We Use Three Sciences Everyday
Chapter 10 serializing of Growing Sustainable Children; and, Schools Worthy of Our Affection.
My best guess how, in the next 100 years, whole-child K-12 schooling can evolve worldwide.
Science forgets its debt to imagination — Emerson
The true method of knowledge is experiment ~ William Blake
Do not be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make, the better ~ Emerson
Science is scientific not because of its content but because of its method (Goethe or Leibniz paraphrase? anyone know?)
Two ways to experience a circus
Consider this contrast from Ernst Lehrs: You are 13 years old. The circus comes to town. You have never seen a circus nor seen it on a movie or screen. You want the circus experience. You labor and sweat mowing lawns to earn the price of a ticket; all the time, looking forward to the circus.
When you enter the big top, all your senses are open. Beyond the horses, elephants, trapeze artists, beyond this, a sense of wonder pours into you. In the moment, not easy to articulate the wholeness of your circus experience. Only later, maybe days or weeks later, will you be able to speak and-or write about your conclusions after all your sense impressions and internal movement have integrated and “come to rest.”
Contrast this with: A one-eyed, color-blind millionaire in a wheelchair also wants the circus experience. He has plenty of money but is too cheap to buy a tricket. He rolls around the outside of the Big Top until he finds a small hole in the tent he is able to look thru. Now he can see the big top activity, the women standing on horseback, the elephants, trapeze artists. After watching the circus thru this knothole, the one-eyed, color-blind onlooker reports and/or writes down his report on the circus.
The question to you, the reader is: How will these two reports differ?
Will they differ? How?
If you were present at the end of the circus and could only interview one member of the audience, and you had to pick between the two observers above, who would you prefer to interview? Who’s account is likely to be more interesting and engaging?
Which of the two people would you invite into a Grade 1–4 classroom to describe the circus to children? Why?
The War to define Science
Mainstream corporate media and textbook companies like to present science as some unified front where all scientists are in agreement about the topic at hand. This has more to do with the difficulty of reporters and writers covering a topic where disunity exits, than it does with how scientists think and talk about their field. Briefly, scientists with the most integrity and curiosity welcome coherent, thoughtful criticism and alternative views. Why? This is how science learns. Only those who treat the science in their field like a religious orthodoxy are hostile to different views.
Starting in 2009, Iain McGilChrist, with his breakthru book, subtitled, The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, has taken the lead on rectifying brain science and brain psychology where it was languishing on two fronts:
- The myth of right brain is all painting, creative and feminine (yin); left brain is numbers, logic and male (YANG). This myth had its heyday between 1975 and 1985; and
- The myth the waking human brain performs 100% of its functions based 100% on brain cells, neuron activity, genes and DNA. This myth had its heyday from 1990 — start of the government-funded Decade of the Brain — and 2012.
Iain McGilChrist’s characterizing of how the waking adult brain works is full of useful nuance compared to the two myths above; and, it is empirically based on little-read research on strokes which occurred only in the left brain; and, strokes which occurred only in the right brain hemisphere.
Iain McGilChrist’s characterizing of The Master (right brain) and its emissary (left brain) is too new and complex to easily summarize. A Readers’ Digest version of Iain’s ideas was posted to Medium.com in 2021.
To reduce Iain’s idea down to thimble-size and apply it to science in the way he does, we might say, many conflicts between scientists, from the late 1700s up to today are; more often than not, conflicts between a one-sided, left-brain-only male-dominator, control-mad view of science; and, a two-sided, whole-brained science; including a calm appreciation of the wholeness of things.
This seems to be the conflict behind and under many conflicts in science. This polarity is especially relevant to conflicts between “hard science” and “soft science” (sociology, psychology); as well, as “hard science” and “holistic” approaches generally.
While these science conflicts have been clearly characterized as conflicts between Reductionist (physicalism, materialism) science and (less materialist?) Holistic science, Iain’s rhetoric is even mroe clear, coherent and evidence based.
In 2014 an additional rhetoric reconcile the two warring sides of scinece — however defined — came to light, a gift from Goethe.
dg-three-sciences-triptych
The average adult — especially parents, especially women–use Three Orders of Science on a daily basis.
The most familiar of the Three Sciences will be Second Order Science; so, let’s start here.
