Ironically I chose finance after beating my head at math a little too eagerly in college.  The incentives told me to do it. :)  Guns don’t kill people, right?  (Pardon the darkness, but the displacement of accountability is an unintended consequence of all external incentives.  Not that we’ve figured out a better way yet, but let’s not hide from it.  Running from it won’t help us understand it.  I’m sharing my personal experience to show that I’m not just an artsy guy talking smack.)

Rafe’s model of Science 2.0 attempts to place the spotlight back on the creative aspect of discovery.  But what are the rules of the game?  If numbers are necessary, but not sufficient, then what else is more important?

Enter the Incommensurability of Scientific Theories, which convincingly argues that ontology and language are a necessary centerpiece of rational comparison of theories and thus any and all science.  Science 2.0 framework has to be built around rational language reconciliation.  The link is a bit long (but quite worth it and ought to be required reading for all “scientists”), so here are the highlights:

“In order to understand the meanings that scientists ascribe to their own statements, it is necessary to understand the theories that they use in order to interpret what they observe.

Because older ideas are misunderstood, as a result of taking them out of their theoretical context, proponents of incommensurable scientific theories misunderstand each other, both claiming to have the facts on their side. Kuhn and Feyerabend both claimed that in such a situation, even empirical arguments can become circular (Feyerabend 1965b, 152; Kuhn 1970 [1962], 94)

Feyerabend suggested that the insolubility is due to the unwillingness of philosophers of different persuasions to change the deeply entrenched meanings of their terms, and that in this case, the mental should be reinterpreted so that it is compatible with materialism (Feyerabend 1963b).

Different epistemic values, such as universality, accuracy, simplicity, fruitfulness may pull in different directions (cf. Hoyningen-Huene 1992, 492–496; 1993, 150–154; Feyerabend 1981a 16, 1981c, 238) allowing for the possibility of rational disagreement.

With the notion of incommensurability, Kuhn was not so much challenging the rationality of theory choice, as trying to make room for the possibility of rational disagreement between proponents of competing paradigms. In fact, according to Kuhn, “incommensurability is far from being the threat to rational evaluation of truth claims that it has frequently seemed. Rather, it’s what is needed, within a developmental perspective, to restore some badly needed bite to the whole notion of cognitive evaluation. It is needed, that is, to defend notions like truth and knowledge from, for example, the excesses of post-modernist movements like the strong program” (2000 [1993], 91).

A far cry from claiming that incommensurable theories cannot be compared, Feyerabend explicitly and repeatedly argued that incommensurable alternatives actually offer a better means of comparing the merits of theories than the mere development of commensurable alternatives (Feyerabend 1962, 66; cf. Oberheim 2006, 235ff.).

Finally, there is one central, substantive point of agreement between Kuhn and Feyerabend. Both see incommensurability as precluding the possibility of interpreting scientific development as an approximation to truth (or as an “increase of verisimilitude”) (Feyerabend, 1965c, 107; 1970, 220, 222, 227–228; 1975, 30, 284; 1978, 68; Kuhn 1970, 206; 1991, 6; 1993, 330; cf. Oberheim 2006, 180ff.; Hoyningen-Huene 1993, 262-264). They reject such characterizations of scientific progress because they recognize and emphasize that scientific revolutions result in changes in ontology. Such changes are not just refinements of, or additions to, the older ontology, such that these developments could be seen as cumulative additions to already established theoretical views. Rather, the new ontology replaces its predecessor. Consequently, neither Kuhn nor Feyerabend can correctly be characterized as scientific realists who believe that science makes progress toward the truth.”

Related posts:

1. Science 2.0
2. The Vanguard of Science: Bonnie Bassler

But I have to be prepared to be more confused — and question more assumptions than I intended to — because chances are my new random placement on the landscape is initially lower than the local maximum I was on prior.  This part is scary.  People around me don’t understand what I’m saying initially because I necessarily need new words, new language, to describe the new landscape.

