Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes:
>The LEM was an important part of the solid ground from which I
>attacked my father (just normal adolescence opposition) who was
>a theologist. It seemed to me that theologists don't care too much
>about logic when they make their points and I went to seek for
>some solid ground. Also a reason why I studied physics.
(snip)
>This is about 15 years ago. I couldn't follow my father at that
>time. I couldn't leave the solid ground of the LEM, because I didn't
>know how to distinguish sense from nonsense otherwise. All what
>my father could say to me was, that I should try to understand the
>bible and find where the LEM is excluded and how exactly this
>property help people to live.
Greetings Winfried,
Thank you for telling us about your experiences with LEM (Law of
Excluded Middel).
For fellow learners who have not followed the thread: LEM is one of
the pillars (axioms) upon which Classical Logic depends.
Perhaps I am now going to stick my neck too far out in this letter. It
will be on the contributions of the "young and old" on the advancement
of scientific thinking.
But since the topic is "Junk Science", allow me my "junk speculation".
Furthermore, speculation is not alien to science. The Scientific
Method (SM) has three stages: (1) observation, (2) speculation, (3)
falsification.
But let us first browse a little bit more on the LEM.
LEM, OXYMORONS AND ESPOUSALS
Have you ever thought about "scientific speculation"? It sounds like a
grand oxymoron. Most people have the idea that science is about
factuality. They get this idea because they have little experience in
the SM. What they observe, are the output (results) of stage 3 of the
SM -- statements which are difficult or impossible to falsify any
further. By then using LEM, they conclude that speculation and facts
cannot ever be combined. In other words, "scientific speculation" is
an oxymoron. Should they have had the insight that when two things are
in sequence to each other, there is no reason to invoke at all the LEM
and conclude that an oxymoron exists.
In chemistry there are quite a number of these oxymorons because of
connecting contradictory steps in a sequence. Probably the most
(in)famous of them all is the phrase "approximately accurately" in
analytical chemistry. For example, weigh "approximately accurately"
3.1734 gram of a sample. Does it mean "weigh approximately" or does it
mean "weigh accurately"?
No. It means that first one makes a calculation on the mass of the
sample you will need, getting the value 3.1734g. In the second step
one uses the chemical balance to way approximately 3g (which differs
only 3% from 3.1734g). This step takes about 3 seconds for an
experienced chemist. In the third step one determines the actual mass
obtained from step 2 accurately -- say 3.0709g. This step takes about
10 seconds for an experienced chemist. In the fourth step one uses the
value 3.0709g rather than 3.1734g in the calculations. This step takes
about 45 seconds for an experienced chemist. Hence a total time of 1
minute is needed by the experienced chemist.
However, for somebody who want to invoke LEM and thus make an oxymoron
out of "approximately accurately", the time needed will be much
longer. Even for an experienced chemist to weigh exactly 3.1734g of a
sample, about 5 - 10 minutes will be needed, depending on the physical
properties of the sample. A young, inexperienced student, believing
steadfastly in LEM, may easily require an hour to weigh the sample
exactly.
Does this misuse of LEM occur only in the physical subjects of
science?
No. Chris Argyris make a strong point for distinguishing between
"theory espoused" and "theory in use". In many of the cases he
discusses, the LEM is conspicuous in the "theory espoused" while
insignificant in the "theory in use". In these cases the "theory
espoused" usually do not match the complexity of the situation to be
dealt with. So, is LEM the culprit?
CREATIVE OBSERVATIONS AND SPECULATIONS
If we want to "speculate scientifically" (stage 2), we have to begin
with stage (1) -- we have to observe as creatively as possible. I use
the word creatively rather than the words accurately or precisely for
a very definite reason.
Accuracy and precision are closely related to one another, but not
exactly the same thing. Accuracy concerns the difference between a
value obtained and the true value. If we fire 100 shots at a target
and not one is a bull's eye, then we shoot with low accuracy.
