From: Chris Taylor (christ@ebi.ac.uk)
Date: Fri 13 Feb 2004 - 15:35:51 GMT
> <This sort of thing makes clear why this area _should_ be left to
>
>>biologists.>
>>
> The anti cross-disciplinary tone of several comments on the list
> recently have been disappointing to say the least, indeed as a social
> scientist I could easily take offence. Don't forget that all disciplines
> have their wackos- Rupert Sheldrake for instance (sorry Dace)- and their
> areas of the unknown- how about some biologist defining life, for instance
> (oh, and if someone can, maybe you should tell NASA so they know what to
> look for).
Yeah well that's one that is better addressed from a Dougie-style point
of view of asking why we need such a definition (presumably, ultimately,
for press releases and grant proposals). Life isn't a thing, it's an
arbitrary classification, that's the key, which of course you knew.
Prions are great for laying that issue wide open (as, of course, are
viruses, lots of endosymbionts etc., and stuff that should be 'in' that
isn't due to host medium, timescales and so on, but I digress).
I hate that I'm coming across as an anti-cross-disciplinarian -- I've
felt driven to defend an offhand statement; the gist being that anyone
can do this stuff (i.e. apply evolutionary thought) not just
card-carrying biologists, but that the most appropriate place to start
is in the study of a few aspects of biological systems.
> There is no contesting that the social sciences have been rather
> over-infected with wackos and wacky ideas in recent times, but some of us
> are developing immunity to the wilder strains of relativism, postmodernism
> and the other crap. Also we are_all_trying to find things to say about one
> of the most complex systems humans are aware of- human society and that's
> bloody hard especially when the natural sciences have been lagging so far
> behind in getting around to study human society, meaning that the social
> sciences had to start somewhere, and they were bound to be largely wrong
> about most things early on- just like Aristotle or Pliny or Galen were in
> the early days of science, but at least they made a start. I'm willing to
> be enlightened, as long as there isn't too much heckling and cat-calling- do
> science lecturers treat their students the way they sometimes treat social
> scientists? If so, no wonder applications for science subjects are falling
> through the floor.
Actually, just to be awkward, a little heat added to the light might
generate some interest -- all too often science (as it must due to the
demands of the media for neat packages) is portrayed as uncontentious,
fully collaborative progress towards truth. I came out of my science
A-levels with the impression that there was little left to do but fill
in gaps!
Also, despite Douglas' determination to cast me as an excluder, by
exploiting the kind of relaxed mannerism that generally goes unpunished
here becuase we know, broadly, what we mean, I am certainly not that. To
me social science is fascinating; all I said is that biological theory
is a good place to raid for ideas to get going (whoever might be doing
that). The reason is not that I think SS is flaky -- we all have nutters
in our midst -- I have been lectured by some. My point is that certain
disciplines are appropriate to the study of different levels of
granularity; biology (through various subdisciplines) has good stuff for
looking at the smaller scales.
Cheers, Chris.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Taylor (christ@ebi.ac.uk)
MIAPE Project -- psidev.sf.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
===============================================================
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 2.1.5 : Fri 13 Feb 2004 - 15:47:31 GMT