And rather than start totally afresh with a new lexicon, I notice it’s more productive (personally and in communication) to overload old terms and let them slowly blend into their new meanings.  We all resist the strain, especially those who did not sign up for the jump through hyperspace.  They use the hill-climbing techniques that incrementally achieve higher ground (logical deduction, reductionism) in order to deny that we are in new territory at all and “prove” every new claim as false.  But unless we eliminate most or all of our old assumptions and embrace the new ones, these techniques will always yield inconsistency.

Thus, it seems like a good idea to resist the urge to bring to in the heavy logical artillery until it’s clear we are on the upslope.  In practice what this means is adding more novelty — but not as much as last time.  This is the Boltzmann technique of simulated annealing: start with a high degree of heat/randomness and turn it down slowly, all the while pounding away with the tools of logic and reduction.

What I mean by Science 2.0 is an intentional (and methodological) injection of novelty into the scientific method.  This is the beginning of a series of posts on the hows and whys of such activity.  I hope you will join in constructively and creatively.

Related posts:

1. Non-Dualism
2. Why Falsifiability is Insufficient for Scientific Reasoning
3. Two Books On Cognitive Science You Should Read

If you grew up like me you were brought up in a culture based on a dualist metaphysics, one that asserts that there is an objective reality outside of ourselves (whatever “we” are) and that we know about it indirectly through our senses and conscious reasoning.  This is the basis of the Western traditions of science, liberal arts and symbolic systems (such as mathematics and human language).  Essentially anything that can be studied is part of this metaphysics.  Gödel showed us that this metaphysics will never lead to complete knowing, though everyone agrees we can continually refine our knowledge and thereby at least asymptotically approach enlightenment.

Descartes proved to us that each of us individually do indeed exist, and he tried to argue further that the universe as we perceive it — however imperfectly — does indeed exist too.  But before you drink too deeply from the Cartesian well, keep in mind that his argument for an external reality depended on the existence of a benevolent God, one that would not deceive us with such an elaborate ruse as to make the world seem so real when it wasn’t.  His whole argument after cogito ergo sum is logically flawed.

There are other metaphysics that assert reality is entirely subjective, that there is no reality outside of ourselves.  This of course begs the question of who “we” are such that reality can exist or not outside of us.  But to even ask this question is to miss the point.  Knowledge is direct, we “experience” it; and if we have no expectation, no attachment, no judgement, then we can truly understand.  Anytime we engage in the act of thinking, we break from our direct, immediate, complete knowledge of who we are and knowledge of everything there is to know.  This of course is the metaphysics of Zen Buddhism, Taoism and other Eastern traditions.

I am in danger of losing anyone reading this if I don’t immediately disavow this second way of knowing in favor of the first.  There are many who consider themselves intelligent — whose very self-image is based on intelligence — who will be saying to themselves right now that experience without thought is all well and good as a tool for getting to insight.  But ultimately insight (and knowledge and knowing) requires thought.  And in particular it requires thought that is self-consistent, which is to say rational and logical.  The worst things in the world to such a person are logical inconsistency and paradox.  There are fundamental laws at work, not just about the universe but also about knowing.  These believers will invoke the trinity of Occam, Bayes and Popper, but they forsake the word of Gödel: you can choose consistency, or you can choose completeness, but you can’t have both.

For those of us who have already cast ourselves out of the garden of completeness, all I can say is that it is never too late to reconsider how seriously we take all this cogitation.  I mean after all, what’s the harm in exploration as long as we always have our very capable minds to help us navigate?  With this in mind, I have begun to reconsider certain assumptions.  And for those of you who recall my very first post, the willingness to do so was the only rule that I imposed on myself and insisted of those who wish to engage.

Because we all have different experiences in life, we each have a different internal “language” with which we receive truth and gain understanding.  Those of us who come from the Western tradition — which is to say anyone who thinks of themselves as a thinker — we are in need of more practice in letting go of the map and experiencing the terrain directly.

