Dave Snowden posted on his LinkedIn Feed “tongue in cheek and with mischievous intent”
“North Atlantic Buddhism, gurus & cybernetics on the one hand with Daoism (& its interaction with Confucianism), distributed intelligence & complexity on the other.”
Weirdly my last post, 2 days ago, mentioned Dave in the context of Cybernetics vs all the other available Systems Complexity views out there, but I’d not remembered that when I took the rise to his mischievous intent challenge:
Ian GLENDINNING
“Not quite sure where you’re going with the ‘on the one hand / on the other’ … given your distaste for dichotomies :-)”
Dave Snowden
“Two sets of associations Ian”
Ian GLENDINNING
“Dave Snowden But with more overlap than divergence / distinction?”
Dave Snowden
“Ian GLENDINNING Two roads diverged in a yellow wood”
Maritina Dimopoulou
“Dave Snowden ah, I first came across this poem when I watched Dead Poets Society in my teenage years…”
Ian GLENDINNING
“Dave Snowden Excellent.
So I guess I need to acknowledge that allusion to the Good-Fences / Gates-in-the-Forest metaphor I often use.
Mischief appreciated 🙂
(Robert Frost being the common source – and G K Chesterton – I shall have to write a longer piece myself. Weirdly I wrote a piece only yesterday referring to Dave and Cybernetics … in other concurrent parallel threads … https://www.psybertron.org/archives/18971 )”
Essentially this an ongoing dialogue with Dave on here as well as on LinkedIn and his own blog, several in parallel on related topics live on LinkedIn right now – will not link to all – but in summary:
Rather than get into debates about which Systems theories (inc Cybernetics) Dave emphasises his own (Cynefin) approach as using Complexity (and other) Sciences …
Partly, most of us would say that Systems Thinking (of all kinds) is a response to complexity (including the complexities of humanity itself), even if this wasn’t explicit in the way various Systems theories and sciences were framed. Complexity – as a science – came later or independently Dave would say?
My response is four-fold:
-
- From the start Systems Thinking was always about the complexities of self-organising humanity, even if complexity per-se wasn’t the explicit topic and even if the early applications were more machine than human. (First & Second Cybernetics and Cybernetics as Feedback)
- Secondly whatever it is we’re talking about, it’s more than science. We’re trading poetic Robert Frost and GK Chesterton quotes above ferchrissakes!
“With complex systems modelling doesn’t work.”
(Modelling can’t work completely, there are always losses.)
-
- Thirdly, the above are long-running dialogue, but the (mischievous) Buddhist (also non-science?) topics are new in this dialogue, even if long-standing here (and Dave referencing “Zen” back in 2003). Obviously a lot more to discuss here on Eastern thinking, but for now,
- Fourthly Dave first puts his forking Buddhist path in our way.
Although he says, he’s not positing a dichotomy he’s only pointing out “two sets of associations“. He’s making a distinction, the existence of two paths, two sides to a gate or fence, in time and/or space. “Two sides to every story”. The sets of associations he’s highlighting are:
-
- between “North Atlantic” Buddhism and Cybernetics [bad?], and
- between authentic Eastern Thinking and his Distributed Intelligence plus Complexity story [good?].
We can only wonder why?
I think we’re violently agreeing about #GoodFences and #Dichotomies.
The point of #GoodFences is that many distinctions of many kinds exist for all sorts of reasons, good and/or circumstantial. (Fences, gates or forking paths in forests.) But they are never dichotomous, between two entirely different things, never the twain shall meet, unless we actively choose to make them that way. They are things that are mostly the same, with shared histories, but with one or more selected distinguishing feature that is significant in some way(s). They have a purpose, but can move and evolve.
“Complex vs Complicated is a false dichotomy.”
Essentially what I’m struggling with is that when Dave points out a distinction he says he doesn’t mean it dichotomously even though the difference is significant, but when others (Iain McGilchrist’s left<>right-brain say, or myself) point out distinctions, we are accused of (false) dichotomies. Differences are real, dichotomies more often false.
