April 8, 2006 - 13:37
Projects:
Throughout this course, I've found one aspect of our discussions and readings to be somewhat troubling. There is a tendency proclaim emergence as a penultimate field, emergent phenomenon as universal and terribly important...in short, emergence as not just a new kind of science but the coming messiah of science.
It could just be that the field, in particular the content matter, is inherently of a universal and penetrating sort. So if emergence itself claims to be the end-all, be all of reality, then our conversations and emergent literature should similarly describe it as such. I think this is true to a certain extent. In my eyes, however, there is also a some aggrandizing in our conversations and the literature.
This is probably an unnecessary conversation to pursue...but are there published criticisms of emergence or some "realistic" assessments of its explanatory or predicting potential? How exactly do notions of emergence presently play into scientific discovery outside of computer & game design?
Comments
assessing emergence
Submitted by PaulGrobstein on April 9, 2006 - 15:47 Permalink
Fad to Field
Submitted by AngadSingh on April 19, 2006 - 12:21 Permalink
Good point, I agree that
Submitted by Laura Cyckowski on April 9, 2006 - 19:46 Permalink
Assessments, cont'd
Submitted by Leslie McTavish on April 11, 2006 - 12:45 Permalink
You don’t start out with a goal ....
Submitted by PaulGrobstein on April 11, 2006 - 16:08 Permalink
I like goals!
Submitted by LauraKasakoff on April 14, 2006 - 20:33 Permalink
the final theory ...
Submitted by PaulGrobstein on April 17, 2006 - 13:55 Permalink
Need, Should, or Same Question?
Submitted by AngadSingh on April 24, 2006 - 14:55 Permalink
Evolution and ...
Submitted by PaulGrobstein on May 1, 2006 - 09:36 Permalink
A key point here is that evolution does not catalogue "problems or inadequacies". It simply explores possible new forms and, in the course of doing so, it quite effectively (if slowly) comes up with solutions to "problems or inadequacies" (and, of course, also creates new ones). Evolution is not itself an argument for or against the benefits of "purposefulness"; it is only a reminder that a lot can be done (and is being done) without it, simply by exploring novelty ("playfulness is ... not only to be enjoyed but to be accorded high value for its fundamental role in the success of all organisms, including humans.") Creativity/novelty generation is adaptive.
Science can and I think frequently does operate in that mode. So let me give a slightly revised version of your "silly", which I actually don't think is:
That's what is sometimes called "pure" science, and it is, I think, quite analogous to biological evolution with one important difference: it depends on entities (like ourselves) that are capable of conceiving "questions", ie are curious about what might be instead of simply dealing with what is at any given time. And that capability in turn can be used to support a sense of having a "goal", ie of wanting oneself (and/or things around one) to move in some particular direction. For "pure" scientists, that goal might be conceived by themselves (and others) as exploring the (constantly changing) unknown, ie to satisfy "curiousity".
In practice, entities like us typically have lots of goals, including varying senses of "problems or inadequacies in the world" that we "suspect science can improve". My point is not at all to denigrate such goals. They play an enormously important role in defining "current questions ... for which there don't currently exist answers" and so take science in productive directions in which it might not otherwise go. And indeed science, so influenced, does sometimes come up with new and successful ways to deal with "troublesome questions". So "goals" can and do play a useful role in science. And may, in turn, in life.
What's worth keeping in mind though is that "goals" are not guaranteed to be achievable, by science or any other activity. In addition, goals usually have a "local" character, ie they involve a commitment to bringing about a particular change in a particular context. When one has achieved a "goal", one typically finds that itself creates "troublesome questions" in places one hadn't thought about . Moreover, goals are, by their very nature, different in different people and potentially (for better or for worse) different at different times in particular people.
None of this says "goals" aren't important. They can indeed speed up the processes of exploration inherent in both biological evolution and "pure" science/inquiry, and open up new directions of exploration. And they can, of course, also provide some useful coherence is individual lives. I would never argue that "evolution" is the only productive game in town. I would though strongly argue that "goals" are, similarly, also not the only productive game in town. We've got both and need not set either against the other. "Its all open to reconsideration and renewal", the usefulness of evoluton as well as the usefulness of both particular goals and goals in general.
Maybe that's the route to maximum "functionality"? "If you can dream - and not make dreams your master ..."?