Dear Loet,
On 17 Feb 2014, at 21:32, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
Dear Joseph,
The "energetic" terms are external referents to the communication
(scholarly discourse). These external referents can differently be
codified; for example, in terms of thermodynamics or various forms
of physics (e
Joseph, Loet --
I like to distinguish The (supposed ontological) World, which I refer to as
'actuality', from 'reality', our logical/scientific model of actuality.
As I see it, Loet would be concerned with a version of reality, but ignores
the possibility of actuality, while Joseph ignores the di
Dear John and Joseph,
Let me use my second option this week to side with you against those who
wish to replace substantive theorizing with modelling. The issue is, in my
opinion, *which* hypotheses one needs and can elaborate when developing
discursive knowledge (e.g., in physics or sociology).
T
I would concur completely with what Joseph says here. I have never
understood the tendency to replace the world with models of it when we
can interact directly with the world in a brute, unmediated way: it can
really surprise us sometimes, no matter how sophisticated our models.
Those familiar wi
Dear Loet and Colleagues,
In this most interesting comment by Loet, there is a fascinating inversion of
roles! Laplace told Louis XV that "I don't need the hypothesis of God",
something, let us say, rather abstract compared to the solar system. Loet is
telling us, however, that what he does not
