The West Wing of the Thinkibility University – our exciting recent project – is dedicated to thinking patterns in sciences. At the West Wing, scientists dissect the basic thinking patterns in a scientific discipline.
Although philosophers of science will work there, the research agenda will not be philosophy of science – roughly this discipline is concerned with when we could claim that something might be true. Instead of exploring the relationship between science and truth scientists in the West Wing will focus on the paradigms of science or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field. Thus, the focus is not on true/false claims.
Since we believe that science is basically the outcome of processes of human interaction, you will also find at the West Wing sociologists, psychologists, political scientists and even anthropologists who explore people and their ancestors’ habits in relation to culture, and social and environmental factors.
However, besides classical education in traditional sciences, the people working at the West Wing will all have received thoroughly training in thinking theories. They will be skilled in Lateral Thinking, TRIZ, Anti Conventional Thinking, Biomimicry and several other disciplines and approaches that are slowly entering the body of knowledge about a rather significant feature of humans – thinking.
The main goal is not to describe the standard thinking in a scientific discipline, but to escape from it. To design alternative approaches for scientific development. The scientists are involved in design thinking for scientific research.
A basic assumption that underlies the work a the West Wing is that most of the sciences nowadays are still ruled by a Newtonian view of balls and forces.
In an earlier post we argued that classical economy is a typical example of a science based on mechanical assumptions and by that, possible, totally inadequate. The scientific queeste of the department could be to explore if it is possible to base economic theories on system dynamics or quantum physics? Or even evolutionary biology? How could we design methods and techniques to escape from standard thinking in economic theory?
In Patterns in Psychological Research we provided another example of what could be an intermediate result of the Department for Psychology research. In Thinking Patterns in Science we gave even more examples such as for dominant thinking patterns in engineering systems. Another example of a dominant idea in brain research is that it would be located in the brain, while for more fruitful research it might better be assumed as an outcome of interactions between environment and the body, or even all body cells.
The objective of the West Wing research groups of the Thinkibility University will be to design alternative approaches for “doing science” in the classical sciences. The people working there will use systematic and deliberate creative thinking techniques to achieve the goals.They will offer alternative thinking strategies for scientific disciplines.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if by escaping standard thinking strategies students at the West Wing of the Thinkibility University would generate new hypothesis in nearly every branch of science?
Guess what we will have in mind for the North, South and Eastern wings?
8 Replies to “The West Wing of the Thinkibility University”
Massive study reports challenges in reproducing published psychology findingshttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150827154242.htm
What is the standard approach of curing people, and anescape from that:
A Robust Challenge To The Value Of A University Education
One charitable but no less plausible diagnosis of many of the errors routinely picked up by examiners is that they result from students having suspended conventional assumptions in the field in which they are being examined. Yet, these assumptions may themselves be challenged if not overturned in the not-too-distant future. Thus, what strikes the examiner as corner-cutting sloppiness may capture an intuition that is the basis for a more efficient grasp of the truth of some matter.
But what sort of examination system would vindicate this charitable reading of error and thereby aid in spotting the next generation of innovators? It is not obvious that an in-house exam administered by, say, Ernst & Young will be any less of an epistemic snapshot than an academic exam if it simply tests for the ability to solve normal puzzles in normal ways. The in-house exam will simply be more content-relevant to the employer.
An alternative would be to make all university examinations tests in counterfactual reasoning. In effect, students would be provided access to the field’s current state of knowledge—the sort of thing that they would normally regurgitate as exam answers—and then be asked to respond to scenarios in which the assumptions behind the answers are suspended in various ways. Thus, students would be tested at once for their sense of how the current state of knowledge hangs together and their ability to reassemble that knowledge strategically under a state of induced uncertainty.
We also have a variety of models for the economic system and for the interaction with the political system. But we pretty much know nothing about the dynamics of knowledge discovery. We don’t know how the academic system works, for how people develop their ideas, for how these ideas get selected, for how these ideas proliferate. We don’t have any good understanding of how that works. That will be necessary to solve these problems. We will also have to get this knowledge about how science works closer to the people who do the science. To work in this field, you need to have an education for how knowledge discovery works and what it takes to make it work properly. And that is currently missing.
From Edge: Looking in the Wrong Places
A Conversation With Sabine Hossenfelder [4.30.18]
The tragedy of the cybernetic revolution, which had two phases, the computer science side and the systems theory side, has been the neglect of the systems theory side of it. We chose marketable gadgets in preference to a deeper understanding of the world we live in.
How To Be a Systems Thinker
A Conversation With Mary Catherine Bateson [4.17.18]