So this new discipline is emerging, the Cliodinamica . It attracts a lot of my curiosity ', being a bridge between mainstream science made of models, theories, issues, methods and predictions, and the ball that most of the universe 'seems to escape every scientific prediction: humanity' itself. Can 'the scientific method invented by humans to be used to study the social dynamics of such beings?
Surely everyone will agree, and no scientists, who apply the scientific method to understand and then predict the behavior of the individual, and 'what is so far from feasible that becomes virtually impossible. The problem is' too complicated and not worth wasting time. But when groups of people are studied together, paradoxically, the hope of those scientists and 'things will be simplified. Until you can find repeating patterns, correlations tra occorrenze che, in posti diversi e tempi diversi, diano piu' o meno effetti simili.
Ma e' una speranza fondata? O puo' esserci qualche ostacolo di principio, che magari io non vedo troppo bene, ma qualcun'altro puo'? Ne ho parlato con il (quasi-)dottor P., esperto di filosofia, soprattutto filosofia politica. Studiare quotidianamente la filosofia politica, credo, deve modificare seriamente la percezione del mondo. La fisica quotidiana lo fa con me, d'altro canto. E volendo sapere com'e' il mondo da quell'altra parte del fiume, P. mi e' sempre d'aiuto.
La giro a conversazione, tra me e lui, come potrebbero fare due personaggi di un romanzo ottocentesco, di quelli noiosissimi. Spero possa interessare chi want to see the different approaches that have two irrelevant but enthusiastic exponents of these two disciplines so far, physics and philosophy (politics).
F. So what do you think of this new direction of the hard science, in which you want to use the scientific method and statistical massively (which already 'is used in other fields) to go to find patterns and correlations nothing less than in human history? It makes sense from your point of view?
P. The question - that is' can the social sciences (such as history) to become like the pure sciences? - It 's very complicated. On it were written thousands of pages and fought terrible wars (not yet dormant). It 's a question that divides almost social scientists into two bands: those who say that yes, people say no, and some say that perhaps a bit '. I am in the notice of no.
Or rather, evidence that the use of experimental techniques and quantitative methods is sometimes useful to try to predict future behavior of short-term and 'taken for granted. But the point is' another. What do I need to know, for example, what will be 'voting behavior of young people in the next elections (voting behavior and' one of the areas where more 'and' spread the quantitative method) if I do not know what "democracy"?
In the twentieth century, the most historic political event 'and relevant' was definitely the Nazis. He would never have a social science "science" to provide for this phenomenon? No. The task, as Hannah Arendt says, is not 'so much to predict the future but try to understand the past. Do not expect the "scale" of human behavior that are repeated regularly over the centuries, but to understand the relevant exceptions. The first things are less interesting (though important), and the second those that determine the path of history. Vico did not think very differently.
So if you do not try to understand the substance of human phenomena, giving it a meaning, then try to predict human behavior, as well as wishful thinking (the results of these efforts have been rather scarce), and 'misleading.
I'll tell you why 'is not that those who use quantitative methods are a minority. The vast majority and are expanding. In the Congress of the European Association of Political Science, on 40 of the panel dedicated to various issues, only 4 were of political philosophy, all others were more or less related to quantitative methods.
F. What interests me a lot 'cause I'm basically on the other side than you, although not always know if your heart or just the education part. Am I on the side where the number (quantification) and 'God. The measuring instruments are Jesus ', and we must understand that all the apostles by the numbers through a screen reality' of God. You can not 'say it does not work for nothing, sent us on the moon and cure cancer.
The method and 'the thing I like best' of all this history: hypothesis testing, prediction, verification, new hypothesis, testing etc etc. The scientific method from Galileo on has come a long way, and it 'what makes me excited about the side where I am. Pero 'now people are starting to say, this method itself (that of hard science: the experimental work, then models and analysis), we can not be applied elsewhere than systems built to art?
