1
VERTICAL INTEGRATION OF SCIENCE:
CONSIDERING THE SYSTEMS SCIENCE
5th International Conference. Proceedings of the HTN 2000 Conference. Moscow, VINITI, 2000, 265-266.
EMILIA CURRÁS
Academician, University Professor
Gold Medal of Kaula and Fedine Foundations
European Chemist, Ils. Fellow
E.U. Evaluation Expert
KEYWORDS: Systems Science, vertical integration of science, science as unity, unity of knowledge, new concept of science, social problems, new world order, system thinking.
ABSTRACT
Science is considered as a whole, as a unity of knowledge, in which the different branches of wisdom are integrated, forming a complex, evolutive, open and fuzzy system Each one of the different sciences, parts of the human knowledge, are the holons in the unity of science, in dialectic interactions. The vertical integration in science, ascendant or descendant is studied. It means a mentality change a more general vision, which, may be, can the humanity helps to solve its today´s problems.
Mankind is clearly at a transcendentally important point in history, and also politically and economically. This crisis situation has been denounced by several authors and I have also mentioned it in other papers. It is also something that requires no proof, its indicators and consequences are self evident.
When, about twenty years ago, people began to speak about society being in crisis, are the effects of this were felt in daily life, it seemed daring and even pessimistic to think that this was the beginning of a period of transformation or transmutation. To relate crisis with transmutation was considered the audacity of avan-garde and eccentric thinkers. So much has been written and the symptoms are so obvious that there is no alternative but to accept these ideas and realities. Proposed solutions have been extremely few those applied or adopted even fewer.
Given the situation, why are we incapable of finding solutions and putting them into practice?. The reason is that we have to change our thought. “Anew man” should be born with new ways of thinking and of acting in responsibility. For a good number of years (it is difficult to define how many), thinkers for all parts and all ideologies, have talked about the change in mentality that is necessary to focus on solutions to the problems of today. Of those I best I know, I will mention: Augerow C., Chernisyshow M.Y., Fernando de Elzaburu, E. Laszlo, Alwin Deimer, Heidegger, John Mc Hales, Fichte and Hegel.
If emphasis has been given to the present situation of mankind and the need to undergo a change in mentality it has been with the idea of upholding the following reasoning.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE
One of the changes in the way of thinking, now becoming evident, consist in considering the superiority of the whole over each of its parts. For example, the Club the Rome maintains that questions should be dealt with globality, applying local solutions. R. Rodríguez Delgado, in the `presentation of the Revista Internacional de Sistemas ( International Review of Systems, Spain), speak of the need to create a theoretical frame work containing a global vision of knowledge and human activities. Bogdanov, in his Tektology, advocates a holistic way of thinking as a source of development which he considers a systemic philosophical principle. Fichte and Hegel refer to the passing of the philosophy of the facts to that of the environment. Fritjof Capra offers a new vision of the Universe as a dynamic weaving of interrelated events, in which no property of the parts is fundamental and is the union of all the peculiarities and mutual relations that determines the structure of the whole. All these ideas and postulates likewise outline the principles of systems science.
In fact, from my point of view, systems theory with its vision of a whole, where mankind can be considered as a complex, evolving and fuzzy system, in which the participating subsystems are in dialectic interaction among themselves and simultaneously. With their environment, can provide solutions for our present situation and the mental impulse we need to implement the much required change in the way of thinking.
THE PARTICIPATION OF SCIENCE
Science is one of the pillars in the evolution of mankind. Science can be considered as a unity of the branches of knowledge and as the way to reach these. These ideas are precisely one of the first indications of the advocated change in thought.
Not long ago, and even today, science was considered to refer only to a knowledge of nature, and what was objectively real and existing. The study of matters related to the manifestations of the spirit, such as philosophy and art history, belonged to the world of the humanities, opposed to, and at odds with science. L. van Bertalanffy made efforts to demonstrate that both manifestations of the human intellect are intimately related. Teilhard de Chardin said that science is the sister of the humanities. Perhaps those who carry out highly specialized and technical activities might still propose differences. However, the idea of a fraternal union is growing and gradually spreading.
The idea of science as a unity of the branches of knowledge is not noew. The postulates of Tao refer to this. However, we know that ideas (which are rarely new and original) recur in cycles of varying length, tracing a curve of maxima and minima along a central line which represent the evolution of mankind. We find then, from 2500 BC to present times, the same ideas reflected at varying intervals by the thinkers of the times: Albertus Magnus, Hermes Trimegisto, Jarl Marx and more recently Schrödinger and Morcillo Corveto. From recent times we can mention: Heisenberg, who quantified development in the search for the unity of science; Weizsäcker, who tells us that our spirit is looking for the unity of science: and Elzaburu, who refers to science as a knowledge that directs the sense of behaviour, Alexander King generalizes even more by combining knowledge with the close relationship between phenomena, events and states of understanding.
Science, as mentioned before, embraces all the learning accumulated to date, the ways to achieve such learning and the ways of acquiring new knowledge. When expressed in such a general way, it becomes ambiguous and inconsistent. However, if one delves into these postulates, one find the inclusion from mere definitions to theories of applications, scientific methods, research procedures, manufacturing processes, the influence of various factors such as information, prospecting techniques, in fact everything that contains science and makes science.
Science is both unique and plural. As a system, it is made up of subsystems, basic elements which Koestler and Smyties called “holons”. These holons are not simple but are composed of other subsystems, similarly complex. All this is influenced by vectors, fluxes and refluxes in dialectic interaction, as I postulate in the article “Dialectic Interaction in Science” (1989-1990) .
THE VERTICAL INTEGRATION OF THE SCIENCES
Science is therefore composed of the different sciences in a highly complex integration and system of interrelations. This complexity increases with advances in the evolution of mankind and of all vital phenomena on our planet, and the future of the cosmos itself. The process of integration has traditionally been studied from a horizontal viewpoint. If it is held that all manifestation and successes of the human intellect have a place in a given aspect of science, i.e. in one of the sciences of which it is formed, such as historical, legal, chemical or biological, there is understood to be a concordance between them, relating them on planes at the same level. This line of thought involves significant difficulties when the real aim is to look for solutions to the crisis which we are living.
It is true that there are no superior or inferior sciences. All hold equal importance in the union of the branches of learning, and all should be studies individually as a complete whole with its own characteristic and peculiarities.
However, when one wants to study the interrelations between some sciences and others, in processes of integration that provide global views of where to extract practical and local solutions for the evils in any aspect of our life, be it political, social or economic, we have to change our way of thinking, our mentality. We have to enter a new level already postulated by David Walsh, Bela H. Banathy, I. Prigogine, M. Jackson and F. de Elzaburu (1988), among others.
Let us try then by considering the integration of sciences in a vertical sense. Each of the different sciences (branches of human knowledge) constitutes a link within science as a unity. This link in influenced by different links, or sciences, to an extent that is determined by the environment of knowledge of each in relation to the rest, or to a specific one under study. In order to achieve complete knowledge of each branch of the science, one should start with the one which serves as a basis and then move up or down, introducing other more complex sciences or complementary means, within the environment of learning to which the science under study refers.
It might then appear that we are considering some sciences as principals and others as being complementary. That could be within each of the sciences.
In one instance a particular science might play a principal role, and a complementary role in another. Likewise, certain sciences affect all the rest, while others relate only to a few, within their degree of affinity.
When reading studies about science and other subjects we can find, without perhaps realizing it, references to these ideas on the vertical integration of sciences. In the 6th Book of the Tao, for example, it is mentioned that when it is considered that things integrate, it is possible to understand the nature of Heaven, Earth and all things. The integration here is downwards, from the supernatural (perhaps only universal), to the nature knowledge (of nature), to the social, economic and political (composing “all things”). Eric Schwarrtz refers to the man-cosmos integration. Here it is understood that the relationship of the aforementioned parts of the science is made by means of an upwards integration, the opposite of the previous case. Paolo Manzelli postulates that classical physics does not help in understanding the energy-matter-information relationship. For this it is necessary to introduce intermediate processes where the chemical processes play an important role. Likewise, F. de Elzaburu assures us that biology derives from physics, which means a vertical leap from the latter, considered as a basis, to the former, as a final climax. Mario Bunge, on the other hand, proposes that all systems contain five interdependent aspects: cultural, political, economic, biological and environmental. In other words, five manifestations of a further five branches of science in ascending degrees of complexity. Bohm and Chew coincide in that the “conscience” or moral sciences should be included in the future theory of physical phenomena or physical sciences, if we wish to understand the essential aspects of the universe. In their fundamental ideologies, these authors coincide with the theories of Fritjof Capra, and are not far removed from the principles of the Tao of Physiscs. From another point of view, Karl Popper considers psychology within physics.
These are enough examples to show that the vertical integration of sciences is an underlying idea in the minds of contemporary thinkers.
STRUCTURE OF THE SCIENCE SYSTEM IN
ITS VERTICAL INTEGRATION
It has to be agreed that the difference branches of human knowledge which make up the unity of science exert varying degrees and levels of influence on each other. Such an example is chemistry, which is influenced by physics, biology, meteorology, zoology, etc. In psychology one has to take into account the influence of sociology, morals, biology, etc. In information, as a branch of human knowledge, information science, electronics and philosophy intervene. We likewise should agree that certain sciences appear to be the basis for acquiring full knowledge of another science. Physical science is the basis for the study of chemistry, medicine for studying psychology, and botany is the basis for agriculture. It is also true that certain sciences intervene in the development of other branches of knowledge. It is evident that history, mathematics (particularly in its practical and statistical applications), geography, ethics and information in its information science form, are all sciences that should be included in the study of any science that should be included in the study of any science. The degree of dependence and influence of a science on others would vary according to each case, so that the network of relationships appears as complex with concordant and discordant interrelationships all evolving in space and in time.
Let us imagine a hexahedron with rectangular faces. Internally, this hexahedron is made up of a series of columns, formed of blocks or bricks of differing height and width. If we were to build a real model we could use colours for the different blocks and this illustrates their interactions.
Each column represents a branch of the unity of science. Hence, we would have physics, chemistry, ecology, economics, law, philosophy, history, etc., each forming a basic unit, or holon, of the system. This holon in turn is not simple, it is complex and forms a subsystem of a complexity similar to that of the global unitary system.
The holons are made up of blocks that vertically, either upwards or downwards, form an complete the column. The blocks, in turn, form branches of science. In other words, at times a certain science appears as a principal holon and at others as one of the links forming another holon. This can be illustrated by certain practical cases. In order to study medicine, it is necessary to start with biology, and perhaps even with embryology, and then to add links such as sociology, psychology, physics, chemistry, history, information and finally ecology. When wanting to study ecology, mineralogy should be taken into account as well as adding botany, zoology, agriculture, meteorology, sociology, economics, history, statistics, information, an so on. In the case of philosophy, one would have to being with neurophysiology, which embraces research on brain processes when creating a line of reasoning, and continue with epistemology, ethics, and so on.