Between The Walls Of Silence There Is A Silhouette With The Form Of An Interrogation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)


Between The Walls Of Silence There Is A Silhouette With The Form Of An Interrogation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

silence-of-knowledge(update 22 Feb 2017 from here)

In this post I try to touch issues driving our current state of human development and behaviour for the two most relevant aspects of our evolution.

Social interaction and critical thinking.

Both components, social driven and thought driven, are being increasingly dominated by the application of algorithms. In both cases, social behaviour and critical thinking (including scientific) are being isolated from tangible “reality” due to a developed dependency which, in many cases, leave us with our senses being occupied in reacting to stimulus created from algorithms, loosing the capacity of creativity outside those walls.

We are starting to forget that there is an empty space in the absence of directions given which can only be occupied by our capacity to think and innovate.

In the absence of guidance we are starting to find a type of silence which becomes a huge question mark. And this question mark is not questioning the source of it, but our own capacity to feel integrated. We are beginning to be judge by our capacity to follow above our capacity to innovate. It is making ourselves the subjects of analyses instead of questioning the validity of the methodology applied.

Our capacity to innovate applying analytical thinking is being focused on perfectionating methods which can replace our own capacity to assess situations and generate outcomes. Such scenario has demanded an increasingly enhanced capacity from us to find ways of making easier to follow instructions generated by either the social media or the scientific stats and models.

I think this is easy to see in social behaviour and the challenge of being socially integrated in the absence of continuously feeding our avatars.

However, it also plays a role in science. I leave you here a reference to support my point about this issue in science:

“Scientific method: Statistical errors. ” P values, the ‘gold standard’ of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. Regina Nuzzo. 12 February 2014.

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700

“Researchers need to realize the limits of conventional statistics, Goodman says. They should instead bring into their analysis elements of scientific judgement about the plausibility of a hypothesis and study limitations that are normally banished to the discussion section: results of identical or similar experiments, proposed mechanisms, clinical knowledge and so on. Statistician Richard Royall of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, said that there are three questions a scientist might want to ask after a study: ‘What is the evidence?’ ‘What should I believe?’ and ‘What should I do?’ One method cannot answer all these questions, Goodman says: “The numbers are where the scientific discussion should start, not end.”

(end update 22 Feb 2017)

“Philosophy of Science”. What are the special conditions that make burst of progress in science?

Recently I have participated in a discussion about the following subject and I want to share my answer here as well:

In the Ancient Rome, the Senate would decree a solemn tribute to a national hero according to ancient ritual. The victorious general would ride through the streets in a chariot wearing a laurel wreath and a purple toga, with a slave holding a golden crown over his head and whispering in his ear, ‘Look behind you; remember, you are only a man.’
Science and Philosophy are sides of the same coin but, it seems that we have stopped hearing the whisper ‘Look behind you; remember, you are only a man.’

Once upon a time, the ones describing the composition, structure and behaviour of the world were called Philosophers. Then the so called “Scientific revolution” brought accuracy through experimentation and the scientific method offering tangible methods of replication to validate, as much the science as the scientist defending a position.

From my point of view there is a catch in this application of the scientific method.

The basic application of this principle is so humanly focused upon the sense of control that it misses the reality of its nature “remember, you are only a man”.

This circumstance translates into seeing theories and new developments trapped under the mud of lacking the capabilities, tools, methods and tangible demonstration of their own validity.

It is not enough for one person to be visionary among others. In today’s time, scientific innovation has to be tangible and verifiable by an officially recognised method.

So THE method acquires all the protagonism. If you want to make a breakthrough in science you have to do it by THE method.

The much claimed necessity for finding a flawless method, in order to be safe when you try to offer innovation in science, has added an immense pressure over the scientists and the scientific thought.

Accordingly, the focus of attention in science has been placed over the mere development of “structures” as part of methods aimed to gather a specific type data above everything else or incentivating the scientific thought required to make sense out of all types of data.

As a result:

The scientific method was based on finding first the theory and them the method. Now, any new idea in the scientific field has to come from an already developed method. So if you want to offer a new innovative idea in science, you have to do it from within THE method. First you have to learn how to use THE method which everybody has approved, and then create whatever you think it is worthy, BUT, within THE method.

As part of this tendency, papers have appeared bringing in front packages of data and results of numerical methods as the main justification to claim value of THE method, despite the lack of theoretical innovation describing conceptual mechanisms driving the generation of the data in itself.

Two examples of this tendency of focusing the attention over THE method above everything else are becoming evident in two forms:

  • In today’s time there is more demand for “data management” and “computer modelling” than for raw scientific thought. (see related post following this link)
  • If you want to make research in aspects like climate, you have to either adopt a model already scientifically accepted by the community or to build “a model” which can replicate your scientific thoughts. And yet, any model will carry a level of uncertainty. A level of uncertainty which could be comparable with the level of uncertainty carried by any scientific thought obtained by raw scientific thought.

In the present time, numbers have conquered the privilege of being more or less reliable/valuable than raw thought.

And yet, every method we develop is made containing and replicating an expression of our own limitations, and we are only humans playing with numbers.

Algorithms

Algorithms work in our daily life when we distinguish known faces from those of strangers, or when we write and read familiar languages, or when we identify forms on clouds in the sky.

We identify conceptually recognisable patterns from otherwise random conformations of data. The thing is, just because it comes comprehensible to our knowledge, it does not make it what we want it to be. It looks like but it is not. And even our own state of mind, some days everybody seems familiar, and clouds are full of animals flying, will restrict our capacity to recognise the meaning behind either, the existence, or the “lack of” patterns.

Through algorithms we can identify many different forms on a cloud holding in the sky. But if we apply algorithms to make sense out of the form of a cloud we might miss the only true meaning of the pattern defining what the cloud is and what it behaves as, a cloud.

Progress in Science

Progress in Science requires an expression of thought which is not driven by static algorithms or conceptualised dogmas, otherwise it becomes biased on its bases.

Like with any ecosystem, Science, in order to be resilient and efficient, requires diversity.

Science and scientific bursts of progress can not be achieved by applying the same algorithms by all scientists.

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” – George S. Patton

Science has to be made from teams accommodating the application of a diverse type of algorithms; mathematical, conceptual, philosophical, artistic, …

In order to see a pattern which we have not seen before, we have to release ourselves from applying the same mental algorithms.

In order to discover something new we have to loosen up preconceptions and to allow for something new to exist. Otherwise, if we rely constantly in static methods and same mental (or mathematical) algorithms, our method will be our limitation. And when THE method does not show what we can recognise, we will not see it.

Our brain is the only instrument which can create algorithms on its own, on the flow. You just need to change what “up” and “down” means and you will discover your brain in a new state of creativity.

Ups and Downs by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD

Animation applied in the publication of this blog (Ups and downs on Climatic Assessments. Link here)

And above all, scientists will always hear the constant whisper ‘Look behind you; remember, you are only a man.’

Between The Walls Of Silence There Is A Silhouette With The Form Of An Interrogation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

When we have a blank page in front we can describe shapes in two different ways.

  • If “we know” where do we want to arrive (to draw a shape),  we can apply ink to mark what we know and obtain a contrast with the white colour of our paper.
  • If “we do not know” what is that we want to achieve we can start by just making darker the space that we know that we do not want and see what it is left.

What it is describing the shape for the state of knowledge in our societies and scientific communities is not what we have learnt with the years, but what we are missing.

How many decisions and conclusions are adopted based entirely on machine generated output? We are already being driven by AI without notice it. So, the challenge might not be WHAT IF or HOW it will be to have Artificial Intelligence (AI) running among us. The question is how long will it take for us to become aware of AI running us. Before AI steals our jobs, AI might steal our capacity to make decisions.


(for more assessments and discussions over environmental issues see also categories at the top page, e.g.

 


Feb 2017-

The work which I present in my blog is just a chapter in my career. At this point it has reached an stage in which its framework has been defined and it has been applied in follow-ups delivering the subsequent conclusions. Now it is time for my career to find new ways of growth so I am looking for new opportunities and new challenges, to join a team. Therefore, meanwhile I look for job openings to incorporate my resume, I would encourage any one finding interesting any of the skills which I apply throughout my research, as well as communicator, to evaluate my profile as a candidate for your projects.

Author’s Disclosure Declaration

For those unaware of the content offered in this blog I might have to issue a warning: Handle with care. Also with the product obtained from scientific analytical thinking there are traces of personal and professional “passion”, by-products obtained from “original and unpeered grey matter juice” originated from “independent critical thinking”. Also sometimes the packaging might be rough around the edges due to its “unfunded nature”.

4 years ago I joined a discussion which made me realise how much knowledge was settled on the past, built upon past conventions and unable to give answers about present developments in all parts of our environment. From the impact from GMOs, plastics, soils degradation, atmospheric composition, land use and cover, water cycles, … I had addressed scientifically unanswered questions before doing my PhD so I decided to give it a go and to offer my take over those gaps. It has been a pilgrimage to become aware of how much faith and fear is put on scientific publishing above raw understanding and discussion.

I do not know how far this blog will go, however, it represents the assessment of a global process and I expect that past posts will become a description of continuous present for the next years.

Altogether, the body of work which represents the line of research presented in this blog is composed by more than 190 pieces, covering data analyses and conceptual discussions. All those different discussions and assessments presented here build together a single concept. The format applied is the result of making a big effort trying to apply simplistic approaches with the aim to allow a multidisciplinary access. Since the topics treated in my publications have implications for many sectors in the academic and not academic world, with the aim of allowing my research for open review, there is also the objective of allowing access to a multisectorial and multidisciplinary audience sharing interest.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.

For a more profound discussion over my assessments and analyses as well as constructive feedback, please use my email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com.

