Science 2: Is a Broader Conception of Science still Science?

Stuart A. UmplebyThe George Washington University

Washington, DC

Three conceptions of science 2

1. Ben Shneiderman’s notion of Science 2.0 – sharing open source data via the internet

2. Gibbons, et al. on mode 2 research – discipline-oriented research vs. product oriented research or process improvement research

3. Von Foerster’s second order cybernetics and Soros’s reflexivity theory are leading to a reconsideration of our conception of science

Are these changes really new?

1. The internet, open source data, and academic globalization are leading to a great expansion in collaboration

2. Multi-disciplinary product development teams are required by advanced technology

3. The sociology of knowledge is not yet considered to be the foundation for the social sciences. Radical constructivism is not widely known in the U.S.

World

1

2

3

ObserverDescription

A diagram of science 1 and science 2

• World, observer, and description correspond to Popper’s worlds 1, 2, and 3

• The triangle also describes three phases in the development of cybernetics – engineering cybernetics, biological cybernetics, and social cybernetics

• The left side – world and description – is science 1

• The whole triangle is science 2

Engineering cybernetics

• The classical scientific method• Create and test descriptions of the external

world• A photograph metaphor – theories should be

accurate descriptions

Elements of the classical philosophy of science

• Experiments are used to test theories• Theories give meaning to observations• Quantitative predictions are preferred to

merely qualitative predictions• Observations should be independent of the

characteristics of the observer• Results should be reproducible by other

experimenters

What is wrong with this view of science?

• Maturana pointed out that every statement made is made by an observer

• Science is a social activity. Thomas Kuhn’s view of how scientists work. Examples of physics and economics

• Social systems are composed of thinking participants.

Biological cybernetics

• Another name for “second order cybernetics”• The intention is to explain how the brain

creates descriptions of the world

World

1

2

3

ObserverDescription

How the nervous system works

• Image on your retina• The blind spot• Move your eyes relative to your head• Playing football: did the stadium move?• Listening to a speech• Conversations at a party• Two kittens• Injured war veterans

Images on the retina are inverted

The blind spot experiment

Two Kittens

Injured war veteran

Realism vs. constructivism

• Realists assume that the world is primary and ideas are secondary. Ideas are imperfect representations of the real world. This is an old philosophical debate.

• Constructivists point out that anything we know about the world we know through our senses. We have immediate access to ideas, but not to the world. Neurophysiology supported the constructivists

Lessons learned from neurophysiology

• The brain does a lot of work for us that we are not aware of

• Although we think we accurately perceive the external world, the “reality” we perceive is our own invention, based on our experiences and our interpretations of them

• Remember that animals perceive quite different worlds

World

1

2

3

ObserverDescription

Social cybernetics

• The sociology of knowledge – our views of society are influenced by our position in society

• Theories of society, when they are accepted and acted upon, change society

• Reflexivity – human beings both observe and participate in social systems.

• The metaphor of driving a car

Two conceptions of how to structure knowledge

• Most philosophers of science

• Cause and effect• If, then• Analysis• Reductionism• Theory

• E.A. Singer, Jr., Churchman, Ackoff

• Producer - product• Necessary conditions• Synthesis• Expansionism• Method

Science one vs. science two

• Observation• Description• Test knowledge• Extrapolate/ forecast• Reproduce experiments • Accuracy/ precision

• Participation• Prescription• Solve problems• Create/ design• Achieve agreement or

acceptance• Usefulness

The case of economics

• A thermodynamic model of the economy• People in an economy are assumed to be

rational profit maximizers with complete information which is available to all

• A series of Nobel Prizes have been awarded to people who have successfully challenged one of these assumptions

• Economics is now defined by its method

How to deal with the philosophy of science

• Avoid it, work around it, ignore it• Enlarge it• Heinz von Foerster suggested including the

observer in the domain of observations• If we add a new dimension, all the results in

science 1 also support science 2

 

New philosophy of science        

An Application of the Correspondence Principle 

Old philosophy of science

Amount of attention paid to the observer

Theories Methods

NoYes

Should methods be for the use ofindividuals or groups?

Is there a difference between thenatural sciences and the socialsciences?

Should knowledge in the field of management beconstructed in the form of theories or methods?

Should we reject thephilosophy of science?

GroupsIndividuals

“Act like this”

Expand the philosophy ofscience to include knowingsubjects

“Think like this”

Popper’s doctrine ofthe unity of method

What should take its place?How should knowledge beconstructed?

Yes No

Do human activities change systems?

• Human beings change social systems by changing laws and theories

• As technology improves, human beings are even changing the natural environment – soil, fish, climate

• We are learning to think about ourselves as participants in the systems we study

• But to do that we need to change our conception of science

  

Ideas

Variables Groups

Events

 A reflexive theory operates at two levels

Self-reference leads to inconsistency

• Lou Kauffman has shown that inconsistency is not the problem. Rather there is a need to pay attention to process and multiple possibilities

• Once participants are admitted as part of the process being modeled and their decision making and design abilities are taken into account, then the multiple possibilities to which they give rise must be taken into account and not seen as contradictory

• Contradiction arises in the demand for simultaneous but opposing possibilities. When simultaneity is opened up into process, then contradictions open up into multiple possibilities

Objections to paying attention to the observer

• Including the observer requires self-reference, a form of inconsistency. Lou Kauffman has shown how to reinterpret this difficulty

• Science would lose the claim of objectivity, the claim to objective authority

• The new activity should be called art or philosophy, not science

Our ideas as constraints

• Science 1 was our invention. It is constraining us

• We can choose to live within the constraints, or we can choose to reinterpret the constraints and design a new conception of science

Is a broader conception of science still science?

• We need to surrender our claims of objectivity and our feelings of deductive certainty

• But we can define multidisciplinary methods• We will still have peer review to identify high

quality work

Contact Information

Prof. Stuart Umpleby Department of Management School of Business George Washington University Washington, DC 20052 USA

www.gwu.edu/~umpleby umpleby@gwu.edu

Presented at the World Multi-conference on Cybernetics, Systemics, and Informatics

Orlando, Florida June 29 – July 3, 2010

Three Versions of Cybernetics

By transforming conceptual systems (through persuasion, not coercion), we can change society

If people accept constructivism, they will be more tolerant

Scientific knowledge can be used to modify natural processes to benefit people

An important consequence

Ideas are accepted if they serve the observer’s purposes as a social participant

Ideas about knowledge should be rooted in neurophysiology.

Natural processes can be explained by scientific theories

A key assumption

How people create, maintain, and change social systems through language and ideas

How an individual constructs a “reality”

How the world worksWhat must be explained

Explain the relationship between the natural and the social sciences

Include the observer within the domain of science

Construct theories which explain observed phenomena

The puzzle to be solved

The biology of cognition vs. the observer as a social participant

Realism vs. ConstructivismReality vs. scientific theories

A key distinction

A pragmatic view of epistemology: knowledge is constructed to achieve human purposes

A biological view of epistemology: how the brain functions

A realist view of epistemology: knowledge is a “picture” of reality

The view of epistemology

Social CyberneticsBiological CyberneticsEngineering Cybernetics