Framing the Question in Science

8/7/2019 Framing the Question in Science

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/framing-the-question-in-science 1/36

FRAMING THE QUESTION IN

SCIENCE

Dr.S.S.D.Pandey

Global Synergetic Found ation

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Dr.S.S.D.PandeyGlobal Synergetic Foundation



WHAT IS “FRAMING THE

QUESTION”?

§ Based on the work of George Lakoff

§ Cognitive Linguistics

§ Frames are the mental structures thatshape the way we see the world

§

Facts, data, models, etc. only havemeaning in a context

§ Leads us to a scientific application of framing : Rosen’s theory of complexity

©Global Synergetic Foundation



Framing the question

l Don’t think of an elephant

l Impossibility of avoiding the frame

l In science the dominant frame isreductionism and the associatedmechanical thinking

l

The dominant modern manifestationsinclude molecular biology and nonlineardynamics




An Example of Reframing the question to get an

answer : The work of Robert Rosen

l What is life?

l Why is an organism different from a

machine?




THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW W E

MAK E MODELS, A SCIENCE OF FRAMING

NATURAL

SYSTEM

FORMAL

SYSTEM

NATURALSYSTEM

FORMALSYSTEM

ENCODING

DECODING

CAUSALEVENT

MANIPULATION




W E HAVE A USEFUL MODEL W HEN

ARE SATISFACTORY W AYS OF “ UNDERSTANDING”THE CHANGE IN THE W ORLD “ OUT THERE”




THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF

HOW W E MAKE MODELS

NATURAL

SYSTEM

FORMAL

SYSTEM

NATURALSYSTEM

FORMALSYSTEM

ENCODING

DECODING

CAUSALEVENT

IMPLICATION




W HAT “ TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO

FRAME THE MODELING RELATION

NATURALSYSTEM

FORMALSYSTEM

NATURALSYSTEM

FORMALSYSTEM

CAUSALEVENT

MANIPULATION




W HAT “ TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO

FRAME THE MODELING RELATION

NATURAL

SYSTEM

FORMALSYSTEM

NATURAL

SYSTEM

FORMALSYSTEM

MANIPULATION




W HY W HAT “ TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID

TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THEPRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE:

l W E MORE OR LESS FORGOTTHAT THERE W AS AN

ENCODING AND DECODING





TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THEPRESENT SITUATION INEVITAB LE: ITFRAMED THE QUESTIN

l THE “R EAL W ORLD” REQUIRES

MORE THAN ONE “FORMALSYSTEM”

TO MODEL IT (THERE IS NO“UNIVERSAL MODEL”)





TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THEPRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE:

l W E ARE TOO AFRAID OF“BELIEFS” (SCEPTICISM IS“IN”)

l W E DEVELOPED THE MY THOF “OBJECTIVITY”




W HAT IS SCIENCE?

l HAS MANY DEFINTIONSl SOME OF THESE AR E IN CONFLICT

l SCIENCE IS A BELIEF STRUCTURE

l SCIENCE OF METHOD VS SCIENCEOF CONTENT




W HY IS “OBJECTIVITY” A MYTH?

(OR: W HY IS SCIENCE A BELIEF STRUCTURE)

l THE FORMAL SY STEM DOES NOT AND CANNOT TELL US H OW TO ENCODE AND DECODE.(MODELING IS AN ART!)

l THE FORMAL SY STEM DOES NOT AND CANNOT TELL US W HEN THE MODEL W ORKS,THAT IS A JUDGEMENT CALL EVEN IF OTHER

FORMALISMS ARE ENLISTED TO HELP (FOR EXAMPL E: STATISTICS)l MODELS EX IST IN A CONTEXT: A FRAME




W HY ARE THERE SO MANY DEFINITIONS OF COMPLEXITY?

l

SCIENTISTS FOCUS ON THE FORM ALDESCRIPTION RATHER THAN THEREAL W ORLD

l THE REAL W ORLD IS COMPLEX

l FORMAL SY STEMS COME IN VARYINGSHADES AND DEGREES OFCOMPLICATION




W HAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MAK E

“COMPLEXITY THEORY” NECESSARY? (W HAT HAS “TRA DITIONAL SCIENCE” FAILED TO EXPLA IN?)

l W HY IS THE W HOLE MORE THAN THESOME OF THE PARTS?

l SELF-REFERENCE AND CIRCULARITY

l THE LIFE/ORGANISM PROB LEM

l THE M IND/BODY PROBLEM




Reductionism has framed complexity theory

l Rather than change m ethods we have thechanged nam es for w hat we do

l The consequ ences ar e significant

l It is im possible for you to believe w hat is beingtaught in this lecture and to then simp ly add it to

your reper toire

l

The reason is that in order to see the w orld in anew way you have to step ou t of the traditionalfram e and into a new one. Once done, you cannever go back. The ability to refr am e a questionis the basis for change and broa dening of ideas.




W HAT IS COMPLEXITY?

l TOO MANY D EFINITIONS, SOME

CONFLICTINGl OFTEN INTERCHANGED W ITH

“COMPLICATED”

l HAS A R EAL MEANING BUT AFTER THEQUESTION IS REFRAMED

l THAT MEANING ITSELF IS COMPLEX(THIS ISSELF-REFERENTIAL: HOW CAN W E DEFINE“COMPLEX” USING “COMPLEX”?)




ROSEN’S CONCEPT FOR COMPLEXITY: A

NEW FRAME

Com plexity is the prop erty of a rea l wor ld systemthat is m anifest in the inab ility of any o neform alism being adequate to capture all itspr oper ties. It req uires that we find distinctly different wa ys of intera cting with systems.

