Re: Models - A reply to John's message

From: John Conover <john@email.johncon.com>
Subject: Re: Models - A reply to John's message
Date: 15 Dec 1998 18:54:25 GMT


Gary Forbis writes:
> conover@vader.rahul.net wrote in message ...
> >Burkhard C. Schipper writes:
> >> >
> >> > Burkhard, you bring up a good point. Science does not have a theory of
> >> > modeling.
> >>
> >> It's not a problem. You can create such science.
> >
> >But then the theory of science would contain itself 8^)
>
> Right, the proper domain is philosophy.  Theories of scientific discoveries,
> explanation power, etc. are philosophical theories.  One might think of
> them as meta-science theories.
>

Then, we would expect the evolution of science to have fractal
characteristics as the custodians of science grapple with the
inconsistencies/incompleteness of a self-referential system.

        John

BTW, an implication of such a statement would be that the evolution of
science is path dependent-the march of science is a random walk. 8^)

--

John Conover, john@email.johncon.com, http://www.johncon.com/


Copyright © 1998 John Conover, john@email.johncon.com. All Rights Reserved.
Last modified: Fri Mar 26 18:53:37 PST 1999 $Id: 981215111357.18770.html,v 1.0 2001/11/17 23:05:50 conover Exp $
Valid HTML 4.0!