Scienсe in the Processes of Integration:
Bridging Approaches to the World Exploration
Copyright © 2016 Marina P. Bonser, Ph.D.
Accelerating processes of integration in the modern world require a reconsideration of the relations between the scientific approach of world exploration and other approaches. Scientific foundations are not compromised but science becomes more open to dialogue with the unknown and other approaches of exploration. The comparative relativity of the logical approach is pointed out. There are suggestions for changes in the traditional algorithm for multidisciplinary research work and for sustainable adjustments for the ethics of skepticism and intellectual property forms and rights.
* * *
Processes of internationalization, globalization and integration within all aspects of human life around the globe were started near the end of 20th century. They have been accelerating and gaining power ever since. The awareness of sustainable development which provides for the long-term, balanced functioning of manmade systems, in harmony with the environment, is becoming more essential and growing. Science as well as education need adjustments and updates.
Inner integration processes in science appear in a growing number of multidisciplinary research which bridge different fields of research within a certain science and between different sciences. Outer integration processes regarding science appear in the integration of the scientific approach with other approaches for world exploration when working out methodological approaches for building systems. A simple example of that would be creating a movie scene by using scientific knowledge of light laws to make the scene closer to reality but also using art perception laws which might be somewhat in contradiction with them in order to create better impressions needed for the story.
In order to explore what kind of updates are needed for science let's take a closer look into the history of science development. Science, as well as education as its natural extension, was holistic before the industrial period. All scientific knowledge could be placed in one educational program. The growing amount of knowledge made it impossible for science to be holistic any more, and it began to branch out, along with the industrial period of humanity's development into separate sciences like math, physics, chemistry, biology, and later into separate fields within those sciences. The postindustrial informational period started to develop connections, bridges between those branches, and science began to become holistic again, but at a new level, integrated from different fields. It is still not possible to fit all scientific knowledge into one educational program but it is possible to build a map of those connections with potential access to any particular knowledge within any field.
Changes in social attitude to science are related to those periods. Communities under religious and other social leadership were intolerant of any scientific explorations in the preindustrial period. Explorers were not taken seriously or were even executed for the crime of questioning their fundamental doctrines of how the world works. In the beginning of the industrial period science was able to explain many of the most important phenomena in human life. When scientific exploration grew to the point of being the most powerful tool of world's exploration and gave humanity the power of significant growing changes in human living environments, it created scientific communities valuing only the scientific approach for world exploration and devaluing anything which was not proven by science. The scientific approach proved its power to change the world, and became a new fundamental doctrine of how the world evolves. Any other approaches were not taken seriously or were aggressively attacked, and any scientific community members who dared to disclose their insights or their not-fully-proven theories could risk their scientific reputation and their status in those communities.
Science became the only absolutely correct approach for world exploration despite many obvious phenomena in the world which it couldn't explain yet like the nature of gravity, the nature of the influence of consciousness on physical systems, or the nature of love for a particular person over others. The postindustrial period came up with different approaches for exploring the world and with a number of ways of connecting different parts of knowledge which were unrelated before. It is time for science to change the motto: "if a phenomena is not proven by science it doesn't exist" to another motto: "science is not advanced enough yet to prove or disprove the existence of a particular phenomena". This attitude doesn't compromise scientific foundations, a system of logical interpretations of the world's phenomena, but it opens the door to all unknown phenomena in the world. It doesn't deny but outlines problems which cannot be explained yet via science.
Actually, it is impossible to build any research within a science in an absolutely perfect way. It can be called "logically perfect" within a certain approach which satisfies all required scientific criteria. The nature of generating new insights and lucky guesses via intuition which can be at the starting point of new groundbreaking, fully completed, research is outside of logic. The higher the degree of innovation of an idea the less likely it will be caused by purely logical thinking. If we consider completed research as a logical "chain" which develops in a certain pattern in our world of multidimensional opportunities, each "link" of it can potentially re-route this chain just because of an infinite multilevel number of connections can be found. Each of them can lead to a different next step. Also, the choice of a methodological basis of research gives the direction and unfolds the potential theoretical basis, and then a choice of theoretical basis gives the direction and unfolds the logic of the research itself. Methodological principles are coming from philosophical views which also started with a fundamentally reasonable real-world description but axiomatic ideas outside of logic. That's why looking for research imperfection can be endless if the "borders" of this search are not reasonably determined. The "ironclad" logic of research makes it logically perfect only to a certain degree. This perfection is relative, and when enough conditions are discovered to challenge this perfection, it may help to reconsider the whole paradigm of research at some point, and prove it wrong or include the old paradigm within the new one with a determination of its "working zone". Good examples are Newton's Mechanics became included as a particular case of the Theory of Relativity, or Euclid's Geometry became included as a particular case of Non-Euclidian geometries. Because of the infinity of our multidimensional world, at least in our contemporary visible human perspectives, there will always be room for doubts, even for the most obvious things, and the possibility of discovering conditions where our proven theories don't work as expected. Especially in our century linear, logical patterns of scientific research get enriched with multidimensional opportunities, and “linear stitched patterns on the fabric of life” no longer are the only way of world exploration, interpretation, and interaction with it. All the above doesn't ruin but enriches the foundations of science, reminds us of the relativity of logic, and expands the world of undiscovered opportunities. The route of research is still to go from a proven fact to systems of facts, driving it though some certain field under certain conditions. Contemporary research just needs to pay more attention to exploration of the multitudes of alternatives in this process at each step and its limits of applicability.
