Dear Loet
I find it very difficult to interpret your argument.
My point is exactly that reflecting on the prerequisites for science makes
on more modest about what it is for a kind of knowledge we can obtain this
way. I understand that you say "one can no longer move behind that
perspective towards an analysis of the "intangibles" which are partly
embedded and partly not", which is first a confirmation and second a
postulate of the existence of something "intangibles" that you are sure have
an objective existence and it is necessary to analyze to get foundational
knowledge "behind" the social reality. But from which point of departure do
you do this? And how does this observation type related to the social messy
reality? That is my problem. What is the status of the Big Bang theory,
evolution theory and ecological models, in which I was thought to believe as
a biologist, when they are not reflected on the basis of their point of
departure in human semiotic cognition, communication and co-operation? Could
you please clarify?
Venlig hilsen / Best wishes
Søren Brier
Copenhagen Business School , Management, Politics and Philosophy,
Bl�g�rdsgade 23B, DK-K�benhavn 2200 N.
Office-phone +45 3815 2208 Cell 28564282
Old home page with full text documents
http://www.flec.kvl.dk/personalprofile.asp?id=sbr&p=engelsk
Ed. in Chief of Cybernetics & Human Knowing : home page:
http://www.imprint-academic.com/C&HK
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es] P�
vegne af Loet Leydesdorff
Sendt: 3. december 2004 08:05
Til: fis@listas.unizar.es
Emne: FW: [Fis] Consilience: Writing on the Clouds
> We have to start in the middle of the human social life world where
knowledge is created and later cultivated to science. All the critical
social studies of science shows us that it is very difficult to get behind
that social prerequisite for science and get to a truth of a world beyond;
be it the social reality, the real nature, the pure consciousness or the
core of life and body hood.
Dear Soeren and colleagues,
The problem in the above is "we have to". If one starts from your
perspective of "embeddedness", one can no longer move behind that
perspective towards an analysis of the "intangibles" which are partly
embedded and partly not. Actually, one can specify the conditions of
bifurcation in this co-evolution: when the diffusion rate becomes larger
than twice the size of the production race one expects a saddle point and
thus a bifurcation (Turing). Perhaps, this has happened with the Internet.
It most surely happened after the invention of the printing press: when one
can print the Bible, the society changes.
>From a historical perspective, however, the system has to remain
>"nearly
decomposable" since it would otherwise no longer be able to manifest itself
historically. Thus, one obtains a metastable unbalance between stabilization
and globalization. We live in this transition. But there is no a priori
reason to take an a priori side.
With kind regards,
Loet
_____
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48,
1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 loet@leydesdorff.net ;
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri Dec 3 10:32:05 2004