Have you ever noticed that when someone speaks deep truth (no matter what “language” they are speaking) you get a sense of deep resonance that is beyond words and conscious thought?  I certainly do.  And another thing I notice about these experiences is that they only happen when I stop engaging my analytical mind to critique or compare what the person is saying to what I already “know”.

If we cling to faulty assumptions in the face of truth we feel discord of some form (anger, embarrassment, indignity, righteousness, etc).  But I view this as really another form of recognition of the truth before us.  It’s a sort of allergic reaction to the invading memes that would damage our internal edifices, the faulty assumptions that protect our egos and our ideas of who we are.  To embrace the truth often means a level of change we are not yet willing to undertake, and which we may never be willing to undertake.  In the face of such high stakes, we rationalize away the truth in order to preserve internal consistency and harmony.

As an experiment to illustrate this point, consider your immediate gut reactions to the following statements one at a time:

1. “There are ways of knowing that are beyond science, beyond analytical thought, and they are crucial for you to engage in if you wish to get past your limited understanding of the universe.”
2. “Think about that one thing you know with all your being to be true.  Got it?  Well, it’s not true. You believe in a falsehood, a convenient fiction that you use to deny the veracity of your deepest fears.”

Is it possible to not have a negative reaction to at least one of these two statements?  Most people would say no.  If you are comfortable with both statements, congratulations, you have broken free of the shackles of narrow-mindedness that bind most of the world.

If you are like me, you have no trouble at all with Statement 2, but feel at some level that Statement 1 is new-age horseshit, at best an opiate for the masses but at worst a very dangerous conceit.  So let’s take a deep breath and use this as an opportunity to explore what’s causing the negative emotion so that we can challenge those assumptions and thereby learn.

My reaction to Statement 1 is based on the denial of the value of my personal identity as a thoughtful, analytical, intelligent person, one that doesn’t do things that are irrational.  If Statement 1 is true, then my life is less valuable than I had presumed, perhaps even valueless.  Man that would suck.  If I take Statement 1 to be true then I will be forced to change who I am in order to once again feel as valuable.  I might even be forced to participate in a seance and other freaky and totally pointless activities.  Not gonna happen, I don’t have that kind of time to waste.  I could be making the world a better place or at least pursuing my own happiness.

Sounds a bit silly when I type it out.  After all, what’s the point in making the world a better place if we’re all dead anyway (on average a true statement if you are a stats geek).  And as for happiness, I know most of the literature, and I have to admit, as happy as I am there are some proven paths to happiness that I have yet to fully explore and they fit squarely in the experiential, non-analytical sectors of life.  So what could be the harm in turning off the analytical mind a bit more and experiencing without judging?  At worst maybe I’ll be a bit happier, and at best maybe I will become more effective at making the world a better place. But is this direct experience actually valid from an ontological perspective?

Even within the Western analytic tradition there are themes of experiential knowing.  Psychologists now speak (very analytically of course) about the state of Flow.  In Flow, we are so thoroughly engaged in the task at hand and so perfectly in sync that our experience of time changes dramatically.  We are able to achieve extraordinary performance, effortlessly and without thinking.  Gladwell popularized this concept in Blink, claiming that the vast parallel processing power of the human brain and nervous system for useful cognition is largely untapped (or masked) when we focus on conscious reasoning.  To tap into the full potential of the mind, we need to apply techniques to short-circuit our conscious thought processes.

Every professional athlete, musician and performance artist is familiar with Flow/Blink, and you’ve no doubt experienced it many times yourself.  For me, it’s usually been when engaged in a sport where there is little time to think (like ping-pong, volleyball or snowboarding).  In the mental realm, I have been able achieve leaps in performance and rely heavily on on my “blinking” ability — whether it be playing poker, brainstorming, writing, or just interacting in a positive way with those around me — by orchestrating a Flow state.

