> Pedro Portes writes:
>
> Pedro, I can only speak from my personal experience, but I find this old
> chestnut misleading, even insulting. Another scenario is possible. My own
> trajectory was something like this: having studied math and physics in high
> school, worked as a computer programmer before going to college, applied to
> study electronic engineeering at university and then, having started to
> read philosophy and psychology, transfered to study natural sciences (of
> which psychology was considered one!), and continued in my study of math
> and physics through general relativity and quantum mechanics, I felt I had
> a pretty good grasp of a variety of "quantitative methods" AND of their
> limitations, especially when it came to the study of human phenomena. The
> search for an alternative made a lot of sense to me at that point.
>
> Surely I'm not the only New School researcher with this kind of background?
>
Very interesting, Martin. I made the same guess that Pedro did and
was obviously wrong, and I think you have put another face on the issue
entirely. It seems quite frequently that physicists assume they are the
queen of the sciences and that if they have mastered physics, they must be
able to master all the rest. I am reminded of Shockley's shocking
pronouncements about intelligence as an example or Marvin Minsky's
nonsense about the next stage of evolution of the mind being a machine. In
fact fuzzy old ecologists seem to have a much more worthwhile mathematics
for mental study than anything I came across in physics, though I realize
they are still using the differential equations invented by physicists,
they apply them in ways that physicists rarely imagine. In fact, I applaud
you for not being bamboozled by the presumed hegemony of physics and for
seeing the value of narrative approaches. Now, however, it seems you are
so mad at the physicists for being less than they claimed to be, that you
would eschew all their tools, even when productively adapted to new
settings.
Ecology has adapted mathematical tools to its setting in
fascinating ways. Such adaptations can usefully be made to studies of mind
and culture as well. But there is much room in ecology for the study of
the life-cycles of single plants, patches, species, and ecosystems.
Likewise, there is much room for both mathematical and narrative
approaches in the study mind and culture. Wouldn't it be nice if they
could learn from each other?
David