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/