UEFDSA new‘paperintegraali.com/dsa/2019-8-small.pdf · UEF DSA UEFDSA new‘paper...

UEFDSA UEFDSA new‘paper

Joensuu/Kuopio, Finland

VOL.I. . . No.8 DECEMBER 19, 2019 ZERO BITCOINS

VOL.I. . . No.8 UEFDSA newspaper DECEMBER 19, 2019 ii

Contents

Ari J. Tervashonka:• Is the making of PhD acompetition?Juha-Matti Huusko:• Santa Claus lookalikesLenka Dvořáková:• The man behind the whitebeard

Cover photo:Venetian Carouselin Kuopioby Lenka Dvořáková.

Osta suosittu Ari TervashonganLyhyt akateeminen erityispere-hdytys Ebook (noin 60 sivua).NYT vain 4,99 €

Oletko pohtinut mikä on opti-maalinen tie akateemiseen men-estykseen? Akateemiselle ke-hittymiselle on loputtomasti eri-laisia reittejä, mutta monia näistäyhdistää holistinen ja generalisti-nen ote. Tässä kirjassa ei siksiesitetä asioita yleistettyinä selfhelp näkökulmina, vaan aiheinajoita lukija itse kehittää omientarpeidensa mukaan. Tarkoituk-sena on havahduttaa lukija kehi-tyksen kokonaisuuteen. Rasituk-sesta väsynyt mieli ei opi samallatavalla kuin huolehdittu, avaraja intuitiota käyttävä mieli. Kir-joituksilla avataan aiheita, joidenyhteisenä pyrkimyksenä on aka-teemisesta elämästä huolehtimi-nen, sekä kauniin mielen intu-ition synty.

Kirjan voi ostaa esimerkiksi verkkosivultahttps://www.bod.fi/kirjakauppa/lyhyt-akateeminen-erityisperehdytys-ari-tervashonka-9789528005254

UEFDSA newspaperISSN 2669-8951 (electronic)ISSN 2669-8943 (printed)Made by University of Eastern Finland DoctoralStudent Association (Itä-Suomen yliopiston jatko-opiskelijoiden yhdistys - UEF DSA ry)Funding This newspaper supports itself. No mem-bership fees are used to produce it.Appears once a month as pdf at http://www.uef.fi/web/dsa/newspaperEditor 1 Juha-Matti HuuskoEditor 2 Ari J. TervashonkaAdvertising [email protected]

Writers (contributions, “≥” = at least )• Juha-Matti Huusko (∞)• Ari J. Tervashonka (∞)• Rowmika Ravi (≥ 4)• Aytaç Yürükçü, cultural reporter• Lenka Dvořáková (≥ 1)• Otto Korhonen (≥ 1)• Become a writer! By writing 6 stories per year,you get an official writer status and a certificate.Photographers• Salseng Mrong (≥ 6)• Rowmika Ravi (≥ 4)• Lenka Dvořáková (≥ 3)• Become a photographer! By sending us 20 photosper year, you get an official photographer status anda certificate.

Contact us at [email protected]

https://www.bod.fi/kirjakauppa/lyhyt-akateeminen-erityisperehdytys-ari-tervashonka-9789528005254




http://www.uef.fi/web/dsa/newspaper

http://www.uef.fi/web/dsa/newspaper

[email protected]

https://www.instagram.com/salseng.mrong/

[email protected]

Call For Papers

We call for all the scientific essays, unpublished abstract papers, philosophical writings, and summaries or research with the authors’ name on it. If you are a member of DSA, staff member of the UEF or otherwise interested in themes of science and philosophy you can submit your paper in all these categories. We will start our science paper in the following UEFDSA Newspaper issues. Do you want to publish more general material? Do you wish to fatten your writer portfolios? Now there is a great chance to do that and also let other people actually know about your research.

One reason for this call of papers is to promote doctoral students and researchers alike for the wider audience and also promote the constant effort that we do during the doctoral studies. We also want to open this forum for methodological development and general scientific reference frame development that requires more philosophical reach than many of the peer-review papers would allow. This includes also themes that are still within the realm of speculation and try-out phases. Send papers to [email protected] for the edit.

