Science for Complexity
Especially in human-related sciences, holding on to a Platonean ideal is insufficient for grappling with present-day challenges. We need new science to manage complexity.
A.I. can provide the necessary tools for this.
Science of medicine and psychosomatics
Until now, medical science has been based on a non-complex picture of the human being. This accords with only a minor part of the latter.
In psychosomatics, we encounter complexity to the max. This cannot be adequately managed with only ‘old hat science.’ An exclusive use of such may have the side effect of discarding the whole field as non-scientific. With science for complexity, the field can be drawn toward within the scientific world by broadening this world.
Intriguingly, it’s the discarding side that then becomes unscientific ― a modern Copernican revolution. As usual, several vested interests won’t like this. Nevertheless, reality and humanity demand it to go through.
Is this science replicable?
Sure, it’s replicable in bigger amounts of numbers. Moreover, since there is no need for extrapolation, there is also no need for being exactly replicable. The science is proper when the replications are well enough. Compare this with the reproducibility crisis of present-day psychotherapy.
With enough user input, replicability can be achieved in Lisa, for instance. Also, this way, Lisa science doesn’t have one endpoint but a whole landscape. Exemplars can be extracted from this landscape for reasons of communication.
Abstractly seen, in a list of bullet points:
- We have a well-established – though still evolving – science for the conceptual world.
- Reality is conceptual AND subconceptual.
- We need a science for complexity — a pending revolution in the scientific domain.
- Once accomplished, both sciences will be integrated into a ‘science for everything.’
- This will coincide with the advent of super-A.I. through the solving of the issue of abstracting patterns.
- Intriguingly, both directions start from different poles, but they will end up in the same synthesis.
Within the clash, of course, the implications for science itself are immense.
That can lead to people’s loss of faith in the scientific construct. We should think about the possible implications of this and how to mitigate them.
Gliding back to magical thinking is a real danger. Therefore, we should strive for more science, not less ― quite a universal challenge for universities!
More than healthcare
Of course, healthcare is explicitly an exciting domain for this because, among other things, it invites massive amounts of communication with many people.
Data and knowledge from this may kickstart science for complexity in other human-related domains (the so-called humanities) as well.
Let’s go for all this.
Let’s go for science with a heart.
Related Posts
About Concepts (From My PhD Thesis)
When talking about the ‘subconceptual’ [see About ‘Subconceptual’], it is also important to understand what is meant by ‘conceptual’. This is not a straightforward discussion. According to the classical view of concepts, the definition of a concept is “a proposition that gives a set of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for being in the Read the full article…
A Different Game
Sometimes. Some people may have their game. I play a different one. You might have read a different story. [see: “Minding Covid: a Different Story“] It is not needed for this blog. But if you have read it, you may notice that it is closely related to this much broader ‘different game.’ There are different Read the full article…
Importance of Clarity
Even more important, especially in the domain of AURELIS: striving for clarity, each one doing the best (s)he can. Vagueness out? Some find vagueness OK for being able to bring people together where this would otherwise not easily be possible. People can stand behind the same vague idea, so at least they meet, mentally or Read the full article…