Developing the argument about arguments
June 14, 2010
I’ve put forward the proposition that different Kuhnian scientific paradigms have associated with them different modes of argument (Newtonian-causal, Einsteinian-relativistic, Quantum/complex-probabilistic). This shouldn’t be a big surprise and is almost a definition for a paradigm shift in itself.
What I would like to suggest is that in order to perform an argument for or against a specific piece of science the rhetorical tools that you employ must be of at least the same level as the science itself. So you cannot employ causal arguments in a debate about the aerodynamics of Formula One racing cars and hope to win, but you could employ causal arguments of momentum transfer when discussing the science of playing snooker. Likewise the basic chemistry of cooking has no use for relativistic rhetoric, but the evaluation of emotional response only really has meaning in relative terms. You could not hope to argue successfully that a weather system will or will not respond to your building of a new house in simple black and white terms, but you may be successful if you provide a probability factor that you will induce a rain shadow on your new garden by raising the roof-line by a meter.
So if we take this thesis one step further we have a ready made quality of debate-o-meter. All we need to do is look at the paradigmic position of the arguers with respect to the subject matter of the argument to give a gross overview of whether one or other will be able to defend his position. Those who use the correct tools for the subject being more likely to win the argument because the opponent has not understood that in order to argue a scientific position you must first understand where that position fits in the schema of scientific paradigms.
At this point I should just state that we can definitely use a scale of increasing effectiveness (causal-relativistic-probabilistic) because scientific discovery is cumulative and even scientific dead ends like phlogiston taught scientific method by error.
So next time you read or have a real debate about a subject that has science at its heart look at the paradigm that your argument belongs to against the paradigm that the science belongs to.
Thats it. A simple one today.
Fit the argument to the paradigm and you will have more success.
and
Later paradigms are more likely to win than early paradigms.
However this has an potentially vast implication regarding scientific communication, the use of experts, the role of education in democracies, all sorts of things. We may get to those eventually.
Neuroscience cannot read your mind
April 3, 2010
I’ve written about Newtonian science and the simple cause and effect interpretation of the physical universe that it embodies, and how the mathematics of complexity and statistical interpretations of the physical universe, such as quantum mechanics, have superseded that mechanistic view. What I would like to suggest is that neuroscience is treading the same path in its interpretation of the mind as a mechanistic system demonstrable by a physical understanding of brain function. This is not a new idea as far as I know, but I need to ‘say it out loud’ to show myself that I know where the limits lie.
I’ve been thinking about whether I believe that the mind could be replaced by the internet, and I think ‘no, but there could be functions that could be farmed out such as memory‘. Here I’m going to explore that idea with specific reference to the blossoming fields of neuroscience, neuromarketing, neuroethics and neuro-anything-else-they-can-think-of.
The mathematics of complexity and uncertainty, chaos theory, complex systems, or however else we wish to express the concept, all share the same fundamental tenet; that simple mathematical relationships can give in unpredictable results. This is shown by the Lorentz’s Butterfly Effect, but it it is also embodied in Godel’s incompleteness theorem and the Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment. To me these are all similar aspects of the same idea; that we can never measure all variables sufficiently well to be able to have a 100% reliable model.
If we transpose this notion to the pursuit of neuroscience, where claims are being made almost to the point of being able to read the minds of experimental subjects, we should at least consider the nature of the systems involved before we accept the validity or even applicability these kind of claims.
Brain structure is primarily a function of the expression of DNA of the individual and DNA as a replicator a very mechanistic and ultimately predictable system. I say this because genes are quite simple. Their complexity is in their size, not their building blocks. That the Human Genome Project was able to sequence our genes using automated techniques suggests that a mechanistic approach to reading that material is appropriate. However once the brain has started to develop neuronal connectivity in response to stimuli (memories start to be formed in response to experience), that mechanistic interpretation is no longer applicable without having a set of meta-data that shows the context under which those connections are made.
