Science, Narrative, and Agency in Gravity's Rainbow-two questions

[horvathg]

As a scientist (chemist, now biophysicist) I have to agree with you R.
Fiero.
The article is remarkable, made me think a lot about science.

However, Godel's theorem can be applied to science, but only because science
does not deal with the world.
Science deals with a model of the world, thus as a formal system Godel's
theorem may apply.
But I'm that sure that it applies to the world.
And since scientists (or at least some of them) are aware of this nature of
science, they are also aware that there model/theory can be wrong.
So science is nothing but about doubt. With the establishment, of course,
doubting anything new, while the new doubting anything old.
In natural sciences the struggle between ideas are usually not limited. What
limits science is the struggle between personalities (like Newton -
Leibniz),
or between technologies (and power and money) (like Edison's DC - Tesla's
AC).
I have a feeling that this lady might not have written her article in that
fashion if she had studied some "real" science too, not just read about it.

About chaos theory:
Yes, it is a mathemathical construction, with very direct applications in
physics, chemistry and you name it.
What it thaught is that the predictive nature of scientific theories are not
limitless even in highly determined systems.
And that science, up till now, has only dealt with a small portion of
"nature", easily characterizable, and not with the really interesting
(mostly chaotic) part of it.

Best regards,

Gabor

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:54:37 -0800
> From: "R. Fiero" <rfiero at pophost.com>
> Subject: Re: Science, Narrative, and Agency in Gravity's 
> Rainbow-two questions
> 
> Paul Celmer wrote:
> >As a long-time lurker on this list (I was here back during 
> the Koopman
> >spectacle) and a long time reader of Pynchon criticism (and 
> have even 
> >added some of my own to the pile), I found the essay "Science, 
> >Narrative, and Agency" to be one of the more interesting and 
> readable 
> >pieces I had ever come across. I agree it is a bit "loose" 
> in places, 
> >but that might be the tradeoff for keeping the argument moving. And 
> >perhaps I am a bit biased in that I am very interested in 
> the rhetoric 
> >of science. Still, I was surprised by the strength of the 
> negative reaction to it on this list.
> >
> >Have I just been suckered into another "Sokal Affair?"
> >I could not for the life of me find the name of the author 
> of the piece 
> >on the website. Anyone have it?
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Paul
> 
> The only negative comments were mine.  I agree that the 
> article is pleasant for several reasons in spite of the 
> author's membership in the Everything is Everything crowd.
> First, the Godel remark refers to a statement about 
> statements and not to a statement about the world.  Second, 
> chaos is a branch of mathematics and as such does not depend 
> on any physical interpretation for its validity.  Third, the 
> author conflates a naive notion of science with Big Science 
> as it is actually practiced as an instrument of corporate and 
> military progress.