Precision concerns the difference between obtained values. If we fire
100 shots at a target and most of them go through one and the some
hole (which need not be the bull's eye), then we shoot precisely. To
take the average of a number of imprecise (scattered) values in order
to obtain an accurate value, is a common fallacy applied to
measurements.
Both accuracy and precision have to do with the essentiality sureness
("identity-categoricty"). Creative observation is not concerned with
only sureness, but with all seven essentialities of creativity.
* Liveness* We ought not observe only beings at a moment of time.
We also have to observe becomings over an interval of time.
* Wholeness* We ought not observe only a section of a spectrum.
We also have to observe other sections of the whole spectrum.
* Fruitfulness* We ought not observe only things which we can
make easily contact with. We must also make make contacts
where our efforst seems to be ineffective.
* Spareness* We ought not observe as if we have no limitations.
We also have to extend our limitations by incorporating
other humans and technology. They are all limited.
* Otherness* We ought not observe only what is familiar.
We also have to observe things strange or even alien to us.
* Openness* We ought not observe only what can be observed.
We also have to bear in mind observables which are excluded
by uncertainty relationships (like that of Heisenberg).
Sometimes I wonder what qualifier to use: "scientific" observation or
"creative" observation? The story of observation in the history of
science is a drama. It swings between evolutions (close to
equilibrium) in observations to revolutions (at the edge of chaos) in
observations.
For example, consider visual observations. For millenia humans had
only their eyes to use. Then, some 400 years ago, the telescope
(Lipershay, Galileo) and microcopes (Leeuwenhoek, Malpighy) were
invented. What a revolution these inventions caused! Yet it took more
than 100 years of digestion for the subjects telescopy and microscopy
to develop into powerful practices. Another 200 years had to pass
before Maxwell's theory of Electromagnetism (EM) set people in motion
to search for other regions in the EM spectrum than merely the slit of
visible light. Soon afterwards lower frequencies (infrared, microwave
and radio) as well as higher frequencies (unltraviolet, x-ray and
gamma radiation) were detected. Another revolution was unfolding. Yet
it took another 50 years of digestion for these revolutions to become
standard practices.
When it comes to the second stage of the Scientific Method (SM), I
wonder even more what qualifier to use: "scientific" speculation or
"creative" speculation? It has to do with much more than merely
oxymorons.
During my own university training, I came under the spell that
scientists speculate as surely as possible by making use of logic to
derive conlusions based on facts. They then subject these logical
conclusions to empirical testing (stage 3 of the SM) to make double
sure of their conclusion -- a sort of "double loop learning" Argyris
might have said. All of this seems to pivot on the essentiality
sureness.
But in 1982-83 I discovered empirically myself what seemed to be
impossible and nonsense, namely that entropy production also happens
in the abstract world of mind. My whole universe (both the worlds
"inside me" and "outside me") was turned upside down. Fortunately, my
mental structures which gave way afforded me sufficient free energy to
make the second major discovery, but now phenomelogically, namely the
seven essentialities of creativity. The more I studied the history of
science, the more I grew in conviction that the other six
essentialities also played a decisive role in speculation. Let us
consider one example which have to do with fruitfulness
("connect-beget").
Max Planck began to study the second law of thermodynamics, not from
Newton's theory of mechanics as usual, but from Maxwell's theory of
electromagnetism (EM). Thus he made a bold connection which no one
thought of before. Soon he obtain puzzling empirical data on the EM
radiation of a heated black body. To complicate things, this EM data
could not be predicted, nor be explained by the theory of
electromagnetism or the theory of thermodynamics. He was in a fix
because theory and practice did not connect. So he did something very
creative to make a connection. Finally, after many years elapsed, he
proposed in 1900 that EM radiation comes in packets (quantums) such
that the energy of one packet is equal to its frequency. Next, by
using this proposition as a true statement in the theory, he was able
to let theory and practice match each other. Unfortunately, not one of
these two theories could explain or predict this statement. In other
words, his novel connection led to a outcome which could not be
connected. Fruitfulness seemed not to be so fruitful any more.
