|
Author
|
Topic: The Only Scientific Approach
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 08. September 2002 07:17
A few weeks ago I started considering design science as ‘one’ approach to the scientific analysis of biological design and biological design processes. At this time, I offer for discussion the much stronger proposition - "Design science is the only approach to the analysis of biological design and biological design processes which satisfies the requirements of the scientific paradigm".
In the thumbnail version, design science involves:
1. Identify, precisely define and quantify occurrences of point in time biological design.
2. Observe and measure changes in the quantified value of point in time design
3. Formulate mathematical models and theories which fit, simulate, and predict changes in the values of point in time design(models or theories of biological design processes).
4. Test/ validate/refine the scientific models and theories of biological design processes
5. Use the validated predictive models to design or engineer solutions to applicable practical problems.
The central or essential role of scientific theories or models in the scientific paradigm is generally recognized. The only way to develop and validate a model or theory of a force or process which produces change is to 1)develop methods for precisely defining/quantifying point in time occurrences and 2)develop models which fit the observed changes in point in time values and which 3)produce testable predictions of future point in time design values.
I am interested in seeing any arguments to the contrary, but it appears that 1)design science fits the scientific paradigm for developing scientific theories of ‘processes responsible for producing changes in biological design’ (which would include evolution) and 2)design science represents the only approach which is capable of producing such theories.
IMO, currently accepted ‘scientific’ approaches to the analysis of biological design processes represent ‘departures’ from the scientific paradigm. These alternative developed because many of the technical problems associated with a rigorous application of the scientific paradigm had not been resolved. We can, as separate topics, discuss whether design science has practical solutions to the technical problems associated with the approach.
The questions for discussion here are:
1) Does design science as described fit the scientific paradigm? and
2) Is there is any identifiable alternative which can also produce scientific theories of biological design processes?
IP: Logged
|
|
Elend
Member
Member # 326
|
posted 08. September 2002 09:29
I was wondering if you consider Quantum Physics as conforming to your following point on "scientific paradigm":
1)develop methods for precisely defining/quantifying point in time occurrences
If it is possible to quantify and predict purpose, intent, then the following should also be possible:
2)develop models which fit the observed changes in point in time values and which 3)produce testable predictions of future point in time design values
Also, on what basis do you claim that: 2)design science represents the only approach which is capable of producing such theories.
Would you care to ellaborate on why other approaches are unable to produce scientific theories?
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 08. September 2002 13:09
Eland,
I am not familiar enough with the logic behind quantum physics to give an opinion on whether it fits the scientific paradigm.
Quote: Also, on what basis do you claim that: 2)design science represents the only approach which is capable of producing such theories.
Scientific models or theories of biological design processes (which include evolution and learning) are BY DEFINITION models and theories which simulate or fit actual observed occurrences of changes in ‘point in time biological design’ and which produce testable predictions of future changes. Design science, I am suggesting, is the only approach which generates models or theories meeting the definition of a ‘hard science’ scientific model or theory of a biological design process.
‘Hard science’ predictive theories are one of the interim goals of the scientific paradigm. ‘If’ design science is the only approach capable of producing such theories, then design science is the only approach satisfying the scientific paradigm. In effect, the proposition presented asks the question, are there other scientific approaches which claim to be capable of meeting this essential requirement of the scientific paradigm.
Quote: If it is possible to quantify and predict purpose, intent, then the following should also be possible:
2)develop models which fit the observed changes in point in time values and which 3)produce testable predictions of future point in time design values
Scientific theories of biological design predict the result or the design produced by a biological design process. The term goal or purpose, although it is often expressed for simplicity sake in terms of a future event, is in fact a preceding event or variable which is used as input in calculating or predicting future results. Purpose or goal is more accurately defined as an ‘expectation’ based on prior experience. In modeling biological design processes, it is generally useful to define purpose or goals in terms of ‘increasing the likelihood of survival’. More accurately, the ‘goal’ of a biological system is a defined as ‘an expectation of an increased likelihood of survival based on prior experience’. In practice, it is relatively easy to identify and measure the ‘goals’ which drive or cause changes in biological design.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 08. September 2002 13:21
Just curious.
