File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_1998/lyotard.9811, message 77


From: "Eric  Salstrand" <eric_and_mary-AT-email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: Paradigms Lost
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 06:51:04 -0600



>Don Smith replies:
>My understanding is that the recognition of a paradigm shift from Neutonian
>physics to quantum physics did not deny the usefulness of past scientific
>practice. It brought to light a new approach to doing science which rejects
>newtonian determinism in favor of a way of viewing physical science as
chaotic
>or indeterminant.

Let me say that I am not a scientist, merely an outsider looking in at
language game I do not practice directly. I am concerned with the interface
between science and culture, however, and find it very interesting. Having
made that provision, I am not sure that Newtonian determinism has in fact
been replaced by chaos or inderminacy.

For example, the inderminacy principle has often been been misused by the
public.  As I understand, it basically means that in experimentation at the
subatomic level, it is possible to determine either the position or the
velocity of a subatomic particle.  You cannot know both simultaneously. That
is what makes it indeterminate.  Heisenberg was not making a metaphysical
statement about the ultimate nature of things, but stating a principle that
had operational applications.

Similarly, chaos theory does not replace physics.  It is the application of
mathematics and scientific methodology to large scale events such as weather
patterns that are largely composed of random elements which were previously
without a strong methodology of explanation.  The so-called butterfly effect
illustrates the extent to which small variations can have large effects over
time in given system.  Chaos theory is applied to specific areas of
investigation, not the whole of science.  Once again, it is not
metaphysical.

As I see it the reinterpretation of the physical world in
>this way parallels the descriptive and prescriptive work being done by a
>variety of current philosophers.

I agree and share your fascination.  Certainly, Lyotard was attuned to the
impact of science on culture.  The Postmodern Condition is in many respects
the result of that particular highway collision.  I am also attracted to the
work of Deleuse who makes liberal use of chaos theory, fractals, dissipative
structures etc.

I also believe that both chaos theory and complexity theory will help us to
better understand such large scale human phenomena such as economics, the
stock market, sociology, psychology etc.


>The postmodernist  quarrel with  physical science is not against its
>performativity but rather that its success has legitimized its methods such
>that they are appropriated without question by other disciplines such as
>social science. For example, the  methods of reductionist empirical
physical
>science when applied to social science, which has as its object of study
the
>indeterminate social subject, has and continues to produce poor and
sometimes
>ludicrous results.

I agree, but would argue the same can apply to quantuum physics and chaos
theory when they are misused.  I once met a woman who was convinced that
quantuum physicists were currently directly the flow of subatomic particles
by using their thoughts to telepathically influence behavior and that there
was accepted documentation of their results.  There is also the 100th
monkey, but that, as they say, is another story.

I am very interested in the way that non-scientists use science anecdotally
and uncritically to legitimate their own so-called spiritual, health and
psychological endeavors.  Why do so many nonscientists feel compelled to use
science nonscietifically?





   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005