Complexity science for teachers

I had fun today.  I gave a talk at the Math Science Innovation Center in Mechanicsville Virginia.    It was part of a conference on

Fractals: A New Lens on the Natural World
A Conference for 6-12 Science Teachers

 My talk was not on fractals but was entitled: TEACHING  SCIENCE THAT MATTERS: REFRAMING THE QUESTION IN SCIENCE, and can be viewed from my webpage.
 I was dealing with  issues that may reflect back on the way science is being taught.  The three examples I was using for them were

Global warming and climate change
Evolution vs. creation ("Intelligent" Design)
Determining when something is "alive"

 I thought some of you might be interested in what Complexity Science has to say about these issues and their relationship to "standard" science.  Look below the break if this is of interest to you.  I'll suggest that there is relevance to this election in what I had to say

You have the link to the presentation above so I will not repeat it here.  Rather I want to talk about what is behind this presentation.  Complexity Science has come into its own and is a major part of the modern scientific scene.  Two Centers stand out as major representatives of this expansion of science beyond the circumscribed limits of "The Scientific Method" taught in most schools. One is the Santa Fe Institute and the other is  The New England Complex Systems Institue.  I can't omit a plug for my own scientific home:  Virginia commonwealth University Center for the Study of Biological Complexity.  There are many more but you get the idea.  

If there ever was an example of "Synchronicity" it was the NPR program on Global Warming I heard on the Diane Rhem show as I drove the 70 miles to give my talk:

On the 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking global warming testimony before the U.S. Senate, James Hansen discusses his belief that the planet is dangerously close to tipping points that would be extremely difficult to reverse. The NASA climate scientist reflects on what has and hasn't changed in two decades, political pressures, and the controversy he's stirred by speaking out.

 Since Global Warming/Climate Change was going to be one of my examples, I found this a delightful thing to listen to as I drove there.  My approach was a bit of a different one than what he spoke about.  It was more a question about why it has taken 20 years for his message to be listened to.  Why, in fact, has the problem had to grow to such proportions before people take it seriously?  When I ask that question I have to also ask whether Hanson's science has been adequate to alert people to the reality we now have crashing down upon us.  You see that was the point of my talk.  most of the science that is taught in schools is what I would consider a very limited version of what modern science has to offer.  Teachers still dwell on experimental science and the so called "scientific method".  I'm sorry folks but these ideas are not going to help that much when it comes to problems like Global warming/Climate Change, Evolution vs Creationism ("Intelligent" design), and the when "Life" begins in the abortion debates.  Why is that?  It is because the reductionist/mechanistic variety of scientific thinking that preceeded Complexity Science is impotent to deal with areas where we can never hope to use experimental approaches nor the fabled "scientific method".  Heresy? To some it is.  Let me try to briefly tell you what we have accomplished by stepping outside the box that classical reductionist/mechanistic science had us cooped up in.  In the area of Global Warming/Climate Change we have the ability to describe the Earth System in a manner that clearly allows us to classify it as a special kind of living organism.  The first reaction we get when say that is usually "but it can't reproduce!" Neither can certain hybrids nor mules but no one disputes that they are alive.  What is important about this way of looking at the Earth System is that it has a kind of metabolism/repair system like that described by Robert Rosen for the organisms he distinguished from machines in his seminal work on complexit over fifty years ago.  This complex organization is distincly different from the machine metaphor we got from Rene Descartes.  This distinction between organisms and machines is crucial to our going forward in medicine as well as earth science.

The next example I tackled was the issue of evolution and the creationist claim to offer an alternative.  In particular, the claims of proponents of "Intelligent Design" has to be seen in terms of complexity for the machine metaphor Descartes saddled us with in fact plays right into their hands.  The thing complexity theory shows us is that it is causal reasoning that settles the issue.  The machine metaphor gives us a model of living systems that is causally impoverished.  Hence the need for a diety to truncate and endless progression of causal questions.  Complexity theory proves conclusively that living systems are totally closed and self contained cwith respect to efficient cause and therefore the need for a diestic "fill in" is totally eliminated!  

Finally, the question about when something is "alive" is also settled by this causal analysis.  The beginnings of "life" in any embryonic situation has to happen when the causal loops are in place.  If there is need for outside cause, the embryo is not yet a living organism.  

This is clearly a short and incomplete sketh of some deep stuff.  I offer it to you to get you interested in learning more.  Clearly our political landscape is strewn with debris from an archaic approach to science that has become a hinderence in these circumstances.  our schools need to make our future voters aware of that so they can help us rise above the mess that our current voters are wallowing in.  Today I feel like I did a bit to further our cause and wanted to share that with you.