Kineman, J. 1997. Theory of Autevolution
Discussion III:
Cultural perspectives
Cultural perspectives
- Growth of global system science
- Figure 2: Scientific integration and global science
- Thought problem on global futures
- Figure 2: Scientific integration and global science
In this section I present two cultural perspectives in the tradition
of Thomas Kuhn. The first attempts to outline trends in the growth
global systems science, possibly indicating a scientific revolution.
The second attempts to give an example of interdependency between
epistemology itself (the human definition of knowledge) and the
future of the global environment.
| Previous section | Next section |
Growth of global system science
Holistic concepts of the Earth, including its environment and
biota, have been increasing in prominence (e.g. “Deep Ecology,”
Gaia, etc.) and there is considerable discussion about what changes
in scientific thinking may be in store. In 1986 there was a major
shift in the goals of geoscience towards an interdisciplinary
“Earth system” view (Earth System Science Committee, 1988;
International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, 1988).
Changes associated with this view are now occurring in a profound
way at scientific and political levels internationally.
It is interesting to look at these events in terms of a social
and historical perspective (an approach that Thomas Kuhn increasingly
favored in his philosophy of scientific revolutions). This view
claims that both current and new scientific world views involve
not just scientists, but all of society and historical developments.
If we are nearing a major paradigm shift, perhaps requiring a
new view of life and systems, then it should be evident at many
levels of society.
The diagram in Figure 2 depicts this “Kuhnian” perspective
for global geoscience, showing a trend toward integration and
globalization in three critical areas represented as science,
technology, and society. From this perspective, advancement from
one stage to the next depends on a sufficient level of development
in all three areas of the preceding stage. With respect to more
systemic and perhaps holistic views of the Earth such as evolutionary
Gaia and others, we may now be witnessing the maturation of Stage
II in the figure, and the beginnings of Stage III where interdisciplinary
global science may spawn new theory and perhaps a new worldview.
From this perspective, the conditions seem right for change.
Figure 2: Scientific integration and global science
DIVERSITY |
INTEGRATION |
SYNTHESIS |
|||
|
|
n f o r m a t i o n |
Disciplinary limitations |
Global Research |
(Systems?) Science |
o r l d v i e w |
|
|
O O L S |
(information age) |
Visualization |
|
e t h o d s |
|
|
s y c h e |
(globalization) |
|
|
u l t u r e |
Thought problem on global futures
A characteristic notion in statements about Gaia is that it is
impossible even for humans to separate ourselves from the system
of study, as reflected in the concept of “participatory
science” (Abram, 1985).
The current global situation appears to be developing in a way
that will not allow us to avoid this issue much longer. A thought
problem can illustrate this in regard to human psychology and
the study of global climate:
Hypothesis 1: Scientific beliefs and our philosophy
of science significantly affect cultural values and beliefs (Kuhn, 1970).
Hypothesis 2: Cultural beliefs about man’s relation
to nature significantly affect (through industry and policy) the
amount and kind of impacts that will result from human activity.
Specifically, societies with strong cultural beliefs that man
is an integral part of nature tend to have less overall impact,
and vice-versa. (Posey, 1989)
Hypothesis 3: Human activity significantly affects
the global climate system. (Schneider, 1989)
If we accept each of the above hypotheses (all reasonable and
testable, according to references indicated): then it follows
that a dominant scientific paradigm wherein science must be
purely objective (i.e. necessarily equating knowledge with separation
from nature), will result, paradoxically, in participatory effects
on the climate system.
The worldview of life as a fundamentally creative and interactive
force, and corresponding adjustments in our theory of knowledge,
is quite different in its effects from the idea that separation
from nature is possible for scientific or other purposes. The
above scenario thus claims that it is not possible to retain
a belief in separation within our theory about knowledge (i.e.
pure objectivity), without having it also reflected in our theory
and practice as a society and in our effect on the environment.
Treating strong Gaia as “metaphor” may not be a strong
enough position to alter the scenario. The Western cultural tradition,
for example, recognizes metaphor for cultural enrichment, but
believes in science as the agent of progress. The kind of progress
we will have may be a direct reflection of how we pursue science
and how inclusive the worldview is made.
| Return to menu | Next section |
Revised and reprinted from: Kineman, John Jay. 1991. “Gaia:
hypothesis or worldview?” Paper delivered at the American
Geophysical Union annual Chapman Conference, panel on epistemology,
March, 1988, San Diego, California. Chapter 7 In: Schneider, S.
H., and P. J. Boston (eds). 1991. Scientists on Gaia. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press. 433p.
Please cite as: Kineman, John Jay. 1997. “Toward a special
and general theory of autevolution.” Boulder: Bear Mountain
Institute. HTML publication on the World Wide Web.
All rights reserved
Please address comments to: John Jay Kineman