Galileo, again, teaches us 'to understand something of that nature had to "remove" that is necessary' to eliminate accidents external causes whose effects are too complicated, social disruption, and one remains in front of nature made of triangles and circles, perfectly explicable in terms of geometric and mathematical. And it works, it helps to understand (and use) the basis of things, from atoms to the pulleys. But now they say, and perhaps in a natural way: we begin to "add", and you begin to study the deterministic chaos in mathematics, the interaction between populations, ecology, complex stuff made up of many small elements that interact, the networks, the brain. And the analytical descriptions explode in complexity, 'but you still can not do much.
far as to say: let's see what we can say about the history, a phenomenon which we begin to have enough data as "experimental." Reading that article in Nature in early turn up their nose. It is not known how comporta un semplicissimo sistema di 3 equazioni non lineari, e tu vuoi farlo con la Storia? mmm, non mi convinceva proprio.
Pero', e c'e' un piccolo pero', forse alla fine ho capito cosa intendono fare: vogliono provare ad applicare il metodo, e non a trovare soluzioni "analitiche" a problemi impossibili. E quindi: andare a cercare nel passato dei pattern (cosi chiamano le tue "incrostazioni") che si ripetono e vedere se hanno generato, nel loro futuro a noi conosciuto, delle conseguenze simili. Chissa' che non si trovi che il nazismo e' stato generato da pattern nella societa' (rancore per i trattati di pace appena fatti, crescita demografica e/o economica) simili a quelli che si possano trovare altrove in altro periodo (magari oggi?). La cosa quasi mi sembra ragionevole. Mi sembra quello che sempre hanno fatto gli storiografi, ma questa volta cercando di quantificare.
Pur essendo un "entusiasta" del metodo, lungi da me pensare che quella sia l'unica maniera di rapportarsi al mondo. Ne esistono altre, e' bene esserne consapevoli e rispettarli (ognuno nella sua sfera di attuabilita'). Metodi non analitici, evocativi, a volte strettamente non basati sulla logica, retorici: dalla filosofia all'arte o alla poesia, fino anche al misticismo dei monaci buddhisti. Una volta ho sentito dire, da un bravissimo scientifico, che la filosofia dovrebbe scomparire, perche' e' un campo in cui ognuno puo' dire quello che gli pare senza verifiche di alcun tipo. Il che e' true, but there 'to understand that, despite being immersed in the scientific method, not' the only way that the reading of reality '. Of course if I get an infection I prefer a doctor to a shaman, but that 'does not mean that the shaman fascinates me and I think he can teach us many things.
P. We come to the question of history as analytical science.
Actually, not 'I can now put in writing a treatise,' cause, as an image, this theme - the relationship between the natural sciences and the humanities, or the attempt to carry the scientific method early in the second - and ' huge on it and 'wrote a lot. this is because 'touches a central point: "As we know, predict, and controllare dei processi in societa'?", cioe' "fino a che punto e' conoscibile il senso dell'azione umana e quindi dell'uomo?". E' anche un punto in cui si vede nella maniera piu' drastica, la differenza tra la filosofia antica e quella moderna. Su questo punto, infatti, si e' registrata una delle rotture piu' drastiche effettuate dalla modernita'. In breve, la rivoluzione scientifica che si e' verificata con Galileo, poi Copernico, ecc. ha avuto delle influenze molto rilevanti anche sul lato filosofico. Naturalmente, le influenze sono state reciproche, pero' diciamo che i successi ottenuti con il metodo scientifico sono stati accolti dall' "altra parte" con grande ammirazione, e allo stesso tempo, con frustrazione per i presunti "Failures" to which she was used instead of philosophy.
has' started to think (Machiavelli and Hobbes) that political philosophy was interested in reality 'and not what we would like reality', that the experience and knowledge should proceed by induction logic, rather than by 'authority' of the past, and that the knowledge and power were the same thing (Bacon), and then more 'on the certainty that should be the product of absolute doubt (Descartes). Then things happened and centuries have passed, and but 'in the twentieth century came to an application of the real scientific method, quantitative social sciences. Models of voting behavior, estimates of armed conflict, behavior economic, etc..
