Re: "Science is about exploration not about consensus."

Edwina,

the only _problem_ I see with your
mentioning of Popper is that, as far as I
understood him, he is on the long run,
a realist, i.e. he thinks that there is a
final (!) possibility of matching _the truth_
(although asymptotically). This may be
considered as a residue of Western
metaphysics. In that case, and if we
take _evolution_ seriously (i.e. concerning
also the world and our conceptions of
it), then we have to do we different
possibilities of _world construction_
(not just of _constructing things_) and..
we are not alone doing this.
kind regards
Rafael

Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro, FH Stuttgart, Hochschule der Medien (HdM)
University of Applied Sciences, Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
E-Mail: capurro@hdm-stuttgart.de; capurro@hbi-stuttgart.de;
rafael@capurro.de
Tel. : +49 - 711 - 25 706 - 182
Universit�t Stuttgart, Institut f�r Philosophie, Dillmannstr. 15, 70049
Stuttgart, Germany
Private: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany. Tel.: +49 - 721 -
98 22 9 -22 (fax: -21)
Homepage in German/English/Spanish/French: www.capurro.de
ICIE (International Center for Information Ethics): http://icie.zkm.de
-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Edwina Taborsky <taborsky@primus.ca>
An: Multiple recipients of list FIS <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2001 20:32
Betreff: Re: "Science is about exploration not about consensus."

> In reply to Jerry Chandler: I repeat: The role of science is to
> explore not to seek consensus.
>
> In Popper's terms, it's called fallibility. In other terms it's called
> the inductive method, an activity that sets up a probable rather than
> a necessary conclusion, i.e., it permits non-normative actions to
> exist and even, to develop. To operate only within a deductive method
> is to promote dogma. In other terms, it's called the acceptance of
> doubt - Abelard's heresy of 'dubito', and furthermore, a doubt that
> is not individual (as it was with Descartes) but operative within the
> cosmos. In other terms, it's called an acceptance of freedom. And, an
> acceptance of evolution; an evolution that is continuous rather than
> finite.
> No- I don't accept that the material world is 'out there', in a finite
> mode, having finished evolution, and our lack of knowledge of it is
> due merely to our ignorance and that we will eventually, finish our
> explorations and all shed our ignorance and reach a consensus.
>
> I do feel that we, as a community, think within habits, within
> normative and community-based modes of belief. That is, there will be,
> for a time, various modes of consensus among the community. A variety
> of modes of consensus; I've never seen a universal consensus and would
> consider such a mindset quite dangerous in its fundamentalism. These
> various habits-of-thought must be pragmatic; they must really
> represent the external world rather than mystify it. But, these same
> habits can never be final; they must be open to critique and further
> exploration. Our habits-of-cognition, our axioms, are partly
> determined by our old habits (our consented-to beliefs) and partly by
> our new experiences...as our cosmos evolves. If we close our minds to
> new experiences and new hypotheses, then, we are living, albeit
> happily, in Plato's Cave.
>
> Oh- and that's valid for 'subscribers to this list who are:
> ..scientists and non-scientists. Thought processes aren't different
> within the disciplines.
>
> Edwina Taborsky
> 39 Jarvis St. #318
> Toronto, Ontario M5E 1Z5
> (416) 361.0898
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jlrchand@erols.com <jlrchand@pop.mail.rcn.net>
> To: Multiple recipients of list FIS <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:41 PM
> Subject: "Science is about exploration not about consensus."
>
>
> >
> > Edwinia writes:
> >
> > > Science is about
> > >exploration not about consensus.
> >
> > For subscribers to this list who are scientists, I ask that you
> > consider what this philosophy entails for your understanding of
> > science and the structures of science which have emerged from the
> > capacity of scientists to reach consensus.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > What are the roles for reproducibility in scientific
> experimentation?
> > What role does consistency play in the analysis of natural systems?
> > How do scientists create harmony between analysis and synthesis?
> > What are the roles of mathematics in describing and predicting the
> > behavior of complex systems?
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jerry LR Chandler
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Thu Dec 20 11:54:02 2001