Atomic Thought (Part 3)
This follows on from the previous post and comments made there.
The question that was implicit and is now explicit is, "What do we mean when we talk about 'atomism' – and more exactly, the 'atomic concept' of a discipline?"
I think so far we've come up with several points which must be included in our definition of an 'atomic concept' within a discipline:
But are there really such 'atomic concepts' in common use?
I think that for chemistry, the simple model of the atom is one such atomic concept. It passes all four tests. In biology, the simple model of the cell also passes all these tests (more or less). In mathematics, the idea of number; in history, the idea of a 'date' – a specific time-marker for a given event. In language or literature, the idea of a 'word' can probably fulfill that function, but this might vary between languages or literary forms. Universal constants, as the Galoisien has queried, probably don't meet these criteria, except for π, which is a fairly universal iconic representation of 'numerical symbol'.
So, how about economics, sociology, music, and other human activities?
=====
Updates:
1) NBL offers this page of ring icons which shows the kind of iconography that MIT graduate students believe should meet the fourth test above. It's interesting to see that in some cases, the rationale for adopting such an icon can also be used to meet other tests. But most icons don't. What's interesting is that at this page you can also see what other ideas were proposed and rejected. All this helps with the sciences, but do the arts remain mysterious?
2) Augie raises the idea of iconic colours. You do tend to see this in university graduation robes and institutions. For example, the blue/gold pair is often seen as descriptive of the spiritual/material dichotomy, or sky/earth or sea/sun and so on. The main problem is that colour by itself conveys too many things. At the same time, some colour combinations are pretty commonly used. I'm sure Peter and other artistic people would have something to say here.
3) Phil raises the idea of the pawn as a symbol for chess. It's a good point; the pawn is the basic unit of material value calculation in chess (although space and time are as important in different ways). I would say the pawn indeed fulfills all the criteria for a chess 'atom', but I'm not so sure it directly fulfills all the criteria for 'atomic concept', which in such a game is probably 'square' (i.e. a space) or 'move' (i.e. a game dynamic and unit of time) – unless you use 'pawn' as synonymous with 'basic unit of material value'.
The question that was implicit and is now explicit is, "What do we mean when we talk about 'atomism' – and more exactly, the 'atomic concept' of a discipline?"
I think so far we've come up with several points which must be included in our definition of an 'atomic concept' within a discipline:
- It is part of the rational basis of that discipline, as one of the entities that virtually all transactions or ideas within a discipline must include.
- It has social currency – it must be easily grasped; intuitively, people should be able to accept it as a conceptual building-block.
- It has cultural currency; that is, people can use it in everyday communication without seeming unbearably wonkish, geekish or nerdish.
- It has iconic currency; that is, if used as a symbolic instance (or converted into a graphic symbol), it stands a good chance of representing its discipline.
But are there really such 'atomic concepts' in common use?
I think that for chemistry, the simple model of the atom is one such atomic concept. It passes all four tests. In biology, the simple model of the cell also passes all these tests (more or less). In mathematics, the idea of number; in history, the idea of a 'date' – a specific time-marker for a given event. In language or literature, the idea of a 'word' can probably fulfill that function, but this might vary between languages or literary forms. Universal constants, as the Galoisien has queried, probably don't meet these criteria, except for π, which is a fairly universal iconic representation of 'numerical symbol'.
So, how about economics, sociology, music, and other human activities?
=====
Updates:
1) NBL offers this page of ring icons which shows the kind of iconography that MIT graduate students believe should meet the fourth test above. It's interesting to see that in some cases, the rationale for adopting such an icon can also be used to meet other tests. But most icons don't. What's interesting is that at this page you can also see what other ideas were proposed and rejected. All this helps with the sciences, but do the arts remain mysterious?
2) Augie raises the idea of iconic colours. You do tend to see this in university graduation robes and institutions. For example, the blue/gold pair is often seen as descriptive of the spiritual/material dichotomy, or sky/earth or sea/sun and so on. The main problem is that colour by itself conveys too many things. At the same time, some colour combinations are pretty commonly used. I'm sure Peter and other artistic people would have something to say here.
3) Phil raises the idea of the pawn as a symbol for chess. It's a good point; the pawn is the basic unit of material value calculation in chess (although space and time are as important in different ways). I would say the pawn indeed fulfills all the criteria for a chess 'atom', but I'm not so sure it directly fulfills all the criteria for 'atomic concept', which in such a game is probably 'square' (i.e. a space) or 'move' (i.e. a game dynamic and unit of time) – unless you use 'pawn' as synonymous with 'basic unit of material value'.
Labels: Atomism, Education, Philosophy
etched with acid at 10:33:00 pm
3 Comments:
I know of a certain blue and yellow striped tie that is instantly recognisable and representative, no questions asked.. x)
and pawns are the soul of chess!
One thing that strikes me for biology is the interlocking nature of amino acids. Prions in this way are sort of like huge amino acids (made up of amino acids themselves), because their conformation can cause other proteins to adopt a conformation that causes other proteins to have conformational changes. Tada! Simple replication. DNA will replicate itself if it finds other bases, but DNA replication is strongly endergonic. It is not spontaneous, as opposed to prion replication.
The problem is that this concept is not exactly "iconic". And what does it say when atomic concepts change? (Paradigm shift, I suppose?) For example, if they find something more fundamental to life (depending on how we define it) than DNA or cells...
Getting off the biology thing though, I would say for economics the atomic concept is the rational maximiser, but it's not that culturally iconic yet. I am loathe to toss Ayn Rand in.
Post a Comment
<< Home