Are your points restrictive in that no other ways of knowing are allowed. If so, then in terms of design this program would become either extremely biased and likely an abject failure.
Why? Well, design implies mind and so mind like qualities. These mostly do not fit into investigations that only
a. involve quantifiable values in the interval or ratio scale sense.
b. use geometric or mathamatical theorems (I haven't yet see a mathematical equation that "secretes" love, meaning, etc),
c. rely on strict predictive models plus chance and so wouldn't be open to the possibility of free will and creativity. Other forms of causation besides the efficient need accomodation.
This may rely on the atemporal and or the "nonlocated". Quantum theory already is open to this.
See Henry Stapp's site at:
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html
Also, Christain De Quincy's recent book called "Radical Nature"
e. involve "ordinary" experiences. Paranormal experiences will likely help with all this as well. See Dean Radin's "The conscious universe..", David Ray Griffins "Parapsychology, Philosophy and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration", Charles Tart's "Body, Mind, Spirit..."
If science is not defined as an evolving method of inquiry, but equated to materialism, then just your initial items will do. However, materialism is empirically false, so hopefully there is more to design science than this.
I suspect that rationalism will also only get so far and a radical empiricism will be needed. Welcome to the arational or suprarational. A temporary mysticism is unavoidable.
P.S. This is a bit of topic but I think your list of fellows is severely lacking. Since we're talking about design, this will involve consciousness etc. The last people I would ask about these things would be physicists, biologists, etc. Psychologists or even lawyers are a much better choice since these are their areas of expertise. Lets get some of them on board.
[ 08 September 2002, 21:35: Message edited by: Mark Szlazak ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 09. September 2002 10:01
Mark,
Analysis can start with a general question such as "How do we explain life forms?" or "How do we explain the human mind?". There are lots of formal and informal methods of addressing these issues. The term ‘scientific analysis’ refers to analysis meeting certain specific standards and criteria. scientific analysis allows for a lot of leeway in how analysis is performed as long as certain specific and rigorous criteria are satisfied. The discussion here is focused on the ‘precisely defined and quantified variables’ criteria and ‘the predictive/testable theory’ criteria. If you don’t or can’t satisfy the precise definition and predictive theory criteria, you simply do not have a hard science.
The design science ‘claim’ is that 1)it is possible to precisely define and quantify ‘point in time biological design’ [where values can be denoted by Qx] and 2)it is possible to formulate mathematical expressions of the form F(Q0)=Q1 which qualify as scientific theories and which can simulate and predict changes in point in time biological design.
The questions you raise are of two general types. First, you are asking, if you satisfy the rigorous requirements for hard science theories, can you then ‘explain’ such phenomena as love, free will, and the human mind. Although beyond the scope of the discussion here, I would argue that a successful scientific explanation of biological design does in fact produce useful explanations of these phenomena. Free will and the human mind, can I believe be readily modeled and simulated using design science concepts. (At least the explanation of the human mind is a very different from what we might intuitively expect).
Your second, and more important question relates to what types of techniques do you need to use in order to make the scientific paradigm work for the analysis of biological design. It is well known that the basic techniques which were so effective in the physical sciences do not appear to work in the life sciences. A whole array of new techniques have been proposed and developed in an attempt to address this issue.
Arguably one of the more important features of design science is the identification of an approach or technique which makes it practical to apply basic ‘physical science theory construction techniques to the analysis of complex relationships’. The ‘new’ approach is based on the observation that physical science theories are not actually in the form of predictive algorithms, but in the form of ‘partitions’ of the possible solution space. [This interpretation suggests a scientific theory defines a partition of the possible solution space into a subset of solutions which are 1)consistent with the proposed theory and 2) a subset which are incompatible.] Using the partition concept, rather than the algorithm concept, it becomes practical to develop testable predictive theories of complex dynamic causal relationships such as those associated with changes in biological design.
