[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xmca] Units of Scientiic Achievement
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [xmca] Units of Scientiic Achievement
- From: "Langer-Osuna, Jennifer Marie" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:45:31 -0400
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.4.60L.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <4DFF1CEF.email@example.com> <BANLkTimAz15gR=vx0=yQmztYMvEeQgsy4g@mail.gmail.com> <4DFF4C0F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <B33131190AB080468C8D5FA5DBCD4EFD389A08@helios.hec.ohio-state.edu> <BANLkTinUruZMadukqTsqkjQvi3+AK4PSwg@mail.gmail.com> <4DFF5A28.email@example.com> <Pine.SOL.4.60L.firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.SOL.4.60L.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
- Thread-index: AcwvbXwIZzBIiMTKSuuJr2oPRBBKmQBfR8jw
- Thread-topic: [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:
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] 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
>> As to "Intelligent design" - this has nothing to do with proof or
>> disproof, Carol, but Faith.
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list