The discovery of multidimensional alternatives at each step of research opens and determines the multidimensional alternatives for skepticism, which give opportunities to stop or re-route the research at each stage. Scientific ethics for scepticism needs to be adjusted to make any criticism sustainable. The main principle: it should be aimed toward the development and not for killing an idea. New idea needs to be protected as an embryo in the womb before it will grow strong enough to face the world. Some cultures in the past didn't even show their infants to the public to avoid some kind of bad luck which might interfere with his/her life. In our contemporary world, embryos, and particularly human embryos, became a subject for multiple medical observations, and future moms happily inform their communities or circles about pregnancy and even throw a party to celebrate it. This became possible because the public's attitude changed to the unconditional welcoming of new life. The same changes need to happen with ideas. There should be no need to hide them until they grow into fully completed research that is strong enough to face the attacks of strong criticism. Many "crazy" ideas and fantasies gave birth to groundbreaking theories and inventions at all times in human history, for example the ability to fly or to distantly communicate. The difference between "raw" ideas and completed research should still be clearly recognizable. However, the freedom of "flying thought" while exploring new “horizons" should be available for all scientists without negative consequences.
In 2004-2005 I wrote an article about a Worldwide Transdisciplinary Research Laboratory (WTRL; it can be found in PDF format on the main page of this section) where I classified research by a degree of integration of disciplines, and suggested a new algorithm for conducting research. The more disciplines are involved in research the more time needed to get it to the stage of publication. The traditional algorithm of research development becomes a methodological core for a new algorithm which allows the opportunity for earlier publications of not yet fully proven ideas. It would help to get more input from scholars from different disciplines to move research forward in a shorter time, and also it might initiate varieties of new research in the scientific community based on those ideas. It can be important in a rapidly changing world. Online electronic journals are best for this purpose because the whole world has immediate access to them. Without those changes, the scientific community will continue waiting a longer time for multidisciplinary research to get done. So research might not be able to make a difference in time in a rapidly changing world. Publication of "raw" ideas and theories should be followed by changes in the ethics of criticism and intellectual property rights. Basically, it is just a more gradual transition from illogically generated idea to logically proved completed research with intermediate publications of “embryonic” ideas and concepts.
Skepticism never had any scientific standards or structure. In the unstructured way it exists now it can be reasonably applied to fully completed research only. Sure, a scientific discovery, a new concept or experimental data should be inspected without regard for emotions involved or the conditions under which they are developed. However, the way of providing a feedback might affect the effectiveness of conducting research. Below is is a general ethics of skepticism on different stages of the development of research. Skepticism should be:
Motivated by help in the development of research and personal growth of a researcher as a scholar;
Communicated in a polite, emotionally unharmful manner;
Scientifically reasonable and clear;
Communicated in a certain quantity and at appropriate times in each stage of research in order to keep the system of research conditions balanced.
Done while remembering that a researcher has the right to manage all sceptical communications at all times without any threat of continuing provocation or disruptions.
Conducting skepticism in the ways outlined above will make it sustainable. Also, it should be expected to be sustainable by researchers. If a researcher feels assured that it isn't intended to be harmful he/she will be more open to criticism which would increase its effectiveness. A strategy of managing skepticism should be sustainable also. It is certainly vital for research development and for a researcher to take into account reflections and feedback which are reasonable but it is also vital not to get stuck in useless and potentially endless conversations which would waste their time and energy, and possibly kill their ideas or inspiration.
