[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [xmca] Units of Scientiic Achievement



I wonder what you all think of the latest articles in The Economist on the Anthropocene, and whether this might count as a conceptual revolution, spurring new problems (presumably in geoengineering) for our species to solve.

Here's the online article, a bit different from the paper one but same point:
http://www.economist.com/node/18741749
 

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Tony Whitson
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:07 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Units of Scientiic Achievement

Let me clarify that I'm not dismissing evolutionary models of change in 
scientific disciplines. Stephen Toulmin's (1972) _Human Understanding: The 
Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts_ has a great deal to recommend 
it. I just wanted challenge an image species differentiation that seems to 
suggest too much distance among distinctive species. On the molecular 
level, I think we have more in common with yeast cells than the sciences 
in our time have with some pre-revolutionary "sciences."

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Tony Whitson wrote:

> Andy, I don't think the analogy with evolution of biological species can 
> really work.
>
> There is tremendous kinship between us and chimps; and the commonalities 
> among us, chimps and our common ancestors is unlike any commonality that you 
> could point to between Ptolomaic and Copernican astronomy, or "chemistry" 
> pre/post oxygenation, etc.
>
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Andy Blunden wrote:
>
>> But the metaphor Michael is calling on, Carol, as I see it is "normal 
>> science" is the incremental, gradual adaptation of a species to its niche, 
>> and remaining much the same for millions of years, and on the other hand, 
>> when a species is under real pressure, you get exactly the process Kuhn 
>> describes in science: rapid diversification and die-outs, with a 
>> distinctly new species species emerging at the end. It's called 
>> "punctuated evolutuion" isn't it?
>> 
>> I find the idea of a formation perfecting itself into extinction 
>> attractive.
>> As to "Intelligent design" - this has nothing to do with proof or 
>> disproof, Carol, but Faith.
>> 
>> Andy
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca