Abstract
We are naturalists aiming to ground philosophical notions in real dynamical processes. From our perspective science is better modeled as a dynamical system than as the formal logical (inductive and deductive) machine found in the work of both the rationalists and empiricists (Hooker 1991,1995). We seek a model of science whereby accepted theory, practice and phenomena develop in mutual dynamical interaction; these, in turn, interacting with institutional organisations as well as our normative models of them. Only a dynamical conception of norms, we claim, is able to properly encompass the fundamentally social and historical nature of science while acknowledging the role played by the psychological capacities of individuals, all of which are sundered from it in the usual static formal models. In pursuit of this conception we have elsewhere examined a range of traditional positions to reveal their tacit dynamical implications or implicit underlying models (Herfel and Hooker 1996). The most promising is Kuhn’s (1962) explicitly dynamical account, which is analogous to a re-organisational model of science with constant global ordering rules (normal science) interrupted by sharp, self-organised and disruptive phase transitions in which the ordering rules dissolve and reconstitute themselves in a different global pattern (revolutions). Though useful, the ‘phase transition’ model of scientific revolution is crude, because: (1) Historical changes in science are much more complex (Hooker 1995; Herfel 1990), (2) it is difficult to know how to adapt the physical model to the sociological situation (especially since the physical situation itself is so poorly understood), and (3) phase transition is just one type of phenomenon available within nonlinear dynamical systems. Already in such innocuous inorganic models as the Bénard system we see rich dynamical features and one of us has argued (Herfel 1996) that such nonlinear dynamics are also typical of science, while the other has argued (Hooker 1995) that the science-technology system is a non-linear dynamic system sharing many of the distinctive characteristics of living systems, which centrally display these same features. Before showing how the unique properties of nonlinear dynamic systems prove pertinent to dynamical accounts of science (Section 3), we explore just one such model (for want of space).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Arthur, W.B.: 1994, Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. Ann Arbor, Michigan University Press.
Bazin, M.J. and P.T. Saunders.: 1977, ‘An Application of Catastrophy Theory to the Study of a Switch in Dictyostelium Discoideum’, in Thomas, R., ed., Kinetic Logic: Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, no.29. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.
Collier, J.D.: 1996, ‘Information Originates in Symmetry-Breaking“, Symmetry: Culture and Science, 7, 247–56.
Forrest, S., ed.: 1991, Emergent Computation. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Garfinkel, A.: 1987, ‘The Slime Mold Dictyostelium as a Model of Self-Organization in Social Systems’, in Yates, F.E., ed., Self-Organizing Systems. New York, Plenum.
Garfinkel, A.: 1981, Forms of Explanation. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Gerisch, G.: 1986, ‘Dictyostelium Discoideum’, in Fougereau, M. and Stora, R., eds. Aspects Cellulaires et Moleculaires de la Biologie du Developement. Amsterdam, North Holland.
Goldbeter, A. and L. Segel.: 1977, ‘Unified Mechanism for Relay and Oscillation of Cylic AMP in Dictyostelium Discoideum’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 74, 1543.
Goldbeter, A. and J.L. Martiel.: 1987, ‘Periodic Behaviour and Chaos in the Mechanism of Intercellular Communication Governing Aggregation of Dictyostelium Amoebae’, in Degn, H., Holden, A.V. and Olsen, L.F., eds, Chaos in Biological Systems. New York, Plenum.
Hahlweg, K. and C.A. Hooker.: 1989, ‘Evolutionary Epistemology and Philosophy of Science’, in Hahlweg, K. and Hooker, C.A., eds, Issues in Evolutionary Epistemology. Albany, SUNY Press.
Harold, F.M.: 1986, The Vital Force: A Study of Bioenergetics. New York, Freeman.
Herfel, W.E.: 1990, Coming Attractions: Chaos and Complexity in Scientific Models. Doctoral Dissertation, Temple University.
Herfel, W.E.: 1995, ‘Nonlinear Dynamical Models as Concrete Construction’, in Herfel, W., Niiniluoto, I., Krajewski, W. and Wojcicki, R., eds., Theories and Models in Scientific Processes. Amsterdam, Editions Rodopi.
Herfel, W.E.: 1996, ‘On Cognitive and Social Dimensions of Science: Constructivism and Nonlinear Dynamics’. Forthcoming in Einstein meets Magritte Conference Proceedings, Orange Book.
Herfel, W.E.: 1997, ‘How Social Constraints Enable Scientific Practice’, in preparation.
Herfel W.E. and Hooker, C.A.: 1996, ‘Cognitive Dynamics and the Development of Science’, in
Ginev, D. and Cohen, R.S., eds, Issues and Images in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
Hooker, C.A.: 1987, A Realistic Theory of Science. Albany, SUNY Press.
Hooker, C.A.: 1991, ‘Between Formalism and Anarchism: A Reasonable Middle Way’, in Munevar, G., ed., Beyond Reason: Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend. Boston, Kluwer.
Hooker, C.A.: 1995, Reason, Regulation and Realism. Albany, SUNY Press.
Hooker, C.A.: 1999, ‘Unity of Science’, in Newton-Smith, W.H., ed., A Companion to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford, Blackwell.
Keller, E.F.: 1985, ‘The Force of the Pacemaker Concept in the Theories of Aggregation in Cellular Slime Mold’, in Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Keller, E.F. and L.Segel.: 1970, ‘Initiation of Slime Mold Aggregation Viewed as an Instability’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 26, 399.
Kuhn, T.: 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, University Press.
Latour, B.: 1987, Science in Action. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Nicolis, G.: 1989, ‘Physics of Far-From-Equilibrium Systems and Self-Organisation’, in Davies, P., ed., The New Physics. Cambridge, UK, University Press.
Pattee, H.H.: 1976, ‘Physical Theories of Biological Co-ordination’, in Grene, M. and Mendelsohn, E., eds, Topics in the Philosophy of Biology. Dordrecht, Reidel.
Stewart I. and Golubitsky, M.: 1992, Fearful Symmetry. Oxford, Blackwell.
Wimsatt, W.C. and Schank, J.C.: 1988, ‘Two Constraints on the Evolution of Complex Adaptations and the Means for their Avoidance’, in Nitecki, M.H., ed., Evolutionary Progress. Chicago, University Press.
Watson, J.D.: 1968, The Double Helix. New York, Mentor.
Wicken, J.S.: 1987, Evolution, Thermodynamics and Information. Oxford: University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Herfel, W.E., Hooker, C.A. (1999). From Formal Machine to Social Colony: Toward a Complex Dynamical Philosophy of Science. In: Chiara, M.L.D., Giuntini, R., Laudisa, F. (eds) Language, Quantum, Music. Synthese Library, vol 281. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2043-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2043-4_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5229-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2043-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive