A philosophical note on concept reengineering
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:37 am
A philosophical note on concept reengineering
Take this article as an example. It is fairly recent, it is not without its merits, it considers a variety of aspects, environmental factors, mixes things up with genetic factors, makes a number of suggestions on the way etc. I am sure the authors have tried to do a good job…
quote from: http://www.nature.com/nrneurol/journal/ ... 010.1.html
Environmental factors and their timing in adult-onset multiple sclerosis
Adam E. Handel, Gavin Giovannoni, George C. Ebers & Sreeram V. Ramagopalan
Abstract
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a common, complex neurological disease. Epidemiological data implicate both genetic and environmental factors in the etiology of MS, with various factors interacting with one another. Environmental exposures might occur long before the disease becomes clinically evident, as suggested by the wide range in onset age. In this Review, we examine the key time periods during which the environment might contribute to MS susceptibility, as well as the potential environmental factors involved. Understanding the nature of environmental influences in MS is highly relevant to the development of public health measures that are aimed at preventing this debilitating disease.
unquote
If you read the article against the background of the knowledge that was developed on this thread and you start to see things with different eyes and in a different light, inevitably you will start to associate or explain many of the issues at stake in different perhaps unusual ways. But fact is that so many of these issues of the MS puzzle then fit together so neatly that one really starts to wonder about the validity of the old concept and whether the concept perhaps needs some reengineering. To this end, it may be useful to reflect a bit more on this in a philosophical manner.
There is no such thing as a neutral apprehension of reality. Philosophy tells us that we grasp the world around us through concepts. Even when we think that we are representing our environment in a specular or objective way, our perception is necessarily mediated by concepts, as if they were the keyholes through which we inevitably see and perceive reality. Concepts show their efficacy by providing us with an understanding of our surrounding realities and a means by which we are able to grasp those realities. Knowledge aggregates around given concepts. And these concepts become a means to an end (whatever good this end pretends to be - sometimes not even far from totalitarianism). As humans, we all experience the internal dialogue between good and bad and in building our support structures we make this polarized figure external to build a collective identity where the sphere is hardened by the illusion that the most efficient way to make the field of expertise good is to make each of its members good.
[This is precisely what happened with the field of neurology. Its members created and then consolidated their own world, looking into the wrong direction and betting on the wrong concept. The system grew insular and stagnant. Everybody was happy, the pharmaceutical industry as they could go on selling their CRAB medications (CRAB stands for Copaxone, Rebif, Avonex and Betaferon, the main immuno suppressive therapies for MS, expensive but not very effective to say the least...), the academics and researchers as they could go on playing and do their own little things each in their own little garden (not sharing too much because that could be damaging re: patents etc), doctors followed the protocols (got their patients for a lifetime, no risk for themselves or their hospital), and government officials must have been quite happy as the system was stable and predictable, year after year... So everybody was happy, except the patients. They were left out in the cold, they had no voice ... And the system sustained itself, for decades... That is until the Internet came along...]
But sources of inspiration and references are multiple and diverse. A new very rich environment was brought about by the Internet. The social fora help to make new connections, the search machines provide unprecedented means to search, order and catalogue information and acquire new knowledge. In philosophical terms, the space between us collapses. A global college emerges. New collective cognitions develop beyond the traditional boundaries of fields. In this global college, there is a new reality - a new space, more like a local playground for all - emerging.
The exercise focusses on what matters for the new inhabitants, inspired doctors, entrepreneurs and enlightened masses, often outside traditional boundaries or believes. New concepts are designed, adapted or re-adapted, as we have seen happen here. The focus is on the means and preconditions to reinvigorate the sense of plurality. This is essential for paradigm shifts to happen and provides a new basis for knowledge accumulation and for the production of a new sense of meaning.
We fear and reject what we fail to understand and semanticise. The dominance of negative projections about the future is often the signature of the inadequacy of our current conceptual toolbox. We must reflect meaningfully on what happens to us, and thereby help us envision the future in positive terms. In that sense, this thread carries an important philosophical message: the overall purpose of this concept reengineering exercise was to acknowledge such inadequacy and explore alternative conceptualisations that enable us to re-envisage our future with greater confidence.
"What I propose in the following is a
reconsideration of the human condition
from the vantage point of our newest
experiences and most recent fears. This,
obviously, is a matter of thought, and
thoughtlessness – the heedless
recklessness or hopeless confusion or
complacent repetition of 'truths' which
have become trivial and empty –seems to
me among the outstanding characteristics
of our time. What I propose, therefore, is
very simple: it is nothing more than to
think what we are doing". Hannah
Arendt, Prologue of "The Human
Condition", 1958.
Take this article as an example. It is fairly recent, it is not without its merits, it considers a variety of aspects, environmental factors, mixes things up with genetic factors, makes a number of suggestions on the way etc. I am sure the authors have tried to do a good job…
quote from: http://www.nature.com/nrneurol/journal/ ... 010.1.html
Environmental factors and their timing in adult-onset multiple sclerosis
Adam E. Handel, Gavin Giovannoni, George C. Ebers & Sreeram V. Ramagopalan
Abstract
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a common, complex neurological disease. Epidemiological data implicate both genetic and environmental factors in the etiology of MS, with various factors interacting with one another. Environmental exposures might occur long before the disease becomes clinically evident, as suggested by the wide range in onset age. In this Review, we examine the key time periods during which the environment might contribute to MS susceptibility, as well as the potential environmental factors involved. Understanding the nature of environmental influences in MS is highly relevant to the development of public health measures that are aimed at preventing this debilitating disease.
unquote
If you read the article against the background of the knowledge that was developed on this thread and you start to see things with different eyes and in a different light, inevitably you will start to associate or explain many of the issues at stake in different perhaps unusual ways. But fact is that so many of these issues of the MS puzzle then fit together so neatly that one really starts to wonder about the validity of the old concept and whether the concept perhaps needs some reengineering. To this end, it may be useful to reflect a bit more on this in a philosophical manner.
There is no such thing as a neutral apprehension of reality. Philosophy tells us that we grasp the world around us through concepts. Even when we think that we are representing our environment in a specular or objective way, our perception is necessarily mediated by concepts, as if they were the keyholes through which we inevitably see and perceive reality. Concepts show their efficacy by providing us with an understanding of our surrounding realities and a means by which we are able to grasp those realities. Knowledge aggregates around given concepts. And these concepts become a means to an end (whatever good this end pretends to be - sometimes not even far from totalitarianism). As humans, we all experience the internal dialogue between good and bad and in building our support structures we make this polarized figure external to build a collective identity where the sphere is hardened by the illusion that the most efficient way to make the field of expertise good is to make each of its members good.
[This is precisely what happened with the field of neurology. Its members created and then consolidated their own world, looking into the wrong direction and betting on the wrong concept. The system grew insular and stagnant. Everybody was happy, the pharmaceutical industry as they could go on selling their CRAB medications (CRAB stands for Copaxone, Rebif, Avonex and Betaferon, the main immuno suppressive therapies for MS, expensive but not very effective to say the least...), the academics and researchers as they could go on playing and do their own little things each in their own little garden (not sharing too much because that could be damaging re: patents etc), doctors followed the protocols (got their patients for a lifetime, no risk for themselves or their hospital), and government officials must have been quite happy as the system was stable and predictable, year after year... So everybody was happy, except the patients. They were left out in the cold, they had no voice ... And the system sustained itself, for decades... That is until the Internet came along...]
But sources of inspiration and references are multiple and diverse. A new very rich environment was brought about by the Internet. The social fora help to make new connections, the search machines provide unprecedented means to search, order and catalogue information and acquire new knowledge. In philosophical terms, the space between us collapses. A global college emerges. New collective cognitions develop beyond the traditional boundaries of fields. In this global college, there is a new reality - a new space, more like a local playground for all - emerging.
The exercise focusses on what matters for the new inhabitants, inspired doctors, entrepreneurs and enlightened masses, often outside traditional boundaries or believes. New concepts are designed, adapted or re-adapted, as we have seen happen here. The focus is on the means and preconditions to reinvigorate the sense of plurality. This is essential for paradigm shifts to happen and provides a new basis for knowledge accumulation and for the production of a new sense of meaning.
We fear and reject what we fail to understand and semanticise. The dominance of negative projections about the future is often the signature of the inadequacy of our current conceptual toolbox. We must reflect meaningfully on what happens to us, and thereby help us envision the future in positive terms. In that sense, this thread carries an important philosophical message: the overall purpose of this concept reengineering exercise was to acknowledge such inadequacy and explore alternative conceptualisations that enable us to re-envisage our future with greater confidence.
"What I propose in the following is a
reconsideration of the human condition
from the vantage point of our newest
experiences and most recent fears. This,
obviously, is a matter of thought, and
thoughtlessness – the heedless
recklessness or hopeless confusion or
complacent repetition of 'truths' which
have become trivial and empty –seems to
me among the outstanding characteristics
of our time. What I propose, therefore, is
very simple: it is nothing more than to
think what we are doing". Hannah
Arendt, Prologue of "The Human
Condition", 1958.