course, the transition from the beginnings of modernity 'and in our time' was very long, and meanwhile there have been many things in between. Indeed, authors such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, or Bacon, had at the same time as modern, as of old (and hence the fact that they are so interesting), but we say that the roots more or less be traced back to them '. However, because 'you do this historical reconstruction? Why 'from them' some important themes emerge. First of all, the difference between what 'and that' and what 'it should be. Then, the theme of the relationship between knowledge and power, and finally that of certainty. I will focus' on the first, even though all three are related and interdependent. So, to start you can 'say that one of the differences more' catches the eye between the natural and social sciences, and 'the fact that in the first there is a separation between the object of study and the person who performs the study . I mean 'we study the natural phenomenon from a perspective outside, the spectator who goes there' and see what happens. Applied to the social sciences this condition translates into the claim that the scientist clearly distinguishes between "facts" and "values". The former are properly the subject of study, subject of study that must be addressed from a neutral position, from which the values \u200b\u200bof the scientist must be kept out. Even when the object of study are the "values" (beliefs moral, for example.), these should be considered as "facts", that is' objectified and studied from the outside. This alleged "scientic" carried out in the social sciences from positivism and 'the real danger of weak and those who want to shape the social sciences on the model of the natural ones. The social scientist can not 'and will not have to' never put aside his values, and because 'this is impossible - the same choice as the object of study and' determined by our interests, from what 'we believe that important - and because 'and' dangerous, 'cause it means that the social scientist is exempt from the task of deciding what is' important or not in his work, and becomes a mere instrument of power.
Exactly, instead of mettere la scienza al servizio del benessere generale, la rende puro strumento utilizzabile da chi detiene il potere e decide autonomamente cosa e' buono o no per la socita'. Questa posizione appunto mostra chiaramente l'equazione che la modernita' stabilisce tra sapere e potere. Quest'ultimo e' quello che comanda, usando il sapere come mezzo per ottenere i suoi fini. Nell'antichita', e in altre tradizioni culturali, come il giudaismo per esempio, il sapere era fine a se stesso. Cioe' non era strumento ma fine. Sapere e felicita' piu o meno coincidevano.
Ma il problema non e' solo questo. Come abbiamo detto, nelle scienze sociali (ma in realta' anche nelle scienze naturali) non si puo' pretendere una posizione neutrale da parta dello scienziato, ma imparziale si. I suoi valori, cioe', lo devono guidare pero' senza cadere nella faziosita', nella partigianeria. Quello che lo deve guidare e' sempre l'amore per il sapere (filosofia). In secondo luogo, e qui entriamo in un altro tema fondamentale, le scienze sociali, trattando appunto di azioni umane, non si interessano solo dei "fatti" ma dei "significati".
Cioe' non devono solo stabilire in che modo, per esempio, una societa' raggiunge un minor o maggior grado di ordine interno, ma stabilire che significa quel determinato concetto di ordine. Questo vale anche per quanto riguarda i comportamenti, diciamo cosi', piu' meccanici degli uomini (tipo quelli economici, di abbastamento alimentare, per esempio).
L'economia, although it has benefited much of the introduction of mathematical models in her womb, can not 'regardless of the effort of significance of the phenomena it studies. For example, the same law of demand and supply, must 'determine' cause is a good question to a lesser or greater extent. And that can not 'be done simply by determining a set of preferences of individuals, and they aggregate preferences, building models in which numeric variables are introduced for each type of factors that influence the choice. This you can 'do and the results can be quite good, but as' doing is not addressed a key issue: that human action can not' be reduced to numbers.
is not 'largely quantifiable. Its meaning instead requires an interpretive approach, discursive. In the words of Arendt, and the error of the materialists' belief that "matter" has the same meaning for everyone. It 's not the same thing, for example, who just wants the money' cause his psyche and 'disturbed by a sort of fetishistic attachment to money, or who, however, it does, for example, to lust for power or exhibitionism . These three attitudes even if they point to the same goal (to have more money) it certain behaviors will be different and dealt with differently.
