Re: Conflict - Notre Dame and elsewhere

[Tracy Lightcap <tlightcap@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 11:53 PM, pdavidso wrote:
> What you are saying is that Athenian science deals with ergodic
> processes --
> while  Manchesterian science involve nonergodic processes.

I hadn't thought of it in this way, but the idea rings true.

> I think you can see why focusing on the axiom of whether the science
> deals
> with an ergodic system (as mainstream classical economics does) or
> nonergodic
> processes (as Keynes's GT does) provides a precise taxonomic logical
> difference-- and is independent of whether one is dealing with
> classical
> physics or social science.  As I said a number of time, modern
> physicists
> recognize that some aspects of their discipline may be dealing with
> nonergodic
> processes.  --

I'll use Dyson again on this. Recently, he was quoted as saying that he
felt uncomfortable talking about scientific methods; he prefers to talk
about scientific styles. Different states of affairs need different
styles of approach. It is a gage of how developed a science is when it
is able to vary its style according to the variety of entities its
seeks to illuminate. You and I would agree, I think, on the necessity
of accommodating ergodic and non-ergodic elements within social
sciences and applying appropriate styles of analysis to each. What I'm
not so sure about is the use of the distinction to make a logical
distinction between studies independent of disciplinary boundaries. I
think studies are divided by the states of affairs they are concerned
with, not the styles of analysis they use. Again, I would put the data
in charge and let results guide both styles within fields and
distinctions between fields. But here, I admit, I may have misread you.

Tracy Lightcap
Associate Professor
Political Science
LaGrange College
LaGrange  GA  30240-2999
706.880.8226
tlightcap@xxxxxxxxxxxx