medicine is not science. It's engineering ... aka applied science. On 02/29/2016 10:44 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > I don't think yours is a well formed question. All observations are > scientific, if they are in principle repeatable. Now, here we strike > the first problem because in point of fact, no observation is repeatable. > (We > never step in the same stream twice, etc.) So, the only way we can > actually approach a question scientifically is raise the question to a > level of abstraction where repeatability is a possibility. So, if we > are asking, "What are humans doing when they lose their ways on country > roads, consult > maps, and then find their ways again, . What is going on? Well, the > circumstances make it difficult to design an observational program > (lurk by detours in country roads with binoculars?) or an experiment > (put people in instrumented cars and then randomly switch the road signs > around?). > > So, scientists abstract the problem the problem even further. >[...] > subject's activities when he actually has the objects in hand. But >notice that this is a question about the brain's activities and the >subject's activities, and "the mind" has dropped out of the equation. > > I have to go. Best I could do on short notice. I think perhaps the > most interesting thing I have said here is, "No singular observation > is ever scientific; to be scientific, all observations have to be part > of an experimental program concerning an abstraction." I wonder if I believe > it. -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ 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> 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
