Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!warwick!nott-cs!ucl-cs!news
From: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Emergent Properties
Message-ID: <1264@ucl-cs.uucp>
Date: 5 Nov 90 17:45:05 GMT
Sender: news@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Lines: 30


In <1990Oct31.102704.18335@cscs.UUCP>, csmith@cscs.UUCP (Craig E. Smith) writes

> In the general sense of the word, a "science" is simply any subject
> which can be systematically studied in a logical manner, and the
> related body of knowledge generated by that study. In most cases, the
> decision of whether or not to call a particular study a science is
> primarily a political consideration, and is largely based on whether
> one accepts that the field can be systematically, and logically
> investigated.

In "The Construction of Reality", Arbib and Hesse argue that Science
is a body of facts. They also mention Popper (and others) and his idea
of a "falsifiable" theory being Science. However, they also make it
clear that there are a large number of theories which "fit the bill",
that is to say are not at variance with previous theories, yet could
be superseded in a subsequent paradigm. They they go on to discuss
Marx (and others) who they seem to like, because I suppose they are
better "scientists" (don't quote me on that).

But what of science? "Amateur psychology is folk psychology"; the
notion that Science goes along without being "political" is wrong. The
low funding of basics research is the UK is political position. But
more than that isthe observation that all the questions we ask (as for
example psychologists) are influency by the fact that we are people
ourselves. As an example, a recent piece of research showed a positive
correlation between myopia and IQ. So the folklore image of a
short-sighted bbiffin was reinfinced by "Science". But this
rubberstamp did not address the questions of what is IQ and which was
the cause and which the effect.