10
1 Morphogenetic Universe
promotion in a particular discipline? All these forms are pursued with varying degrees of success and satisfaction.
The great mathematician Henri Poincar´ e said: The researcher must organize; one
does science with facts as one builds a house with stones; but an accumulation of
facts is not a science, just as an accumulation of stones is not a house. The first
of the above research modes does not need stones but builds etherial houses in the
air. There were architects whose great imaginative projects were never realized, like
´
Etienne-Louis Boull´ ee in the 18th century and Yona Friedman in the 20th, and there
is an entire modern school of conceptual architecture that is not meant to be built.
The second mode is characteristic of 20th century physicists venturing into a general
theory of complex systems and biological phenomena. The third mode, merging into
the fourth, is becoming prevalent in our day, not by intention but rather by default,
as it is hard to find a solvable but unsolved problem of general significance, and
experiments are becoming ever more penetrating and precise.
More often than not, stones fail to assemble into a habitable house. The modern
shepherd, whatever their (take care of the pronoun – no sexism any more!) actual
occupation happens to be, needs earthly science in order to care for their flock,
whatever it is. The shepherds of today have little leisure to watch the skies; when
free of productive work, they would rather watch a flickering screen, large or small.
Which form of knowledge is most useful in practice? Not necessarily generative
knowledge, of the kind that brings about new knowledge in the future. And what
should be called knowledge, after all? Can an answer produced by an Artificial
Intellect be counted as our knowledge?
1 Morphogenetic Universe
promotion in a particular discipline? All these forms are pursued with varying degrees of success and satisfaction.
The great mathematician Henri Poincar´ e said: The researcher must organize; one
does science with facts as one builds a house with stones; but an accumulation of
facts is not a science, just as an accumulation of stones is not a house. The first
of the above research modes does not need stones but builds etherial houses in the
air. There were architects whose great imaginative projects were never realized, like
´
Etienne-Louis Boull´ ee in the 18th century and Yona Friedman in the 20th, and there
is an entire modern school of conceptual architecture that is not meant to be built.
The second mode is characteristic of 20th century physicists venturing into a general
theory of complex systems and biological phenomena. The third mode, merging into
the fourth, is becoming prevalent in our day, not by intention but rather by default,
as it is hard to find a solvable but unsolved problem of general significance, and
experiments are becoming ever more penetrating and precise.
More often than not, stones fail to assemble into a habitable house. The modern
shepherd, whatever their (take care of the pronoun – no sexism any more!) actual
occupation happens to be, needs earthly science in order to care for their flock,
whatever it is. The shepherds of today have little leisure to watch the skies; when
free of productive work, they would rather watch a flickering screen, large or small.
Which form of knowledge is most useful in practice? Not necessarily generative
knowledge, of the kind that brings about new knowledge in the future. And what
should be called knowledge, after all? Can an answer produced by an Artificial
Intellect be counted as our knowledge?