Re: [Fis] consilience of limited observers

Dear colleagues,

Let me start by proposing that science has to be considered as a social
(groupal) instance of "associative learning", performed within extremely
rigorous conditions of elaboration and verification, so that the
optimization of the distilled scientific "knowledge" becomes as perfect as
possible (but always performed with respect to the historical background of
accumulated knowledge). Science or "the sciences" get caught into
interesting dynamics of social networking, precisely because they so hardly
try to overcome the local and individual limitations of space, time,
specialty, etc. --in the unending and "impossible" quest for objectivity
and universality: always changing, always in the making.

Should the contents of the different sciences get caught into the
integrative dynamics that Stan argues? Not necessarily. That one can
establish composition-decomposition relationships between objects and their
parts does not per se means that the worlds of knowledge around those parts
or objects are automatically caught into similar integrative
relationships---just a historical perusal to the dynamics of the different
basic sciences would be a sufficient argument, I think. (but I share part
of those integrative views, concerning the ascending/descending flows and
the 'vagueness' which I see as a common problem of those three 'societies'
I mentioned: enzymes, neurons, 'observers').

Trying to coherently respond to Malcolm's deep questions could bring more
'logical' arguments to the above discussion, and some more contents both on
the flows and the networkings and fuzziness between elements of those
informational 'societies'. In part, that looks tantamount to discussing the
pros and cons of Wilsonian consilience, and proposing a new direction of
exploration concerning the dynamics of inter (multi-trans-pluri)
disciplinary consilience. Let me postpone that attempt for future
exchanges, as this one is getting long enough.

If what I have exposed has a grain of truth, the future advancement of
information science would re-elaborate a grand view on the dynamics,
networking, collisions, complementarity, and so on, of the different
sciences (I am closer to the Aristotelian stance on the necessary
differentiation of the sciences--and their highly problematic integration).
Perhaps info sci. would become another social tool for elaboration of
knowledge and the amelioration of societies, of particular interest to the
present times of an 'information society". Sort of a new "Baconian"
re-instauration of learning?

thanking the patience, and the very stimulating exchanges of these days,

Pedro

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed Oct 20 13:52:04 2004