Second Order Science: Science of ego survival ~
Each day we make many survival choices, safe, rational evaluations about how to cross a busy street, drive a car, handle power tools, problem solve; in fact, to navigate any new, unfamiliar situation.
Activity and choices around survival are “real,” are one kind of rational thinking; and, this is one category of “science” we use daily.
However, we also use two additional sciences daily…
First Order Science: Immune System intelligence ~
Each day we make choices about what benefits me and only me. Do I like this dress better or that dress? Do I want fish or turkey for lunch today? Is it more beneficial for me to go to bed at 10pm or 11pm? Do I prefer this or that color, style, music, or turn of phrase in my speech?
The archetype of this process occurs 24/7 down below our neck, in our Small Intestine.
In the inner-facing villi (fingers) of our small intestine, our Cell Level Intelligence is “asking” or “testing” every single nutrient floating by: “Is this nutrient safe and beneficial for me to take into my bloodstream now?”
Either this nutrient IS safe and beneficial now; or, it is NOT safe and/nor beneficial now.
Both are true: These choices concern me and me alone; AND, these choices are “real” and rational at their level of function.
First Order Science is — among other things — a science and method of self-connection.
The above adds up to TWO kinds of science (ways of rational choosing, evaluating), two categories of “science” we use everyday.
Take a breath. Let’s pause here to note “selfishness” occurs when the above two sciences fuse and separate from Third Order Science. We can avoid and moderate selfishness only be exercising Third Order Science, the most expanded science of the Three we use daily.
If we only use First and Second Order Science, then everything is “all about me.” “It’s all about me” becomes the mantra, the criteria for every moment of waking life. If an individual employs only First and Second Order Science, life is viewed in terms of win~lose. My needs are more significant than your needs; I win over you; or, your needs or force overpowers me, I lose. Dog eat dog.
A certain amateur television president wonderfully demonstrates daily the pitfalls of limited win~lose thinking. From his example we can learn what not to do.
Third Order Science: social, moral, ethical realities ~
If you are a mother or a father, you make daily choices and decisions assessing the amount of food, clothing, shelter and resources in hand, against the needs of everyone involved. In this “science” we think rationally about how easy — or how difficult — getting more resources is; and, how the on-going needs of each family member expand or shrink, in the next period of time.
This is often summed up as a question: What is the greatest good for the greatest number?
The choices I am making, how do they affect all stakeholders involved?
In this third category of rational choosing-deciding, I alone am no longer the sole stakeholder. Third Order Science is the end of narcissism and the end of unhealthy denial. I choose to consider the needs of my children, retired grandparents; perhaps also, extended family members. I myself am only one member of a greater whole. Choices I make as a parent apportioning resources for the highest good of all, are real and rational. Ask any parent.
By my count, this makes three categories of rational choosing, rational decision making, rational evaluations, we make every day, Three Sciences.
Relevance of each Science Domain to K-12 ed:
First Order Science — the study of known, natural, lawful patterns of…
- Honoring how each child develops somewhat uniquely,
- Growing new eyes to perceive which learning activities, at which age, appeal to a child,
- The three levels of Words, Feelings, Needs unmet in interpersonal communication,
- Understanding the reality of the Habit Body in yourself and others,
- How subjective perception is somewhat unique individually (NLP),
- Child Study issues, what Unconscious Patterns are expressing here?
- Remedial ed and misbehavior topics, George Kelly (Naive Scientist) and Rudolf Dreikurs (mistaken goals of behavior),
- Supporting teachers and parents with self-connection, Inner Child topics, as asked for.
Second Order Science — the study of known, natural, lawful patterns of…
- More precise documenting of sensitive-learning-periods K-12,
- More precise matching of methods-curriculum to sensitive-periods,
- Best Practices in effective classroom management methods, supervised practice,
- Best Practices in facilitating healthy live, group process (dance, sing, paint),
- Aggregating child-dev observations across influences of culture, class, religion and ethnicity,
- Adapting Goethean Psych and Team Human theory-method to new cultural contexts,
Third Order Science — the study of known, natural, lawful patterns of…
- Our school as good neighbor, as civically engaged,
- Salary-benefits fairness,
- Pre-school and retirement benefits,
- Polling for adult education wanted-needed locally,
- Service projects outside the school,
- Service projects in other countries (letter writing, et al),
- Developing global citizens,
- Our school as a seedbed for renewed culture.
Who decides what is real?
Q: Why do we need any science at all?
A: Without any science, we would be unable to ask any useful questions about the natural wonders we wish to learn more about and understand better. Science is largely about asking questions; then, ask a better question.
Another answer is: science is our major “court of appeal” for what is “real” in our consensus reality.
In Goethean Science, THREE domains of what is “true” and “real” exist:
What’s “true” and “real” in First Order Science only has to be true for you, for one person. This is the smallest domain, the domain of the single individual. This is where each person’s uniqueness is honored.
What’s “true” and “real” in Second Order Science, requires the most eviential criteria; therefore, the most narrow definition of “real:”
Hard science criteria is…
For an experiment to produce “real,” “true” results…
- Experimental results must be repeatable for everyone, anywhere on Earth,
- Experimental results must be repeatable at all times,
- Experimental results must be repeatable regardless of subjective state, considerations, politics or religion.
From Goethe’s viewpoint, these criteria restrict human perception to only the middle domain of rational process we use daily.
Indeed, Second Order “hard” science tries to narrow and exclude extraneous and subjective factors to focus narrowly; on usually, only ego survival and profit. The good news? We get indoor plumbing, hot and cold running water and solar panels from applying these narrow criteria.
As the healthy waking human being uses her two hands of rational Thinking and rational Feeling interchangeably; as well as additional intelligences as needed, Goethean Science invite experimenters to report significant findings from any of our 12 senses.
What’s “true” and “real” in Third Order Science, has to be true and valid for all concerned (local stakeholders), for the highest good of all, the “greatest good for the greatest number.”
Experiments are only Goethean when and if all Three Domains of rational inquiry are acknowledged. Hence, the ‘Three Sciences We Use Everyday.’ Nothing scary here.
What is NOT contested is…
The scientific method
This breaks down into several phases.
1) Observe already existing established facts and data.
2) Form a better question, “If this, then what if this…?” (hypothesis).
3) Compose a relevant experiment to explore part or all of your “What if…?” statement
4) Arrange things to physically perform your experiment.
5) Observe what happens, collect data, use instruments AND your own senses,
6) Go inside yourself (if needed) to conclude what was learned from performing the experiment.
7) Report your findings to others (usual but not required),
8) Consider a new “What if…?” question.
Adapted from: https://www.safeopedia.com/definition/2966/scientific-method
Here’s what is contested, what is evolving, what the challenge is to the establishment:
Holistic vs. Reductionist science
Goethean Holistic science is a significant and meaningful meme, not yet an academic field. Perhaps in 50 years we’ll see GHS as a college-level discipline.
Holistic science had to evolve, “pull itself up by its bootstraps” in the peiod 1965–1995 because a great deal of subjective phenomena was emerging and was clearly patterned, yet NOT patterned in any way accessible to Second Order “Sherlock Holmes” hard science. To study systems and sub-systems and ecologies which included subjective behavior and phenomena, experimenters were pushed to develop a new, larger science paradigm. A new science paradigm was needed to encompass expanding visions of the whole-person, in this period, and sort out what was real and what was illusory.
Where old science is only analytical, Goethean holistic Science prefers to start with the whole of a phenomena; and then, move to understand its parts.
An example is modern anthropology. An indigenous culture is studied in its original environment and context before any interventions or experiments are permitted. The intent is mindfulness about the practical future consequences observing and intervening will have on the “ecology” of the culture being studied.
This is “working whole to part.”
Older “Reduction science” more simply documents the art of the indigenous culture, documents the religion of the culture, documents the tribal relationships each separately; and then, tries to assemble an observed whole from these parts.
This is “working part to whole.”
Holistic science holds living phenomena are more than merely the sum of its individual, dead parts.
Reductionist science, aims to reduce living phenomena down to its parts. It holds an understanding of the parts constitutes an understanding of the whole, and further, opportunity to improve, manipulate and control it. This thinking and factory production lines reinforced each other 1750–1980.
Adapted from: https://www.safeopedia.com/definition/2669/holistic-science
