This document was produced in May 2007, and was last modified on 26 May 2008.
This page presents the structure of ideas that will be presented on this website. The information will be segmented into a number of separate articles on different topics. This document in particular helps the reader to place each article within this unifying structure. There will be articles that don’t necessarily fit within this general discourse, I will make them easily distinguishable, but the general goal is to converge towards a unique theory. At this moment, this theory is only generally outlined, and the structure below also helps me to organize my work. As time goes by, this website will eventually grow into a complete theory, and will be synthesized into a unique presentation. Bear in mind that the following structure is also very likely to change.
I decided to let you follow the progression of my work, hoping that if you are interested we can exchange some ideas.
1. Draw the distinction between two important scientific values: its practical value, and its universality (its contribution to our global understanding of the Universe).
1.1. The contribution of science to our global understanding of the Universe
1.1.1. Definition of this value: article (L'Approche Scientifique)
1.1.2. How can we objectively link it to our scientific activities, and to the goals of individuals involved in scientific activities? How can we give reality to this value?
1.1.3. Our historical heritage in doing science: man aspires to approach God, he seeks absolute knowledge, he seeks the Truth. This deep desire is still in effect today and dominates our scientific approaches. It is hard to breake free from our historical heritage. Why is it necessary to realize this and to change our perspectives?
1.2. Practical value of science
1.2.1. Definition of this value: article: L'Approche Scientifique
1.2.2. How can we objectively link it to our scientific activities, and to the goals of individuals involved in scientific activities? How can we give reality to this value? Show how we can link it in an objective way to our scientific activity (goals of those involved in scientific activities)
1.2.2.1. Describe the reality in the industry : article: L'Approche Scientifique
1.2.2.1.1. Engineers seek models that are simple and "do the job" article: L'Approche Scientifique 1.2.2.1.2. The growing use of computers increases and therefore the growing need for syntacticly simple models article: L'Approche Scientifique
1.2.2.1.3. Technological development is driven by pragmatic motives: in applied physics empirical models are used very often
1.3. These two scientific values are incompatible.
1.3.1 Expose the incompatibility
1.3.2. Show that if the incompatibility is not exposed and understood, it generates anomalies, and constitutes an impediment to a harmonious development of science and technology.
1.4. Propose a change to the scientific approach, which takes into account the distinction made above. article: L'Approche Scientifique
1.4.1. Describe the first approach (based on
the value of universality), and its methods.
1.4.2. Describe the second approach (based on
the practical value), and its methods.
1.4.3. How the distinctions
between these two approaches helps scientific and technological development?
1.4.3.1. By instituting these two different approaches we uncouple two scientific goals, and this leads to a reorganization of the scientific community, to a different organization of scientific activities, to a different way of managing resources, to a different way of educating future scientists and engineers, etc.
2. The scientific approach based the practical value (see article: The Structure of Physics)
2.1. Definition of empirical field
2.2. Modeling
2.2.1. Utility of models: why are they so important, and how they foster technological development.
2.2.2. There are different ways to model a given empirical field, explain how that is possible.
2.2.3. Characteristics of a model
2.2.3.1. Ontologies and Metaphysics: the mechanics of a model
2.2.3.2. Logics: deductive rules operating on propositions/thoughts
2.2.3.3. Formalism: ontology&metaphysics and logics mixed together
2.2.3.3.1. Definition of syntactic complexity
2.2.3.3.2. Link between syntactic complexity and the ontology&metaphysic and logic used in the formalism.
2.2.3.4. Characteristics related to the context of its use.
2.2.3.5. Reducing the complexity of a model which has a limited application range and applies to a restricted empirical field. Definition of proper ontology, metaphysic and logic.
2.2.4. Fractionate science into different scientific domains
2.2.4.1. Fractionate by empirical field
2.2.4.2. Fractionate by field of applications, or the use of the knowledge domain in question.
2.2.4.2.1 The direct application of physics (physical schemes) to other fields of knowledge failed, especially in social science.
2.2.4.3. The necessity to extend this process to every scientific domain, tendency of specialization even within one specific scientific domain.
2.2.4.3.1 Scientific domains become increasingly large and deep.
2.2.4.3.2 In general, practical applications require very specialized knowledge, which constitutes only a small part of the whole domain of one scientific discipline.
2.3. Unity in science
2.3.1. Unity is naturally ensured within the scientific approach based on the universality value. This approach gives us a global theory, which will be taken as reference by convention and constitutes the base of a general language, used to translate explanations formulated from other more specific sub-theories.
2.2.2. Unity can also be ensured within the scientific approach based on the practical value. Dictionaries are used to translate each pair of specific theories into one another, unifying in this manner the whole.
3. Consequences
3.1. This leads to the change of our definition of science
3.2. The classical bivalent logic looses its special status
3.3. This leads to a widening of the base on which we think modeling
Inclusion of knowledge from neurosciences, evolutionary biology, and ethology.
3.4. This will cure our science of a certain form of anthropocentrism.
This anthropocentrism implies that scientific knowledge is not connected to our evolutionary past, to our biology, that there is no connection between animal knowledge about the environment, and science.
3.5. This will foster the development of technology, and that of universal knowledge
It will do this by uncoupling the two approaches mentioned above, and by applying specific methods and resources to each one of them.