Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Creating a Science of Purposeful Systems Stuart A. Umpleby Department of Management The George Washington University Washington, DC 20052 A brief history of “purposeful systems” • In the early days of cybernetics, the 1940s to the 1970s, it was common to talk about purposeful systems • Then there was a period of a few decades when purpose was rarely mentioned • Now interest in purpose seems to be increasing Why an increase of interest in purpose? • Beginning in the mid 1970s Heinz von Foerster and others in the American Society for Cybernetics began discussing “second order cybernetics” • This was an effort to pay more attention to cognition, to describe the observer as an essential part of the scientific enterprise • That effort led to interest in second order science, a development not just within cybernetics but within philosophy of science Why a reconsideration of science? • In recent years several authors have been discussing the need to expand our conception of science • Ben Shneiderman, Science 2.0, described changes brought about by the internet • Karl Mueller, three levels of science – science infrastructures, normal science, second order science -use scientific reports as data, related to meta-research • Studies of science, technology and society -- a science of how scientific knowledge is used in society • A science of how knowledge is used to aid decisionmaking, similar to action research What trends have supported an interest in purpose? • New technology creates new possibilities for obtaining, integrating, and comparing scientific data • Rapid changes in society, such as automation and robotics, call into question what our purposes are • Behaviorism emphasized observing behavior rather than asking people what their purposes are • Success in achieving our goals, often through technology, has led to more thought about goals Three models used in cybernetics • • • Regulation Two basic elements: the regulator and the system regulated How to amplify management capability Enables managing nations with hundreds of millions of people Self-organization A large number of elements governed by interaction rules Rules can be changed to obtain a different outcome Incentive systems, police and courts A general theory of biology, learning and economic development Reflexivity Two levels are involved Actors both observe and participate Elements are purposeful systems Not only a scientific theory but also a theory of the evolution of science The common element of the three models is purpose • In regulation, what is the regulator trying to achieve? What is the goal or purpose? • In self-organization, what is the result that existing interaction rules produce, and what interaction rules are needed to produce the desired results? • Understanding reflexive systems requires understanding not just their behavior but also their purposes Understanding the elements of social systems • In the early days of science the elements of systems were inanimate objects • The key to success in science was the method used – conjectures and refutations • It was assumed that the methods used for social systems would be the same as those used for physical systems • But purposeful systems need to be treated differently from inanimate objects Three Theories of reflexive processes • Vladimir Lefebvre’s theory of reflexive control (1977) created a theory of two systems of ethical cognition • George Soros’s reflexivity theory connected cybernetics to economics and finance • Heinz von Foerster’s second order cybernetics created a reflexive view of science and added a biological perspective to normative and sociological views of philosophy of science Heinz von Foerster From objectivity to participation • The interest in purposeful systems raises the question of how to create verifiable knowledge of purposeful systems. • Statistics reveal the results of purpose better than purposes themselves • The purposes of science are often not understood by non-scientists • A gap is opening up between scientists and the general public There is a need for public acceptance of science • Scientists increasingly tell the general public what they should do • About nutrition and health – diet and exercise • About climate change – reduce use of fossil fuels, conserve energy • About economic development – increase education and improve the rights of women • But does the general public know where these ideas come from? Are they just an alternative, unfamiliar culture? A positive trend connecting science and the public • Service learning is a mode of instruction that is increasing around the world • Students work to help a client – an immigrant family, a small business, a voluntary organization • Students develop confidence in their ability to solve problems • Students describe what they did using concepts from the course, thus connecting textbook knowledge to personal experiences • This is more participatory form of education But rapid changes in science seem to threaten democracy • Science is currently progressing quite rapidly • The new knowledge, to be maximally beneficial, needs to be widely shared (e.g., vaccines) • And people need to feel they are benefitting from the advance of knowledge • If people do not believe they are benefitting as much as others, they will reject elites, including scientists Inequality in the U.S. • It used to be that CEOs in the U.S., Europe and Japan earned about 43 times as much per year as the average worker • In the U.S., CEOs now earn more than 400 times as much as the average worker • A CEO can earn more in a day than the average worker earns in a year • About 90% of the benefits of increased productivity in recent decades has gong to the top 1% The political system is changing • How and why is the political system changing? • Great progress in physical science and engineering is part of the cause • Improvements in social science are part of the solution • Not only scientists but also the general public need to be able to cope with complexity From replication to achieving desired change • Currently there is interest in replication in science. Can research results be reproduced? • A more fundamental change would be to combine science, society and purpose and ask, is our current knowledge producing the purposes we seek? • This would mean a more serious treatment of “action research” Two kinds of social science research Current social science • The scientist is outside the system studied • An experiment is of interest to scientists • The purpose of research is to create knowledge by testing falsifiable propositions Action research • The scientist is inside the system studied • An experiment is of interest to subjects and