Metascience Enabling Upgrades to the Scientific Process

Beyond Science 2.0 in the light of polyhedral metaphors?

Annex to Challenges More Difficult for Science than Going to Mars
-- or exploring the origins of the Universe or of Life on Earth (2014)

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Introduction

There is a sense in which the methodology of science is held to be "written in stone" -- and believed justifiably to be so -- as with revealed religion before it. As noted separately in the main paper, it exhibits few characteristics which bear comparison to the software upgrade process -- despite vigorous interest in the possibility of open science, occasionally termed Science 2.0. There is little question of annual "conceptware upgrades".

In the light of the argument in the main paper, the question is how to extend "science" from its narrow focus to one which encompasses what is implied by the term, namely a particular approach to knowing -- irrespective of the domain to which it may be applied. This therefore includes preoccupation with psychosocial intangibles whose very existence is so vigorously challenged by some forms of science.

Metascience is understood here as offering a key to engaging meaningfully with the global problematique via a global resolutique -- taking account of the marked dynamics of disagreement. To this end, and in order to achieve a coherent focus, a generic understanding is sought by separately conflating through metaphor each of the following three clusters:

• problem, question, challenge, threat, or provocative assertion
• resolution, answer, explanation, strategic response, shared agreement, or (unexamined) assumption
• disagreement, discord, inadequacy, incommensurability, incomprehensibility, or incompleteness.

Some possibilities to respond to this condition are indicated below. In particular, the clusters above are metaphorically associated with the primary characteristics of polyhedra as constituting metaphorical containers for coherence.

An initial question is what exactly is sought through a "metascience" perspective. What are the criteria, as tentatively scoped out in the past (Criteria for an Adequate Meta-model, 1971)? Various critics of the knowledge processes of science have formulated other criteria, as noted separately (Knowledge Processes Neglected by Science: insights from the crisis of science and belief, 2012). Other approaches to the matter include:

• Unified science, as distinguished by Wikipedia in three approaches:
  • Belief in the unity of science as a central tenet of logical positivism.
  • Quest for a common artificial language, partially inspired by the work of Edward Haskell (Full Circle: the moral force of unified science, 1972)
  • The focus on systems ecology of Howard T. Odum's and the associated Emergy Synthesis, modeling the Ecosystem by developing a common language of science based on electronic schematics, with applications to ecology economic systems in mind (H. T. Odum, Ecological and General Systems: an introduction to systems ecology, 1994).
• Integrative knowledge, as variously understood through some 600 approaches profiled in the Integrative Knowledge Project. One commentary on its methodology offers a summary of Previous, parallel or related initiatives. This notes the efforts of Erich Jantsch (Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation, 1972). Distinctions may be made, or blurred, between contrasting approaches endeavouring to reframe each other's understanding, as in:
  • The qualifier "integral", as in integral thought, is increasingly associated with the integral theory developed by Ken Wilber, as listed by Wikipedia (List of integral thinkers and supporters).
  • Use of integrative thinking, as articulated by Roger L. Martin (The Opposable Mind: how successful leaders win through integrative thinking, 2007).
  • Integrative learning, as a learning theory toward integrated lessons helping students make connections across curricula.
  • The significance of "integrative" has been more recently explored by Jennifer Gidley (A Macrohistorical Planetary Tapestry: the fascinating integral narratives of Steiner, Gebser and Wilber, 2007) as part of her exploration of The Evolution of Consciousness as a Planetary Imperative (2007).
• Perennial philosophy within the philosophy of religion viewing each of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, universal truth on which the foundation of all religious knowledge and doctrine has grown.
• Global brain: As variously understood, following from the proposal of H. G. Wells for a collaboratively developed world encyclopedia, which he called a World Brain, and from the articulation by Peter Russell (The Global Brain: speculations on the evolutionary leap to planetary consciousness, 1982). A particular focus on quantum consciousness is developed by Ervin Laszlo (Quantum Shift in the Global Brain: how the new scientific reality can change us and our world, 2008). The various understandings have been reviewed by Francis Heylighen (Conceptions of a Global Brain: an historical review, 2011).
• Systems sciences and complexity sciences, most notably through the early inspiration and work of the founders of the Society for General Systems Research. These sciences have been much challenged to build fruitfully on that enterprise in relation to the needs of the times.
• Transdisciplinarity as through the focus of Basarab Nicolescu (Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, 2002; Transdisciplinarity: theory and practice, 2008).
• Symmetry, as in the elaboration of classes of symmetry group of ever greater dimensionality, as discussed separately (Potential Psychosocial Significance of Monstrous Moonshine: an exceptional form of symmetry as a Rosetta stone for cognitive frameworks, 2007).
• Metamathematics, notably as presented by Gregory Chaitin (Meta Maths: the quest for omega, 2006)
• Theory of Everything, as the focus of fundamental physics. There is a sense in which further insight is to be derived via metaphor, as speculatively argued (Everything as a Metaphorical Theory of Everything: not excluding nonsense, nothingness, the inexplicable, the irrelevant and their rejection, 2012).

As a characteristic of the challenge of any metascience, in practice there is typically little love lost between the advocat

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]