'Improving the scientific method' is a subject I had posted on, in a Discussion Forum. Finding this subject of great relevance for the subject of posture corrections (which is a difficult task indeed), I am posting the same in this blog, for your reading pleasure.
Selvaraj
------------------------------------------
The weakness with this method is that in a problem having many variables it may not always be possible to fully isolate a particular variable for study. In a complex system it may also prove difficult to identify all the variables.
In general, the scientific method works well in understanding our physical and non-living world; it works poorly when applied to our living world, which by its very nature is very complex. Scientists have worked around this problem by convincing themselves that it is the nonliving world which is important, and by treating the living world as if it were non-living.
The moral dilemma .....
Because the scientific method is not very good in putting things together to create systems which really benefit our environment and humans, our scientists have washed their hands of the whole problem by claiming that moral and ethical issues are not covered by the pursuit and advancement of science. Moral and ethical issues must be handled separately.
We cannot improve the scientific method unless we tackle the moral dilemma first.
Hence we need to first redefine the purpose of science:
Present Definition:
1. Aims to advances knowledge of natural phenomenon.
2. Aims to advance application of science in all its forms - minus any moral and ethical issues that are thrown up by these applications.
3. Aims not to directly involve itself in moral and ethical issues.
Desired Definition:
1. Science is for the benefit of our environment and for the benefit of humans.
2. Aims to advance application of science in all its forms - unless the application is likely to prove detrimental to the interest of our environment and that of humans.
3. Aims to tackle moral and ethical issues concurrently with the advancement of science.
Once we are past this moral dilemma we can try to improve the scientific method. The improvement desired is in creating a methodology to solve complex problems, which lie beyond the pale of current scientific methodology.
PROBLEM SPACE AND SOLUTION SPACE:
This methodology is quite intuitive, but it is desirable that we formalize the method so that all of us can use it as readily as we use the existing scientific method. This method has five steps.
1. Clearly identify the problem we wish to solve.
2. Create a PROBLEM SPACE in a Wen diagram and populate it.
3. Create a SOLUTION SPACE in a Wen diagram.
4. Without delay, start solving the problem by transferring as many issues as possible from the PROBLEM SPACE to the SOLUTION SPACE.
5. Hopefully, as items are transferred from the PROBLEM SPACE to the SOLUTION SPACE, at some point the problem should get solved.
Let's try out this method to solve a problem .......
Problem: A person's expenses greatly exceeds his income.
PROBLEM SPACE:
************************************************************
*....Job is low paying ........ Drinks too much ..........*
*.........................................................................*
*.........................low level of qualification ..............*
*.......... Inadequate sleep .....................................*
*...........................................Poor budgeting ........*
*............To much eating out (expensive) ................*
*.... Too many children (no family planning) ............*
*..........................................................................*
*.......Too many loans ...........................................*
*..........................................................................*
*************************************************************
SOLUTION SPACE
*************************************************************
*..........................................................................*
*..........................................................................*
*..........................................................................*
*..........................(Empty at start).........................*
*..........................................................................*
*..........................................................................*
*..........................................................................*
*..........................................................................*
*..........................................................................*
*..........................................................................*
*************************************************************
The advantages with this method:
1. It does not depend on genius insight.
2. The more the number of items in PROBLEM SPACE, the more difficult it is to solve the problem. So it is important to depopulate it as soon as possible. Problems will interact with one another; for instance if the person drinks too much or sleep too little, it may have a bearing on other problems too.
No of problems .................... Degree of interaction
One ...........................................Nil
Two .......................................... Two ( Problem A can interact with B and B with A)
Three ....................................... Six
Even removal of one problem decreases the overall problem geometrically!! So one should not wait for genius insight before beginning to solve problems.
3. In the process of solving the problem one is likely to get more insight, and one may add a problem in PROBLEM SPACE that he may have overlooked.
4. All the problems are visible at all times (very important). One does not underplay a problem just because it is convenient to do so.
------------------------------
The above example is a simple one, we will examine two, more complex examples:
1. Solving the problem of Global Warming.
2. My experience in solving the problem of 'Posture' over a period of 35 years - a case study.
Selvaraj
To be continued
A particle on the classical view is a concentration of energy and other properties in space and time, whereas a wave is spread out over a larger region of space and time. The question whether light are streams of particles (corpuscles) or waves is a very old one. This "either - or"formulation was classically natural and alien to the advanced "both - and" even the "neither - nor" solution of today.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_
------------------------------
When we see the intellectual climate today, it is very clear that our leaders have walked into a thought trap. This applies to our scientific, engineering, religious, political and educational leadership. And they are so tightly locked in a wedge that there is little likelihood that they will be able to work themselves loose in the immediate future. We are missing out on the great strides we could be making in all the sciences by examining all the dualities.
Some of the duality we should be looking at are:
- Science from the view point of a mechanist approach (our Nobel Prizes basically support this viewpoint) / Science from the viewpoint of a greater intelligence embedded in Nature.
- The search of humans for greater comfort / The basic needs of humans that are very similar to that of animals.
- A market economy based on the mass production of goods (ignoring the need for endless amounts of raw material and energy) / An economy, an engineering and a social approach, where we economize on the use of raw materials, emphasizing reuse and recycling.
- The quest for efficiency to improve productivity / The basic need of humans to do jobs that are mentally and physically stimulating.
- An environment where Nature is excluded / an environment built around Nature
etc.
One of the big problems is, how do we implement this duality? Does the yin and yang concept attempt to harmonize differences? My suggestion would be, at least in the conceptualization phase to draw a sharp line and treat the two separately. For example business magazines should split their presentation in half. In one half let them discuss the market economy as is, in the other half present an economic model which is driven by a deep concern for the environment. This is better than shedding copious amount of crocodile tears expressing concern for the environment when there is no basic change in anything.
Selvaraj
Ref: Yin and the Yang: http://en.wikipedia.org/
**************************
PART III (Posted on 29/4/11)
Knowledge economy / Market economy
KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
To Home: www.humanposture.blogspot.com
