The link to Mr. Fisher’s blog posting is above this text.
Thank you Mr. Fisher. I don’t know you personally but glad to “know” you now. Mr. Fisher, you have taken on the complicated task of tackling the demarcation between natural and social complexities. Rightfully, Mr. Fisher (no relation) highlights emergent properties, reflexivity, and natural versus social science’s land rights to complexity. I will concentrate my comments on his inclusion of “imagination” and reflexivity…Is this a call for acceptance of some kind of “scientific” humanism? Fisher perhaps should call upon Buber’s “I and Thou”, or perhaps a turn of Goffman’s dramaturgy. I would allow imagination to fall more globally under “humanism”. But we do love to label things… I am guilty as charged, man. But it cannot be denied that positivism and humanism are not often expected or happy bedfellows. I had been told that I incessantly asked more questions, scientific ones mind you. Just stop finding more leverage points already…This complexity is what I loved about science in the first place…I just needed systems science to call off our irreconcilable differences dissolution.
Maybe imagination, or better yet “scientific” humanism, needs to be “taught” and supported within healthcare. I see scientific humanism as overlaying the scientific inquiry with a dose of reality (external validity). Once we move away from the mechanism of heat and motion, we have interlocking social parts prone to emotives and chaos (Sounds like high school…). I am positing that perhaps Fisher’s musings about imagination may be satisfied in part by allowing the Holy Ghost of narrative to fall upon complexity scholars and practitioners.