I’m still learning what best puts me into Flow, but it seems to be some combination of prolonged intense concentration, mild sleep deprivation and small amounts of psychoactive substances like caffeine, modafinil, marijuana, or alcohol (though I must say that too much substance, or combining it, always kills the flow for me).  Recently I’ve found that adding in physical movement or music also help trigger Flow.  On this last front, while most people would say “what took you so long,” it’s worth pointing out that every person is unique in terms of what works for them.  For instance, what most people refer to as meditation (i.e. eyes closed, absolute stillness of body and mind) doesn’t do much for me.  My mind somehow responds better to hyper stimulation than tranquility.

Early in life, learning is mostly the process of of creating new structure out of noise.  As our adult minds form, this structure creation that was once crucial in our learning process becomes a beast of burden and we lose our mental plasticity.  To counteract this imbalance we must consciously re-integrate those activities that we had no trouble jumping into as a child.  The challenge is not to let our egos and silly notions of personal identity get in the way of our beginner mind.  Ken Robinson makes this point as well as anyone I’ve encountered, and I invite you to sit back and enjoy for the next 20 minutes with your own beginner mind:

Click here to view the embedded video.

As for me, I’m off to my favorite yoga studio to participate in kirtan and tap into some good communal vibes.  Maybe I’ll even hit the Buddha along the way.

Related posts:

1. Why It's Important to be an Optimist
2. The Nature of Innovation
3. Metaphysics

Seeking an escape from his authoritarian religious upbringing, young Bertrand turned to mathematics as the one source of absolute certainty in his life. But the more he studied mathematics, the more he realized that underlying all the sophisticated theories of the time were arguments based more on intuition than full rigor. Driven by his quest for absolute truth, Russell embarked on a project to rebuild mathematics from the foundations up, and thereby establish its status as absolute truth.

Unfortunately, his project ran into major difficulties of the mathematical/philosophical variety (to say nothing of his equally great personal difficulties) including the famous paradox of Russell’s own invention, the arguments of his student Wittigstein that logic was merely a tool for generating tautologies, and finally, Godel’s proof that even in the self-consistent world of mathematics, there must always be true statements that cannot be proven.

In the end, though Russell and his contemporaries eventually succeeded in placing mathematics on a rigorous footing, the dream of a logically grounded “universal truth” had to be abandoned. Mathematics is only as true as the assumptions it rests on, and cannot even prove all that is true in its domain.

While the mathematical and philosophical ideas are well-illustrated for a lay audience, the heart of LOGICOMIX is Russell’s personal struggle, first to find the universal truths in mathematics and then to accept their nonexistence. Like others engaged in this project, Russell’s struggle with logic occasionally veered into a struggle with sanity. Through a meta-narrative of the book’s creation, the authors debate the “logic and madness” theme, and ask whether some amount of detachment from reality a prerequisite for one who spends his or her life searching for its foundations.

This narrative of Russell’s quest had personal resonance for me: I went through my own late-high-school/early-college phase of viewing mathematics as a bastion of truth in an illogical world. I wonder if many of my mathematical colleagues’ careers had their genesis in the same yearning for certainty. I imagine we all eventually come to the same realization as Russell: that mathematics is a powerful tool for clear thinking, but the only “truth” it contains is ultimately tautological.

Disillusioned by his self-described “failure” but ultimately freed from his need for unblemished truth, Russell turns to more worldly concerns, including pacifist activism and the founding of a school with no rules (spoiler: it doesn’t go well). The book ends on a bittersweet note as Russell encourages students to accept their lives in an uncertain world.

I had great pleasure following Russell’s journey, and the many ideas and people encountered along the way. If anyone is interested in what really drives mathematicians, this book is heartily recommended.

Related posts:

1. Highlights from the Year in Ideas

The old philosophical theory says that reason is conscious, can fit the world directly, is universal (we all think the same way), is dispassionate (emotions get in the way of reason), is literal (no metaphor or framing in reason), works by logic, is abstract (not physical) and functions to serve our interests. Language on this view is neutral and can directly fit, or not fit, reality.

The scientific research in neuroscience and cognitive science has shown that most reason is unconscious. Since we think with our brains, reason cannot directly fit the world. Emotion is necessary for rational thought; if you cannot feel emotion, you will not know what to want or how anyone else would react to your actions. Rational decisions depend on emotion. Empathy with others has a physical basis, and as much as self-interest, empathy lies behind reason.