Science categories will be

I. Scientific essays II. Philosophical writings III. Summaries of research IV. Unpublished abstract papers V. Methodological essays VI. Book reviews

Freedom for the scientific essays!

Ari J. Tervashonka – vice editor in chief

VOL.I. . . No.8 UEFDSA newspaper DECEMBER 19, 2019 iii

VOL.I. . . No.8 UEFDSA newspaper DECEMBER 19, 2019 iv

Is the making of PhDa competition?

By ARI J. TERVASHONKA— A

PERSONWHO READS LORD

BYRON

In many ways doctoral disserta-tions are measured with grades andin a way bidded against each otherso that the grades can be given.Also when the post-doc phase be-gins new doctors of that and thatcompete on the national and globalmarkets of surplus academics. Butis the making of the PhD a compe-tition?

In principle, every thesisshould be unique, because of thestandard demand for the new sci-ence. We are creating somethingnew that did not exist before. Newmeasurements, new hypothesesand theories, new interpretationsand qualitative measures of certainphenomena. Bidding these uniquecreations against each other feelssubjectively artificial. It can onlybe a raw estimate of immediatefunctional value or methodologi-cal merit within the field of study.

I would not, however, lose the

spirit of competition. It can fuelany individual to give their verybest for their causes and clarify theimportance of their deeds. The sci-entific writer must always believewhat they write. It would be un-bearable to write 4 years or morewithout feeling the essence of ur-gency and the call of the agency.This competition is a very specifickind. It is not a competition againstothers or in comparison to others.It is not competition only againstyourself to be a bit better at whatyou are doing. In so to speak na-ture of this competition it is notwatered by the outside criteria, itis the selfless competition towardsthe maximum potential. Nothingmore, nothing less.

It is arduous competitionagainst laziness, generalization,bad sources and lower standards.It is an utter onslaught of the merci-less bombardment of realities try-ing to inhibit scientific progress. Itcan mean arguable and dubious oc-currences, methodological endlessdeconstruction, proud chivalry ofpeers, and above all, philosophicalfoundation building.

Do not ever forget your men-tors and peers, those who helpedyour growth. Be kind and just, full

of valour and shield those peerswho face the hardships of beingan intellect. The sword that youcan gain after the dissertation isnot a mere piece of metal. It isreminder of darker times when theideal of Universitas needed defend-ers. If you are able, remember yourtask not only to research or teachbut also remember the name of theword of science. Remember to de-fend the efforts of centuries, andthe global academic community re-gardless of the country, regardlessof the names. Defend the scientificinquiry in society.

To those who are struggling inthe valley of shadows, I dare sayyour time will come. Gather your-self from the reclus of the boredomand misery, find new companionsand better corners of the Worldto continue where you were leftoff. Do absolutely everything inyour power to succeed because thisis only one life. Be intellectualheavyweight, do everything, tryall, question the World and neverstop writing.

Ari J. [email protected]

UEFDSA 2019Miia Hurskainen chairAri J. Tervashonka vice chairBukunmi Akinwunmi secretaryJuha-Matti Huusko treasurerHasan Sohail events managerKatarzyna Wisniewska social media(Kasia) coordinatorKenneth Muhumuza material managerKatinka Käyhkö associate

To join as a member in UEFDSA, you need to• be a PhD student in UEF• pay a 10€ membership fee once• fill a membership application formMore information at:http://www.uef.fi/fi/web/dsa/membershipAlso non-members are welcome to join our events.From non-members, we usually collect a 2€ fee tocover for the snacks present, if any.

[email protected]

[email protected]

http://www.uef.fi/fi/web/dsa/membership

VOL.I. . . No.8 UEFDSA newspaper DECEMBER 19, 2019 v

Advertisement pricesIf you want to publish advertisements at a fair price contact us with youradvertisement at [email protected]

For the next newspaper(regular price)Size A5 70 €Size A6 30 €Size A7 15 €Size A8 10 €Size A9 5 €

For the next 3 newspapers(ota 3, maksa 2)Size A5 140 €Size A6 60 €Size A7 30 €Size A8 20 €Size A9 10 €

Long term(at least 3 newspapers)Size A5 46.60 € / newspaperSize A6 20 € / newspaperSize A7 10 € / newspaperSize A8 6.60 € / newspaperSize A9 3.30 € / newspaper

Full page size advertisements are negotiable.

• UEFDSA newspaper supports itself. It is not done with membership fees.• Of the advertisement money, 70 % goes to expenses of writers and magazine.

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8A9

Buy an ad For example, thisA9 ad costs 5€. Moreover,if you post this ad for everyissue, it is only 3.30€/month.Contact: [email protected]

Osta mainos. Esimerkiksitämä A9-kokoinen mainosmaksaa 5€. Kuukausittainenhinta 3.30€/kk.Ota yhteyttä: [email protected]

Köp en annons. Till exem-pel, den här A9 annonsenkostar 5€. Månatliga priset är3.30€/månat.Vänligen kontakta oss:[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

VOL.I. . . No.8 UEFDSA newspaper DECEMBER 19, 2019 vi

He talks kindly of different kinds of people.

He is quite famous, but he is not looking for fame.

He can be heard in the radio.

With his band, he has made a Christmas CD.

But is he the Santa Claus?

VOL.I. . . No.8 UEFDSA newspaper DECEMBER 19, 2019 vii

. . . no, it is Gösta Sundqvist!

Gösta Sundqvist (1957–2003) was a Finnish mu-sician and radio personality. He was the leadingsinger and songwriter for the band Leevi and theLeavings.

In his lyrics, Gösta discussed different kinds ofpeople. The person in the song may. . . burn his sauna(Koko talvi kesämökillä), be crazy and keep danc-ing in her apartment (Amalia), call his ex-girlfriend

during the night (Mitä kuuluu, Marja-Leena?), travelto Turkmenistan to get a girlfriend (Turkmenialainentyttöystävä), speed with his car (Teuvo, maanteidenkuningas), travel to North Carelia (Pohjois-Karjala).

Some songs are sad (Pimeä tie, mukavaa matkaa),some are sensual (Eldorado; Melkein vieraissa), someare happy (Vakosamettihousuinen mies; Onnelliset).

You can find the next song, for example, in Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjd43yqKZc

Leevi and the Leavings– Joulukertomus

Taas on jouluaatto, näkeehän sen almanakasta.Sataa lunta, kenties ensi yönä alkaa jo pakastaa.

Jossain onnellinen perhe avaa joululahjojaan. Mevain vaimon kanssa hiljaisuutta ääneti kuunnellaan.

Muistan vielä, kuinka ennen täällä joululaulut soi,kuinka joulukuusi kynttilöineen joulun tunnelmaaloi.

Kuka jouluaattoiltana voi oveen koputtaa? EihänJoulupukki meillä ole vuosiin vieraillutkaan.

No ei se ollut Joulupukki, valkoparta, vanha ukki,kun tyttäremme lapsi sylissään meidät yllättää. Oletlaihtunut ja liian hento. Joulun ihme. Tähdenlentotaivaastako teidät tänne toi? Joulun kellot soi.

Pikku tyttäremme ei kai vielä äiti olla voi, siltipienokaisen kanssa meille joulun tullessaan toi.Tämä joululahja ihmeellinen joulun pelastaa. Vanhakeinuheppa ullakolta esiin taas tulla saa.

No ei se ollut Joulupukki, valkoparta, vanha ukki,kun tyttäremme lapsi sylissään meidät yllättää. Oletlaihtunut ja liian hento, joulun ihme tähdenlentotaivaastako teidät tänne toi? Joulun kellot soi.

Leevi and the Leavings– Christmas story

It is Christmas eve, you can see it from the cal-endar. It is snowing. Perhaps next night it will getcolder.

Somewhere a happy family is opening their Christ-mas presents. With my wife, we are just silentlylistening to the silence.

I still remember how Christmas songs were play-ing here before. Christmas tree, with its candles,brought the Christmas atmosphere.

Who can knock to the door on Christmas eve?Santa Claus has not visited our house for many years.

It was not Santa Claus, white bearded, old guy,knocking at the door. It was our daughter carryinga child on her hands, coming to surprise us. Youhave lost weight and you are too slim. A Christmasmiracle. Did a falling star bring you here from theheaven? Christmas bells are ringing.

Our small daughter cannot be a mother yet, canshe? Nonetheless, with an infant she brought usChristmas. This wonderful present saved our Christ-mas. Old rocking horse can come down from theattic.

