Workshop

Steve Wallis in action.  Photo by Dr. Jerry. Here, we are conducting a Gap Analysis and exploring the possibility of integrating two theories to create a better one.

Frans Hermans and I

Dr. Hermans has some great ideas for me... helping IPA through future stages of it's evolution.

Where today, IPA works very well for evaluating and integrating smaller theoretical models, Frans showed how very large models could be evaluated using methods and software from graph theory, network theory, social network analysis  (basically, we treat the concepts as people and the causality as communication).

This is a very important concern. We need these kinds of advanced tools if we hope to create policy models of sufficient breadth and depth to allow us to understand and resolve the problemsof the world.

Nodir and I

Working with Dr. Nodir Djanibekov. He is continuing to develop a very insightful study of scholarship in Central Asia.

Connecting at the edge of Chaos

For those of you who are following this blog for more intellectual insights, here is a new thought on a key idea that many of us have been  wrestling with.

At the center of this issue Is the notion of parsimony. Generally considered  synonymous with the idea that theories  should be as small and simple as possible.

As noted in my articles, there are many scholars who argue for theory that is not parsimonious. And, of course, my research indicates that there is no great reason to have theory that is parsimonious, except to make it convenient. To solve the problems of today's world, however, we don't need tools that are convenient, we need tools that work.

A better standard, then, is to create theories that are more complex and more systemic - to represent our world which is both complex and systemic.

Now, I would like to add one more idea to the mix.

Perhaps it is important that we create series of such high levels of complexity that we cannot possibly grasp the full meaning of the theories. Because, then we will have an indicator that our theories are one step closer to replicating our minds and our realities... Which are so complex that we cannot possibly understand them.

In this way, we are pushing ourselves to the "edge of chaos" where many new insight are said to occur.

Alexander Prishchepov and I

Marvelous fun with causal mapping as Dr. Prishchepov explores deeper understandings of land system change for agriculture, reforestation, and the development of more effective theories and policies.

Ethics, multicultural, interdisciplinary

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3si65yhre2ojdtu/Ethics-muticultiural-interdisciplinary-Seminar.pdf?dl=0

Abstration, causality, orthogonality

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hs4yxwok0wtaqaq/Abstraction-Causality-Orthogonality-Seminar.pdf?dl=0

CAS, Complex Adaptive Systems, Logic Structures

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0nq14894h2skuku/CAS-%26-Logic-Structures-Seminar.pdf?dl=0

The yin-yang meta-level task for the 21st century

There appears to be a yin yang relationship between our data... and the logics we use to organize the data. The emergent result of that interaction is human understanding. Neither, by itself is sufficient for generating actionable knowledge. When there is a higher quality and quantity of each and when the two are in balance, then we are able to have a better understanding of the world and achieve more reliable success.

In ancient times, they had observational data, but only limited logics. That imbalance led to spurious speculation in attempting to reach understanding. Examples such as lodestones having breath, or a geocentric universe.

During the dark ages, numerous arguments arose around the nature of those speculations. Eventually we came to realize that there was an imbalance. We needed more data to resolve arguments. For example, without a way to measure pins and angels, one could not come to a reliable conclusion about how many might dance on the head of a pin.

The new logic was more structured than the old. Think, for example of Toulmin's rules for resolving diputes of science. This new and more useful logic led to a drive for data. And, the scientific revolution was the result. The ensuing balance between data and logic provided us the laws of physics, advances in medicine, and so on.

Today, that apprach has been so successful that we are inundated with data. Again, we are out of balance. And, as in ancient times, we are driven to spurious conclusions. We have only a pretense of knowledge. We do not even know what we are missing. We conduct careful research to gain amazing amounts of data, then use that data to generate theories that do not work and policies that are terrible failures.

The challenge of the 21st century, and for our generation, is to find a new balance. We may do this by developing new logics for understanding our data.

When we do this, we will have a new revolution comparable to the scientific revolution. And the world will be changed in astonishing ways that we cannot predict... nor yet understand.

Nozilakhon Mukhamedova

Nozila is a research associate at IAMO working on her PhD.  Her focus is on land and water reform in central Asia.  Like most doctoral candidates she suffers from having too much knowledge... and a slight difficulty finding how to put all the pieces together into a coherent picture. Here, we're talking about using IPA to map multiple theoretical perspectives - to create that picture and provide a map for moving forward on her dissertation.

Expect amazing things from this person!

Dr. Vladislav Valentinov

A contemplative thinker of great philosophical depth and dedication. Here, Vladislav is using IPA to develop a more effective theory of structural change. Of additional distinction are the works of art on his wall - provided by his talented daughters!