Relational Science was developed to understand the dynamics of living systems rather than a reductionist view that examines mainly the structures. Relational Science follows the lineage from Nicolas Rashevsky theoretical physicist, Robert Rosen, and Dr. Aloisius H. Louie, mathematical biologists, and has been picked up by John Kineman, CU Boulder Professor.
Beyond biology, ecology, economy, and other social sciences are beginning to incorporate relational science to help clarify perceptions and relevance of measured goals. Relational Science uses set theory and category theory (mapping). Its all about what one chooses to place in the set, what’s important here.
Can Quality Enter the Equation?
Menas Kafatos and Deepak Chopra have argued that a Theory of Everything, as physics has yet been unable to realize, must include Qualia. Qualia, for us humans, can be described as the experience one draws from the senses. Qualia, quality, beauty, and experiences are all things that make us feel like loving human beings. In Vedic literature, this is taken further to imply levels of consciousness. In other words, a Theory of Everything must include consciousness.
A Step towards Consciousness?
Relational science may be a step in the direction of incorporating consciousness into the hard sciences. Rather than simply measuring “structures” of a complex system, importance is placed on the “functioning” between structures. Functional relationships between the parts is organized in sets and mapped. It then becomes the task to determine which function/ structure relationships to place in the sets.
A simple example of this is a lock and key. The function is to open a door. Cells have lock and key mechanisms that allow ions to pass through the cell membranes; e.g. sodium enters and potassium exits through the cell membrane. The structure of key and lock do determine the function. Function is determined by the relationship between the two. Does this key fit that door? The function, in fact is given precedence over structure in this model. so much so, in fact,
Economic Example
A more intricate example applies Rosen’s ideas to GDP. In 2007 European Commission, European Parliment, and the WWF was looking beyond Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the assessment of economic performance and social progress. Recall Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness Index! Added to that is reflexivity, defined here.
The focus on the quality of quantitative indicators makes it possible to introduce the concept of reflexivity. Reflexivity is understood here as a call for the careful consideration of values in science … the analysis of how indicators are produced makes it possible to highlight the normative aspect of pre-analytical choices and the role of the analyst in the representation of the observed system. In this framework, quality is defined as fitness for purpose. The quality of indicators can then be assessed in terms of their usefulness and relevance, which in turn makes it necessary to take into consideration the social and political context in which they are used.
Zora Kovacic, Mario Giampietro
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270956249_Beyond_beyond_GDP_indicators_The_need_for_reflexivity_in_science_for_governance
Quality – Fitness for Purpose
So, relational science has gone from function, to quality, to purpose and reflexivity in a few decades. Can it be taken further? to meaning or experience? Consciousness?
To be continued …