Re: [Fis] (no subject)

Dear Soeren,

Of course, Soeren, you are not "wrong." You are informed differently and
therefore entertain a different expectation.

I do expect both special theories of communication and a mathematical theory
of communication to be viable. One can also use the mathematical theory of
communication for controling the special ones methodologically, but I would
not know what would be covered additionally by a "general theory of
communication". I entertained this notion in an article in 1993 ("Is Society
a Self-Organizing System?", Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems), but
I left it behind because it would bring us back to the grand narratives that
we have burried in the second half of the 20th century. The picture of the
unity of the cosmology is specific for modernity and based on the assumption
of an external world (given by God). Given post-modernity (and its tension
to modernity) there is no reason for expecting this grandiose unification.

In other words, we process representations in discourses. The "represented"
systems are specific and not a priori unified (like in the act of a single
Creation). In a certain sense, we have inverted Leibniz: order is not
pre-established, but engineered and emerging (cf. Latour, The Pasteurization
of France, 1988; second part). We are lost in the chaos without the hope of
a final Reconciliation. But alas we still have our constructions reshaping
the chaos innovatively.

By specifying the hypothesis about what is communicated (e.g., molecules,
words) a special theory of communication can be developed. This can also be
considered as the specification of a selection environment. Selection
environments can interact like in co-evolutions or in the triple helix
model. The mechanisms specified can be elaborated into models for the
explanation. The mathematical theory of communication (or the non-linear
dynamics of communication) enables us to control these speculations
methodologically.

Can this remark itself be considered as a general theory of communication at
the meta-level? Perhaps, it is. I doubt it. It can also be considered as an
elaboration of the philosophy of science and social science methodology for
the field of communication studies. You may wish to call this pragmatic
insofar as I would insist on the criterion of providing a heuristics for
developing empirical research.

With kind regards (and best wishes for 2004!),

Loet

At 06:12 PM 12/29/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Loet
>
>You wrote a statement that I think is central to FIS:
>
>The philosophical question would be whether one expects a general theory of
communication to be possible. My answer would be negative because this would
restore a kind of wholeness that I consider as religiously motivated.
>
>But I consider FIS to be about the search for the foundation for such a
unified information, cogniton and communication science/theory/ doctrine.
>
>1.Am I wrong?
>
>2. I also wonder if your philosophy is a pragmatic one, and if so what is
the goal?
>
>3. If not, is it then based on an ontology and epistemology that rules out
unified theories?
>
>4. If you point to Luhmann I will claim that he has not worked out a full
epistemological and ontological frame, but mainly a theory of the
differentiation and self-organization of social communication.
>
>Happy new your to all
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: leydesdorff <leydesdorff@myrealbox.com>
>Date: Sunday, December 28, 2003 10:26 pm
>Subject: [Fis] (no subject)
>
>> Dear Jerry,
>>
>> Thank you for these interesting quotations from Whitehead.
>>
>> Apologies for the following misunderstanding:
>>
>> >I am puzzled on how one would fit chemical philosophy into such a
>> >mathematical philosophy. Chemistry philosophy is grounded on
>> ratio's
>> >of small whole numbers and neither nuclei or electrons can be
>> >distributed into "1/2 + 1/2". Loet's post suggests that we need
>> to
>> >look carefully at how the marketing of information is tied to
>> simple
>> >mathematical operation of addition.
>>
>> The example of 50/50 was just chosen to explain how information
>> theory is grounded in probability theory. The addition is
>> generated because by definition the sum of the probabilities is
>> equal to unity. Additionally, the Shannon formulas are so elegant
>> because they are based on simple summations (to the maximum of the
>> maximum entropy of a system under study).
>>
>> In chemical systems the distributions are more complex than 50/50.
>> However a distribution can always be expected to contain an
>> information. This description of the system is different from the
>> chemical one. It generates an information-theoretical model of the
>> system. The system under study is specified in terms of its
>> operation: what is communicated when the system communicates? What
>> is redistributed? This remains epistemologically the specification
>> of an expectation.
>>
>> Observations can be generated by specifying "how" the system is
>> expected to operate. One can then ask whether this operation can
>> also be indicated. The specification of an indicator may lead to
>> the measurement. Thus, this is not a philosophy of mathematics or
>> a philosophy of chemistry, but the specification of a cybernetics
>> program. The measurements improve and update our expectations. In
>> principle, a third question can be to ask for the "why" of what
>> one observes using the indicators thus specified. This leads to
>> substantive theorizing in the subject domain under study.
>>
>> Each subject domain can thus be developed into a special theory of
>> communication. This accords with your nice quotations from
>> Whitehead. The mathematical theory of communication provides us
>> with the formal methodology. Of course, one can also use other
>> statistics. The advantages of using the mathematical theory of
>> communication, however, are manifold. For example, one can
>> elegantly combine the multi-variate perspective (complexity) with
>> the time series perspective in order to develop the instruments of
>> measuring complex dynamics.
>>
>> Thus, my contribution is not to be misunderstood as a
>> philosophical one. The philosophical question would be whether one
>> expects a general theory of communication to be possible. My
>> answer would be negative because this would restore a kind of
>> wholeness that I consider as religiously motivated.
>>
>> With kind regards,
>>
>>
>> Loet
>>
>> Loet Leydesdorff
>> Science & Technology Dynamics, University of Amsterdam
>> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
>> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
>> Tel.: +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-20-525 3681
>>
>> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ; [email protected]
>> http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff.htm
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fis mailing list
>> fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>
>
>

******************************************************************
Loet Leydesdorff
Science & Technology Dynamics, University of Amsterdam,
Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences,
OZ Achterburgwal 237
1012 DL Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Tel: +31-20- 525 65 98
fax: +31-20- 525 20 86

loet@leydesdorff.net
http://www.leydesdorff.net/

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri Jan 2 00:30:03 2004