Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA03664 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:19:02 GMT Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:17:30 -0500 From: Robert Logan <logan@physics.utoronto.ca> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: objections to "memes" In-Reply-To: <00032117001101.00976@faichney> Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.10.10003211653230.4742176-100000@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Robert Logan wrote:
> <snip>
> >For me quarks might or
> >might not exist but using them in a model helped to explain many of the
> >regularities of high energy scattering. All we know for sure is that SU(3)
> >symmetry holds and that one can explain that in terms of quarks.
>
> I guess we can say we know for sure that patterns of human behaviour replicate
> or are replicated via imitation. Can we say that one can explain that in terms
> of memes? Or can we only restate it using memetic terminology? (Exactly which
> memetic terminology would depend on whether you think memes are in brains or
> behaviour or both, but the explanation/restatement dichotomy remains in any
> case. Doesn't it?)
Memes are not in the brain or in the behaviour - they re a theoretical
construct to describe how human behaviour is replicated. Science is not
about finding absolute truth but about creating models that describe the
things we observe, making predictions and testing them. PLease see my
paper Science as a Language, the Non-Probativity Theorem and the Complementarity
of Complexity and Predictability which can be found at
physics.utorotno.ca/JPU_200Y/EM_Front_page.html
I have excerpted a small part of it for you as it best presents my
thinking on this subject. The full paper is available at the Web address
above. I invite interested memebers of this list to read my paper and
comment. Thank you - Bob Logan
Science as a Language, the Non-Probativity Theorem and the Complementarity
of Complexity and Predictability
by Robert K. Logan, Dept. of Physics, University of Toronto
logan@physics.utoronto.ca
Abstract: A linguistic analysis and a formal mathematical proof is
presented to show that science can not prove the truth of a proposition
but can only formulate hypotheses that continually require empirical
verification for every new domain of observation. A number of historical
examples of how science has had to modify theories and/or approaches that
were thought to be absolutely unshakable are presented including the shift
in which linear dynamics is now the anomaly and non-linear dynamics the
norm. Complexity and predictability (as in the opposite of chaos) are
shown to have a complementarity like that of position and momentum in the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The relationship of complexity and
predictability is also similar to that of completeness and logical
consistency within the context of Goedel's Theorem.
snipped
The purpose of this paper is to make use of mathematical reasoning to show
and actually prove that science can never prove the truth of any of its
propositions or hypotheses. To establish our theorem, the Science
Non-Probativity Theorem, we will make use of a basic axiom of the
scientific method, namely, that for a statement or an assertion to be
considered as a scientific statement it must be tested and testable and,
hence, it must be falsifiable. If a proposition must be falsifiable or
refutable to be considered by science then one can never prove it is true
for if one did then the proposition would no longer be falsifiable, having
been proven true, and, hence, could no longer be considered within the
domain of science. We have therefore proven that science can not prove the
truth of anything. Let us repeat this argument using as a formal theorem
making use of two axioms.
The Science Non-Probativity Theorem
Axiom: A proposition must be falsifiable to be a scientific proposition or
part of a scientific theory.
Axiom: A proposition can not be proven true and be falsifiable at the same
time. [Once proven true, a proposition can not be falsified and, hence, is
not falsifiable.]
Theorem: A proposition can not be proven to be true by use of science or
the scientific method.
Proof: If a proposition were to be proven to be true by the methods of
science it would no longer be falsifiable. If it is no longer falsifiable
because it has been proven true it can not be considered as a scientific
proposition and hence could not have been proven true by science. Q.E.D.
In the spirit of the Science Non-Probativity Theorem, we can not be
certain that this line of reasoning is absolutely valid or true. After all
we have just used the theorem, a syntactical element of the language of
mathematics to establish a proposition about the language of science. Our
theorem is not scientifically valid but as a result of mathematical
reasoning we have created a useful probe; one that can lead to some
interesting reflections and insights into the nature and limitation of
science. If it helps scientists and the public, who tend to accept the
authority of science more or less uncritically, to adopt a more humble and
modest understanding of science, it will have served its purpose.
All that science can do is to follow its tried and true method of
observing, experimenting, generalizing, hypothesizing and then testing its
hypotheses. The most that a scientist can do is to claim that for every
experiment or test performed so far, the hypothesis that has been
formulated explains all the observations made to date. Scientific truth is
always equivocal and dependent on the outcome of future observations,
discoveries and experiments. It is never absolute.
A scientist who claims to have proven anything is being dogmatic. Every
human being, even a scientist, has a right to their beliefs and dogmas.
But it does not behoove a person who claims to be a rational scientist and
who claims that science is objective and universal to be so absolute in
their beliefs and in the value of their belief system, science. Scientists
are not immune to dogmatic and intolerant views as Dr. George Coyne (00)
has pointed out in his recent talk at the Humanity and the Cosmos
Symposium at Brock University, "When the Sacred Cows of Science and
Religion Meet".
snipped
Conclusion
In this paper we have attempted to show the strengths and limitations of
science when regarded as a language with its dual role of communication
(description) and information processing (predictability). The
Non-Probativity Theorem underscores a long held belief that scientific
truth is not absolute but always subject to further testing. We have tried
to link the limitations on predictability within the framework of the new
physics of non-linear dynamics with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
and Goedel's Theorem. We have suggested that the chaos and
non-predictability of complexity theory allows a more complete and fuller
description of nature.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 22:19:20 GMT