This is part of a brilliant article by cognitive science and linguistics pioneer, George Lakoff (emphasis mine).  His argument about what needs to be done to right the health care reform ship — and more generally in his administration — is to stop denying the above reality and craft a communications strategy that will achieve the (undeniably logical) goals:

As for language, the term “public option” is boring. Yes, it is public, and yes, it is an option, but it does not get to the moral and inspiring idea. Call it the American Plan, because that’s what it really is.

The American Plan. Health care is a patriotic issue. It is what your countrymen are engaged in because Americans care about each other. The right wing understands this well. It’s got conservative veterans at Town Hall meeting shouting things like, “I fought for this country in Vietnam, and I’m fight for it here.” Progressives should be stressing the patriotic nature of having our nation guaranteeing care for our people.

A Health Care Emergency. Americans are suffering and dying because of the failure of insurance company health care. 50 million have no insurance at all, and millions of those who do are denied necessary care or lose their insurance. We can’t wait any longer. It’s an emergency. We have to act now to end the suffering and death.

Doctor-Patient care. This is what the public plan is really about. Call it that. You have said it, buried in PolicySpeak. Use the slogan. Repeat it. Have every spokesperson repeat it.

Coverage is not care. You think you’re insured. You very well may not be, because insurance companies make money by denying you care.

Deny you care… Use the words. That’s what all the paperwork and administrative costs of insurance companies are about – denying you care if they can.

I was a fan of Obama’s unification approach when he was campaigning and was hopeful that his opponents would come around and see this as sincere (which I believe it is). At this point though, that sincerity is being abused by a small, selfish and powerful elite who are not interested in seeing the right to adequate health care universally applied.  And these opponents are masters of the communications strategy Lakoff is suggesting, which is what has been fueling the town hall screamers, tea-baggers and FOX News “pundits”.

It’s impossible to unify with people who are not interested in unification.  And I agree with Lakoff that if the administration adopts the necessary communication strategy to complement its logic and sensibility, it will have a much better chance of getting back support of the conservative public for the goals we should all be unified on.

Related posts:

1. If Rafe Were In Charge: Major Medical Edition
2. Fixing Health Care I: The Uninsured
3. The Link Between Food & Healthcare Reform

In an excellent column in today’s Washington Post, Courtland Milloy explores the use of the war metaphor, and how it can be better used, if need be.

In an effort to recast substance abuse as more of a public health problem than a crime, the nation’s newly appointed drug czar has called for an end to talk of a “war on drugs.”

“Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or a ‘war on a product,’ people see a war as a war on them,” Gil Kerlikowske, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, told the Wall Street Journal last week.

Wow. War scares me too. But is it really over? Will we stop jailing non-violent offenders? Can we now focus on treatment?

Via the Huffington Post, Jack Cole, Executive Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP,) doesn’t think the war is over:

A rose by any other name. This is not a war on drugs, it is a war on people; a war on our children, our parents, ourselves. Rebranding won’t change things. A new policy is needed to change things; ending drug prohibition.

Rebranding, a classic marketing trick. Sometimes a new name is all it takes to turn an unsuccessful product into a superstar. Somehow, I do not think this gambit will work here. And, whatever we call it, resources are still being disproportionately devoted to this “war.” According to Milloy, the Obama administration is spending more than double the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) annual research budget to “enhance Mexican law enforcement and judicial capacity.”

So the war is not really over. But, we can focus more of our resources on treatment, and attack the problem where it really lies, the brain.

Milloy concludes:

But a battle rages nonetheless. And he’ll [Kerlikowske] need to rally the troops. For the foe is cunning, capturing the brain. In a war, that would be the strategic high ground, and it must be retaken if we are to win.

Related posts:

1. Drug Decriminalization: Portugal's Experience
2. Notes from TED
3. Should We Hold the Bush Administration Accountable?

Kevin has referred more than once to the famous Dunbar number for limits on optimal human tribe size.

