Scientific Thinking LO21953

AM de Lange (
Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:45:19 +0200

Replying to LO21907 --

Dear Organlearners,

Winfried Dressler <> writes:

>So Alonso Church's thesis in logic refers to what I called RTL -
>relation of terms logic. Giving a name is an explicate statement
>on how this name relates to others. The implicate possibilities
>have been reduced to one actual name and meaning.

Greetings Winfried,

This is exactly why am not too excited about RTL -- too much of the
"meausrement problem". I have explained what the "measurement problem
of quantum mechanics" is, namely the reduction of the implicate
information (wave) packet by explication. This reduction is
necessary, but if we leave it at that (fragmentation), it kills the
curiosity of the learner because it destroys wholeness. What we ought
to do to solve the "meausrement problem" is to trace how a scientific
term is manifested in all walks of life by ordinary folk once that
term has been extablished scientifically.

>Thus scientific thinking creates the form sureness out of
>the content of the observations. The form is created by means
>of speculation and falsification.

This corrsponds reasonably with my own thinking. Observation (first
stage of scientific method) has minimal form to it. We may almost
think of it as conent without form. However, it has a germ or seed of
form in it. For example, observation should involve things which have
not been detected before. This brings in identity, one of the facets
of sureness which itself, together with the other six essentialities,
concern the form of creativity.

In the second stage (speculation) we let this inherit form develop
constructively by connecting it to all the forms which themselves have
developed from our past observations. In other words, should we think
of creativity in its traditional sense, it is the creative or
innovative stage of scientific thinking -- brain storming. There are
several methods available to assist this stage, developed by many
creative thinkers (Osborne, DeBono and Buzan to name a few). But what
I wish to stress is that this stage is ultimately the enriching of the
form of the original observation, even beyond reasonable
exppectations. The person who wants to think scientifically, must
actually try to think like the very best among scinece fiction
writers. Go mad with the specualtions. Why?

The opportunity to step on the bakes lies in the third stage
(falsification). What sense is there in slamming the brakes if the
vehicle is barely moving? Few people realise it, but here the
scientist must also be very creative. In this case the scientists has
to be destructively creative so that only that form of the specualtion
which corresponds (matches, the == sign) with the content of the
observation remains. However, few people think of creativity as
something which can be destructive and sometimes, as in stage 3
(falsification) of the scientific method definitely has to be
destructive. If we understand these scientific destructions
(purification of our perceptions to get to the truth) also as
creativity, then we are leaving traditional creativitry to emerge into
that realm which I prefer to call deep creativity (pelagic

Winfried, you now do something which I do not understand.

>What about the content of observation? Isn't the observed the
>same as its content? Reviewing the seven essentialities as
>form, I tend to believe that all observed is primarily observed
>form, not content. Where does the content of scientific observation
>come from? I guess it also is created by speculation and
>falsification. These two provide for something (can I call it
> "expectation"?), which introduces an element of entropic force
>leading to the process of observation as entropic flux.

What I do understand, is that the outcome of stage 3 (falsification)
which is a harmony between form and content, plays a major role in
preparing us to observe the undetected observations of the next loop
of the scientific method. As I have written, the observation has the
barest of form, just like the code in the DNA of a specimen determines
in principle the form (species) of that specimen. But this form has to
be "overdeveloped" in stage 2 and cut to size in stage 3. (In my own
life I now try to get more harmony between stages 2 and 3, less of the
"over" in the development of 2 and thus less of the "cut to size" in
stage 3. Thus I can move much more effectively from cycle to cycle,
covering vast stretches.)

What I also understand is that the form of stages 1, 2 and 3 of a
previous cycle becomes the content of the enxt cycle to connect with
the content of the next cycle's content. In other words, a repeating
the loop of scientific method is nothing else than a grand kind of
mathematics. This might be the reason why Roger Bacon prophesised more
than 600 years ago that scnence will not become a powerful force until
scinetists have learnt how to combine science with mathematics.

But what I cannot understand is how the form of stages 2 and 3 becomes
content in the same cycle.

