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