One of my favorite books recently is Seth Godin’s book on leadership, called — you guessed it — Tribes.

Yesterday I heard a great talk by David Logan, co-author of Tribal Leadership.

Logan’s talk presented one of those rare, insightful models of human behavior that had me nodding my head at every point.  The model goes like this: there are five stages of development of human tribes that can be characterized by implicit cultural values:

1. “Life sucks” (gangs, the disenfranchised)
2. “My life sucks” (DMV, all bureaucracies)
3. “‘I’m great” (entertainers, high-power professionals)
4. “We’re great” (Zappos, Google, etc.)
5. “Life is great” (peace and reconciliation process in South Africa)

One of the issues with tribes is that they can only comprehend the language and ethos of one level below and above their current stage.  That is, tribes in stage 2 can’t really grasp the mentality of stage 4 or 5, it sounds like a bunch of hogwash to them.  Good leaders, Logan argues, need to be able to speak the language of all five stages, and one of their main jobs is to nudge their tribe to the next level.  Thus, Martin Luther King, said “I have a dream”, speaking in stage 2 or 3 language, because that’s where his audience was.  Ghandi, Mandela, etc, all did the same thing.

We all belong to more than one tribe.  So, thinking about the tribes you are a member or leader of, what stage are they at?  What can you do to nudge them to the next stage of thinking?

Related posts:

1. Notes from TED
2. Complex Links: TED
3. Response to "Thoughts on Ants, Altruism and the Future of Humanity"

Sound Blast n. A supersize sound bite, blasted over the internet by a tech-savvy politician.  Barack Obama’s campaign  speeches, uploaded onto YouTube and viewed by millions, have defined the form.  The average sound bite is 10.3 seconds; a typical sound blast is 10 minutes or more.

Additionally, the popularity and virulence of TED and Pop!Tech videos should give us hope that it is possible to convey nuanced ideas and deep new insights to a large audience.

The one thing that’s not quite there yet is the closing of the informational feedback loop such that we have real, organic, meaningful and creative conversation in the public sphere.  But I believe that is coming.  The ability to comment (textually and in video form) certainly suggests the potential.  What’s lacking is a way for true crowd wisdom and substantive individual voices to percolate up from the cacophonous babel.

When that happens, the superorganism will have achieved a critical developmental milestone akin to when a child acquires language and begins to exhibit conscious thought.

Related posts:

1. Crowdsourcing Election Verification, part 3
2. Global Economic Constitution?
3. Dangerous Media, part 2

• I see there being at least two types of emergence, autocatalytic and cooperative.
• Emergence is related closely to the concepts of agency, stability, and coherence.
• Cooperation (and autocatalysis) in populations under certain conditions leads to the emergence of new levels of organizational complexity, despite the presence of competition.
• Competition is the backbone of an evolutionary dynamic, which is orthogonal to the emergent dynamic.
• Alex Ryan’s diagram represents the best visual synthesis of these concepts that I’ve found.
• We should not get hung up on any of these terms, they are models (approximations of reality).  Concepts like “cooperation” and “level” are not to be understood entirely by their standard English usage, but that is the starting point.  Over constraining their usage creates confusion and often obscures or denies basic truths.
• On the other hand, there comes a time when formalism leads to deeper understanding where our intuitions fail.  As Alex points out, “level” is great for human understanding, but the more precise and less intuitive notion of “scope” is better for formal models of emergence.  Using precise formalism like his allows us to tease out — and do calculations on — notions like “novel emergence” vs. “weak emergence”.  In turn, these new concepts end up jiving with and extending our intuitive understanding.
• A reductionist-only mindset often blinds us to important concepts like emergent causality and cultural agency.  By adding in complex systems thinking, which centers on emergence, many once paradoxical and obfuscated situations in the real world become clearer.

Related posts:

1. The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism
2. Coherence
3. Cooperation and Competition

– John Wheeler

Related posts:

1. Complex Links: TED
2. Complex Systems Concept Summary
3. Non-Dualism