In the same years another very bright physicist Heinrich Herz was also
performing many experiments to learn more about the entire spectrum of
electromagnetism. (Unfortunately, he was so exposed to x-rays that he
died young -- a gerat loss to humankind.) Through a remarkable act of
focussed observation which would even have pleased Pasteur, he noticed
an effect which became known as photo-electricity. Even for the
outstanding successes of Maxwell's theory, it could not explain or
predict this effect. Fruitfulness seemed not to be so fruitful any
more.
Then, in 1905, Albert Einstein published three papers (one on
relativity theory, one on Brownian motion and one on
photo-electricity). He did what nobody else seemed to be able to do.
He connected the seemingly unconnectable photo-electric effect of Herz
and the seemingly unconnectable quantum effect of Planck beautifully
with no visible seam. What a fruitful accomplishment! But please take
care -- should we carefully work through this work of Einstein, we
will find richness in all seven essentialities and not only
fruitfulness.
Creative speculation sounds enticing. Scientific speculation sounds
like a heresy. Why? What has it to do with the training in schools and
universities? Where on this world are learners guided to speculate
scientifically?
Now for some "scientific speculation" of another kind.
YOUNG AND OLD IN SCIENCE
Is science not a struggle? Here in South Africa white people are
heavily criticised by black people that the observations, speculations
and falsifications which they make, have racistic undertones. The
reason is simple. The majority of white people ensured through their
votes that the ideology of apartheid (theory) became a policy
(practice), excluding black people from an inclusive democracy. Since,
when connecting observations, speculations and falsifications in the
correct sequence they become the Scientific Method (SM), the SM itself
often becomes under suspicion as an invention to ensure "white
supremacy". The effect of this suspicion in the rest of Africa has
caused the death of science in many countries. Here is South Africa it
causes indifference, weaker in the short term, but just as dangerous
in the long term.
South African black people has not only become extremely sensitive to
racism, but also to sexism and a bunch of other isms. Again the
reasons are two simple ones. Black communities practised historically
a patriarchial system of management in most of their native
organisations. In the meanwhile, during the fifty years of apartheid,
the white goverment was controled behind the scenes by the secret
society called the Afrikaner Broederbond (AB). Only white males
(language Afrikaans, religion Reformed) could belong to the AB. Thus
the black women had to stuggle against male supremacy from both sides.
A phrase much in use today in South Africa is "irrespective of race,
sex, creed or age". So let us focus on the issue of age in science. Is
it "junk" science to speculate that age plays a role in science?
Perhaps you did not realise the seriousness of this question. Let me
ask you three other questions of the same kind. Is it "junk" science
to speculate that race plays a role in science? Is it "junk" science
to speculate that sex plays a role in science? Is it "junk" science to
speculate that creed plays a role in science?
Winfried, please note that I am not judging that your narrative is
racist, sexist or pietistic. Whether it is the case or not, is not
even the issue here. What I want to connect to, is the issue of age of
the learner for individuals and orgnisations. Thank you for describing
beautifully your own experiences with respect to this relationship
between learners of different ages. Your father is a learning
individual just as you are. But both of you exhibit the tracks which
the creative course of time has left upon each of you. The difference
is that you father has been exposed for a much longer time than you.
It cannot be otherwise.
I also have the tracks of time on me as I have described in the "Burnt
Mountain". I have described in some ot my contributions the paradigm
shifts (massive emergent learnings) which I had to make in my own
thinking. Most of them happened before the age of forty. Most of them
came as a result of my roaming spirit. My parents had many stories to
tell how my roaming spirit already as a pre-school kid caused them
intense worries on many occasions. What I want to stress with this is
the fact that I thought that by the age of 50 I would not be roaming
any more, nor learning so much emergently.
