Hobbes, Hofstadter, Feyerabend

An exceptional company. Node puts them side by side to help him present his ABSM approach in a minute.

Hobbes because he sees behavioral science as the collection of reproducible (demonstrably possible) results of valid working (reasoning) with and about observable situations, all based on fundamental behavioral laws. Here Hobbes makes a connection with Euclid and an axiom-based scientific view. Node calls this behavioral biological because he thinks that the term best indicates where the Hobbesian conception of science would fit today.

Hofstadter because he shows how valid reasoning can be designed with axiomatic systems and simulated (using computer programs) with the use of formal systems. He shows that consistency only exists within formal systems of the first order. Society (Hobbes’ Leviathan) cannot possibly be described as a system of the first order.

Feyerabend because he shows that the pursuit of consistency that human nature tends to call for when it has met with some success can be detrimental to the development of understanding and knowledge, and of science more generally.

All this leads to Node’s view of science as a Leviathan of mutually not necessarily consistent (but coherent) disciplines. This means that he should be able to reproduce the emergence of a natural state of war between each and every discipline and, with the help of ABSM, he should be able to show how (to paraphrase Hobbes further) the objections of such a state would lead to accepting a sovereign branch of science that manages the order between and the safety of the disciplines.

Tags: