Realism: What science seems to
be telling us.
The hypothesis we are examining here is that we can expect to make progress
if we pursue the scientific method. The progress we have already
made in the physical and biological sciences using this methodological
approach is impressive. We can claim that the biophysical paradigm
is very highly coherent, internally consistent and systematic. Certainly
much still remains to be discovered (see, as a recent and readable survey,
Maddox, J, What Remains to be Discovered, Macmillan, 1998 - Sir
John Maddox was twice editor of Nature, so can be taken as a considerable
authority). But, on the whole, our physical and biological sciences
talk the same language and subscribe to the same general and apparently
rather complete story (theory or paradigm) of how the (biophysical) world
works. It is a story which makes very considerable sense of what
we think we can see of the universe. It may well still be wrong,
but so much of it actually works and fits together that it cannot be substantially
misconceived; incomplete, certainly, but not fundamentally wrong.
Application of the Scientific Method
There are (at least) three rather curious conundrums, however,
in the present scientific paradigm from the point of view of the scientific
method and its application to social science.
-
the Theory of Evolution (natural competition and selection), on
which rests a substantial part of our ecological and environmental understanding,
as well as explanations of higher animal embryo development etc., is (the
only?) scientific theory not capable of falsification - and thus
is not consistent with the scientific method. Karl Popper himself
argued that the theory of evolution was not capable of scientific falsification
and therefore must be considered a pre-scientific or a-scientific theory.
One must either believe it or not. It cannot be tested (and thus
cannot be proved). So, the classical exposition of the scientific
method itself is incomplete, then. It is not the only recipe
for progress and understanding (whatever progress and understanding might
be).
The theory of evolution and natural selection is nothing more than
a plausible story of how we came to be here - but it is a very good story,
which is both substantially coherent (it hangs together and makes logical
sense) and consistent with our observations of the world. It allows
us to explain how things came to be. But it does not
allow us to make predictions about what they will become. So it
is not a science in the strict sense that science requires there to be
a symmetry between explanation and prediction, on the grounds that unless
we can test the predictions, we cannot be sure of our explanations.
So, perhaps the theory of evolution is better suited to our conception
of what a good social science ought to look like, then?
-
the Laws of Thermodynamics - which are a major part of our collection
of incomplete but very widely workable and well-fitted science - say, in
prosaic terms, that any closed system will run down and dissipate into
chaos - maximum entropy - complete disorder. Indeed, that is
how we define total disorder and absence of anything see-able, tangible
or identifiable - absolute zero, the tabula rasa, absolute simplicity.
But, what we see in the Universe, the world, natural and biological
life forms, the human race appears to be working in the very opposite direction
- towards more order, more complexity. How come? Well, either
what we are dealing with is not a closed system, and is continually
being replenished with massenergy from somewhere beyond our ken (which
we might want to call god); or what we see is so far from equilibrium
that we cannot yet see the dissipation into chaos happening. Or,
of course, both at the same time.
This second thesis - that chaos and complexity are far-from-equilibrium
conditions and states which betray patterns and processes which are emergent
phenomena (generated from interactions and behaviours of whole systems
rather than simply being sums of parts) and which are locally stable so
long as they remain within certain (but mostly unknown) boundaries, but
which are (possibly) ephemeral and unsustainable in the grand order of
things - is explored (inter alia) by Fritjof Capra in the Web of Life,
Flamingo,
1997 (well worth a read). A similar conclusion is reached by David
Deutsch (referenced in the main notes).
How does this story work? Far-from-equilibrium systems are better
thought of as flow systems - a flow of something from one place (source)
to another (a sink). So, we all began as star stuff (Carl Sagan),
born from the Big Bang of massenergy and processed through super nova explosions,
solar system formation, and the enormously happy accident of one such planet
circling one such rather small and insignificant star in the outer fringes
of the western spiral arm of a rather insignificant galaxy (the Milky Way)
being somehow well suited to the emergence of biological life forms.
But, the sun is running down. So, too, we think, is the Universe
- though whether it is contracting or expanding is still open to question.
But, either way, the system will run down eventually. So the Laws
of Thermodynamics are safe and work, but while they are working the flow
systems through which they work generate a lot of heat and light, and a
lot of gravity and mass, and a lot of motion and happening, a lot of emergent
phenomena. Simple, isn't it?
Well, no, it isn't. It is massively complex and interactive.
It is what the mathematicians call a chaotic system - its outcomes cannot
be predicted. But it can be modeled, represented as an analogue or
digital reflection of the processes at work. We can build models
of wave and current systems and watch their behaviour, and then test our
models by changing the states and circumstances and see how the flow systems
of our models behave then. And, so long as our models have enough
of the 'truth' embodied in them, they can then be used to help us both
understand the systems we live in and help us live in them better.
A good example of the sorts of models we are talking about here is
the
Mandelbrot set and the fractal patterns such sets produce.