What neuroscientists are doing using fMRI is establishing a work-book of that contextual meta-data under experimental conditions, and its very impressive that they are managing to exclude enough of the outside world to be able to see human responses such as lying and trust and jealousy in the data that they collect. I’m sure that, on average, they are seeing some functions of mind being expressed physically. BUT, what cannot, and indeed must not, be inferred from this work is that the responses from one individual’s brain can be directly equated to the responses of another individual’s brain.
We could go though a significant proportion of the human race, taking subjects from all walks of life and every corner of the globe and find average response curves for each chunk of the brain, but we would never be able to replicate the contextual meta-data to a fine enough resolution to be able to counter Godel’s incompleteness theorem as it applies to basic information or the individual’s brain development in response to experiences from its own unique viewpoint. The mechanistic interpretation of mind, that equates brain activity to mind function, breaks down under existing mathematical interpretations of the physical universe. We would need a whole new mathematics to be able to do what is currently being claimed for neuroscience. To be fair to the neuroscientists, many of them shy away from the grand claims, but enough are not that we see fMRI being cited in legal cases. Far from free will being dead and neuroscience proving a deterministic worldview, it is showing just how poor our quantitative understanding of mind really is.
This is not a new experience. Psychoanalysis promised an understanding of mind and motivation at the beginning and middle of the 20th century and arguably was the basis for the construction of the consumerist global economy. I wonder how far neuroscience will be pushed outside the lab.
Proponents see recent fMRI science as analogous to genetic fingerprinting; as a quantitative diagnostic tool. I would argue that it is more analogous to a form of psychoanalysis where interpretation is automated. In many of the new institutes and companies working with fMRI we see the objections to the wider application of fMRI-centered neuroscience being characterised as philosophical and relating to ideas of free will and determinism. I don’t see that as a valid or even relevant conflation. My counter-claim is that what is being claimed for neuroscience is not mathematically possible and that in ignoring the role of mathematical complexity scientists, lawmakers, economists and others are acting unethically. What is being seen is the brain and not the mind. That the brains responses are linked to the mind shouldn’t be a surprise but the simple Newtonian idea of cause and effect is not applicable where 100 billion neurons each have around 7,000 synapses many of which have been influenced by memory formation or physical conditions since, or even before, birth. Simply put, just because a specific cubic centimeter of grey matter demands extra blood flow in response to the same stimuli, it doesn’t mean its for the same reason.
If it is possible to mathematically model the mind, then it should be considered as a complex system inhabiting another complex system (the brain) and informed by a set of contextual meta-data (memories and experiences) as well as environmental stimuli. Divining motivation from brain activity is a step too far mathematically, but an approximation could be possible with a sufficiently large database to populate response curves with experimental data. Whether those response curves could provide useful predictive data can’t be known at this point, but what we can say with a good degree of certainty is that you’d need a large n-value to compensate for the free variables in two complex systems and the contextual meta-data.
Paradigms and popular discourse
February 6, 2010
In my previous post ‘End of Newtonian thinking, please !’ I made that case that the current scientific paradigm exemplified by a statistical view of the physical universe is not being reflected in everyday life. I’m going to explore that a little more deeply here.
Now that I’ve read around the topic a little I find that my view strongly reflects that of Thomas Kuhn, who’s position was that scientific endeavour can be represented by a series of paradigm shifts punctuating a continuum of scientific progress. For Kuhn the long phases of ‘normal’ development provided by a single dominant problem-solving paradigm allow scientists to test how far a particular mode of thought can be stretched before it breaks down, at which point we must assume that either progress slows or that paradigm is overturned by a new ‘revolutionary’ paradigm.
A classic example of this would be the acceptance of Einsteinian relativistic physics over Newtonian mechanics. Where Newtonian mechanics is a perfectly serviceable worldview for a set of problems, it breaks down when you start to apply it to problems that are outside, what I’ll call here, ‘everyday physics’ involved in stopping a car or building a house.
The Einsteinian revolution was quick in scientific terms. It only took a few decades to become the dominant scientific paradigm, but what I was trying to get across in my previous post was that in popular discourse it remains the dominant paradigm, when in actual fact science has moved on into the statistical worldview. We are not seeing the scientific paradigm being reflected in the dominant popular discourse.
I’ll leave science behind for a few moments to explain what I believe is currently happening at a very high level in popular discourse.
There is a trend within elites to strongly uptake the new statistical paradigm, I think that this is shown in the use of probabilistic modeling of financial markets and climate systems, evidence-based policy-making, and moves to democratise data access. These are all strongly rationalist moves based around complex systems that require non-deterministic analysis if the statistical paradigm is to be met.
I believe that there is a counter-point trend that is strongly deterministic in nature, and that adheres to the scientific paradigm of Newton’s mechanical universe. This is a hierarchical worldview that sees rationality in order and rejects complexity as a fundamental position. I see this position in ideology-based politics, rejection of the new mathematics of complex systems (whether that be climate science or quantitative financial analysis) and positions that advocate security over innovation or risk.
So I think we have a problem since the arguments deployed by adherents of either worldview will not cohere with the arguments of the other. They can’t since they are operating on either side of a scientific paradigm shift.
As populations age it is generally thought they tend to conservative positions (order, security, predictability), so I don’t think that it’d be much of a stretch to say that this issue is going to get worse in the short term, but I think that there may be things that we can do about it. You will have to indulge me for a moment while I explain how popular discourse could be shifted up the paradigm ladder in a novel and entertaining way.
To me the key is the TV game show. The most populist pursuit known to man. Sit down on a Saturday night and watch some bright lights and loud noises and lose the cares of a working week. Whatever your views on this kind of entertainment you can’t deny their success. They are on virtually every TV channel in the world.
In the 60s and 70s we saw simple question and answer game shows like Ask the Family and Mastermind. In the 80s and 90s we saw problem solving rise as a genre with The Crystal Maze, The Krypton Factor and 3-2-1, and now in the 00s we see the Big Brother phenomenon and the ‘talent’ show as dominant genres. It may seem a strange thing to say but I think that this represents a paradigm shift in popular discourse from Newtonian to a relativistic worldview (with a brief spell of meritocracy between the two).
That requires an explanation.
The simple mechanics of the Newtonian game show seems to me obvious; a problem is presented, it is solved or not solved and a reward or penalty is earned. There is a simple cause and effect relationship between the problem and the reward.
We’ll bypass the meritocratic game shows because I think that, while they may represent the turbulent revolutionary period when paradigms are shifting in the wider populist discourse (they coincide with Thatcherism and all the social and economic changes that it entailed), I don’t think that they themselves actually represent the new scientific paradigm. A new social paradigm maybe, but not the scientific paradigm that we are talking about here.
Into the noughties; Big Brother and its clones, and all the multitude of talent shows (the ‘Idols’, Britain’s Got Talent, Popstar, etc, etc). There is no absolute in these shows, no cause and effect. All individual success or failure is relative to the other participants in the shows. The mechanics have moved from Newtonian to relativistic.
The death of Big Brother and (soon to come) the whole reality show genre, and the popular subversion of the talent show genre (as shown by John Sergeant and Jedward) is starting to offer space for the next generation of game shows and I propose that their dominant rhetorical position should be from the statistical worldview. Populist discourse needs to catch up with scientific discourse if we are ever to have society moving in step. There will always be a lag between science in the fore and populist discourse in the rear, but the statistical worldview has been the dominant scientific paradigm for almost 80 years. That is too long a lag, populist discourse needs to catch up.
The end of Newtonian thinking, please !
January 17, 2010
On July 20th 1969 Apollo 11 landed men on the moon using substantially less computing power than is available in today’s mobile telephone. Its not a direct comparison since the Apollo Guidance computer wasn’t capable of floating point operations and that’s kind of the point of this post.
