How does perceptions of space, boundaries and centres influence and
shape the application of scientific concepts/knowledge/practices in a
social/environmental context?

i.e. the perception that the environment being studied is separate
from the observer might lead to positivist/traditionalistic approaches
that do not appreciate a more (necessarily) holistic approach in
addressing such complex issues.

I'm interested in any sources that can add anything to the above argument.

---

Clarification of Question by kmanderuk-ga on 20 May 2006 07:00 PDT

Wowzers! My question has seemingly generated plenty of interest and
for that I am very grateful.

Many thanks for the feedback thus far, and my apologies for the lack
of clarity in my original post. Indeed, I will take on the simple but
profound advice to reiterate the question in simpler terms:

Addressing complex issues such as those involving the environment or
society necessarily involves a holistic approach. Such an approach
appreciates looking at things in terms of its bigger picture,
constituted by thinking from multiple disciplines.

My question is thus; how may perceptions of space influence and shape
the application of scientific concepts in a way that contradicts with
this holistic approach? For instance, believing the environment to be
a separate identify from the observer may lead them to attempt to
understand it through reduction techniques (breaking it down) that
ignores the relationships between the individual parts.

Is this clearer?

---

Clarification of Question by kmanderuk-ga on 21 May 2006 14:44 PDT

Many thanks for the input frde-ga, I believe that you now understand
what is behind my question.

If you could provide more of the same, highlighting points from both
sides of the argument then I am very happy to accept an answer from
yourself. I am also looking for any links that Google can drum that
verify each argument with an authoritative source.

Lastly, I am also looking for some philosophical/scientific debate
that examines why it is that we break things down and how this may be
created by how we see ourselves not being connected to the environment
or society.

For a start I would translate that into plain English.

Your first paragraph is nearly indeciferable, but I'll try :-

  How is the observer's view affected by his/her environment ?

The second paragraph appears to be :

  Would an 'alien' observer miss the finer nuances ?

I strongly suggest that you concentrate on translating jargon into simple English
- when others can understand things, then you have a chance of
understanding it yourself.

Spouting jargon is an indication that one is either a 'bullsh*t
artist' or that one has no idea what one is talking about
- actually replace 'or' with 'vel' - which means 'and/or/both'

It is pretty obvious that observers tend to spot things that are
unfamiliar to them. It is also pretty obvious that they miss the finer
points of etiquette, but that might be a little like spotting an
invisible elephant and not seeing a mosquito.

Just translate 'pilpul' into plain English
- in future it will help you translating other peoples inarticulate ramblings
- they - or their audiences - tend to be grateful

@Frde,
I agree with you  - for your and my understanding -   but maybe this
is some kind of academic work, and one has to use the jargon.

Personally, I think the statements are correct, whether applied to
Margaret Mead's anthropological work (including her being misled) or
that of management consultants.

Hmm... 

You might have tracked down the source of that illiterate nonsense
- but that does not mean it is useful 
  (apart from an an example of inarticularcy)

Mostly, I reckon, you have spent your life tearing apart B*lls*it
- mostly it is the obvious, or at worst, the King's New Clothes

I suppose it was ever thus

I agree. I re-read it thrice.. and I cant seem to understant (besides
that what is the understanding of Space and how does it affect your
views) the rest of the question...

Maybe you can split it in simple questions and repost it.. 

frd: lmao @ tearing apart bs... myo was helping though!

@sonoritygenius-ga 

MyOarin - AKA Ratty  (with approbation) has a pretty good idea of common sense.

Lamentably I regret a lack of 'moron speak'
- well is rather unusual

There is a lot to be said for Fragging
- I am programmed for 'never incompetentents again''

well, here are some sources:

http://www.brianswimme.org/store/default.asp

these DVDs and CD sets are quite expensive, but if you're seriously
interested in this subject, Swimme is your guy.  In Canticle to the
Cosmos he describes how it is possible that gravity itself might have
induced humans to evolve toward love, compassion, altruism.

Aside from Swimme, Indian philosopher J. Krishnamurti had a lot to say
about the observer and the observed

https://bookstore.kfa.org/cat/catalog/

and so did theoretical physicist Dr. David Bohm:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-1552837-9171940?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=stripbooks%3Arelevance-above&field-keywords=David%20Bohm

good luck

***

I'm not sure what you're looking for but your question reminds me of a
paper I had to write in Philosophy 101.

"Is space real or a condition of my being by which I perceive the real?"

I had no idea how to approach the question and there was no Internet
to help me get my bearings. I didn't even have the sense to ask the
librarian for help. I produced three pages and got a very bad grade.

Kmanderuk-ga,
Perhaps you can give us some help with understanding the question.

Phew - I garbled that - wine I'm afraid.

Actually I've often found that getting people to explain things in
plain English gets them to understand the subject.

@MyOarin, you're quite right - kmanderuk-ga needs to clarify his/her question.

Frde,
You are quite right about the value of restating the problem/question.
 Often I have recognized immediately the answer to something as I
began to try to explain to someone what I was looking for.
Let's hope this works for Kmanderuk-ga.

Myo

@kmanderuk-ga 

Here is an example.

In Economics there is an assumption 'ceteris paribus' which means all
other things being equal.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus

Now, we know that in Economics, everything is complexly interrelated,
so that assumption is regarded as a sort of joke
- yet without it one cannot demonstrate the simplest principles

In order to get anywhere, in Economics, one has to take a deliberately
non-holistic approach.

Another example is maps - we all know that the Earth is curved, yet to
produce a World map we have to use the Mercator projection, similarly
smaller maps have to ignore curvature, otherwise we would not be able
to get our heads around them.

You get similar 'assumptions' with physics, is light a wave or a beam of photons ?

Often it is necessary to 'break things down' in order to understand them.
Personally I believe that we understand things in 'metaphors'
- 'metaphors' are not the real thing, but without them we get bogged down.

Of course, the danger of looking at things in isolation, is that we
miss the overall picture - eg: 'can't see the wood for the trees'
- but the alternative is not seeing the trees for the wood (forest).

@kmanderuk-ga 

Sadly I am just a commenter - a member of the Peanut Gallery
- Official Answerers have their names in blue

However I'll keep thinking on this one
- and maybe others will have some ideas, now we know what you are after

Kmanderuk-ga,
also from the Peanut Gallery:
I like Frde's direction on this subject, which led to the thought that
most of us in most situations are on familiar territory and have the
"big picture".  Although we tend to consider individual parts of a
routine or activity as such, from long experience, we unconsciously
have an holistic overview and recognize if we change a seemingly
independent procedure in our personal or professional routine what
effect this will how on other procedures.  This unconscious holistic
approach works fairly smoothly and unnoticed and protects us from
mistakes  - and allows us to concentrate on the various steps of the
procedure, to see them in the foreground.

Example (banal): I make breakfast every day and have a well-tuned
routine that is efficient, and I know how to adapt the order of the
various steps if I poach instead of fry the eggs, or something else
intrudes on the timeframe.

Contrasting example  (equally banal):  What happens when most husbands
(ex-officio household management experts) venture to make a obvious
suggestion about how the wife could/should do something better in the
kitchen or laundry.
He quickly gets rebuked for his lack of an holistic overview, not that
she uses that expression, but her arguments are succinct and
justified.

I expect that you are seeking rather more "up-market" examples and
obviously also scientific support.  Complaints about management
consultants' work is a possibly promising area.
Just recently in German, there has been a lot of noise about a book
that criticizes local, state and federal governments' increased
dependence on consultants to make decisions which, in principle, could
be made by the employees in the government departments who have the
training and experience necessary.  As the book points out, the
outside consultants have to pick the brains of these people to even
start to make a feasable recommendation  - and sometimes they don't.

One could argue that the bureaucracy has grown so large that no one
has the holistic overview, but one could also argue that while this
may be partly true, it has developed routines of interdepartmental
approval that preclude errors (some, at least).

Any help?

@Myoarin

I like your first example, that for me is catalogued as 'rule of thumb'
- don't research, just do it.

The management consultant thing is interesting.

A management consultant once told me that the trick is to find the
subordinates (plural) recommendations and then find different reasons
- the boss is so used to hearing them that they don't need to be forced in
- but an 'authoritive external' source does not rock the pedestal

You are describing 'back protection'
- if things go wrong they can join the finger pointing brigade.

Many years ago my youngest brother described a 'company position'
- the decision maker - the Sundenbok - but also the Oracle
- I was charmed, he had found out what I had been doing for years

Management consultants are useful, personally they cost you nothing,
they are no threat (if you employ them), total and utter tarts (which
is handy), and they don't mind much if you slag them off personally -
although their holding company might dish the dirt if you make it too
general (without giving them another contract).

I would give management consultancy companies the same approbation
that I would give high class prostitutes
- darn good at the job
- just what you wanted
- but not what you needed