Paradoxes of science as a system: (Fragments from the philosophy of science)

Abstract

AbstractI. The general paradox of systems science: Systems scientists think that science is a system and that system science is a science. No one feels called on to explicate these relationships. Systems theorists do not believe it is incumbent on them to tell what way their discipline is a science. Nor do scientists feel obliged to say how the generic notion of system is binding on them.II. The paradox of theory versus practice: If theory is taken to be basic, practice is taken to be lower level applied theory. If practice is taken to be basic, theory is felt not to be able to pay its way.III. The paradox of basic research versus R & D: To the extent that Science embraces R & D, the scientist becomes a manager; a manager is not a Scientist.IV. When science as management becomes an integral part of the political economy, the scientific manager becomes a politician.V. Philosophy tries to unscramble this mess. For scientific practice it suggests a division of the work of science into experimentation governed by something like lab control and for the emotional romantic side of science a newly furbished discipline, essentially preaching, which it calls hermenuetics.VI. It has been said the ‘philosophy is the misuse of a vocabulary expressly designed for that purpose.’ Is this true? It almost looks like it. Since the early part of the century, and increasingly before WWII philosophy has been burying more of its messes under the catch‐all word ‘vocabulary.’ If you took the term away from logical positivists, logicians and Richard Rorty, they would not have much left. Leibniz said that mathematics is a well‐made language. Is the mathematician also a vocabulary? Nothing but a vocabulary? What about the philosopher or systematist who is one of Freud's anals, that is, ‘orderly, parsimonious and abstinate’? When will philosophers recognize that orality is a personality trait characteristic of only certain people?