You suggest the need to look to ‘experts’ other than those within the fields of evolutionary biology. With this I am in general agreement. IMO, one of the fundamental problems with evolutionary science, and to some extent with all the life sciences, is that in evaluating the validity of scientific theories we have substituted ‘the subjective opinions of professionals’ for ‘objective scientific criteria’. The discussion of the validity of theories too often comes down to a discussion of ‘recognizing the role of authority figures’ rather ‘evaluating objective criteria’.
If, IMO, we are to see any real progress in understanding biological change processes, we must first recognize that a credential in biology or genetics does not turn subjective opinions into objective scientific analysis. It needs to be recognized that "IF" objective design science analysis produces results contrary to the results based on the subjective views of biologists and geneticists, then the validity of the subjective views need to be questioned.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 09. September 2002 11:35
My point is that limiting design in general and possibly also in your specific case to this "hard" science approach is inadequate.
"Hard" science deals with the simplest forms of data (i.e., intersubjective extensive experience...which is a "subset" of intersubjective experience...which in turn is a "subset" of subjectivity), that is stripped of all qualia, etc. and then put into thinking that can only work with it...in otherwords mathematical. Sematic content can be and often is entirely destroyed or severely distorted unless the semantics only corresponds to that of the measures and the associated mathematical abstractions. As every mathematician and logician knows, no proof or deduction can ever get out more than what is put in. So I disagree that mind can be reduced to this analysis both in principle and as witnessed by all the failures in attempts to do so. David Chalmers will elaborate much more on this in his upcoming discussions.
Again and as mentioned above, my worry is the distortions that this could all bring if its taken as the be all and end all technique.
Psychology has no problems coupling both the "subjective" and "objective" because it has to, given its domain of investigation. A domain that design science falls into.
The points I gave was where to look for more help and I believe they will be very helpful.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 09. September 2002 16:04
Mark,
Quote: My point is that limiting design in general and possibly also in your specific case to this "hard" science approach is inadequate.
Determining adequacy or completeness before a hard science has been established is, of course, highly speculative. If the experience in the physical sciences is an indication, it would seem likely that a successful hard science approach would not leave much room soft science or non-scientific approaches(accept in a supporting role). Astrology and alchemy still play a role in the post-Newtonian age, but it is relatively minor.
Clearly any analysis, hard or soft, concentrates on a very limited portion of the set of properties. Contrary to what might make intuitive sense, limiting the number of properties does not seem to limit the effectiveness of the analysis. Poorly or ambiguously defining properties, however, has a dramatic impact on the effectiveness of analysis.
The specific question of the ability of hard science analysis to capture the essence of the human mind is, I will admit, a fascinating one. In formal terms, if it were possible to define and measure 1)the programs controlling information processing in each neuron at each point in time(point in time biological design of the neuron in design science terminology) and 2)the processes responsible for producing changes in these programs, would one have captured the essence of ‘mind’? Would there be some element of the ‘soul’ which ‘avoids’ capture by such a hard science model? The problem, IMO, is that these are the wrong questions to ask.
The goal or purpose of hard science analysis is not to provide compete or precise knowledge, but to solve practical problems. The goal of design science is not a complete and precise understanding of biological design. The goal of the hard science approach is to be able to ‘improve, redesign or re-engineering biological design. The goal or purpose of physics is not to understand how cannon balls move or to predict where a particular cannon ball will end up. The purpose of physics, at least in my pragmatic view, is help redesign the universe so that specific cannon balls get to specific locations at specific times.
The purpose of ‘hard science’ analysis of the human mind, IMO, is not an god-like understanding of the mind, but rather to solve ‘problems’ involving the human mind. The goal of hard science analysis of the mind is to develop techniques to make it possible to re-engineer, redesign, or ‘improve’ the human mind. In design science terminology, this means understanding the ‘programs’ that control human behavior (more specifically understanding the programs that control human decision making) and understanding the processes and mechanisms which can change the programming responsible for human decision making. No where is the process of analyzing, modeling, or engineering human behavior is ‘consciousness’ anything more than a relatively minor side issue.
It should be noted that the goal of both ‘soft sciences’ like medicine and ‘hard sciences’ like physics can be defined in terms of problem solving. A soft science approach is a random ‘does it kill him or cure him search’. A ‘hard science’ provides reliable predictive theories which allows for ‘pencil and paper’ testing of options. It might be reasonable to questimate that a hard science approach is at least a 1000 times more effective/efficient than a soft science approach to problem solving.
