Meanwhile, back at the 13.7 blog...

...Professor Kauffman continues his march to the sea (where fish are, no doubt, right now engaged in employing their swim bladders as exaptations to be turned into hummingbird beaks). There are many things about his posts that rub me the wrong way, really rub me the wrong way, but a big one is the incomplete and hence misleading logical construct used to formulate his "no law" assertions.

Since he is, apparently, an accomplished scientist, I am forced to conclude that he is intentionally misleading his nonscientist readers. The crux of his deception is an incompletely formulated syllogism (paraphrasing): - since the natural laws we understand and accept tell us there is, in principle, no way to deterministically predict future events, there is "no law [sic]". Leaving aside for now the inspired creationist jiu-jitsu technique of enlisting scientific principles and findings as their own enemies, it is crucial to recognize the unstated initial proposition in this syllogism: "If we admit as natural law only those principles that make deterministic temporal predictions, and - since the natural laws ..." That is the only proposition that can lead off his logical construct to arrive at a valid "no law" conclusion. But that initial proposition is, not, not even remotely, the general scientific understanding of what we admit as natural law.

C'mon, Stu!!! You know as well as anyone that when Peebles "predicted" the cosmic microwave background it wasn't a temporal prediction that two guys named Penzias and Wilson would be cleaning pigeon droppings out of their radio telescope 40 miles away in a few months! It was a "phenomenal" prediction: under appropriate conditions, a very specific and precisely circumscribed phenomenon would be apparent. THAT's what scientists nearly always mean when they use the term "predict" and phenomenal prediction is nearly always the form of scientific law.

Professor Kauffman's conspicuous finessing of this initial proposition looks to those sufficiently versed in this science "magic" thing, as nothing more than sleight of hand employed to fool the rubes nonscientists. Reading his entries, I just can't shake the sense that instead of using his role in the 13.7 blog in an appropriate dialogue with nonscientists, he's intent on scoring cheap shots against Steven Weinberg, located conveniently off camera blog, and advancing a pet economic model, by deliberately misleading - browbeating, really - some blog readers to a gross and fundamental misunderstanding of the general structure of science.

And finally there's this: be very, very wary of scientists and others who are eager to (mis)apply some natural or physical law to address what are fundamentally social issues. This is, for instance, what gave us the marvels of eugenics, and boy-oh-boy do I viscerally distrust the general thrust of a scientist invoking the principles of quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity in support of an economic paradigm. There is simply no mechanism, none, that would allow an understanding of the worldlines of events in the special theory of relativity or the superposition of quantum mechanical eigenfunctions to credibly inform an economic paradigm. If you resort to having these principles undergirding your economic model, to quote lolcats, "ur doin it rong". If Kauffman-economics grows legs, trust me, move your investment portfolio to mattress manufacturers. Or if Hank Paulson becomes CEO of Sealy-Posturepedic, maybe straight to mattresses.