Re: Teleology and vitalism

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Ayten
> Aydin
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 12:56 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Teleology and vitalism
>
>--snip--
> I agree that biology and fields beyond (within human sciences) should be
> explainable in scientific parlance, that is by applying to them scientific
> method provided that this method has freedom (not operating
> within "Closure"
> as meant by Lawson) to apply different criteria for each level of enquiry
> representing different categories, for verification; not limited to the
> criteria rigidly applied to Physics.

Ayten,

I think you misunderstand "closures" as Lawson means them. Any kind of
recognized pattern would be a closure. The use of the different criteria
that you mention will lead to awareness of different patterns. Each such
pattern recognized is also an abstraction since in the recognizing of any
pattern, we are ignoring other qualia. Further inspection can always lead to
additional closures. So, the only limitation on closures is the ways in
which we can perceive patterns. There is no loss of freedom in this view.

Regards,
Tim