researchers • The purpose of research is to improve the lives of the research subjects Social science vs. action research • A consequence of research is new knowledge in the form of articles and books • Experimental groups and control groups help to ensure objectivity • Knowledge is usually expressed in the form of linear causal relations with a high level of statistical significance • New knowledge can be methods to guide actions by subjects or researchers • Ensuring participation by all relevant stakeholders is important for valid results, meaning results that advance society • One form of knowledge is knowing when a system is stable or unstable and how to change it Conclusion • Science is changing due to new technology, past successes and new goals • An early interest among cyberneticians in purposeful systems is receiving new attention • Adequately dealing with purposeful systems requires changes in science • Doing research on purposeful systems requires replacing an emphasis on objectivity with an emphasis on participation Contact Information Prof. Stuart Umpleby Department of Management School of Business George Washington University Washington, DC 20052 USA blogs.gwu.edu/umpleby [email protected] Presented at a conference of the World Organization for Systems and Cybernetics Sapienze University of Rome Rome, Italy January 25-27, 2017 Two theories of knowledge • Aristotle, realism – The world is primary, ideas are secondary – Our ideas should be a good description of the world • Plato, constructivism – Ideas are primary, because we have immediate access to them – We construct descriptions by interpreting our experiences How the nervous system works • • • • • • • The blind spot Image on your retina Move your eyes within your head Conversations at a party Listening to a speech Two kittens Injured war veterans The meaning of these experiments • The brain does a great deal of work for us that we are not aware of • What we think we see or hear is not always there. Varela on a cat’s brain • We do not see that we do not see • Observations independent of the characteristics of the observer are not physically possible First and second order cybernetics in the 1970s • • • • Observed systems The purpose of a model Controlled systems Interaction among variables in a system • Theories of social systems • Observing systems • The purpose of the modeler • Autonomous sys. • Interaction between observer and observed • Theories of the interaction between ideas and society Engineering Cybernetics Biological Cybernetics Social Cybernetics The view of epistemology A realist view of epistemology: knowledge is a “picture” of reality A biological view of epistemology: how the brain functions A pragmatic view of epistemology: knowledge is constructed to achieve human purposes A key distinction Reality vs. scientific theories Realism vs. Constructivism The biology of cognition vs. the observer as a social participant The puzzle to be solved Construct theories which explain observed phenomena Include the observer within the domain of science Explain the relationship between the natural and the social sciences What must be explained How the world works How an individual constructs a “reality” How people create, maintain, and change social systems through language and ideas A key assumption Natural processes can be explained by scientific theories Ideas about knowledge should be rooted in neurophysiology. Ideas are accepted if they serve the observer’s purposes as a social participant An important consequence Scientific knowledge can be used to modify natural processes to benefit people If people accept constructivism, they will be more tolerant By transforming conceptual systems (through persuasion, not coercion), we can change society Three Versions of Cybernetics Three theories of knowledge World 1 Description 3 2 Observer Expanding not a science but the philosophy of science • Karl Popper identified three “worlds” – the external world, the ideas in the mind of an observer and recorded scientific knowledge • The three sides correspond to three points of view in the history of cybernetics – engineering, biological, and social cybernetics • The triangle suggested a way to unify previously competing theories of knowledge The cybernetics of science NORMAL SCIENCE The correspondence principle Incommensurable definitions SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION New philosophy of science Old philosophy of science Amount of attention paid to the observer An Application of the Correspondence Principle The Correspondence Principle • Proposed by Niels Bohr when developing the quantum theory • Any new theory should reduce to the old theory to which it corresponds for those cases in which the old theory is known to hold • A new dimension is required How cybernetics expands science • The classical approach to science would be the left side of the triangle • Second order cybernetics would be the whole triangle including the scientist reflecting on his or her descriptions and seeking to act in the world • The triangle suggests that second order cybernetics is no longer a competing epistemology but a theory of epistemologies Strategies for advancing social science • For several decades social scientists tried to imitate the physical sciences • Physics was regarded as an example of how to do science • Now the idea is to expand science so the physical sciences become a special case of a larger view of science • The new view includes purposeful systems • Inanimate objects are a special case Current work on Second Order Science Second order science • Three levels of science (K. Mueller) – Second order science, meta research (2) – First order science, normal science (1) – Research infrastructure (0) • Expand science by adding two dimensions using the Correspondence Principle • Examine the use of ideas in practice – If not used, why not? (global models) – If used, what were the consequences? From second order cybernetics to second order science • Philosophers of science usually place the scientist outside what is observed • Second order cybernetics claims that descriptions are constructed in the minds of scientists • It places a scientist inside the social system that is observed • These thoughts are bringing about a wide-ranging reconsideration of our conception of science The importance of second order science • Expanding our conception of science opens new lines of investigation for research • Treating physics not as an example for all of science but rather as a special case of a larger conception of science will help the unification of the sciences • New possibilities for research in the social sciences will mean advances in the social sciences at a time when they are needed