In political science, then this issue becomes crucial. its purpose and 'to understand how politics works, that' the dependency relationships in a community '. These can never be regarded as neutral objects, because 'always imply a vision of good and evil. The ancient political philosophy, unlike the modern, always starts from this premise: namely 'that it should concern itself with a vision of the whole, even though he knows perfectly well that this total vision and the' impossible to achieve. The man can not 'never know' cause things to the end, but must 'be aware that, as a man, his work moves addressed by this yearning for the absolute (I'm getting too mystical?).
Pero ', despite this interest in everything, just the awareness of' inability 'to know everything will be' what 'that la spinge a ribassare le sue pretese, e a considerare la prudenza come una delle principali virtu'. Anche in questo punto, si vede la differenza con l'atteggiamento della scienza moderna: se questa ha messo da parte l'interesse per il tutto, d'altra parte ha suddiviso la realta' in varie aree, settori, e in ognuna di esse ha preteso erigersi a padrone attraverso la sua fiducia nelle capacita' di conoscere. Il conoscimento della natura, per esempio, per il controllo su di essa.
Arrivati a questo punto stiamo toccando un'altra questione che anch'essa richiederebbe molto spazio: il conoscimento come strumento di controllo, e la oggettivizzazione di cio' che si studia da parte del soggetto che la studia, con il fine del controllo su di essa. Ma this topic would lead us too far.
Returning to the issue of meaning, a relevant example of the difference in the study of human relationships between the ancient and modern, 'the fact that, for example, Aristotle, in relation to the bonds that hold a community together' policy, was interested in the topic friendship, while the modern scientic this attitude, the relationship between I and Thou.
Aristotle studied the friendship as something real, live, where you could make generalizations, however, but 'could not be locked into formulas, modern, instead, through abstraction, trying to make this relationship I - You After that universal and 'to apply his rules in concrete cases.
It 'obvious that the meaning of the concept of friendship, escapes any abstract definition, and must be sought in specific cases, and that must be interpreted more objectified. in it there will be 'always a surplus of meaning that we can not clearly defined, we can not control, but which and' fundamental. And this' is true in general for what we call "values". From all the foregoing that the application of a scientific method in history, with the aim of predicting future behavior, it is implausible, because 'the nature of man, as Vico said, because of free will and' incertissima yield predictable and therefore difficult. So if there was a science historical knew more 'or less predict the future behavior would mean that man would lose his freedom'. We must also see how the very fact of wanting to see history through the analytical lenses help the man who actually behave like the models who want to describe. But that 's another question. We should remember, finally, that already 'Aristotle said that the methodology of each discipline should be molded on the matter of that discipline, its object of study, and not vice versa.
F. Now a final point, and that 'though perhaps not quite connected it seems. Let me do the devil's advocate, what I like, and exaggerate a bit '.
The book you gave me (Hannah Harendt, The Human Condition)) I like, but '. Pero 'is written for a few, and what each page makes me turn the ball propeller. The lady, and you all philosophers, you know things in great depth ', but you can not communicate to us poor mortals. I have to read the sentences of ten lines at least three times to figure it out. 'cause? I, like all who read scientific articles, but now also applies xi kids youtube, we are capable of very little effort at a time. Simple sentences in which ideas are clearly exposed. Your friend does not know make their own. He writes very well for charity, 'but not' easy reading, even in those sentences where he says things simple.
times will be different, and the use of rhetoric that is tanto a cuore. Prova per favore a convincermi che usare un linguaggio complicato, arzigogolato e frasi kilometriche e' funzionale al messaggio. Perche' ora ci credo a fatica, mi sembra un nascondere dietro a una bella cornice un quadro semivuoto (parlo di singole frasi qui, non del libro in toto). A volte traducendo frasi di 12 linee ci trovo solo frasi tipo : lo schiavo greco era infelice.
Lo so , e' uno sfogo. Immagino gia' la risposta: la complessita' delle cose che si vuole comunicare e' tale che non puo' essere solo detta tramite concetti dicibili, va fatta sentire pure in altro modo, e la retorica e' funzionale a quello, un po' come mettere profumo in un libro , o stamparlo su carta igienica o carta vetrata, o scrivere una poesia.
