[MD] British Emergentism

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Steve.

Right. But doesn't emergentism purport to be a scientific discipline? 
>From Wikipedia: "In philosophy, systems theory and science, 
emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a 
multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the 
theories of integrative levels and of complex systems."

Sounds like good old SOM to me. So, I think to associate it with the 
MOQ is misleading. And, as I pointed out before, unlike the MOQ it 
doesn't explain anything.    

Best,
Platt 


On 17 Nov 2009 at 10:40, Steven Peterson wrote:

> Hi Platt,
> 
> 
> > Emergentism, whether British or Hungarian, suffers from a fatal flaw. It
> > is entirely bereft of scientific explanation because it fails to identify
> > deterministic causes or "mechanisms" for the phenomenon in question.
> > To say that this or that property "emerges" is to say nothing more than
> > from A comes B. It is a description, not an explanation. Or, if posited as
> > an explanation it amounts to "Oops."
> 
> I agree that "emergence" does not explain evolution with mechanisms or
> deterministic causes, but neither does the MOQ. The idea of emergence
> is basically anti-reductionism. It says, stop insisting that a
> deterministic mechanism on a lower level must explain everything worth
> knowing on a higher level. It says advances in physics will never make
> biological science obsolete. The MOQ agrees.
> 
> Best,
> Steve
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/