As you point out, previous efforts at explaining and simulating the mind have been failures. In fact, I would argue that all previous hard science efforts in the life sciences have been unsuccessful. There are a number of reasons for these past failures. Design science is based on specific solutions to a number of the more general problems associated with hard science analysis.
To put the life science issues in perspective, human intelligence is limited. There are many unsolved problems. Because no one has found a solution to these problems in the last 500 years (the period of more serious searching), does not mean we won’t find a solution in the next 500. Except in terms of human life spans or human attention spans, 500 years is not very long.
Quote: The points I gave was where to look for more help and I believe they will be very helpful.
While I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of your suggestions, it useful to note that the reasons for developing design science as a hard science approach to analyzing biological design were 1)hard science approaches have been extremely successful/effective in the physical sciences, and 2)nobody had as yet figured out how to apply hard science concepts in the life sciences. In attempting to find a solution to a previously unsolved problem, one always recognizes the existence of prior attempts to solve the problem, but one also recognizes that prior attempts were failures.
It at least appears on the surface, that the larger the number of failed attempts to solve a problem, the more opinions that a problem must be addressed from a particular perspective. If you read the literature, you will find one of the key elements in finding a novel solution, is the ability to ignore what everybody knows to be fact.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 09. September 2002 21:38
Quote: Determining adequacy or completeness before a hard science has been established is, of course, highly speculative. If the experience
in the physical sciences is any indication, it would seem likely that a successful hard science approach would not leave much room soft science or non-scientific approaches. Astrology and alchemy still play a role in the post-Newtonian age, but it is relatively minor.
Warren, what has this got to do with the "price of rice" or what we're talking about. Don't you remember your history. Descartes made two categories, "mind" and "matter", with properties that were logical contraries. The "hard" sciences dealt with the "matter" category and was successful with the things that fit in it.
The attempts to deal with the "mind" category IN TERMS of only the "matter" category started in the 1950's and is now considered a failure.
One can see that this failure was "baked into the cake" since the logic of it doesn't follow. I've got both the data and reason on my side but
no speculation, its you who have a blind faith in this "hard-only stuff." Materialism and even modern physicalism with its associated techniques
are empirically false and logically false when it comes to telling this story.
At least modern physicalism (quantum mechanics) points to a causal nexus that's not closed, and as the theory predicts and experiments
support, shows the existence of causal influences that are not mechanical/classical in nature. That's why the reference Henry Stapp's web page.
Moreover, there is much more to this "falsification" of the "hard-only approach" than just the fact that consciousness exists at all. That's why I gave the extra references.
AGAIN, that doesn't mean that your approach is useless, far from it, it's just NOT THE WHOLE STORY, so not entirely adequate. Here's a rough
analogy. You probably know how it goes. When you give a simplified version of something, say an intro class on blood flow regulation under
exercise, then years later take graduate studies specifically in this, answers that were previously thought correct aren't or at least not
quite. Distortion sets in with over simplification, sometimes radically
so.
With regards to the notion of non-scientific versus scientific. These ideas are a bit behind the times and are now not used...for good reasons. The "demarcation problem/project" was founded on a whole series of confusions that doomed it from the start.
Instead, one should try to distinguish reliable and well-tested claims from those that are not.
Also, another feature of the various so-called demarcation criteria in debates between "scientists" and "pseudo-scientists" is that they where typically used as machines de guerre in a polemical battle between rival camps. Indeed, many of those most closely associated with the demarcation issue have evidently hidden (and sometimes not so hidden) agendas of various sorts. It is well know, for instance, that Aristotle was concerned to embarrass the practitioners of Hippocratic medicine;
and it is notorious that the logical positivists wanted to repudiate metaphysics and that Popper was out to 'get' Marx and Freud. In every
case, they used demarcation criterion of their own devising as the discrediting device.
A very recent study of this is Humes critique of miracles. This critique is so bad that the author John Earman, a well known philosopher of science, entitled his book "Humes Abject Failure..."