How can we recognize which criticism is worth considering and which is not? First, try to identify the motivation of your opponent. People driven by jealousy, "Salieries" of science, picking on the ideas of others because they most likely haven't developed anything significant on their own; any potential competition for a job or benefits; people who just wanted to make a career out of being skeptics; people who have other obvious motives for hassling you – all these “skeptics” can be recognized and their arguments should be most carefully inspected for scientific honesty and reasonable proof. Second, try to recognize any emotional or intellectual tricks which have nothing to do with real reasonable criticism. Be aware that some people might just look up their arguments somewhere else, most likely in the internet, and communicate them to you as their own thoughts without even really knowing the subject and without verifying the scientific integrity of their arguments. Some other people, skilled in communication tricks, just want you to stop or compromise you or your research and then after a while modify your ideas and proceed with their own research based upon them, successfully managing criticism against themselves. Third, determine the time and effort you are willing to put into arguments, remind your opponents to be on task and straight to the point if needed, and don't hesitate to stop it completely or temporarily if anything doesn't work well for you in a certain argument. Remember, the number of ways to criticize your research is infinite at each step, and choose carefully only what matters. Fourth, be honest with yourself and admit mistakes or weaknesses that are reasonably pointed out so it can help you to get over them. If you find yourself finally agreed that your hypothesis is proved wrong, don't devalue your findings anyway because they could turn out to be useful in some certain or unexpected way in the future. The main principle, all feedback and reflections should help you to proceed in your research or make you reasonably move onto something else, but never to harm you.
The opportunity to publish "raw" ideas needs to be supported by intellectual property laws, and also by their proper implementation. The Worldwide Transdisciplinary Research Laboratory and a European form of right: "Creative Commons", recently adopted by the US Department of Labor, are basically "potluck pools" of ideas which meet the needs of the contemporary world. However, a potluck works well only if everyone who contributed to it is granted fair access to the meals. Sharing ideas wouldn't be fair if some people have much more direct or indirect opportunities to make money on them, and don't share those opportunities or money with the authors of the ideas. So whoever uses the "potluck policy" in their organizations or businesses should also take care to ensure fair distributions of benefits which come from using ideas from those pools. Due to the large number of information pathways in the modern world, those authors might not even be aware that they are being taken advantage of, or wouldn't be able to stand up for their interests because of a lack of finances for hiring a lawyer, especially if they live in disadvantaged countries and their opportunities are limited in many ways. Some publishers who are making profits are not sharing them with their authors. They make it legal by having their authors sign contracts giving up their rights. The authors agree to this because they don't have any other chance to get their work published. Sometimes even more harm is done when their ideas get published under someone elses' name in spite of the existence of intellectual property laws. International organizations whose activities are related to intellectual property laws should develop strategies which would provide for a sustainable way of implementation of these laws and protect the rights of disadvantaged researchers with arrangements made for the fair distribution of profits.
Also, it is time to figure out a way to solve the idea–expression dichotomy, and protect new ideas and concepts so that whoever uses them for creating new products and registering them under existing forms of intellectual property (copyright, trademark, patent) should do it in agreement with the authors of those ideas. The Method of Multilevel Content Analyses which is used for identification of students' levels of Global Thinking via interpretation of their work can be used for identification of the same ideas in different expressions.
If anyone develops a methodology and a plan for a project based on an integrated approach for exploration of the world which includes the scientific approach, they should make sure that their scientific part of the approach is really scientific which means logically built without contradictions. The outcome of this integration can be counted as scientific only if the work is fully completed by the scientific approach and satisfies all criteria of completed research, and other approaches only confirm those scientific findings. Products of such an integrated approach and projects based on them which didn't have the status of scientific research intentionally are, for instance, in the status of a piece of art or a worldview. Scientific theories which are still unfinished because science hasn't yet developed the tools necessary for its further exploration, also don't have a scientific status, at least not presently. However those kinds of world exploration approaches and any combination of them, shouldn't be attacked by the scientific communities. They should have the right for existence and for enriching human life. Since the end of 20th century there are institutions and organizations around the world which are conducting projects within integrated approaches for the world exploration.The Institute of Noetic Science (IONS) in California lead by Dr. Cassandra Vieten and Dr. Dean Radin is a good example of a proper vision of the scientific component in their exploration of the phenomena of human consciousness.
A summary of new features and changes in relation to science that need to be completed in the new century:
admission of the relative nature of the logical approach and awareness of opportunities to place it in a system of approaches for world exploration;
changing the scientific community's attitude for enriching the scientific approach with other approaches;
shifting an algorithm in the development of multidisciplinary research to create the opportunity to publish in special electronic online journals and websites "embryonic" ideas and theories which will open opportunity to contribute in research and to build up on them before research gets fully completed;
creating platforms and pools of ideas to use with conditions for the fair distribution of outcomes;
developing sustainable strategies for the fair implementation and protection of intellectual property rights, especially in disadvantaged regions, including the development of regulations for the registration of ideas as a new form of intellectual property.
* * *