[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
 
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Doing Science [wasRe: Inequivalence of models]
- From: Jack Park <***>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:28:20 -0800
JR: On the other hand, if we were to evaluate some new system pulled out of a glacier or something, never before seen by humans of our time, and we want to know if it's alive or not... the thing my father would recommend is to look at the entailment patterns. Specifically, we would need to see if we could find out whether it is "self-entailed/entailing" or not. There's no way to do that just by looking at it and it might be unhelpful to try to do that by taking it apart. As he said, the relational models (for mechanism, for complex system, for organism) will extend regardless of "exotic chemistries" and configurations, etc. and will therefore be the only useful ones for dealing with extraterrestrial phenomena.
JP: In that paragraph, it is stated: "we would need to see if we could
find out whether it is "self-entailed/entailing" or not. There's no way
to do that just by looking at it..."
What the paragraph did not illuminate is the possibly many ways of
determining if the object pulled from a glacier is
self-entaile/entailing. I am saying: there must be a way to "do science"
the Rosennean way, whatever that may be. I am also saying that it is
not presently clear precisely what that way of "doing science" really
is. I mean, the paragraph suggests it might be unhelpful to try to do
that by taking it apart. Ok. Let's play off Steve's example of the dog.
Suppose you pull something out of the ice that appears to be wrapped in
some sort of covering. Heck, it could be a Honda, it could be a wooly
mammoth, or something else. Without laying hands on it, given that it is
something *you* have *never* seen before, and it appears, possibly,
unlike anything you have ever seen before (you're the bird-like
scientist from afar) (read: no preconceptions), how, and by way of what
process or steps, are you to "do science" the Rosennean way? How,
precisely, do you "look at the entailment patterns" without touching it?
Inquiring minds really want to know.
Jack