Fortunately, you have followed it up with a real gem: It is like a
most strange diamond which the diomand my borther manages, has bought
from a digger a couple of years ago. The diamond is pitch black in
daylight (strong light). Keeping it in the dark makes it change to
almost white (very light pink). Exposing it to light again, makes it
change form white to pink, then red, then ark red and eventually
black again in about five minutes. It took my brother ages to cut that
diamond, probably the first in all history. I wish my late father (who
was also a diamond cutter) was still alive to see such a gem among
among the gems.

>The process of scientific thinking is the manifestation of the
>process of coevolution of content and form in the human world
>of mind as it ought to be.
>If as such, scientific thinking is at the heart of learning
>organizations, I wonder what inhibits scientific thinking.

I have tried to explain to Gken (Vox) that the scientific community is
one of the profoundest LOs ever to emerge among human kind. It implies
that all LOs can learn much from the scientific method. But this is
merely logical speculation. Try to falsify the following statement.
"Look around you where yiu are sitting in front of your computer and
point one onject out which do not have the tracks of science on its
making -- you will not find such a thing. Far away places in the
dessert are almost the only places where little of the tracks which
science leaves, are to be found. But they are there if you become
observant enough.

Science has pervaded almost all of our culture, even in third world
countries which struggle against the digestion of their cultures by
first world countries. Technology without science is like a house with
only a roof and no walls. The commodities and work which our
businesses rely upon, rely themselves on science to make them
competitive and yet friendly. Yes, even our awakening to creativity as
formal object of study relied upon the development of science
concluding with WW II. Would it have been possble to become formally
ware of creativity without science? No. History tells us that
creativity (note not create, creation and creative) is essentially a
post WW II concept.

So what does (1) science, (2) your "coevolution of thought and
content" in the noosrealm (3) and my own concept of "deep creativity"
have in common? In "deep creativity" we have to distinguish between
the content and form of creativity otherwise we will get nowhere. The
form of deep creativity has to do with the seven essentialities. The
content of creativity has to do with entropy production -- the
meandering between its two asymptotes -- revolutionary (at the edge of
chaos -- Brusslator as the first model discovered) and evolutionary
(close to equilibrium -- Digestor as first model discovered).

Now see if you can make a mental picture of the following. The first
stage (observation) of the scientific method is the butterfly
flapping its wings. The second stage (speculation) is the gigantic
storm which it causes, releasing a torrent of rain -- the progression
to the edge of chaos where entropy production is maximum. The third
stage (falsification) is the reshaping of the our thoughts by the
deluge -- the progression towards equilibrium where entropy production
is low. In the second stage we focus on the revolutionary (innovative)
asymptote of "deep" creativity and in the third stage we focus on the
evolutionary (digestive) asymptote of "deep" creativity.

>What is the constraint? In all our dialogue and discussions here,
>I am more and more convinced, that the form into which the
>content of the creative course of time emerge has cracks. Thus
>impaired essentialities, and at its roots the essentiality wholeness
>as I guess, build the constraint.

Yes, yes, yes.
You stressed: the constraint
Wholeness <>cracks

Let me complete all the stressing constraints:
Liveness <> rigid
Sureness <> hazy
Fruitfulness <> infertile
Spareness <> inefficient
Otherness <> prosaic
Openness <> isolation.

>I am not going to accept impaired wholeness as a general part
>of human nature.

That is the spirit. I do it for all seven essentialities.

But being a teacher makes me careful. Do not confuse an impaired
essentiality with the the growing understanding of an essentiality. A
stunted adult and a growing kid are two completely different things.
The latter has immense potential. The former is a tragedy. The latter
needs guidance -- the former needs to be cared for. We cannot love the
latter and neglect the former because then it will be found that these
essentialities have been impaired in ourselves -- then we will be
nothing but pitiful, stunted creatures ourselves.

The problem with scientific thinking is that we make it far to easy
exclusive, something which only scientists have to do. We all have to
learn how to think scientifically because it is the backbone of
systems thinking. We will make scientific thinking inclusive by
emerging from an ordinary organisation into a Learning Organisation.
Should you observe my concept of "deep" (self- or authentic learning)
as the meandering loop from emergent learning to digestive learning
and back, then this observation will help you to uncover a deep
pattern emerging in all of reality -- Creation as a Learning

Best wishes


At de Lange <> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>