Distinctly differe nt in the sense tha t when wem ake successful m odels, the form al system sneed ed to describe ea ch distinct aspect are NOTderivable from each other




The Mex ican sierr a [fish] h as " XVII-15-IX"spines in the dor sal fin. These can e asily be

coun ted ... W e could, if we w ished, describethe sierr a th us: "D. X VII-15-IX; A. II-15-IX,"

but we co uld see the fish alive andswim m ing, feel it plunge against the lines,dra g it thresh ing over the rail, and even

finally eat it. And ther e is no reaso n w hy either appro ach should be inaccurate.

Spine-coun t description need n otsuffer because another appr oach is also used.

Perha ps, out of the two appro aches wethought there m ight emer ge a picture m orecom plete and even m ore accurate that eitheralone could pr odu ce. -- JohnSteinbeck, novelist, with Edw ar d Ricketts,

m ar ine biologist (1941)




COMPLEX SYSTEMS VS SIMPLE

MECHANISMS

l COMPLEXl NO LARGEST MODELl W HOLE MORE THAN

SUM OF PARTSl CAUSAL RELATIONS

RICH ANDINTERTWINED

l GENERICl ANALYTIC ≠

SYNTHETICl NON-FRAGMENTABLEl NON-COMPUTABLEl REAL WORLD

l SIMPLEl LARGEST MODELl W HOLE IS SUM OF

PARTS

l CAUSAL RELATIONSDISTINCT

l N0N-GENERICl ANALY TIC =

SYNTHETICl FRAGMENTABLEl COMPUTABLEl FORMAL SYSTEM




CIRCULARITY (SELF-REFERENCE) CAUSES

PROB LEMS FOR LOGIC AND SCIENCE

l I AM A CORINTHIAN

l ALL CORINTHIANS ARE LIARS

OR

l “THE STATEMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE

IS FALSE” -ON BOTH SIDES




CAN W E GET RID OF SELF-REFERENCE, THAT IS, CIRCULARITY?

l IT HAS B EEN TRIED

l IT FAILED

l THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO “GO AR OUND”IT – THAT IS TO IGNORE CASES W HEREIT POPS UP

l W HAT IF IT IS VERY COMMON?




SELF-REFERENCE, CIRCULARITY AND

THE GENOME

REPLICATION

TRANSCRIPTION




HOMEOSTASIS




W HERE DO CELLS COME FROM?

l DNA?l GENES?

l PROTEINS?

l OTHER CELLS?

l SPONTANEOUS GENERATION?




THE CELL THEORY

l CELLS COME FROM OTHER CELLS





TO THE QUESTION MADE THE PRESENTSITUATION INEVITABLE:

l THE MACHINE METAPHORTELLS US TO ASK “HOW?”

l REAL WORLD COMPLEXITY

TELLS US TO ASK “WHY?”




THE FOUR BECAUSES: WHY A

HOUSE?

l MATERIAL: THE STUFF IT’S MADE OFl EFFICIENT: IT NEEDED A BUILDER

l FORMAL: THERE WAS A BLUEPRINT

l FINAL: IT HAS A PURPOSE




W HY IS THE W HOLE MORE THAN

THE SOME OF THE PARTS?

l BECAUSE REDUCING A R EAL SY STEM

TO ATOMS AND MOLECULES LOOSESIMPORTANT THINGS THAT MAK E THESY STEM W HAT IT IS

l BECAUSE THERE IS MORE TO REALITY

THAN JUST ATOMS AND MOLECULES(ORGANIZATION, PROCESS,QUALITIES, ETC.)




SELF-REFERENCE AND CIRCULARITY

l THE “LAW S” OF NATURE THAT

TRADITIONAL SCIENCE TEACHES ARE ARTIFACTS OF A LIMITED MODEL

l THE REAL “RULES OF THE GAME” ARECONTEXT DEPENDENT AND EVER

CHANGING- THEY MAK E THE CONTEXT AND THE CONTEXT MA K ES THEM(SELF-REFERENCE)




EXAMPLE: THE LIFE/ORGANISM PROBLEM

l LIFE IS CONSISTENT W ITH THE LAW SOF PHYSICS

l PHYSICS DOES NOT PREDICT LIFEl LIVING CELLS COME FROM OTHER

LIVING CELLS

l AN ORGA NISM MUST INVOLVE CLOSED

LOOPS OF CAUSALITY l LIFE DOES INVOLVE PURPOSE




EXAMPLE: THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM

l HOW CAN THE MIND MODELITSELF?

l AM I CONSCIOUS?

l HOW DOES THE BRAIN PRODUCECONSCIOUSNESS, SELF

AW ARENESS, ETC.?




CONCLUSIONS

l THE REAL W ORLD IS COMPLEX

l THE W ORLD OF “SIMPLE MECHANISMS” IS A

SURROGATE WORLD CREATED BY TRADITIONAL SCIENCE

l W E ARE AT A CROSSROAD S: A NEW W ORLDVIEW IS NEEDED

l

THERE W ILL ALW AYS B E RISK ASSOCIATED W ITH ATTEMPTS TO PROGR ESS

l YOUR CRY STAL BALL MAY BE AS GOOD ASMINE OR BETTER




POST SCRIPT

l W E LIVE IN A W ORLD DOMINATED BY COMPUTERS

l MOST COMPLEXIFIERS BELIEVE THATCOMPLEXITY IS SOMETHING W E CAN DEAL

W ITH ON THE COMP UTER

l THIS NOTION OF COMPLEX ITY FOCUSES ONTHE MECHANICAL ASPECTS OF THE REAL

WORLD

l W HAT MAKES THE REAL W ORLD COMPLEX ISITS NON-COMPUTABILITY


Framing the Question in Science

Documents

Transcript of Framing the Question in Science