"There are no
subject matters; no branches of learning - or, rather, of inquiry: there are
only problems, and the urge to solve them. A science such as botany or
chemistry (or say, physical chemistry, or electrochemistry) is, I contend,
merely an administrative unit. University administrators have a difficult job
anyway, and it is a great convenience to them to work on the assumption that
there are some named subjects, with chairs attached to them to be filled
by the experts in these subjects. It has been said that the subjects are
also a convenience to the student. I do not agree: even serious students are
misled by the myth of the subject. And I should be reluctant to call anything
that misleads a person a convenience to that person."
[Realism and the
Aim of Science, Routledge 1956/1996, p. 5]
The three quotes below are things that I believe I may be able to
shed some light on, as far as my father's view is concerned:
> > I do subscribe to a "unity of the
sciences", BUT, not in its original,
> >reductionist form. I
claim that the above specification hierarchy:
> >{physics {chemistry
{biology {sociology {psychology}}}}} would make a good
> >basis for
unification.
I believe the way my father saw it was that
Complexity, in his definition, was the overarching scientific basis for the
material world. Physics, biology, chemistry, etc, all were subsumed into the
larger scientific matrix that is Complexity. Physics has to do with the lower
echelons of complexity, as does chemistry, etc. These things inform
complexity, but cannot explain it or the effects of it. In fact, physics deals
with simple systems, yet the atom is a complex system. Physics cannot explain
the behavior of an atom, but biology can. Why? Because biology deals with
phenomena that can only be understood via complexity. It was in his study of
Biology that my father developed his theories and definitions of Complexity,
and he was as surprised as anyone that Biology turns out to embody the aspects
of something that is actually the general case in the universe. The unifying
science is Complexity.
> > SS: But -- there you go making a
physics type of approach (as did Rosen)!
My father USED physics as
a tool, as he did mathematics, systems theory, and a host of other
disciplines. His focus was life.
> > SS: How, exacty does Rosen's approach
differ from that which a
> >physicist would take (say, to a
tornado)?
A tornado isn't a useful comparison. I doubt he would
consider a tornado a complex system, therefore, his approach would be exactly
the same as a physicist's. However, his approach to understanding an organism
would be radically different from a physicist's. He wrote extensively on just
how his approach differs. If you would like me to paraphrase it, I
will.
Judith