1 / 36

Framing the Question: Understanding Complexity in Science

Explore the concept of framing the question in science and its application in understanding complexity. Learn about the limitations of reductionism and the importance of reframing questions to broaden ideas. Discover the meaning of complexity and how it manifests in real-world systems.

dwilt
Download Presentation

Framing the Question: Understanding Complexity in Science

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DON'T THINK ABOUT A WHOLE ORGANISM: FRAMING 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/

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. An Example of Reframing the question to get an answer : The work of Robert Rosen • What is life? • Why is an organism different from a machine?

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

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

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

  8. FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM MANIPULATION CAUSAL EVENT FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO FRAME THE MODELING RELATION

  9. FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM MANIPULATION FORMAL SYSTEM NATURAL SYSTEM WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO FRAME THE MODELING RELATION

  10. WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE: • WE MORE OR LESS FORGOT THAT THERE WAS AN ENCODING AND DECODING

  11. WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE: IT FRAMED THE QUESTIN • THE “REAL WORLD” REQUIRES MORE THAN ONE “FORMAL SYSTEM” TO MODEL IT (THERE IS NO “UNIVERSAL MODEL”)

  12. 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”

  13. WHAT IS SCIENCE? • HAS MANY DEFINTIONS • SOME OF THESE ARE IN CONFLICT • SCIENCE IS A BELIEF STRUCTURE • SCIENCE OF METHOD VS SCIENCE OF CONTENT

  14. 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

  15. WHY ARE THERE SO MANY DEFINITIONS OF COMPLEXITY? • SCIENTISTS FOCUS ON THE FORMAL DESCRIPTION RATHER THAN THE REAL WORLD • THE REAL WORLD IS COMPLEX • FORMAL SYSTEMS COME IN VARYING SHADES AND DEGREES OF COMPLICATION

  16. 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? • SELF-REFERENCE AND CIRCULARITY • THE LIFE/ORGANISM PROBLEM • THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM

  17. 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.

  18. 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”?)

  19. 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

  20. 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)

  21. 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 COMPLEX SYSTEMS VS SIMPLE MECHANISMS

  22. CIRCULARITY (SELF-REFERENCE) CAUSES PROBLEMS FOR LOGIC AND SCIENCE • I AM A CORINTHIAN • ALL CORINTHIANS ARE LIARS • OR • “THE STATEMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE IS FALSE”-ON BOTH SIDES

  23. CAN WE GET RID OF SELF-REFERENCE, THAT IS, CIRCULARITY? • IT HAS BEEN TRIED • IT FAILED • THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO “GO AROUND” IT – THAT IS TO IGNORE CASES WHERE IT POPS UP • WHAT IF IT IS VERY COMMON?

  24. SELF-REFERENCE, CIRCULARITY AND THE GENOME REPLICATION ENZYMES DNA PROTEINS TRANSCRIPTION

  25. HOMEOSTASIS MILLEU FOR CELLS, TISSUES AND ORGANS TISSUES AND ORGANS CELLS

  26. WHERE DO CELLS COME FROM? • DNA? • GENES? • PROTEINS? • OTHER CELLS? • SPONTANEOUS GENERATION?

  27. THE CELL THEORY • CELLS COME FROM OTHER CELLS

  28. 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?”

  29. 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

  30. 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.)

  31. 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)

  32. 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

  33. EXAMPLE: THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM • HOW CAN THE MIND MODEL ITSELF? • AM I CONSCIOUS? • HOW DOES THE BRAIN PRODUCE CONSCIOUSNESS, SELF AWARENESS, ETC.?

  34. 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 • YOUR CRYSTAL BALL MAY BE AS GOOD AS MINE OR BETTER

  35. 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

More Related