Need to see what Dave is saying in his Third Eastern dialogue before we can see if and why his Fourth divergent views is relevant, even if not dichotomous. As is hopefully obvious above I’m sceptical with putting Cybernetics back in some simplistic mechanistic box it was never intended to occupy. Better to find common ground than to divide?
=====
Post Note:
Dave continues his raging against dichotomies here comments on LinkedIn again.
“There are a lot of dichotomies here, two many for my taste and some stereotyping which never helps. For example intellectual knowing is far from black and white and nothing I have encountered there would result in a quick fix, if anything it makes you more aware of the dangers of simply acting based on how you feel at the time. New materialism for example transforms our understanding of the physical reality of stories and allows us to scale. Just living in the moment can reinforce racism and other forms of prejudice, the intellectual knowledge that is coming from the field of epistemic justice allows us to better understand what is happening when people just tell stories without thinking. … [and more].”
Still intrigued by his reaction to these when calling various distinctions dichotomous – surely we all understand they are distinctions that matter, but which are always understood integrated and mutually. It’s not dichotomous to point out and refer to distinctions – even ones that come with stereotypical names – provided one goes on to address their true dynamic relationships thereafter?
In this particular example we’re getting very close to the central point in my current agenda in the recurring philosophical division between the explicit / objective / classical / intellectual and the intuitive / implicit / romantic / lived. The very reason to point out the (binary) distinction out is to warn against that particular (polarising) dichotomy – in terms of the choice of one side (of a good-fence) vs another. Proper account of both is required and required to be understood. That’s the point.
=====
Post Post Note; (19 Nov 2024) – the dialogue continues:
Dave:
Confining science to formal cause is just a little 19th Century in nature.
Working with indigenous people you soon realise they have scientific knowledge they just don’t the same language. Letting go of irrelevant details may mean missing weak signals, focusing on the individual, as you implicitly do here creates multiple issues.
Wisdom lies in understanding not in creating dichotomies based on a culturally specific perspective.
Ian:
Thanks for elaborating your “it’s all science” position clearly and succinctly Dave. Appreciated. I still beg to differ:
Indigenous peoples – including us “Western” indigenous peoples – do have access to hi-quality / valuable knowledge beyond “formal science”. A knowledge or wisdom that is lived, intuitive, implicit, shared between people in rhetorical narrative, etc, but not formalised or formally causal and therefore not science in that formal sense. (That much we agree?)
A reason to maintain that science<>not-science distinction, is not to create any kind of dichotomy or polarisation nor a return to the 19thC – all real knowledge and communication is a tangled mix of the formal (dialectical) and the informal (rhetorical) – but to ensure that the different components are treated appropriately.
So for example, we need to recognise the informal / implicit / intuitive for what it is and not “accidentally” attempt to formalise it explicitly and analytically. Making the implicit explicit risks losing its value.
“We murder to dissect” as some old romantic once said 🙂
Dave:
I think I’ll stand by my original statement rather than you reframing it as ‘all science’. The oral tradition exists in different forms in various traditions, more pronounced in indigenous communities but it’s there in others. I think people should generally avoid the wisdom word in any comparison statement and I don’t think your idea of ‘formal science’ is helpful given the role of intuition, abduction etc in all types of human discovery.
Ian:
I think you’re misunderstanding or misrepresenting my point now – I agree with all of that. I used your word “formal science” precisely to leave space beyond that for (in your words) “the role of intuition, abduction etc in all types of human discovery”.
Attempts to formalise the latter … don’t help, indeed do damage? Calling the latter science (as you did) risks attempts to formalise it scientifically. Anyway …
In the ongoing dialogue I phrased it as a question “Why call the latter science? I agree that words like Wisdom and Rhetoric can be woolly and pejorative – why not just call it “knowledge”. [This post]
Knowledge comes in various forms. Why call it science? Why call all knowledge science?
Dave:
well then the feeling is mutual 🙂 Representing indigenous knowledge as ancient wisdom is to deny the scientific nature of the knowledge and the review process. Characterising knowledge which has been subject to third party validation in contrast to ‘I just believe this’ is important.
