|
Judith,
We may have a
different idea of "science" in mind. I see nothing unscientific about your
father's work at Hutchin's center, which he discusses in the Introduction
of AS. For me, science is an approach, an attitude. From AS p.
3:
[Rosen quoting Hutchins:] "'The gadgeteers and data collectors, masquerading as
scientists, have threatened to become the supreme chieftains of the
scholarly world.
As the Renaissance could accuse
the Middle Ages of being rich in principles and poor in facts, we are now
entitled to enquire whether we are not rich in facts and poor in
principles.
Rational thought is the only
basis of education and research. Whether we know it or not, it has been
responsible for our scientific success; its absence has been responsible for
our bewilderment...Facts are the core of an anti-intellectual
curriculum.
The scholars in a university
which is trying to grapple with fundamentals will, I suggest, devote
themselves first of all to a rational analysis of the principles of
each subject matter. They will seek to establish general propositions under
which the facts they gather may be subsumed. I repeat, they would not
cease to gather facts, but they would know what facts to look for, what they
wanted them for, and what to do with them after they got
them.'
To such sentiments, one could only
say Amen. In my view, Hutchins was here articulating the essence of science,
as I understand it." [AS, p.3]
I too agree with
such a view of 'science'. My concern is that the subject of policies, moreso than
most other subjects, is susceptible to ideological presuppositions, and
that discussions on the matters can degenerate easily into merely
ideological ones. If we are to avoid falling prey to unchallenged
presuppositions, just as we seek to avoid falling prey to Newtonian
presuppositions, then our investigations must be of a meticulous nature, such
that we eventually find ourselves on firm ground, theoretically and
empirically. I would call that ground a scientific ground.
Subject matter such as policies incorporate
ideologies, morals, and other aspects outside the purview of science
in the above sense. As such, this is not really the
appropriate forum for the discussion of those aspects. This is the
sense in which I consider other forums appropriate for these
topics.
However, policies
typically also seek justification by asserting arguments from fact and
theory. As Rosennean Complexity Theory is about science in the above
sense, I see our role here as toward the development and utilization
of RCT for scientific investigation. So this would certainly include the
investigation of presuppositions and arguments from fact and theory
employed in justifications for policies. This what I meant by: "Where they
[science and policy] intersect, proposed policies demand as much, if not
more, rigor and scrutiny and skepticism as do existing
policies. "
Tim
Tim,
I think there is a danger inherent in limiting what aspects of
complexity or applications of complexity you want to "allow" on your list in
the manner you've expressed. One of the most fun things about my father, from
my point of view, was the way he could see and make valid connections between
seemingly diverse, unrelated things. In doing so, I learned a great deal about
a wide range of subjects, and developed my own curiosities about many of the
subjects he covered, which I may not have ever been exposed to if not for this
tendency of his. It was how he looked at the world, which explains some of why
he was able to do what he did in science.
Secondly, if he had tried to stick to a "purely scientific"
milieu, he would have done things very differently. For example, he would
have turned down Robert Hutchins' offer to spend a year at the Center For
the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, which would have had a
major impact on the subsequent development of his work. Going to such a
different realm and participating in the problems they were trying to answer
had a profound effect on his scientific development, which he discusses at
length in his book, "Anticipatory Systems". In fact, he gives that year credit
for provoking his major epiphany about the unique integration of multiple
aspects of TIME into the organization of living
systems.
So it would be wise to err on the side of tolerance regarding
subject matter. Frankly, I see a great deal of relevancy in any topic where
decisions based on a reductionist paradigm are causing serious problems and
side effects, or not leading to any real understanding of the systems being
addressed. That means global climate, medicine, and even the economic, social,
philosophical, psychological, political realms are all going to have relevance
when it comes to Rosennean Complexity Theory as a whole. These things are all
connected.
Judith
|