TEACHING SCIENCE THAT MATTERS: REFRAMING THE QUESTION IN SCIENCE DON

TEACHING SCIENCE THAT MATTERS: REFRAMING THE QUESTION IN SCIENCE DON MIKULECKY PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF PHYSIOLOGY AND SENIOR FELLOW IN THE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF BIOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY-VCU http://www.people.vcu.edu/ mikuleck/

Issues that may reflect back on the way science is being taught Global warming and climate change Evolution vs. creation (“Intelligent” Design) Determining when something is “alive”

Global warming and climate change Why have we waited until it is so late to acknowledge this as a scientific problem? What is it about science that allows situations like this? Has it to do with the way science has been framed and taught? Can we do better? We must!

Evolution vs. creation (“Intelligent”) Design Why is this controversy going on? Has it to do with the way science has been framed and taught? Can we get beyond it? We must!

WHAT IS “FRAMING THE QUESTION”? Based on the work of George Lakoff Cognitive Linguistics Frames are the mental structures that shape the way we see the world Facts, data, models, etc. only have meaning in a context Leads us to a scientific application of framing : Rosen’s theory of complexity

Framing the question Don’t think of an elephant Impossibility of avoiding the frame In science the dominant frame is reductionism and the associated mechanical thinking The dominant modern manifestations include molecular biology and nonlinear dynamics We have lost the distinction between science and technology

An Example of Reframing the question to get an answer : The work of Robert Rosen How do we determine when something is alive? What is life? (Schrödinger's ill posed question) Why is an organism different from a machine? Rosen’s well posed question that can be answered: Organisms are closed to efficient cause.

THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE MAKE MODELS, A SCIENCE OF FRAMING NATURAL SYSTEM ENCODING CAUSAL EVENT MANIPULATION DECODING NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM

WE HAVE A USEFUL MODEL WHEN ARE SATISFACTORY WAYS OF “UNDERSTANDING” THE CHANGE IN THE WORLD “OUT THERE”

THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE MAKE MODELS NATURAL SYSTEM ENCODING CAUSAL EVENT IMPLICATION DECODING NATURAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM FORMAL SYSTEM

WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO FRAME THE MODELING RELATION: IT GAVE US A UNIVERSAL MODEL FORMAL NATURAL SYSTEM SYSTEM MANIPULATION FORMAL NATURAL SYSTEM SYSTEM

WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE: WE FORGOT THAT THERE WAS AN ENCODING AND DECODING WE WERE GIVEN A UNIVERSAL MODEL ALL OF SCIENCE WAS FRAMED IN TERMS OF THE UNIVERSAL MODEL AND THE SO CALLED “SCIENTIFIC METHOD”

WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE: IT FRAMED THE QUESTION BUT THE “REAL WORLD” REQUIRES MORE THAN ONE “FORMAL SYSTEM” TO MODEL IT (THERE IS NO “UNIVERSAL MODEL”) THEREFORE WE HAVE BEEN TEACHING OUR SCIENCE IN A BOX THAT BOX HAS HAMPERED SCIENCE AND CAUSED IT TO BE IMPOTENT IN DEALING WITH CONTROVERSIES OF THE TYPE MENTIONED EARLIER

WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE: WE ARE TOO AFRAID OF “BELIEFS” (SCEPTICISM IS “IN”) WE DEVELOPED THE MYTH OF “OBJECTIVITY” WE FRAMED THE QUESTION SO AS TO PROHIBIT RECOGNIZING THAT SCIENCE IS A BELIEF STRUCTURE WE ALLOWED NON-SCIENTIFIC OR PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS TO USE THESE SELF INFLICTED WEAKNESS

WHY IS “OBJECTIVITY” A MYTH? (OR: WHY IS SCIENCE A BELIEF STRUCTURE) THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT AND CAN NOT TELL US HOW TO ENCODE AND DECODE. (MODELING IS AN ART!) THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT AND CAN NOT TELL US WHEN THE MODEL WORKS, THAT IS A JUDGEMENT CALL EVEN IF OTHER FORMALISMS ARE ENLISTED TO HELP (FOR EXAMPLE: STATISTICS) MODELS EXIST IN A CONTEXT: A FRAME RECOGNIZING THESE ATTRIBUTES DO NOT HURT –THEY ENABLE

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MAKE “COMPLEXITY THEORY” NECESSARY? (WHAT HAS “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” FAILED TO EXPLAIN?) WHY IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN THE SOME OF THE PARTS? WHAT ARE THE PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS? SELF-REFERENCE AND CIRCULARITY THE LIFE/ORGANISM PROBLEM THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM THE NATURE OF THE EARTH SYSTEM THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIRECT AND COMPLEX CAUSALITY (CREATION VS EVOLUTION) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORGANISMS AND MACHINES

Reductionism has framed complexity theory Rather than change methods we have the changed names for what we do The consequences are significant It is impossible for you to believe what is being taught in this lecture and to then simply add it to your repertoire The reason is that in order to see the world in a new way you have to step out of the traditional frame and into a new one. Once done, you can never go back. The ability to reframe a question is the basis for change and broadening of ideas.

