Repying to Loet, who, in reaction to:
>> (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.
claims:
>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.
SS: This generalizing serves two major purposes: (a) it furthers the
'Unity of the Sciences' discourse, and (b) it directs our attention to our
own basic modes of cognition.
>The mathematical theory, however, is devoid of substance because it is
>formal.
SS: Reflecting our cognitive tools.
>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.
SS: Well, I would say that 'etic' is really an aspect of the 'emic' of
the observer.
>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.
SS: An implication of 'senescence' here would be that the system is
settling into its own prejudices and becoming increasingly unable to react
to new perturbations. It should serve as a warning that any kind of system
it applies to is getting ready to be replaced. This goes beyond biology to
any kind of developing 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).
SS: Well, heuristic metaphors are not things to despise!
STAN
>
>with kind regards,
>
>Loet
>
> _____
>
>Loet Leydesdorff
>Science & Technology Dynamics, University of Amsterdam
>loet@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Sep 23 22:40:46 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Mar 2005 - 10:24:47 CET