Ian:
I did no such thing. I’m calling it knowledge – the indigenous / lived / intuitive / radical-empirical kind – but real actual here & now knowledge. I am happy to call it “indigenous knowledge” if that’s your preference, though like any word, indigenous comes with its own baggage and risks of unintended meanings.
Obviously also, it is subject to validations beyond “I just believe it” – obviously, hopefully. What I am “denying” is that validation is (or can be or should be) scientific in any formal sense. If it’s not science in any formal sense, why insist on calling it science?
Mr. Bjørn Gustav Nielsen:
Hi (Ian) and interesting. Is democracy a scientific construction? And if the way we organise democracy today, you can actually hide yourself behind the party program, or by stating “It’s politics” kills the globe, what field of science can help us to avoid that?
Ian:
Applying this thinking to (free) democracy is another topic I take seriously in my writing. We are overwhelmed with working examples in these recent years 🙂
Founders of constitutional democracies certainly brought enlightened philosophy to their framing and justifications, Locke, Humboldt, Jefferson, Paine, you name them, but those included “inherent” freedoms and “self-evident” truths. Democracy is not, cannot be, and never was, entirely “scientific”. As scientific as possible, but not more so.
We definitely need to bring all forms of knowledge to bear and no one science holds all the answers – if that answers your question?
Calling all good / valuable knowledge “science” seems to be giving it credence by sprinkling it with scientific holy water, when the knowledge in question doesn’t actually meet any formal scientific criteria?
Dave:
So you are creating an either/or between the lived, intuitive and what you call ‘formal science’?
Ian:
A “good fence” – a distinction that matters (for reasons suggested). But not a “dichotomy”. Real life knowledge and communications has both intimately entangled and more or less integrated.
So either and/or both. We need both but we need to understand the different bits we’re dealing with differently, so we can understand their relationships and differences, whilst valuing both.
[ What you called “formal science” BTW 🙂 ]
Dave:
Formal science is your language not mine.
If there is a fence it’s (thankfully) broken
Me:
OK – “Science of formal causation” was your actual words.
The whole point of a “good fence” is its permeability. The distinguishing (taxonomic) line exists, but it doesn’t prevent any interaction. If you deny the distinction you have no way to describe or characterise the interactions and relationships?
Dave:
“Science confined to formal cause (*) …” actually
Ian:
Ha, yes. I was drawing attention to the fact it was you introduce the word / concept of “formal” … but we’re still not addressing what I said was the point … (also in the exchange with Nicola). Can pick up elsewhere another time 🙂 [Formal science or science of formal causation – clearly just me “naming” the kind of science Dave had described (without further definition of what make it science), but as my previous answer said – this focus on these words is missing “the whole point” there and further elaborated in the exchange with Nicola.]
(*) Formal Cause? Not sure anyone would (or could) literally confine science to “formal cause” in the Aristotelian sense? I was working on the basis of more pragmatic understanding of the whole of science as we know it in 21stC. In that Aristotelian sense of “formal” cause – I do in fact have a strong preference for what I would call a “systems architecture” view of any real world situation – the Aristotelian defining form of any thing or system being its structural arrangement. But there are a lot more formal / explicit / objective methods and processes – as well as all the other aspects of human creativity and imagination involved in science. It’s the difference between broad and narrow definitions. A broad definition of science includes all those things and more a narrow definition (what I call #GoodFences) is a dividing line that distinguishes science from all other interrelated aspects of human understanding and activity. Science <> Not-science? Without such a distinction how would we talk about their relationships, recognise their different values, applications, etc?
Nicola Robins:
I have a masters in science from an ivy league university; I have trained in the traditional Southern African knowledge system called Ngoma. They both taught me how to use intuition, analysis, narrative (etc) to make sense of things, though in vastly different ways. Both are validated by third parties, one through the Western scientific method, the other through extensive lineage networks. (Neither refers to itself as wisdom…) Why and by what criteria would I call the one ‘science’ and the other ‘knowledge’?
Me:
OK, so I’m not contrasting science with knowledge.
I’m distinguishing between scientific-knowledge and non-scientific-knowledge and both are kinds of knowledge.
Q. Why would you make a distinction?
A. For the very reason you give – “one [is validated] through the Western scientific method, the other through extensive lineage networks” You make precisely my point. The one <> the other. (As in fact Dave also did at one point earlier) Having made your distinction we can now talk about the relationships between the two (whatever actual names we give them, no existing word we pick is free from baggage.)
Nicola:
(And I’m not just being bloody minded here – I am really interested in these questions…)
Okay, so anything validated through the Western scientific method would get into the category that you call “science”. Would other forms of knowledge, validated (as they are) in different ways, be in their own special categories too? Or would they all be in an enormous category called “knowledge-not-validated-by-Western-science”?
If the former, then I still don’t see why the Western form of validation gets to use the collective noun of “science”. If the latter, then… well, that’s the old pattern of organising and naming things to validate Western science as a little bit more special than others. George Orwell wrote a good book about that.
Ian:
Me too, for 25+ years 🙂
Choosing a name, for what we’ve agreed exists is essentially political and rhetorical. Existing words have baggage and even neologisms come with the baggage of their previous linguistic parts. So there is no “right” answer.
I am suggesting the knowledge (and processes) according to explicit formal causation, formal dialectic, objective, scientific method (etc) is what we continue to call “science”.
The kinds of knowledge that don’t meet that kind of formality – I am simply questioning WHY people (wish to) call that “science”.
Whatever alternative name we choose / agree on, I have one point for now. We are talking about less “formal” stuff – stuff that doesn’t benefit from tighter formal definitions (etc) – so WE SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED if the name we choose looks a bit “woolly” or ill-defined or incomplete or ineffable compared to “science”.
Once people get over it (that fact) – I could even live with “wisdom” – but I have endless possibilities. Depending on which schools of philosophical epistemology we subscribe to you might have a favourite. Mine would be radical-empiricism, but I honestly really don’t care what we call it, so long as we distinguish it from “the other kind”.
Nicola:
Got it. As you say, it is political and rhetorical. I found our exchange useful – thanks!
=====
Post Post Post Note:
Had this linked for a while, but only juts realised it is closely related to the dialogue above – Scientist Brian Goodwin being interviewed by John Brockman over at The Edge on his “new science of qualities”.
JB: What have you been up to?
GOODWIN: […] For me, a lot of the ferment that’s going on in science is around this problem of how we deal with the subjective and the intuitive. Everybody knows that the subject is primary. ‘Objectivity’ is something that comes out of consensus between subjects who have agreed methods of practicing science. Scientific objectivity is a democratic consensus between practitioners of science that such and such is the case, based upon experimental method and modeling. If there’s no consensus in science, there is no agreement about facts and hence no ‘truth’.
There’s another important component of science, and that is what’s philosophers refer to as realism. Scientists virtually all agree that there’s a real world that’s being investigated by science. Science itself, and the tools of science, are social constructs. But the methods of science address something that is real and independent of human beings. I believe in such a world. The knowledge you get from science is real knowledge about the real world. It’s not absolute truth, which is never attainable; it’s an approximation to it. So there’s this strong element of social construction in science, but I’m not a relativist.
JB: So define yourself.
GOODWIN: I’m a pluralist. I believe that there are different ways of getting reliable knowledge about the world. But because they refer to the same world we can compare them and decide which is more appropriate for particular forms of action. This implies that knowledge and (ethical ) action are connected, unlike the usual assumption in current science that facts and values are quite separate.
Interesting that despite the title “new science of qualities” in that final remark he talks about “different ways” of getting reliable knowledge about the world, and acknowledges that they are connected. Implies but doesn’t actually say at this point that the subjective knowledge of ethical action should simply also be called science?
This is my Monist-Triad model BTW.
=====
Like this:
Like Loading...