WHAT IS COMPLEXITY? TOO MANY DEFINITIONS, SOME CONFLICTING OFTEN INTERCHANGED WITH “COMPLICATED” HAS A REAL MEANING BUT AFTER THE QUESTION IS REFRAMED THAT MEANING ITSELF IS COMPLEX(THIS IS SELF-REFERENTIAL: HOW CAN WE DEFINE “COMPLEX” USING “COMPLEX”?)

ROSEN’S CONCEPT FOR COMPLEXITY: A NEW FRAME Complexity is the property of a real world system that is manifest in the inability of any one formalism being adequate to capture all its properties. It requires that we find distinctly different ways of interacting with systems. Distinctly different in the sense that when we make successful models, the formal systems needed to describe each distinct aspect are NOT derivable from each other

The Mexican sierra [fish] has "XVII-15-IX" spines in the dorsal fin. These can easily be counted . We could, if we wished, describe the sierra thus: "D. XVII-15-IX; A. II-15-IX," but we could see the fish alive and swimming, feel it plunge against the lines, drag it threshing over the rail, and even finally eat it. And there is no reason why either approach should be inaccurate. Spine-count description need not suffer because another approach is also used. Perhaps, out of the two approaches we thought there might emerge a picture more complete and even more accurate that either alone could produce. -- John Steinbeck, novelist, with Edward Ricketts, marine biologist (1941)

COMPLEX SYSTEMS VS SIMPLE MECHANISMS COMPLEX NO LARGEST MODEL WHOLE MORE THAN SUM OF PARTS CAUSAL RELATIONS RICH AND INTERTWINED GENERIC ANALYTIC SYNTHETIC NON-FRAGMENTABLE NON-COMPUTABLE REAL WORLD SIMPLE LARGEST MODEL WHOLE IS SUM OF PARTS CAUSAL RELATIONS DISTINCT N0N-GENERIC ANALYTIC SYNTHETIC FRAGMENTABLE COMPUTABLE FORMAL SYSTEM

WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE QUESTION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE: THE MACHINE METAPHOR TELLS US TO ASK “HOW?” REAL WORLD COMPLEXITY TELLS US TO ASK “WHY?”

THE FOUR BECAUSES: WHY A HOUSE? MATERIAL: THE STUFF IT’S MADE OF EFFICIENT: IT NEEDED A BUILDER FORMAL: THERE WAS A BLUEPRINT FINAL: IT HAS A PURPOSE

WHY IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN THE SOME OF THE PARTS? BECAUSE REDUCING A REAL SYSTEM TO ATOMS AND MOLECULES LOOSES IMPORTANT THINGS THAT MAKE THE SYSTEM WHAT IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS MORE TO REALITY THAN JUST ATOMS AND MOLECULES (ORGANIZATION, PROCESS, QUALITIES, ETC.)

SELF-REFERENCE AND CIRCULARITY THE “LAWS” OF NATURE THAT TRADITIONAL SCIENCE TEACHES ARE ARTIFACTS OF A LIMITED MODEL THE REAL “RULES OF THE GAME” ARE CONTEXT DEPENDENT AND EVER CHANGING- THEY MAKE THE CONTEXT AND THE CONTEXT MAKES THEM (SELF-REFERENCE)

EXAMPLE: THE LIFE/ORGANISM PROBLEM LIFE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS OF PHYSICS PHYSICS DOES NOT PREDICT LIFE LIVING CELLS COME FROM OTHER LIVING CELLS AN ORGANISM MUST INVOLVE CLOSED LOOPS OF CAUSALITY LIFE DOES INVOLVE PURPOSE THE EARTH SYSTEM IS A COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BIOSPHERE AND OTHER SYSTEMS: IT TOO IS AN ORGANISM OF A SPECIAL KIND!

PROBLEM HOW CAN THE MIND MODEL ITSELF? AM I CONSCIOUS? HOW DOES THE BRAIN PRODUCE CONSCIOUSNESS, SELF AWARENESS, ETC.?

CONCLUSIONS THE REAL WORLD IS COMPLEX THE WORLD OF “SIMPLE MECHANISMS” IS A SURROGATE WORLD CREATED BY TRADITIONAL SCIENCE WE ARE AT A CROSSROADS: A NEW WORLDVIEW IS NEEDED THERE WILL ALWAYS BE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH ATTEMPTS TO PROGRESS WE MUST REFRAME OUR CONCEPTS ABOUT SCIENCE IN ORDER TO GO FORWARD

POST SCRIPT WE LIVE IN A WORLD DOMINATED BY COMPUTERS MOST COMPLEXIFIERS BELIEVE THAT COMPLEXITY IS SOMETHING WE CAN DEAL WITH ON THE COMPUTER THIS NOTION OF COMPLEXITY FOCUSES ON THE MECHANICAL ASPECTS OF THE REAL WORLD WHAT MAKES THE REAL WORLD COMPLEX IS ITS NON-COMPUTABILITY THIS IS WHY THE CONTROVERSIES WE ARE FACING HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED