<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6002.19567" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear All,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Terry's phrase deserves at least the attention, if
not the agreement of all of us. In my view, qualitative terms belong in science
if they follow some sort of logic. There are risks, of fraud and pseudo-science,
but these risks cannot be avoided in reality by relying on mathematics
alone.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Two comments, one negative and one
positive:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>How is it that despite the risk most of us are able
to recognize pseudo-science when we see it?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In the sciences indicated by Terry, are not
abductions to the best explanations and implications to
process dynamics doing some of the necessary work?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>There seems to be no alternative to living partly
with uncertainty, then, at all levels, and this is not congenial to some people.
The existence of this non-congeniality is an example of the science I am talking
about.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Best wishes,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Joseph</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=deacon@berkeley.edu href="mailto:deacon@berkeley.edu">Terrence W.
DEACON</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=fis@listas.unizar.es
href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">fis</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, November 18, 2017 5:38
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Fis] some notes</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>If the definition of science requires quantification and
mathematical representation then most of biology won't qualify, including
molecular and cellular biology, physiology, psychology, and neuroscience.
Physics envy has long ago been abandoned by most working scientists in these
fields. This is not to say that just any sort of theorizing qualifies, nor can
we be sure that today's non-quantifiable science won't someday be susceptible
to precise empirically testable mathematical modeling—even semiotic analyses
may someday be made mathematically precise—but being empirically testable,
even if just in precise qualitative terms, is pretty close to being a core
defining attribute.</DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Terrence W. DEACON
<SPAN dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:deacon@berkeley.edu"
target=_blank>deacon@berkeley.edu</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">On
communication:<BR><BR>"Communication" needs to be more carefully
distinguished from mere<BR>transfer of physical differences from location to
location and time to<BR>time. Indeed, any physical transfer of physical
differences in this<BR>respect can be utilized to communicate, and all
communication requires<BR>this physical foundation. But there is an
important hierarchic<BR>distinction that we need to consider. Simply
collapsing our concept of<BR>'communication' to its physical substrate (and
ignoring the process of<BR>interpretation) has the consequence of treating
nearly all physical<BR>processes as communication and failing to distinguish
those that<BR>additionally convey something we might call representational
content.<BR><BR>Thus while internet communication and signals transferred
between<BR>computers do indeed play an essential role in human
communication, we<BR>only have to imagine a science fiction story in which
all human<BR>interpreters suddenly disappear but our computers
nevertheless<BR>continue to exchange signals, to realize that those signals
are not<BR>"communicating" anything. At that point they would only be
physically<BR>modifying one another, not communicating, except in a sort
of<BR>metaphoric sense. This sort of process would not be
fundamentally<BR>different from solar radiation modifying atoms in the upper
atmosphere<BR>or any other similar causal process. It would be odd to say
that the<BR>sun is thereby communicating anything to the
atmosphere.<BR><BR>So, while I recognize that there are many methodological
contexts in<BR>which it makes little difference whether or not we ignore
this<BR>semiotic aspect, as many others have also hinted, this is merely
to<BR>bracket from consideration what really distinguishes physical
transfer<BR>of causal influence from communication. Remember that this was
a<BR>methodological strategy that even Shannon was quick to acknowledge
in<BR>the first lines of his classic paper. We should endeavor to always
be<BR>as careful.<BR><BR>— Terry<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR clear=all>
<DIV><BR></DIV>-- <BR>
<DIV class=gmail_signature data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Professor Terrence
W. Deacon<BR>University of California, Berkeley</DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Fis mailing
list<BR>Fis@listas.unizar.es<BR>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>