What a fool I have been. I am now 4 years past the 50 mark. I become
continually aware that I still learn emergently. Even more, I am
learning how important learning after the 50 year mark is to
complement the learning before the 50 year mark. Sometimes I am caught
by surprise how much different I think compared to my thinking only
ten years ago. Strangely enough, it is not so much with respect to
specific topics in subjects of natural science and the humanities.
That happened before the 50 year mark. If I can summarise my change in
thinking after the 50 year mark, it has much to do with
(1) humanity
(2) complexity
(3) the creative course of time.
For example, late last night I got heated (excited) when my dear wife
(53) asked me to help her with the word processor. I helped her and
then she suddenly began to argue. Out of the blue I said to her that
if she wants to argue, there is no point in her trying to learn and
thus no point in me trying to teach. But if she wants to question me,
I will try to help her find the answers, even if we have to sit until
dawn this morning. I walked away to continue with my own work. The
effect this had on her was remarkable. Half an hour later she solved
all her problems by herself. She proudly invited me to go through her
work and see if I could suggest any improvement or better tricks. Five
years ago we both would have thought and behaved much differently.
So what has this personal narratives have to do with age in science?
Before the 50 year mark, I was deeply under the impression that grand
revolutions in life in general and in science in particular came
through the work of mainly "young" (age < 50) people. Get for jobs
like managers, scientists, teachers and preachers the young people to
turn things upside down in all walks of life. In my own lanaguage we
have even an expression to serve this impression, freely translated as
"get the young Turks and stay away from the old goats".
But since the 50 year mark I became under the impression that there is
at least one exception. This exception has to do with complexity. The
revolution in the way we deal with complexity are driven more by "old"
people than "young" people relatively to other revolutions. If this is
a fallicious observation, then there is little more to be said except
to hit me with a comprehensive statistical analysis.
If this observation (1) has some merit to it, then the next stage
would be to speculate (2) on it. Maybe the following is "junk"
speculation, but I offer them so that we can sorm our brains
sufficiently before we go to falsification (3) as the last stage.
It is as if many "young" people lack the age (years of experience) to
be bothered by complexity. It is as if complexity intimidates them
more easily. (Think about the Digestor and how M influence the change
of m). It is as of "young" people cannot sustain the free energy
required to organise in complexity. (Think how free energy is needed
to produce entropy so that the edge of chaos even on complexity can be
reached.) A friend of mine, Dr Werner Coetzer, visited me yesterday
morning. He is about my age. He said something which has a bearing on
this issue. "At, we have to stop playing the game of complexity
because it confuses the young people and complicate their lives".
Before somebody get on the bandwagon, let me state that I have nothing
against any person because of age. Furthermore, people may be
physically young/old, but spiritually old/young. Trying to classify
them will need at least a 2x2 matrix -- and I will not participate
because of having only 4 boxes.
Let us assume that "learning age" plays indeed a principal role in how
we handle complexity. In other words, let us skip step 3
(falsification) and go once again to step 1 (observation) of a new
cycle of the SM. Where exactly in live do we observe the manifestation
of learning. Educational institutions? No. Maturana and Varela have
shown that the Tree of Knowledge (the outcome of learning) goes much
wider than merely than some aspects of human culture. So, is if this
observation is the case, what about step 2 (speculations)?
Here are some speculations which concern humans. Do older nations
usually handle complexity better than younger nations? Do older
organisations adapt relatively better to complexity than younger ones?
What role will the age of people play in the new millenium? (Think of
the phrase ""irrespective of race, sex, creed or age".)
Winfried, you end with some intriguing questions:
>What does awareness of the front structure mean for
>organisations? Isn't this what Peter Senge wrote about in his
>Fifth Discipline? Senge wrote that he regularily meditates.
>What else is meditation than to leave the solid ground of
>the mental model LEM to open ones mind for the experience
>of the front structure?
Allow me to answer you with a question. Is the front structure
anything else than complexity?
Allow me also to question you. Does the front structure have an age?
Best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>