Post-Normal Science

In 1962 Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, introduced the concept of normal science as part of his theory that scientific knowledge progresses through socially constructed paradigm shifts, where normal science is what most scientists do all the time and what all scientists do most of the time. The process of paradigm shifts is basically as follows:

• from normal science (the rules are agreed upon or disagreed upon in debates that cannot be concluded; science is puzzle solving, but some contradictions in theory cannot be resolved)

• to revolutionary science (important rules are called into question; contradictions may be resolved; paradigms shift)

• to new normal science (new rules are accepted, science returns to puzzle solving under new rules).

A clear illustration of the theory in practice is the Copernican revolution where Copernicus’ idea of a solar system was largely ignored (not in the rules) when first introduced, then Galileo was deemed a heretic (rules called into question), and after a revolution in cosmology, the solar system is taken as an obvious and foundational part of scientific knowledge (new rules).

Another good example is the question of whether light is a particle or a wave. For a long time there was a debate on this point, where advocates on both sides of the debate had many valid arguments based on scientific perspectives, but were lacking the theory that would resolve the conflict. And then there was a revolution in thinking wherein they realized it was possible for both theories to be true.

James J. Kay described post-normal science as a process that recognizes the potential for gaps in knowledge and understanding that cannot be resolved other than through revolutionary science, thereby arguing that (between revolutions) one should not necessarily attempt to resolve or dismiss contradictory perspectives of the world (whether they are based on science or not), but instead incorporate multiple viewpoints into the same problem-solving process.

02

March

William James Theory of Emotion

This theory states that within human beings as a response to experiences in the world, the autonomic nervous system creates physiological events such as muscular tension, a rise in heart rate, perspiration, and dryness of the mouth. Emotions, then, are feelings which come about as a result of these physiological changes, rather than being their cause. James and Lange arrived at the theory independently. Lange specifically stated that vasomotor changes are emotions. (Ex. A person rationalizes that because he/she is crying, he/she must be sad.) James elucidated his concept as:

My theory … is that the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion. Common sense says, we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival, are angry and strike. The hypothesis here to be defended says that this order of sequence is incorrect … and that the more rational statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble … Without the bodily states following on the perception, the latter would be purely cognitive in form, pale, colorless, destitute of emotional warmth. We might then see the bear, and judge it best to run, receive the insult and deem it right to strike, but we should not actually feel afraid or angry.^[1]

12

February

How To Become a Hacker →

23

January

emergentfutures:

Will China Break?

Interesting article by Paul Krugman of the New York Times

20

December

14 notes

This photo was reblogged from emergentfutures and originally by emergentfutures.

“Our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe.”

This theory predicts that particles with half integer spin should interact, generating a tiny repulsive force called torsion. In ordinary circumstances, torsion is too small to have any effect. But when densities become much higher than those in nuclear matter, it becomes significant. In particular, says Poplawski, torsion prevents the formation of singularities inside a black hole.

Poplawski says the origin of the arrow of time comes from the asymmetry of the flow of matter into the black hole from the mother Universe. “The arrow of cosmic time of a universe inside a black hole would then be fixed by the time-asymmetric collapse of matter through the event horizon,” he says. Translated, this means that our Universe inherited its arrow of time from its source. “Daughter universes,” he says, “may inherit other properties from their mothers,” implying that it may be possible to detect these properties, providing an experimental falsifiable proof of his idea.

19

December

"If it isn’t subjective, there’s something false about it."

-

Roger Ebert on blogging and subjective writing.

I already linked to his first quote collected by The Atlantic from his memoir, “Life Itself”, but this one is just as brilliant. And it seems pertinent to something else I’ve been writing about recently.

18

December

40 notes

This quote was reblogged from parislemon and originally by parislemon.

kateoplis:

Christopher Hitchens, 1949-2011

(Source: byronic)

16

December

410 notes

This photo was reblogged from kateoplis and originally by byronic.

THe Arrow Paradox

The more famous of Zeno’s two arguments against discontinuity is “The Arrow”,

He notes that if physical objects exist discretely at a sequence of discrete instants of time, and if no motion occurs in an instant, then we must conclude that there is no motion in any given instant. (As Bertrand Russell commented, this is simply “a plain statement of an elementary fact”.) But if there is literally no physical difference between a moving and a non-moving arrow in any given discrete instant, then how does the arrow know from one instant to the next if it is moving? In other words, how is causality transmitted forward in time through a sequence of instants, in each of which motion does not exist?

It’s been noted that Zeno’s “Arrow” argument could also be made in the context of continuous motion, where in any single slice of time there is (presumed to be) no physical difference between a moving and a non-moving arrow. Thus, Zeno suggests that if all time is composed of instants (continuous or discrete), and motion cannot exist in any instant, then motion cannot exist at all. A naive response to this argument is to point out that although the value of a function f(t) is constant for a given t, the function f(t) may be non-constant at t. But, again, this explanation doesn’t really address the phenomenological issue raised by Zeno’s argument. A continuous function (as emphasized by Weierstrass) is a static completed entity, so by invoking this model we are essentially agreeing with Parmenides that physical motion does not truly exist, and is just an illusion, i.e., “opinions”, arising from our psychological experience of a static unchanging reality.

 Before blithely dismissing this concern as non-sensical, it’s worth noting that modern physics has concluded (along with Zeno) that the classical image of space and time was fundamentally wrong, and in fact motion would not be possible in a universe constructed according to the classical model. We now recognize that position and momentum are incompatible variables, in the sense that an exact determination of either one of them causes the other to be completely indeterminate. According to quantum mechanics, the eigenvalues of spatial position are incompatible with the eigenvalues of momentum so, just as Zeno’s arguments suggest, it really is inconceivable for an object to exhibit a definite position and momentum (motion) simultaneously.

The theory of special relativity answers Zeno’s concern over the lack of an instantaneous difference between a moving and a non-moving arrow by positing a fundamental re-structuring the basic way in which space and time fit together, such that there really is an instantaneous difference between a moving and a non-moving object, insofar as it makes sense to speak of “an instant” of a physical system with mutually moving elements. Objects in relative motion have different planes of simultaneity, with all the familiar relativistic consequences, so not only does a moving object look different to the world, but the world looks different to a moving object.

11

December

emergentfutures:

The Future of the Book | IDEO

Paul Higgins: Some really interesting thoughts and concepts here. I was particularly taken by:

• Nelson - the concept of combining the flow of current thoughts and stories on a subject with a deeper access to material and references.
• Coupland (or Copeland) - This is an interesting way for people within an organisation to share material and reading. What interested me from a futurist perspective is that it may be a great way to identify blind spots in what an organisation is seeing. As well as showing what is popular, what is well read and what is shared we should be able to highlight what areas are not and use it as a diagnostic tool to improve the forward scanning processes of organisations. 

04

December

127 notes

This video was reblogged from emergentfutures and originally by emergentfutures.