Re: Science

From: John M <>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:11:51 -0500

Dear Tim, this writing is not about YOU, only addressed to your post. It is
about the topic of it. I have no argument with you, maybe you will have with

I try not to repeat all that was priorly quoted nor your added texts, they
are available on the list. 'Science' is a battlecry, disputed on several
lists (by several aspects of the particular lists) and I have not (yet) seen
a universal agreement (what an overstatement!) about a fitting

This list - several years ago - took a free approach, alas lately more and
more conventional opinions slip in, regrettable for me, because I hold that
the conventional "science establishment" holds feverishly to old addages,
acquired in times when the epistemic cognitive inventory was much less than
available today (which is much less than that of tomorrow). Even the "topics
of the future" build on ancient observations and their explanations
(formalism), in order to conform with the scientists' earlier books,
teachings, pupils, discussions.
In MOST cases the methodology works in practical ways, builds technology, up
to the point when "understanding" comes in. This is a many negated term,
many so called scientists satisfy themselves with practical results (for
tenure, awards, etc.)
Few researchers take the stance to "free" their mind from learned prejudice
and check the 'well composed' edifice of the scientific doctrines for
sustainability under the newly evolved vistas. There were several on this

Kuhn went to a considerable length, I would not guess if he 'wanted' to stay
within the acceptability of the scientific audience, or his time did not
ripen more segregation from the old 'paradigm' (as he said.)
Bohm went a pretty uninhibited way, exceeding the level of the decade in
which he developed the new ideas. Robert Rosen penetrated a field called
'complexity' (an inadequate word, we just don't know about a better one)
from his ideas within mathematical biology - what he stepped out from freely
(but was still impressed by the starting topics anyway, talking about
'live', cell, etc.).

The new ideas were quickly absorbed into the existing formalistic mill -
calculative obsolescence and semantic impropriety, which confused many.
New science is like Tao: who says "I developed a theory within it" does not
know what he talks about. Science is on the crossroad: (I wold not say
bifurcation, because I have negative arguments against this concept) and we
know only that something 'new' is in the dreams, we need more thinking
before we can identify "what".

Speaking of "science" usually means "old science". This list started out to
serve the "new science".
It woulod be a shame to slip back into the conventionalities.
"Paradigm shift" IMO is a "mending" of the old, not replacing it with new.
In every branch of te sciences there are the holy cows which must not be
questioned - or the chorus will cry "unscientific".

The "scientific process" works pretty well in developing new variants in the
practical ways. It will preserve the ancient views.
As Eric wrote: "...somehow loosy-goosy and unsatisfying".

I am expecting a crucifixation.

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim May" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 4:37 PM
Subject: Science

> On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 12:28 PM, Eric Hawthorne wrote:
> > ...S N I P
> --Tim May
Received on Sat Jan 11 2003 - 18:18:41 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST