StructuredDream

New Merit Review - Intro

2012-01-12T11:48:00.000-03:00

There are 13 team members listed in development of the NSF-MRC: John Bruer, Alan Leshner, Louis Lanzerotti, Doug Randall, Diane Souvaine, Thomas Taylor, Ray Bowen, etc.

To the general email address for the National Science Board, I sent the following request for an explanation:

Title: Transformative Research and NSB/MR-11-22

GoodDay,

Fromwhat I gather out of the latestNSB report on NSF Merit Review Criteria, neither the team itself nor“stakeholders” identified by SRI included a single specialist in the history ofscientific revolutions to inform the report’s definitions & understandingof “transformative”. As this type is explicitly defined as the highestvalue, and the top Foundation support priority within the domain of projects“of the highest quality”, such absence seems to warrant explanation.

Substantialknowledge has been gained during the past half-century, making NSB inclusion ofvague and naïve preconceptions baffling. Examples include misconceptionsof the creative process, and a definition of TR from NSF-07-032 which fails tomeet minimal standards for scoping and explanation properly required of anydefinition.

From several perspectives, including that of strategic alignment, organizationalleadership, and portfolio management, a number of observers remain baffled andare trying to understand what’s going on.

Itseems the history and lessons learned by research into successfultransformative concept development has been overlooked and/or avoided sinceearly planning during the 2005 Santa Fe workshops.

Whomight be able to explain why integration of such important knowledge continuesto fail?

SincereThanks,

Buck

Initial Reaction to NSB-11-22 Merit Review

2012-01-11T20:15:00.004-03:00

I was nota fan of the newreport...in fact, it struck me as unbelievable.

"Transformativeresearch" (TR) is indicated as the top priority, openly acknowledged asthe highest value advancement in science, yet not a single expert in scientificrevolutions appears to have been consulted, but lots of engineers,administrators, and specialists in well-established specialist disciplines likeoceanography, weather, etc.

Where isNancy Nersessian's landmark theory that demonstrates in detail the processes bywhich scientific creativity occurs? What about Andersen, Barker, & Chen'selucidation of the distinguishing structures possessed by revolutionaryparadigms? Instead, the equivalent of "old wives tales" are repeated,with revolutionary creativity treated as some sort of mystical event that mightas well have come out of Hogwart's.

There'snot even one team member specializing in “Project Management”, the discipline concernedwith successfully delivering unique results within time & financial constraints.All productive research efforts are projects which can benefit from PM, buthigh-risk efforts are in spectacular and obvious need of such expertise.

I'mastounded that none of these knowledge areas have been included in the pastseven years, going back to the 2005 workshops at the Santa Fe Institute.

TheStructuredDream blog is going to point out areas where this report could beimproved with bafflingly overlooked material relative to TR.

Objectivity 1.3 - Objectivity is New

2012-01-11T20:13:00.000-03:00

Section 1.3 opens by contrasting objectivity as virtue (something good, according to a particular paradigm), against both the older "truth to nature" and the more recent "trained judgment" virtues. These are called "epistemic" virtues, meaning they pertain to "how we know" something is scientifically true and/or accurate. Scientific theories which describe reality are always subject to revision, and therefore accompanied by some level of certainty, whereas in pure mathematics and logic, absolute statements can be made because they can be placed in an artificial scope, such as "integers" about which consequences that are absolutely necessary can be deduced from the definition of an integer.

When dealing with nature however, we don't have the ability to restrict what reality can do, and our preconceptions frequently get the rug pulled out from under them.