RE: [Fis] CONSILIENCE: When separate inductions jump together

> (1) The terms, 'immature', 'mature' and 'senescent', as I use
> them, are very much generalized into information theoretical
> and thermodynamic (infodynamic)terms, so that they should be
> applicable AS SUCH, directly to any kind of system.
> Unfortunately the labels themselves are associated by most
> folks with biology. It would be a question of creating
> neologisms to replace these terms.

Yes, but the neologisms would create the theory of anOTHER system, wouldn't
they? The substantive meaning of the terms is discourse specific. When the
terms are "very much generalized" into information theoretical or
infodynamic ones, they loose substance and become formal. Some of our
colleagues on this list then label the concepts as "thermodynamic", but I
would prefer to generalize even from this special theory (about
distributions of particles and energy) and call them part of a non-linear
dynamics or a mathematical theory of communication.

The mathematical theory, however, is devoid of substance because it is
formal. Thus, we have a formal theory (or perhaps a set of them), on the one
side, and a collection of substantive theories, on the other. Insofar as the
substantive theories can be formulated as special theories of communication
(a spatial configuration which can be dissipative or conservative) we can
apply the mathematical apparatus to them. But this window on the theorizing
of others cannot see what it does in the tangential dimensions. Thus, it
creates tensions and orthogonalities in the discourses. The formalization
sometimes inverts the substantive theorizing because the focus changes from
the variation to the structure.

For example, anthropologists will tend to avoid to describe human beings as
monkeys for reasons which go beyond the ethical issue. This has to do with
their roles as potentially external observers ("etic") and their role as
participant/observers ("emic"). The reflection on these two roles is part of
the methodology. This has nothing to do with the math, but it can be
formalized, of course. Yet, the formalization generates different meanings
and discourses.

On the assumption that the sciences can be considered as discourses that try
to process as much complexity as possible by using specific codes in the
communication (e.g., symbols, meanings), one can expect that the different
windows will increasingly become orthogonal. One could here use the word
"senescence", but it would not help us much. The model has to be explicated
and abstracted from the biological connotation because this is no longer a
biological or a geophysical system.

For example, neo-classical economics works on the assumptions of the market
as an equilibrium searching mechanism. The market clearing is pervasive at
each moment of time, but it can be inhibited, for example, by institutions.
Evolutionary economists are interested in change and stabilization over
time. Thus, these two discourses stand orthogonal to each other and, indeed,
they do not attend each other's meetings.

Yet, there is citation traffic between these specialties at the journal
level. The discursive systems are nearly orthogonal. Translations are
possible. One would have to go into the appreciation to see when they are
and when they are not. The formal model cannot tell us the appreciation and
the imposition of biological (or thermodynamic) terminology does not help us
further (other than as heuristic metaphors perhaps).

with kind regards,

Loet

  _____

Loet Leydesdorff
Science & Technology Dynamics, University of Amsterdam
[email protected] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sun Sep 19 08:10:42 2004