Constructive Systems Science - the Only Remaining Alternative?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Doctoral Thesis The Royal Institute of Technology ISBN: 91-7283-531-1 Copyright 2003 by Arne Kjellman CONSTRUCTIVE SYSTEMS SCIENCE - THE ONLY REMAINING ALTERNATIVE? A CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE AND HUMAN EPISTEMOLOGY Arne Kjellman Department of Computer and Systems Sciences Royal Institute of Technology and Stockholm University June 2003 Abstract The opposition between the realists and the anti-realists is as old as Western science. The question as to whether the “furniture of the world” we call the “things” is to be considered real or not has consistently been at the forefront in the debates about science and philosophy. This urgent interest is motivated by the close connection to another question – namely that of scientific objectivity - an issue that seldom receives proper treatment. Objectivity has rather been taken for granted in the traditional Newtonian paradigm with its well-known slogan: The detached observer is the objective one and the rational mind of clarity. It was impossible to continue with this dictum, which is responsible for the cleft between the natural and social sciences and still presents a ban on human feelings in scientific endeavours, after the findings of quantum mechanics at the beginning of the 20th century. However the penetrating power of this important insight has been astonishingly weak and with the emergence of computer science in the middle of the century, Newtonian science’s self-assumed status of objectivity has been apprehended as both very doubtful and a severe hindrance in other areas outside the quantum domain of scientific activity. The efforts of computer modelling and simulation analysis revealed a pronounced observer- dependency regarding investigation. For these reasons this thesis will scrutinise the activity of science and the art of modelling – proposing the use of a 2-step model of modelling (metamodel) to clarify and emphasize the involvement of the observer in the process of observation. This approach reveals that the object- oriented approach (OOA), which has been the prevailing one since the dawn of Western science and is one of the basic tenets of the Newtonian paradigm, makes science unable to describe its objects of discourse in an observer-independent manner. Such a science is at risk to be considered inconsistent, incomplete and non-objective and for that reason unfit for consensual scientific use. The main claim of this thesis is that the object-oriented approach is responsible for the genesis of Cartesian dualism and other inconsistencies, which are met in present day science. Such a claim is not novel however, but I will argue that when science is dressed up as the Subject-oriented Approach to Knowledge (SOA) a long row of embarrassing and bewildering situations encountered in classical human conceptualisation will vanish – in a way that, as far as I know, has never been explicitly explained before. This approach also promises a unification of the different disciplines of sciences so that e.g. the social sciences can be treated on an equal footing with the natural sciences – and thus this embarrassing gulf of human knowledge can be removed. This is a profound shift of paradigm in science and the re-orientation of human thinking required is both considerable and time-consuming. For this reason this thesis is not a systematic presentation of the SOA, but rather tries, in Part 1, to pave the way for an understanding of this approach by an introductory discussion about the means and scope of science and the essential role of symbolic modelling in this endeavour – and in particular the way these activities will be influenced by the anticipated change of paradigm. Some historical aspects of this particular SOA are also given as a background and this section is completed by a brief survey of the modern trends in scientific modelling. Part 2 is collection of papers dealing with the principles of modelling and simulation, and, rather more importantly, a sequence of papers reflecting how the ideas of the SOA have developed throughout the years due to the inconsistencies met with in these and adjacent areas. To my mind they prove - beyond the point of any consensual doubt – that the realist’s position in science cannot be defended any longer and that the “things of the world” by the scientific community must be considered merely private allusions1. More important however is the insight that the Newtonian paradigm is unable to produce an observer-independent description of this world with its conceived things and the only way out of this embarrassing dilemma seems to be the acceptance of the SOA – with its hitherto strictly banned feature of subjectivity. Using this approach, we claim, science can be given a consensual and consistent foundation – and the price to pay is the loss of scientific ontology. As already pointed out this thesis merely hints at the new path to take – instead concentrating on the reasons for the impending demise of scientific realism and need of a constructive systems science. 1 See Appendix A i Acknowledgements I started as a road construction engineer at Skanska and if it were not for a hardy local manager at Edsberg I would never have embarked upon a scientific career. My first academic career started by studying physics at Stockholm University for Professor Albin Lagerquist and his colleagues in the field of emission spectroscopy that gave me an inspiring start. The colourful rainbow was the dominant subject matter when I passed my Masters degree in physics in 1956 at the University of Stockholm. This somewhat involved phenomenon was the favourite subject of my examiner Professor Lagerquist and this illusory reality or real illusion really caught my mind – and has since become the paradigm of illusory existence. The very question “do rainbows exist?” came to highlight the doubts I had about physical existence. I also remember when I looked at stars one starlit night in November and was filled with a feeling of immense humbleness and reverence and struck by the distress that I could never find out where the universe ends – and wondered why I could not find that out. But now I know. My best friend and fellow student Erland Wennerberg and the two physicists Michelson/Morley were profound sources of inspiration. After my Master’s degree Dr. Magnus Brenner at Svenska Aluminium-kompaniet in 1964 gave me free rein introducing the first computer assisted quantometer in Sweden and thus my interest in digital computers was aroused. The late technical manager Hugo Skantze became as a father to me and appointed me in 1968 to be head of one of the first research projects on Computer Assisted Process Control in Sweden. In cooperation with the Department of Control Engineering at Chalmers University of Technology led by Professor Birger Quarnström and their project leader Dr. Krister Gerdin we set out to control the only aluminium smelter of Sweden. Around me and the research centre at Sundsvall called the “Landgrenska villan” a group of inspiring colleges gathered and we were free to follow our intuitions – and meeting with control theory and its intriguing feedback phenomena, the step to Norbert Wiener and the interest in cybernetics was very natural. The people mentioned here have without doubt had been extremely influential in my scientific training and thinking. Encouraged by their insights and support I now realise that, even at that time, I had fully developed the sceptical attitude that has urged me not to take anything for granted – not even the fundamentals of Western science. This sometimes toilsome attitude has been my guiding star since and is probably the prime reason for the direction of my present research. My second academic career started when Lennart Hjul asked me to join him to lay the foundation stone of what was to become Mid-Sweden University in 1972 - the year of the birth of my son Tommy. Two years later my daughter Sara arrived and these two have been my true inspiration and very reason that I stayed as a lecturer mainly at Mid-Sweden University for many years. No other people have taught me more about life and myself than those two wonderful beings. I came to teach mathematics, physics, computer science, systems engineering, systems development both at the engineering departments - and between economists and social scientist almost by accident. However this situation laid a solid foundation for the cross-disciplinary approaches to come. In parallel I was still engaged in several industrial research projects mainly concerning computer simulation. In 1989 I met with Dr. Mats B. Klint who urged me to complete my doctoral thesis that, for several reasons, was interrupted in the 1970s. He inspired me to launch my third academic career in a cross-disciplinary effort aimed at injecting some computer science into the industrial business marketing. In this project I met with a totally different research tradition - very much anchored in hermeneutics, phenomenology and the Continental traditions of philosophy. As time went by my advisors came and went and never gave me much support – perhaps even their eventual advice was totally in vain since I very soon wanted to find out what was wrong with scientific realism. Scientific modelling had always been a great interest of mine – and especially computer simulation – an interest, which at that time, was readily broadened into human conceptualisation – in particular cognitive science and consciousness studies – two disciplines that had also encountered insurmountable difficulties with the classical Newtonian approach to knowledge. The modern cognitive sciences insist that human cognition is theory-laden, a claim that cannot possibly be included in the prevailing Newtonian paradigm and it is well known that human consciousness cannot even be studied in this paradigm. Both discipline are badly in need of a definition of science from the first person perspective.