With regard to John Warfield's ideas, the summary of which is included
below:
It strikes me that what we are really studying here is our processes of
thought and our understandings and, through, our experience, determining
whether those understandings are adequate to get the results we
anticipate. Because our understandings are always based on incomplete
information, we will never get exactly the results we anticipate. We are
constantly in a state of refining our understanding, getting a little
better at adapting to and creating our world, but never getting it
completely right. We could say that this is, literally, what makes the
world go round. We could also contemplate that, given the fact that we
will never really get things quite right, how great it is that we can know
this about ourselves. It keeps us open to learning and keeps us hopeful
and minimizes our frustration. We see that life is not about getting
things right. Rather it is about refining and learning and hope and being
in awe but not afraid of the mystery of it all.
John Woods
jwoods@execpc.com
>When the Foundations are changed, a new science is discovered, or the
>older science is amended.
>I'm not familiar with Bateson's paradigm shift, but I think my formulation
>is consistent with Bateson's. However I like mine better, because it
>connects science to action in ways that minimize the necessity for the
>practitioner to go back to fundamentals, while keeping that open as a
>possible requirement. This means that the science itself can be
>constantly assessed in applications and, when appropriate, amended. The
>paradigm shift concept seems a little too vague to suit me.
>
>One of the main reasons for proposing the domain of science model is that
>we now have a need to integrate sciences. This need cannot be
>well-addressed if we only talk science; but if we can get scientists to
>break up their sciences into the three components, we have a much easier
>job of integrating at the level of foundations, where the body of material
>is much smaller than if we took on the whole science.
>
>I keep hoping that there is a future for this system of thinking.
>
>JOHN WARFIELD
>Johnwfield@aol.com
-- jwoods@execpc.com (John Woods)