But poetry, if the similarity holds, and 'intimate, personal, says to me "to" you "b". The lady in question but I'm sure it clear he wants to say, and then 'cause I did not say more than' just? 'cause it makes me feel stupid? because 'they are, ok, but' if I do all that difficult, even pleasure (ie 'better, I find it important to do so), how many people will be able to' read that book in the world? not 'a value to search for the dissemination of your ideas? Maybe it 's the point.
Maybe 'why do not you write a blog and I do. You want to do as the philosophers and artists become famous only in death? want to change people is 50 generations, when they are ready to read? wait from your word that falls slowly in June 'in company' until finally affect the postman on the corner? 'Cause you (with your ideas) come to the postman on the corner and sciura next door at the end, otherwise it' was useless. Agree with me on this?
Aristotle 'was a great philosopher,' cause his ideas have shaped the company 'all (the people were dying because of those ideas) for time immemorial. Because 'the philosophers they study, write, read, draw conclusions, otherwise? After all you want, you must disclose it! This
'in fact what the intellectuals have always done and who knows' always will. But there 's something that I do not like in this dynamic, and perhaps' we're in the Internet Era now and if something is not 'read after the first ten minutes when' writing, and at least half a million people, is in danger of disappearing. What do you say?
So in short, the problem of the dissemination of ideas. E 'thing really necessary? or the poet must take care of this? but a philosopher and 'a poet or a scientist? Being paid from public life (as in most cases), it seems to me that it should then take care of the blur that allows him to voleggiare in the world of ideas and then eat the loaf. So this seems to me that the disclosure is necessary thing. Plus released (but I do not mean with comics for children, I recommend) and 'too way to expose: there is' something in the frame of fine words? there are very substantial ideas? There 's six lines need to say something that can' be said in three words? Here
my scientific training takes over: we have to express in words "Simple". Here simple means not "easy" but primary, basic, then lay the basis thus established a speech by all. And then, in principle after a while 'effort to obtain information, comprehensible to all.
rhetoric (rhetoric call, who knows 'if a wrong or not, the language and all its instruments from grammar to those more' high) What is the function? It 'really necessary? Never, 'used as a screen to hide a vacuum? Rhetoric should not be just a tool to help you better understand? But make themselves understood and 'whether or not the ultimate goal (having something to say, of course)? If you say the brilliant idea to revolutionize the concept of democracy, should not be able to express it in words understandable to most '? Or perhaps the job of the philosopher is not 'to have new ideas, brilliant,' cause no, revolutionary? Aristotle or Plato or Kant revolutionized anything? or are they just like the most 'beautiful flowers of the field? coagulation in beauty "not helpful" the thought of their time? Something's coming, yes, by the society ', like a flower from the branch, but to those companies' that are' nothing but seeds for people to come and time, perhaps after generations and generations? I just used a figure of speech .... I hope you understand better what I meant.
P. Here we touch again another very important point. I mean 'precision and definition with which the language used in the social sciences should be developed. We often complain that in the social sciences and philosophy even more 'using a language unclear, undefined, vague. Well, if this is often 'the result of sloppiness and a lack of capacity' understanding of the phenomenon, and other times 'a necessity' and even more of a salvation. If it 's true that' important to be consistent, clarify, differentiate, and 'also true that some things are not clearly definable. And the concepts and definitions must be applied and reconfigured along with the contingent experience.
Friendship for example. One can 'give a general definition, distinguishing, for example, from compagnerismo. Pero 'then each case will have' its peculiarities'. And, nevertheless, will remain 'a universal concept. Universal pero ', not in the way of a mathematical law, but in the way in which' universal poetry of Petrarch. And perhaps a poem will be 'what' that evoke rather than define, you may 'pull this its universality' in the best way.
I was wondering if the philosopher and 'a poet or a scientist. A good question, there is no 'what to say. And that keeps me from time to dance. So, to put the cart before the horse, you tell 'that, as I suspect, for me and' poet much more than science. But of course, this stance a bit 'partisan, it should be clarified and specified. In reality 'is something in the middle', although for me, the nearest to the poet that the scientist. This is because 'more' to understand how the reality ', to interpret what this means for a human being as a human being. That and 'at the bottom the only one who can' do.
0 comments:
Post a Comment