Re: resolving trouble

[John Kineman <***>]

Hi Howard,
These are interesting points. For me, having this list is important
because it tells me what I can build on.

On your last point, of course there are disagreements, as you say. I
don't mean to deny legitimate disagreement. I was thinking more of
process than status. We almost always exist in a status of some
disagreement and agreement. Sometimes the disagreement is between two or
more perfectly valid points. Clarifying the disagreement is good for
documenting where we are, but it isn't what advances thought, I'm
finding. There seems to be a stronger process of asking what context can
harmonize opposites. I was impressed by Einstein's description of this
process in his small book on how he came up with his theory of
relativity (intended as a public exposé). Most of routine science
distinguishes between right and wrong alternatives within a paradigm.
That sharpens the theory but ultimately leads to revealing some paradox,
which is the great discovery because it is the limitation of the
paradigm. Then, the new context can be considered where the opposites
make sense, and that is a "larger system" of thought. In Einstein's case
it was relativity that resolved the very painstakingly established
inconsistency between a constant local speed of light and invariance of
laws in an inertial reference frame - an apparent paradox of the
classical view. That's what I was alluding to - to look at what two
opposites can accomplish be being combined when we find among us two
fairly certain views on a subject. Chances are each defender of their
view has done some homework and has good reasons to think what they are
saying is correct, but the context is limited. Anyway, I wasn't thinking
about your prior discussion when I made the comment, even though I think
it applies generally.

Cheers,
JJK

Howard Pattee wrote:

> John K’s suggestion: Think first how we can agree. Think last, or not at all, how we can disagree. No one's honor will be soiled by this.
>
> HP: Here is a starting list of (disputable) agreements from my previous posts:
>
> Areas of Rosen’s agreement (or at least areas of no inconsistency)
> with von Neumann:
> (1) the basic modeling conditions expressed by Hertz (and accepted by most other 
> physicists);
> (2) the inadequacy of physical laws to explain or model the essentials of life;
> (3) the irreducibility (unentailment) of measurement (coding) and model-building itself;
> (4) the subtle and complex difficulties of modeling life by any purely formal computation.
>
> with Langton and many Artificial Lifers:
> (1) the value of abstract relational models (as contrasted with biochemical models);
> (2) the value of alternative realizations of life (other than what exists).
>
> With Biosemiotics:
> (1) the importance of information and communication in organisms as distinguished from 
> the physical interactions of energy and matter.
>
> On the other hand, science would get nowhere without Cartesian doubt and the disputation that must follow. It is not the disagreement that is the problem, it is only when it is taken personally. I disputed with Bob for 40 years while maintaining a most enjoyable friendly relationship. We would have been bored and irritable if forced to talk only about our areas of agreement.
>
> Howard
>
>
> http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/pattee/
> http://www.c3.lanl.gov/~rocha/pattee/

--
© 2004 John J. Kineman
all rights reserved