Question And Answer, CHAPTER V.
The science of human behaviour cannot be as precise as the physical sciences because the coupling between observer and observed generates an uncertainty principle. Games theory was used in military work before World War III. Later, large computers analysed the theory of complex phenomena like business, making economics more comprehensible. Communications theory was applicable to human beings as symbolising animals. All of this plus the least effort axiom facilitated the construction of a mathematical and paramathematical system in which elements like potentials and gradients can be equated with observable phenomena so that theorems can be derived. Checking theorems remains difficult because of confused conditions and because controlled experiments on human beings are impossible but data confirm current theories. Economic cycles have become predictable. In North America, propagandists and admen provoked a reaction against them, leading to military defeat. Mentally blinkered commissars did not investigate beyond their outmoded dogmatic ideology. Liberators seeking only power became as unpopular as the deposed commissars. The warlords of the Interregnum used some psychomilitary analysts but their work was not applied widely enough. In the theocratic period, the Mongku Empire was such a challenge that research was encouraged:
"'...and the first politicomathematical analyses were performed.'" (p. 42)
Venus took over, ousting the theocrats. Then thorough research produced the field and tensor approach of formulated psychodynamics which:
"'...was used to bring on the Mars-Venus war and unify the Solar System.'" (ibid.)
The psychman, Avery, summarizes a future history:
4 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
There can't be a "science" of mankind because human beings, human lives, human societies, cannot be made predictable in what they will do. At most, sometimes, broad trends or patterns can be observed over long periods of time. And they can be checked against roughly similar patterns from other times, to get some idea of what happened or might happen.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Science is objective. Consciousness is subjective. I think that that is the basic dichotomy.
Paul.
Possibly, but we certainly don't understand it -yet-. It's possible we're just not smart enough to do so, the way a dog can't understand algebra.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
The idea of a predictive "science of society" was examined by Anderson in "No Truce With Kings" and "Details," with non-humans implementing such a "science" in both. The first shows what happened when humans found out what was going on and knocked over the apple cart. The second is more ambiguous, showing how aliens could make mistakes by underestimating humans.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment