mj<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@ScienceCommunicator" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>ScienceCommunicator</span></a></span> </p><p>We have 2 important considerations regarding this topic, IMO.</p><p>One is that we are not separate from the world we study. That we must always allow for interactions we find in similar subjects external to us to be operating in similar fashion inside of our own <a href="https://c.im/tags/systems" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>systems</span></a>. That is, we cannot build our models separately, with the outcome of purely phenomenological & physiological perspectives. Of course, where the similarities are few, those unique views are necessary. Consciousness would be one area where our experience should be included & weighed heavy in the model.</p><p>The other comes from <a href="https://c.im/tags/reductionism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>reductionism</span></a>, and the need to incorporate boundaries, phase changes, and other <a href="https://c.im/tags/emergent" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>emergent</span></a> phenomena that won't agree with the <a href="https://c.im/tags/linear" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>linear</span></a> summation during the reconstruction of the parts we identified on the way down.</p><p>So going down the chain of molecules, elements, and atoms, for example, is not different from examining <a href="https://c.im/tags/evolution" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>evolution</span></a> connections, or life itself. There is no reverse at some points, and even where there is time reversal <a href="https://c.im/tags/symmetry" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>symmetry</span></a>, the paths are not always direct, 1:1 increments. (see 'islands of stability', for example)</p><p>We have a bad tendency of always ending up framing it in black or white terms, like " <a href="https://c.im/tags/nature" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>nature</span></a> vs nurture", when the actual situations nearly always require both.</p><p>One of the unfortunate elements of the <a href="https://c.im/tags/scientific" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>scientific</span></a> method centered on reduction is that the first impression (indeed very strong) comes in the results section, from the questions asked at the start. Those have been stripped of all <a href="https://c.im/tags/context" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>context</span></a> variation & complexity, and that is where it leaves off in most cases. For the vast majority of humans, the deeper layers are never seen or explored; the simplified meme is what propagates most prolifically.</p><p>Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to layer the <a href="https://c.im/tags/complexity" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>complexity</span></a> back in, one layer at a time, and continue our pursuit of higher <a href="https://c.im/tags/knowledge" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>knowledge</span></a>. This will require some modifications to our current system!</p>