My agenda is simple, I am in transition looking for either funding to grow the research published in this blog or for a job position in any field in which my assets are valued. Behind my research there is nothing more, nothing else than to showcase my capabilities doing what I like, research. I am a methodologist. I don´t look at the color of the result obtained, only at the suitability of the method and the coherence of the result. As I have said before, if I am wrong on my assessments and conclusions, it will be better for all, and my work would showcase my capabilities anyway. A CV shines the goals obtained by anyone, but by publishing here my research, I expose myself and my work to public judgement. There is a difference between being naive and raw. If you see the difference you will understand better my work and my personal position.

The aim of publishing my work openly is to allow for it to be exposed for an open review. So any constructive feedback is welcome. After a period of time of at least a month from the publishing date on this blog and at LinkedIn, if no comments are found refuting the value of the piece published I then publish it at ResearchGate generating a DOI for posterior references.

In order to protect my intellectual rights, more assessment in depth and the statistical and numerical analyses that I have performed to support my arguments can be discussed at my email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

If you find that my work is worthy to be acknowledged, share your thoughts openly and publicly because by sharing public acknowledging over the value of my work is what will help me in order to find the attention from those able to allow me access to a job position or resources to increase the functionality of my research.

Perspective

(This post is part of a more complex piece of independent research. I don´t have funding, political agenda or publishing revenues from visits. Any scientist working in disciplines related with the topics that I treat in my blog knows how to judge the contribution that my work could potentially add to the state of knowledge. Since I am in transition looking for a position in research, if you are one of those scientists, by just acknowledging any value you might see from my contribution, would not only make justice to my effort as independent researcher, but ultimately, it will help me to enhance my chances to find a position with resources to further develop my work.

I believe that the hypothesis that I have presented in previous posts in this blog (here, hereand here) could help to understand present and possible future scenarios in atmospheric circulation. However, this is an assessment based on observation which needs to be validated throughout open discussion and data gathering. So please feel free to incorporate your thoughts and comments in a constructive manner.

If you feel like sharing this post I would appreciate to have a reference about the place or platform, by private or public message, in order for me to have the opportunity to join the debate and be aware of the repercussion which might generate d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

This work is protected under Intellectual Property laws licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.)

Since October 2013 I have been publishing pieces of research studying the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream and the weather events associated as well as the implications derived into atmospheric dynamics and environmental synergies.

Many of the atmospheric configurations and weather and climate events we see these days are very similar with the progression followed since 2013. Please take a look at posts addressing those events from previous publications in this blog or look at the categories in the top menu. Also at research-gate. Feedback is always welcomed either in this blog or at my email (d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com). All my work is part of my Intellectual Portfolio, registered under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License,  WordPress.com license and it is being implemented at my profile in researchgate. I will fight for its recognition in case of misuse.

More assessments presenting chronologically the line of research published in this blog can be accessed in the category Framework and Timeline.

For anybody interested in the posts related with this discussion here I leave you those more relevant in chronological order (there are comments bellow some of them. Please check them out, updated 09th Dec 2016):

 

Advertisements

About Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

Citing This Site "Title", published online "Month"+"Year", retrieved on "Month""Day", "Year" from http://www.diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com. By Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. More guidance on citing this web as a source can be found at NASA webpage: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/bibliography/citations#! Bachelor in General Biology, Masters degree "Licenciado" in Environmental Sciences (2001, Spain). PhD in Aerobiology (2007, UK). Lived, acquired training and worked in Spain, UK, Germany and Poland. I have shared the outcome from my previous work as scientific speaker in events held in those countries as well as in Switzerland and Finland. After couple of years performing research and working in institutions linked with environmental research and management, I find myself in a period of transition searching for a new position or funding to support my research. In the present competitive scenario, instead of just moving my cv and wait for my next opportunity to arrive, I have decided to invest also my energy and time in opening my own line of research showing what I am capable of. The value of the data and the original nature of the research presented in this blog has proved to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community as well as for publication in scientific journals. However, without a position as member of an institution, it becomes very challenging to be published. I hope that this handicap do not overshadow the value of my work and the intellectual rights represented by the license of attribution attached are respected and considered by the scientist involved in this line of research. Any comment and feedback aimed to be constructive is welcome. In this blog I publish pieces of research focused on addressing relevant environmental questions. Furthermore, I try to break the barrier that academic publications very often offer isolating scientific findings from the general public. In that way I address those topics which I am familiar with, thanks to my training in environmental research, making them available throughout my posts. (see "Framework and Timeline" for a complete index). At this moment, 2017, I am living in Spain with no affiliation attachments. Free to relocate geographically worldwide. If you feel that I could be a contribution to your institution, team and projects don´t hesitate in contact me at d.fdezsevilla (at) gmail.com or consult my profile at LinkedIn, ResearchGate and Academia.edu. Also, I'd appreciate information about any opportunity that you might know and believe it could match with my aptitudes. The conclusions and ideas expressed in each post as part of my own creativity are part of my Intellectual Portfolio and are protected by Intellectual Property Laws. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial conditions. In citing my work from this website, be sure to include the date of access. (c)Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD, 2016. Filling in or Finding Out the gaps around. Publication accessed 20YY-MM-DD at http://www.diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/
This entry was posted in Energy Balance, Filling in, Opinion and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s