Re: models - branch fromf GM discussion

[John M <***>]

Hello, John,

do we have a concensus on reductionism? On another list and some years back someone overpoured me with ½ dozen theoretical definitions from diverse philosophers, in which I was not interested. To your remarks:

First: I never mentioned "physical reductionism".

I don't know about any connection of "ism"s to physical measures or measurablity. Spiritualism comes to mind.

Reduction, however, brings to my spiritualism (just for the pun of it) a reduction <G> meaning: to reduce a total view into some part of it, substituting the part for the original (total?). The reduction occurs by selecting aspects to consider, called: boundaries, WITHIN which we observe and visualize. Topical is a broad selection.

A second step is "model" formation, we pick (consciously or by occurrence) a limited cut from a topic, call it a name and consider it as a "total" for our observation. All of our sciences are topically identified, - all are reductionistic. That's my stance. \

(Except for (pure) math, which is a 'world of its own', with its language and logic. As long as it is not "applied" to sciences, when it runs into (contributes to) difficulties by reductionism.  - the equational formalism of models.)

 

>"I would prefer to state it that way - "best available concept >of nature." - "<

Available to us - at what level? The Flat Earth? It changed.

 

>We can take it as given that the way we understand nature >is through models.<

Aren't we working on improving our understanding? Can you 'understand' the wholistic interconnectedness, an unlimited impredicativity of a natural system by clean-cut models? Isn't Rosenism a step forward from the "model-view"?

Yes, models are useful, practical and usable. Conclusions have been drawn in successful development for technology and the underlying (reductionist?) science (formalism),  in a very complex (complicated) fashion.

Models and IMO reductionism:  predicative, T-computable.

Wholism (RR-complexity): impredicative,T-non-computable.

 

Your take--------

 

John M

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "John Kineman" <***>

To: <***>

Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 4:23 PM

Subject: Re: models - branch fromf GM discussion

> 
John M.
> Your rewording is OK too. However, I think it is will be 
confusing to
> add the qualifier "in the reductionist sciences" because 
modeling in
> terms of relationships and their organization is 
also
> "non-reductionistic" in the strict sense of physical 
"reductionism",
> which is what most people think of when using the term. 
"Reductionism"
> that is, the "ism" does historically refer to reduction 
to physically
> measurable quantities. The Rosennean model, if used as a 
picture of some
> aspect of nature, does introduce non-reductionistic 
elements in this
> sense, and hence a kind of  biological uncertainty 
which is not
> reducible. Yet in a broader sense, it is itself a reduction 
to
> relational concepts. So, as I've stressed before (and will again 
I'm
> sure), it is much more a matter of what we are reducing to, 
than
> reduction itself, which arguably all thinking requires.
> 
> Also, a much more minor quibble with the rewording, and my 
original
> wording, is that the goal of science isn't so much to 
understand models
> or completeness, as I think about it, as to understand 
nature, so I
> suppose I would prefer to state it that way - "best 
available concept of
> nature." We can take it as given that the way we 
understand nature is
> through models.
> John K
> 
> 
> John M wrote:
> 
> >Hello, John K. and Judith,
> 
>Thanks for John's concurring ideas in the post - except for one 
little
> >correction I want to point out: Instead of the 
concluding
> >
> >>"For the present, however, adding the 
relational model is
> >>such a major step toward a more complete 
view of nature that >for present
> >>
> >>
> 
>working purposes, this addition gives us our best >available concept 
of
> >completeness."<
> >
> >Why not turn it 
around, like (a very scanty re-wording):
> >
> >"For the 
present, however, speaking of the relational model is
> >such a major 
step toward a more complete view of nature in the reductionist
> 
>sciences that for present working purposes, this addition gives us our 
best
> >and most complete available concept of a "model"."
> 
>
SNIP> >
> >I am all for the successfulness of 
reductionist science-technology, the
> >'mechanistic' models we formed 
brought us down from the tree and out from
> >the cave. I exercised it 
for ½ century myself. THINKING is different, with
> >(in) new vistas, 
for better (new) understanding.  MR is a good bridge in
> >between 
(I wish I knew what it is).
> >I formulated lately the relational 
aspects as network-extensions
> 
>http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/Influence.htm - changing only the 
format
> >(wording) of views.
> >It all depends how much we 
restrict the boundaries in modeling.
> >(How much "realtion" fits 
in).
> >
> >I think we can talk about "Rosennean models" 
knowing and keeping in mind,
> >how far we have to go to be away from 
the mechanistically cut limited models
> >(this is what my "but close" 
referred to in my post to Jack - thanks, Jack,
> >for you consenting 
reply to it).
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >John 
M
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> 
>From: "John Kineman" <***>
> >To: <***>
> >Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 10:42 
AM
> >Subject: Re: Fw: GM Food & Feed Not Fit for "Man or 
Beast"
> >>Hi John M.
> >>You raise a topic that I have 
and will come back to many times. The idea
> >>of a "Rosennean 
model" -- is there such a thing?
> >>
> >>Here's how I 
look at it.
> >>
> >>RR's statement that there isn't a 
largest model means there can by no
> >>complete model that can 
capture all aspects of a complex system. It does
> >>not say there 
can be no useful models.  Mechanistic models are one
> 
>>example of both statements. I accept this argument fully, based on 
the
> >>explanation he provided in convincing detail and with 
considerable
> >>emphasis and repetition.
> >>
> 
>>I also belive there is a kind of model that is not mechanistic in 
its
> >>foundation, which describes certain aspects of systems that 
are
> >>different than what mechanistic models can describe. These 
look a lot
> >>like Rosen modeling relationships themselves, and 
they describe the
> >>natural relationship between functional 
specifications (models) and
> >>their realization in material 
systems. Such models can indeed tell us
> >>something important 
about nature, particularly biology, because they
> >>represent an 
aspect of nature that is excluded by mechanistic models.
> >>Their 
incompleteness, in part, is in excluding the mechanistic model. We
> 
>>gain understanding of certain relational aspects, but need to go 
to
> >>mechanistic models for representing non-relational aspects. 
Hence in my
> >>work, for examepe, it is necessary to consider both 
kinds of models,
> >>recognizing that neither is a complete 
descriptions, and the most likely
> >>even the two kinds of models 
taken together will not provide a complete
> >>description. For the 
present, however, adding the relational model is
> >>such a major 
step toward a more complete view of nature that for present
> 
>>working purposes, this addition gives us our best available concept 
of
> >>completeness.
> >>
> >>John 
K.
> >>>
> >>>----- Original Message -----
> 
>>>From: "Jack Park" <***>
> >>>To: <***>
> >>>Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 10:51 
AM
> >>>Subject: Re: Fw: GM Food & Feed Not Fit for "Man or 
Beast"
> >>>
> >>>>My response would be a 
simple question:
> >>>>
> >>>>What steps 
must I take to craft a Rosennean model using their data and
> 
>>>>anything else I might need, such that I gain the ability to 
study their
> >>>>results with a different model than the 
one(s) they presumably applied
> >>>>to get those 
results?
> >>>>
> >>>>Jack
> SNIP the 
rest