So, according to the state-approved view on the #philosophy of science, which I’ll have to prove I can convey in the near future, the modern scientific worldview at the stage of post-non-classical science is something called “Evolutionary-Synergistic Scientific Image”.
The scientific paradigm of the XXI century will consist of domain-invariant laws of evolution and self-organization…
It gets even better. In the second half of the XX century, the scientific community understood the “integrity and systematicity of the Metagalaxy… The cosmological era of recombination has begun: matter was separated from radiation. Here the single process of development diverges and manifests itself in the physical and chemical branches of the evolution of the universum. Spatio-temporal superposition of physical and chemical branches of evolution creates the modus of biological development…”
And no, this isn’t Deepak Chopra, this is quite literally a state-approved book. Although I guess Deepak would have liked how they put it.
Maybe I’m quite mistaken and all of the above makes sense. I guess it kinda does, like I roughly get the way one can come to think in such statements. And I don’t know much about philosophy to begin with, although I love Popper’s works.
But surely it means something that, with all due respect to Haken and Fuller, searching New Scientist yields only local references to synergy, self-organization, etc. I don’t see anything like that universal synergistic evolutionary… thing, neither there nor in many, many hours of popular science podcasts I’ve listened or in (semi-)popular science books I’ve read. And I’ve seen references to Polanyi, Lakatos, Kuhn, etc.
The anthropic principle is important, yes, but I don’t buy that any of that is “fundamental” if that fundamentality cannot manifest in what scientists actually say!
So I guess, as advised by Bertrand Russel, read primary sources and form your own opinions.