[ 09 September 2002, 21:41: Message edited by: Mark Szlazak ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 10. September 2002 08:07
Mark,
Quote: The attempts to deal with the "mind" category IN TERMS of only the "matter" category started in the 1950's and is now considered a failure.
I agree that in part the issue being addressed here is the ‘scientific analysis of the mind’. I will further agree that prior attempts to perform hard science analysis of the mind failed. Although I suspect attempts to analyze the mind go back much more than 50 years, the fact that no one solved the technical problem in a 50 year period or even a 2000 year period is hardly evidence the problem can’t be solved.
I wouldn’t characterize design science as an attempt to define or analyze ‘mind’ in terms of matter. I would rather characterize it as an attempt to analyze mind in terms of ‘complex causal relationships’ or ‘complex paradigms’. These complex causal structures are compatible with physical laws, but I don’t think it is very useful to say that the complex structures are the result of the underlying physical laws.
Hard science approaches are vastly more powerful and effective that soft-science or non-science approaches to problem solving. I can’t imagine that you reject this principle or the vast body of evidence supporting it.
The ‘problem’ in the study of the mind has not been the inadequacy of the hard science paradigm, but the inability to find an effective method of applying it. The same inability to apply the hard science paradigm has been a problem in all the life sciences including evolutionary biology.
This thread was started to discuss the proposition " If it is possible to develop a hard science approach to the analysis of biological design, then that approach will be superior to any existing soft-science or non-science approach." The ‘human mind’ is one form of biological design.
I expected arguments of the type- ‘hard science analysis of design is not possible(which is answered by demonstrating how it is possible) or ‘existing evolutionary biology or psychology are hard sciences (which is answered by showing these sciences can not produce hard science theories).
One of your arguments to paraphrase is ‘we have moved beyond the hard science paradigm and now recognize that the subjective opinions of scientific professionals is a better basis on which to evaluate the validity of scientific theories’. While I would fully agree that you are accurately describing the current state of affairs in academia, I do not agree that ‘peer review or academic subjectivity’ represents a legitimate scientific principle’. If the technical problems can be solved, and it is possible to return to the hard science ‘falsify and replace’ paradigm, then it will be vastly superior to the soft science or non-science ‘peer review subjectivity’ which is currently being labeled science.
The proposed proposition can be taken one step further. If current scientific standards in the life sciences are not based on hard science standards, then ‘scientists’ working in these fields have no experience or expertise or qualifications to evaluate hard science theories. In fact, since the current subjective standards are incompatible with hard science standards, the soundness of any opinions expressed by professionals with a background in one of the existing life sciences needs to be questioned. If these professionals are to express opinions on issues relating to hard science theories, they need to demonstrate that they are capable of evaluating hard science theories and that the opinions expressed are based on hard science evaluation techniques not the subjective standards in which they were trained.
To return briefly to mind/body or mind/matter dichotomy. First, this is a somewhat arbitrary or artificial historical sub-division of the universe which has some ‘interesting’ philosophical and political implications. From a scientific perspective, the issue is something like "can you tell what is going on inside the mind or black box when all you can see or observe are the external manifestations?". In a more general form -Can you tell what is going on inside a causal relationship when all you can observe is the cause and the effect?’. The answer is, of course, who cares. It is possible to measure, model, and simulate the information processing performed by the human mind. It is possible to formulate testable scientific theories relating to this information processing(my analysis suggests) and it is possible to effectively and efficiently solve practical problems using these theories. Other nebulous features of mind like consciousness to not appear to be relevant to scientific analysis.
If someone wants to demonstrate that a feature such as consciousness has any hard science value then they need to demonstrate how it can defined and measured and how it can be relevant. There is no a priori reason why it must be relevant. Given the obvious similarities between ‘processes which change biological design’ at the cell level, the nervous system level, and the human behavior level, it seems questionable that a phenomena identifiable at only one level could be relevant to all three.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 15. September 2002 00:00
I feel like I'm talking to a broken record!
Warren the answers are already in my previous posts so look there. Better yet, just forget about my previous post and go back to sleep.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic