Framing The Question in Science

FRAMING THE QUESTION IN
SCIENCE
Dr.S.S.D.Pandey
Global Synergetic Foundation
ssd@globalsynergetic.org
Dr.S.S.D.Pandey
Global Synergetic Foundation
©Global Synergetic Foundation
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
l Don’t think of an elephant

l Impossibility of avoiding the frame
l In science the dominant frame is
reductionism and the associated
mechanical thinking
l The dominant modern manifestations
include molecular biology and nonlinear
dynamics
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 WE

MAKE MODELS, A SCIENCE OF FRAMING
ENCODING
NATURAL FORMAL
SYSTEM SYSTEM
CAUSAL MANIPULATION
EVENT
DECODING
FORMAL
NATURAL
SYSTEM
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
ENCODING
NATURAL FORMAL
SYSTEM SYSTEM
CAUSAL
IMPLICATION
EVENT
DECODING
FORMAL
NATURAL
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO

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

FRAME THE MODELING RELATION
FORMAL
NATURAL
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
MANIPULATION
FORMAL
NATURAL
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID

TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THE
PRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE:
l WE MORE OR LESS FORGOT

THAT THERE WAS AN
ENCODING AND DECODING

PRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE: IT
FRAMED THE QUESTIN
l THE “REAL WORLD” REQUIRES

MORE THAN ONE “FORMAL
SYSTEM”
TO MODEL IT (THERE IS NO
“UNIVERSAL MODEL”)

PRESENT SITUATION INEVITABLE:
l WE ARE TOO AFRAID OF

“BELIEFS” (SCEPTICISM IS
“IN”)
l WE DEVELOPED THE MYTH
OF “OBJECTIVITY”
WHAT IS SCIENCE?
l HAS MANY DEFINTIONS

l SOME OF THESE ARE IN CONFLICT
l SCIENCE IS A BELIEF STRUCTURE
l SCIENCE OF METHOD VS SCIENCE
OF CONTENT
WHY IS “OBJECTIVITY” A MYTH?

(OR: WHY IS SCIENCE A BELIEF STRUCTURE)
l THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT AND CAN

NOT TELL US HOW TO ENCODE AND DECODE.
(MODELING IS AN ART!)
l 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)
l MODELS EXIST IN A CONTEXT: A FRAME
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY

DEFINITIONS OF COMPLEXITY?
l SCIENTISTS FOCUS ON THE FORMAL

DESCRIPTION RATHER THAN THE
REAL WORLD
l THE REAL WORLD IS COMPLEX
l FORMAL SYSTEMS COME IN VARYING
SHADES AND DEGREES OF
COMPLICATION
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MAKE

“COMPLEXITY THEORY” NECESSARY?
(WHAT HAS “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” FAILED TO EXPLAIN?)
l WHY IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN THE

SOME OF THE PARTS?
l SELF-REFERENCE AND CIRCULARITY
l THE LIFE/ORGANISM PROBLEM
l THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM
Reductionism has framed complexity

theory
l Rather than change methods we have the

changed names for what we do
l The consequences are significant
l It is impossible for you to believe what is being
taught in this lecture and to then simply add it to
your repertoire
l 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?
l TOO MANY DEFINITIONS, SOME

CONFLICTING
l OFTEN INTERCHANGED WITH
“COMPLICATED”
l HAS A REAL MEANING BUT AFTER THE
QUESTION IS REFRAMED
l 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
l COMPLEX l SIMPLE
l NO LARGEST MODEL l LARGEST MODEL
l WHOLE MORE THAN l WHOLE IS SUM OF
SUM OF PARTS PARTS
l CAUSAL RELATIONS
RICH AND l CAUSAL RELATIONS
INTERTWINED DISTINCT
l GENERIC l N0N-GENERIC
l ANALYTIC ≠ l ANALYTIC =
SYNTHETIC SYNTHETIC
l NON-FRAGMENTABLE l FRAGMENTABLE
l NON-COMPUTABLE l COMPUTABLE
l REAL WORLD l FORMAL SYSTEM
CIRCULARITY (SELF-REFERENCE) CAUSES

PROBLEMS 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 WE GET RID OF SELF-

REFERENCE, THAT IS, CIRCULARITY?
l IT HAS BEEN TRIED

l IT FAILED
l THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO “GO AROUND”
IT – THAT IS TO IGNORE CASES WHERE
IT POPS UP
l WHAT IF IT IS VERY COMMON?
SELF-REFERENCE, CIRCULARITY AND

THE GENOME
REPLICATION
TRANSCRIPTION
HOMEOSTASIS
WHERE 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 PRESENT
SITUATION INEVITABLE:
l THE MACHINE METAPHOR

TELLS 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 OF

l EFFICIENT: IT NEEDED A BUILDER
l FORMAL: THERE WAS A BLUEPRINT
l FINAL: IT HAS A PURPOSE
WHY IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN

THE SOME OF THE PARTS?
l BECAUSE REDUCING A REAL SYSTEM

TO ATOMS AND MOLECULES LOOSES
IMPORTANT THINGS THAT MAKE THE
SYSTEM WHAT IT IS
l BECAUSE THERE IS MORE TO REALITY
THAN JUST ATOMS AND MOLECULES
(ORGANIZATION, PROCESS,
QUALITIES, ETC.)
SELF-REFERENCE AND CIRCULARITY
l THE “LAWS” OF NATURE THAT

TRADITIONAL SCIENCE TEACHES ARE
ARTIFACTS OF A LIMITED MODEL
l 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
l LIFE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS

OF PHYSICS
l PHYSICS DOES NOT PREDICT LIFE
l LIVING CELLS COME FROM OTHER
LIVING CELLS
l AN ORGANISM MUST INVOLVE CLOSED
LOOPS OF CAUSALITY
l LIFE DOES INVOLVE PURPOSE
EXAMPLE: THE MIND/BODY

PROBLEM
l HOW CAN THE MIND MODEL

ITSELF?
l AM I CONSCIOUS?
l HOW DOES THE BRAIN PRODUCE
CONSCIOUSNESS, SELF
AWARENESS, ETC.?
CONCLUSIONS
l THE REAL WORLD IS COMPLEX

l THE WORLD OF “SIMPLE MECHANISMS” IS A
SURROGATE WORLD CREATED BY
TRADITIONAL SCIENCE
l WE ARE AT A CROSSROADS: A NEW
WORLDVIEW IS NEEDED
l THERE WILL ALWAYS BE RISK ASSOCIATED
WITH ATTEMPTS TO PROGRESS
l YOUR CRYSTAL BALL MAY BE AS GOOD AS
MINE OR BETTER
POST SCRIPT
l WE LIVE IN A WORLD DOMINATED BY

COMPUTERS
l MOST COMPLEXIFIERS BELIEVE THAT
COMPLEXITY IS SOMETHING WE CAN DEAL
WITH ON THE COMPUTER
l THIS NOTION OF COMPLEXITY FOCUSES ON
THE MECHANICAL ASPECTS OF THE REAL
WORLD
l WHAT MAKES THE REAL WORLD COMPLEX IS
ITS NON-COMPUTABILITY

Framing The Question in Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Framing The Question in Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FRAMING THE QUESTION IN

WHAT IS “FRAMING THE

§ Based on the work of George Lakoff

Framing the question

l Don’t think of an elephant

An Example of Reframing the question to get an

l Why is an organism different from a

THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE

WE HAVE A USEFUL MODEL WHEN

ARE SATISFACTORY WAYS OF “UNDERSTANDING”

THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF

WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO

WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO

WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID

l WE MORE OR LESS FORGOT

WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID

l THE “REAL WORLD” REQUIRES

WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID

l WE ARE TOO AFRAID OF

l HAS MANY DEFINTIONS

WHY IS “OBJECTIVITY” A MYTH?

l THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT AND CAN

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY

l SCIENTISTS FOCUS ON THE FORMAL

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MAKE

l WHY IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN THE

Reductionism has framed complexity

l Rather than change methods we have the

l TOO MANY DEFINITIONS, SOME

ROSEN’S CONCEPT FOR COMPLEXITY: A

Complexity is the property of a real world system

COMPLEX SYSTEMS VS SIMPLE

CIRCULARITY (SELF-REFERENCE) CAUSES

CAN WE GET RID OF SELF-

l IT HAS BEEN TRIED

SELF-REFERENCE, CIRCULARITY AND

WHERE DO CELLS COME FROM?

THE CELL THEORY

l CELLS COME FROM OTHER CELLS

WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID

l THE MACHINE METAPHOR

THE FOUR BECAUSES: WHY A

l MATERIAL: THE STUFF IT’S MADE OF

WHY IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN

l BECAUSE REDUCING A REAL SYSTEM

SELF-REFERENCE AND CIRCULARITY

l THE “LAWS” OF NATURE THAT

EXAMPLE: THE LIFE/ORGANISM PROBLEM

l LIFE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS

EXAMPLE: THE MIND/BODY

l HOW CAN THE MIND MODEL

l THE REAL WORLD IS COMPLEX

l WE LIVE IN A WORLD DOMINATED BY

You might also like