You know those wonderful complex patterns that replicate but never exactly
repeat themselves? Well, they are the product of Mandelbrot sets
- dynamic and interactive equations which are deceptively simple but whose
solutions (the patterns) are a never ending flow of related but different
outcomes, which are path-dependent - their present shape and character
depends on where they have come from. These patterns (which we can
call emergent phenomena - like life) are subject to boundary conditions
- if the particular parameters of the equations which generate them are
set in one way, then one sort of pattern to the patterns (called an attractor)
is generated. But if the parameters are changed (which could be a
consequence of feedback lops from the patterns themselves) beyond certain
limits, then the attractor also changes - and the patterns disappear into
chaos until a new attractor becomes established and a new set of patterns
emerge.
David Deutsch describes these systems as follows: ìunder special
circumstances the stupendously complex behaviour of vast numbers of particles
resolves itself into a measure of simplicity and comprehensibility.
This is called emergence: high-level simplicity ëemergesí from low
level complexity. High level phenomena about which there are comprehensible
facts that are simply not deducible from low-level theories are called
emergent phenomena.î (Deutsch, op cit., p.20-1).
-
A New Aspect on the world?:
Meanwhile, the quantum mechanics and particle physicists have made
some remarkable discoveries of the way the fundamentals of our existence
- the sub-atomic particles - seem to behave, which call into question the
traditional and seemingly obvious assumptions about what is fact and what
is fiction. The quantum mechanics and particle physicists are the scientists
exploring the fundamental nature of matter and energy. They are puzzled
by their present understandings of these things. For an account of their
puzzles, see, for example, Maddox (op cit.) or John Gribbin: In
Search of Schrodinger's Cat, Black Swan, 1991, and other titles by
the same author. A key part of their puzzle is the results of their
Aspect
and double-slit experiments,
which are set up to determine whether light is really a particle or a wave
- the classical scientific method in action, aimed at discovering the fundamental
properties of our existence.
The following account of the Aspect experiment is taken directly
from John Gribbin's book: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat (p 2 -
4), with my own emphasis in italics, and my own comments as footnotes.
"In the world of quantum mechanics, the laws of physics which are familiar
from the everyday world no longer work. Instead, events are governed
by probabilities. A radio active atom, for example, might decay,
emitting an electron, say, or it might not. It is possible to set
up an experiment in such a way that there is a fifty-fifty chance that
one of the atoms in a lump of radioactive material will decay in a certain
and that a detector will register the decay if it does happen. Schrodinger,
as upset as Einstein about the implications of quantum theory, tried to
show the absurdity of those implications by imagining such an experiment
set up in a closed room, or box, which also contains a live cat and a phial
of poison, so arranged that if the radioactive decay does occur then the
poison container is broken and the cat dies. In the everyday world, there
is a fifty-fifty chance that the cat will be killed, and without looking
in the box we can say, quite happily, that the cat inside is either alive
or dead.
But we now encounter the strangeness of the quantum world. According
to the theory, neither of the two possibilities open to the radioactive
material, and therefore to the cat, has any reality unless it is observed.
The atomic decay has neither happened nor not happened, the cat has neither
been killed nor not killed, until we look inside the box to see what has
happened. Theorists who accept the pure version of quantum mechanics
say that the cat exists in some indeterminate state, neither alive nor
dead, until an observer looks into the box to see how things are getting
on. Nothing is real unless it is observed.
The idea was anathema to Einstein, among others. "God does not play
dice," he said, referring to the theory that the world is governed by the
accumulation of outcomes of essentially random "choices" of possibilities
at the quantum level. As for the unreality of the state of Schrodinger's
cat, he dismissed it, assuming that there must be some underlying "clockwork"
that makes for a genuine fundamental reality of things. He spent
many years attempting to devise tests that might reveal this underlying
reality at work but died before it became possible actually to carry out
such a test. Perhaps it is as well he did not live to see the outcome
of one line of reasoning that he initiated.
In the summer of 1982, at the University of Paris-South, in France,
a team headed by Alain Aspect completed a series of experiments designed
to detect the underlying reality below the unreal world of the quantum.
The underlying reality - the fundamental clockwork - had been given the
name "hidden variables", and the experiment concerned the behaviour of
two photons or particles of light flying off in opposite directions from
a source. It is described fully in Chapter Ten, but in essence it
can be thought of as a test of reality. The two photons from the
same source can be observed by two detectors, which measure a property
called polarization. According to quantum theory, this property does
not exist until it is measured. (1)
According to the hidden variable idea, each photon has a "real" polarization
from the moment it is created. Because the two photons are emitted
together, their polarizations are correlated with one another. But
the nature of the correlation that is actually measured is different according
to the two views of reality.
The results of this crucial experiment are unambiguous. The
kind of correlation predicted by the hidden variable theory is not found;
the kind of correlation predicted by quantum mechanics is found, and what
is more, again as predicted by quantum theory, the measurement that is
made on one photon has an instantaneous effect on the nature of the other
photon. Some interaction links the two inextricably, even though they are
flying apart at the speed of light, and relativity theory tells us that
no signal can travel faster than light. (2)
The experiments prove that there is no underlying reality to the
world. "Reality", in the everyday sense, is not a good way to think about
the behaviour of fundamental particles that make up the universe; yet at
the same time those particles seem to be inseparably connected into some
indivisible whole, each aware of what happens to the others."
As you might expect, these results are so curious as to raise considerable
suspicion amongst scientists. Have they been careful enough in the
design and implementation of the experiments? So they try again,
and again and again. Surely this cannot be right? But it is
reliably replicated time and again - it is what actually happens.
What, then, is the explanation? Or, if not explanation, what are
the possible implications?
1. This fact (that is, logically
valid deduction from the maths of quantum mechanics), stems from the principle
which can be thought of as the foundation of quantum mechanics: the
Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. This is the principle which says that
it is impossible to determine both the position and the direction of travel
of a particle at the same time. More exact determination of one property
necessarily destroys the accuracy of measurement of other properties.
The simplified reason is that determination of the position requires the
interaction of some energy source with the light particle itself, which
thereupon necessarily alters the speed and direction of travel of the particle
(its velocity). The property of polarization concerns the so-called "spin"
of particles, which is indeterminate until the light particle is stopped
(detected).
I conjecture that there is an equivalent principle in social science
- the more exactly we seek to determine the character and culture of an
individual or group, the less we can know about their contexts and circumstances
and thus about the way they will behave. This is true since the more
we examine people or groups, the more we necessarily alter their contexts
and circumstances, and vice versa.
2. The holy grail
of current theoretical physics is to reconcile Einstein's relativity theory
(which so accurately explains and predicts the behaviour of the macro universe
(stars, galaxies and the way light and other electromagnetic waves are
affected by gravity) that it cannot be substantially wrong) with quantum
mechanics - the theory which so accurately explains and predicts the behaviour
of sub-atomic particles. Gribbin's sequel to In search of Schrodinger's
Cat - Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality, Weidenfeld
and Nicholson, London, 1995, describes some of the searches for this holy
grail: a grand unified theory (GUT) or theory of everything (ToE).
Implications for a committed neoclassical (modern) social scientist
Well; we certainly seem to be very close to reaching the limits of our
capacity for understanding, if the latest efforts of the particle physicists
and quantum mechanics are any guide. It is simply inconceivable that
these people have got the world substantially wrong - far too much fits
with their theories, and far too many of their predictions about the way
the world works are not only born out in practice, but are made to work
in practice too - lasers being one obvious example. Yet, at root,
their understandings seem quite ridiculous, or else to be very close to
glimpsing an unobservable god of some sort. The scientific method
seems to have failed us. Or, rather, we need a little more than simply
a conjecture and an experiment in order to make sense of the world.
We need a metaphysic, because our old one, which we thought our sciences
would reveal, seems to be either broken or non-sensical.
Surely there is some story we could tell to make some sort of sense
of these incredible but incontrovertible findings? Well, yes, there
probably is - those who are searching for the GUT or ToE certainly believe
so. But will they be able to tell us mere mortals and non-physicists
what they have discovered? Perhaps, so long as people like John Gribbin
are around to interpret their findings. And what, then, might be
the implications? How could we possibly tell unless we have some
idea of what the GUT or ToE might look like? Presently, the main
chance of discovering the ToE seem to involve notions of eleven or so dimensions,
rather than the three of space and one of time, so the interpretation is
going to be pretty fierce if this turns out to be correct.
Well, again: I have been worrying about the apparent end result
of the pursuit of the scientific method as far as fundamental physics is
concerned. I have my own theory about what the nature of the ToE
will look like, and here it is - Knowledge: what
it means and how we come by it. (a pdf file of a nine page essay).
I am willing to bet that this will turn out to be not far removed from
the eventual solution to the ToE problem.
Meanwhile, there are some curious, possibly spurious, parallels
between what we think we know about our biophysical worlds and what we
experience in our social worlds - the objects of our social enquiries:
-
we have, if we believe our science, evolved to where we are. We might
expect, therefore, that the evolutionary process is still occurring somehow,
and that evolution might make a good model or framework within which to
develop a more general theory or metaphysic of our social systems.
In particular, it is worth noting that the theory of natural selection
and competition is substantially reproduced in only slightly different
form in our current theories of market behaviour - of economics. The theory
of market competition and the theory of natural selection and competition
are very substantially the same theories. The evidence? The
increasing overlap between ecological and economic modeling of the systems
we suppose we examine. One key difference between natural ecologies
and human economies is that we think we get to choose - we invent and then
follow our own selection systems, and thus choose who lives and who dies.
And we do that through the governance systems we invent for ourselves.
This point is elaborated in slightly more detail below (as part of the
possible synthesis)
-
we could, possibly, profit from a more careful description of our natural
and social worlds as if they were complex, chaotic systems. Recognition
and deeper understanding of the nature and character of emergent phenomena
might well prove helpful.
-
the fundamental logics and behaviours of sub-atomic particles and quantum
mechanics might well prove useful in the development of a more rigorous
expression or representation of social systems, which appear to behave
rather like the fundamental particle world in many respects. It is
notable, for instance, that quantum mechanics and chaotic systems mathematicians
are currently commanding high salaries in finance and investment houses
for their skills in representing the behaviour of stock markets.
Back to main notes.