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 Having made that provision, I am not sure that Newtonian determinism has in fact been replaced by chaos or inderminacy.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?
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005