Andrew, Ivan, and Michael make some fascinating and insightful points in
the exchange below.
Andrew Moreno wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Dr. Ivan Blanco wrote:
>
> > I think that one of our major problems in our world comes from the belief
> > that things, all things can be solved through science.
>
> I agree.
>
> > They can't see any unusual
> > events becuast they want everything to be proven and supported by data and
> > the scientific analysis of that data. There things of the spirit, things
> > that are related to hunched people have, or just "ideas" that can solve
> > problems too, but cannot be scientifixally tested.
>
> I think this is information that falls outside of the boundaries
> of the scientific method.
to which Michael replied (pardon my editing, Mike, hope I have not changed
the meaning), [Host's Note: Actually, the quote below is by Jim
Michmerhuizen in LO4320.]
"You know guys, this is right near my theme about story versus law.
"If something happens only once in the history of the universe, how can I
_know_ anything of its causes? What statistical analyses can I perform on
a singular event? What is the information content of "law-abiding"
events? What is the information content of exceptions?....
"...[science]...can help me to choose between conflicting theories; it
cannot generate theories. But for centuries now the popular stereotype of
scientific research has been just that: scientists research into facts and
learn theories from facts."
*** End of quotes ***
I think this is very well put. I would add two points that are relevant
to learning organizations. First, as Michael [Host: Jim, I think] says,
facts do not create theories, people create theories. Theories are only
metaphors whose purpose is to provide people with 'shared understanding'
about the world. Theories do not and cannot exist separate from learners.
On the other hand, theories are valuable metaphors for learners, and those
metaphors allow different people to recreate specific environments in
which well-defined inputs will produce very specific outputs.
The last phrase is crucial to high performing teams or learning
organizations. High performers are always searching for situations in
which "Well defined inputs produce very specific outputs" because that is
a powerful way to leverage past learnings.
Which leads to my second point. High performing teams are likely to go
beyond the mere practice of leveraging past learnings, and in fact, they
are _more_ likely to execute the 'hunches' or 'things of the spirit' than
normal teams. This is captured in the phrase 'making your own luck'. We
should respect and not underestimate the importance of these
'seredipitous' successes. However, I bet there is a pretty solid linkage
between 'serendipitous' success and conscious high performance. In other
words, people who are highly expert in their field and use that expertise
regularly in pursuit of outstanding performance begin to practice things
that work even though no one consciously understands why.
When they do that the first time we call it a hunch. If it is never
repeated, then perhaps it _was_ just something of the spirit. It is
important to celebrate it and reflect on it and capture it in a history,
but unfortunately, it is unclear how to use it in learning. If, on the
other hand, a serendipitous event _is_ ever repeated (and captured, I
might add), then we start to build theories to explain why, and we try to
consciously replicate the behavior somewhere else. This is science.
Perhaps science begins with two data points.
-- Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc 76234.3636@compuserve.com