In 1969 reaching the peak of technology, flying three men to the moon, was possible using Newtonian mechanics and the calculations necessary to do that were available using simple integer-only computers. Cause and effect were still the gold standard of science and the weird world of Quantum Mechanics had not penetrated the public psyche even though it had been out in the open for 40 years. We’re 40 years still further down the line and probability-based interpretations of reality still haven’t gained widespread acceptance only, where this wasn’t an issue for Buzz & his buddies, its starting to cause real problems for science and its wider understanding and acceptance.
This is the famous Solvay Conference where the early developers of Quantum Mechanics discussed their new ideas with Einstein and others. Einstein hated the idea that probability functions and not deterministic processes could be the prime movers in the universe. But by any reasonable measure of science he and his theory of General Relativity are wrong. Perhaps it would be more generous to say that it was incomplete, but when compared to QM it pales by comparison in predictive power and accuracy. Yet Einstein still holds the public heart with his shock of white hair and sticky-out tongue. E=mc2. There is a reason why it is so easy to remember. As a theory to completely describe the relationship between mass and energy, its wrong. This is the Standard Model Lagrangian Expansion that physicists currently believe is the best explanation of that relationship. Bit more complicated isn’t it 
Its also the reason for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) since the term dealing with gravitons has not been tested conclusively.
Now I know that, strictly speaking, Einsteinian physics and Newtonian physics are not the same thing but they do share a common philosophical thread; the idea that a single cause will have a single effect. In Newtonian mechanics this is exemplified by ‘every force has an equal and opposite reactive force’. In the Eisteinian universe gravitation is an expression of warps in Space-Time.
Quantum Mechanics has a fundamentally different philosophical standpoint and does not experience or express the universe as cause and effect. Instead probability describes the likelihood of something happening. If you don’t know about this stuff already I’d recommend The Elegant Universe as a starter. Its a bit effects-heavy, but has an open and accessible style.The recent BBC show The Secret Life of Chaos shows the parallel development of complexity and non-deterministic mathematics.
The reason why I say Newtonian mechanics is holding back public understanding of science is that it is so easily testable. Table-top experiments show cause and effect at work, and our real-world experience backs that up. Most belief systems go further still with cause and effect being the structural basis for many moral codes – ‘thieves will go to hell’ – that sort of thing. So our social norms AND out experience of the physical world are predicated on cause and effect. But cause and effect stopped being a good explanation of the observable universe almost 80 years ago and still the public psyche is firmly rooted to that way of seeing the universe.
What we need to start doing is educating kids on roulette, betting odds, and all other manner of statistical analysis because quite simply we are not telling them the truth when we teach them that 2+2=4. What they should know is that there is a high probability that 2+2=4 in most situations, but don’t blinker yourself to other possibilities available under the Bell Curve. Until certainty is left behind humanity is going to have a hell of a philosophical challenge on its hands in living with the duality of macro and micro descriptions of the universe.
Thoughts
March 3, 2009
As I try to put together new knowledge with old, I’m struck by how important culture and society are to me. I’m a scientist and engineer by experience and training. Qualifications and work experience coming out of every orifice, yet what I want to survive any of the various impending apocalypses (apocali ?) is not a physical form but cultural expression.
The most important thing in the world is not even on this world, but an expression of our internal worlds.
Cultural regression is the scariest thing imaginable. A step backwards. A reduction in mind.
I meet people who equate simplicity with merit and hark back to ‘the good old days’. It puzzles me. The known laws of physics, chemistry and biology tend to macro-scale complexity, so to strive for simplicity seems to me to be swimming against the tide. It is the hardest thing to engineer a ‘perfect’ surface or a ‘perfect’ sphere. The tendency for complexity gets in the way, and then it gets dirty or pockmarked and illusion of perfection is broken.
Maybe simplicity only exists in the complexity of the human mind.