It was not Santa Claus, white bearded, old guy,knocking at the door. It was our daughter carryinga child on her hands, coming to surprise us. Youhave lost weight and you are too slim. A Christmasmiracle. Did a falling star bring you here from theheaven? Christmas bells are ringing.

Photos: screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjd43yqKZchttps://images.cdn.yle.fi/image/upload/v1573465571/13-1-4447708-1528715115085.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjd43yqKZc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjd43yqKZc

https://images.cdn.yle.fi/image/upload/v1573465571/13-1-4447708-1528715115085.jpg

VOL.I. . . No.8 UEFDSA newspaper DECEMBER 19, 2019 viiiHe is defending your freedom.

He encourages sharing and helping each other.

He has a quite big stomach and often wears red.

He is familiar with the habit of working during night.

But is he the Santa Claus?

VOL.I. . . No.8 UEFDSA newspaper DECEMBER 19, 2019 ix

. . . no, it is Richard Matthew Stallman!

Richard Matthew Stallman (born 1953) is thefounder of the Free Software movement. In 1983, helaunched the GNU Project. In 1985, he founded theFree Software Foundation (FSF).

A program is “free software” if the program’susers have the four essential freedoms:

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program asyou wish, for any purpose.

Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the pro-gram works, and change it so it does your computingas you wish. Access to the source code is a precondi-

tion for this.Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies

so you can help your neighbor.Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of

your modified versions to others. By doing this youcan give the whole community a chance to benefitfrom your changes. Access to the source code is aprecondition for this.

If software is licensed in a way that does notprovide these 4 freedoms, then it is categorized asnon-free or proprietary.

You can find the next song, for example, in the website:http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/stallman_free_software_song_320x240.ogv

Richard M. Stallman– Free Software Song

Join us now and share the software; You’ll befree, hackers, you’ll be free. Join us now and sharethe software; You’ll be free, hackers, you’ll be free.

Hoarders can get piles of money, That is true,hackers, that is true. But they cannot help theirneighbors; That’s not good, hackers, that’s not good.

When we have enough free software At our call,hackers, at our call, We’ll kick out those dirty licensesEver more, hackers, ever more.

Join us now and share the software; You’ll befree, hackers, you’ll be free. Join us now and sharethe software; You’ll be free, hackers, you’ll be free.

Richard M. Stallman– Vapaat ohjelmistot –laulu

Liittykää meihin ja jakakaa ohjelmia, hakkerit,vapautukaa. Liittykää meihin ja jakakaa ohjelmia,hakkerit, vapautukaa.

Hamsteri voi saada rahaa, se on totta, hakkerit,se on totta. Vaan ei voi auttaa naapureitaan, se onpaha, hakkerit, se on paha.

Kun vapaita ohjelmistoja tarpeeksi on, hakkerit,tarpeeksi on. Poljemme likaiset lisenssit syvällesuohon, hakkerit, vain suohon.

Liittykää meihin ja jakakaa ohjelmia, hakkerit,vapautukaa. Liittykää meihin ja jakakaa ohjelmia,hakkerit, vapautukaa.

(Translated by Juha-Matti Huusko.)

In "Free Software", we mean "free" as in "freespeech" (libre), not as in "free beer" (gratis).

If you want to knowmore, there are some options:TEDx talk:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7twCCWjSnMgWikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_softwareTalk with Juha-Matti:[email protected]

Photos:https://media.libreplanet.org/mgoblin_media/media_entries/327/rms2.medium.pngscreenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw

http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/stallman_free_software_song_320x240.ogv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7twCCWjSnMg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

[email protected]

https://media.libreplanet.org/mgoblin_media/media_entries/327/rms2.medium.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw

VOL.I. . . No.8 UEFDSA newspaper DECEMBER 19, 2019 x

Is he the Santa Claus?

VOL.I. . . No.8 UEFDSA newspaper DECEMBER 19, 2019 xi

. . . yes, it is Santa Claus!

The man behind thewhite beard

By LENKA DVOŘÁKOVÁ

Every year he comes to yourhouse. Kids love him. Parentstrust him. He has small roundbelly that shakes like a bowl full ofjelly. He has many names and oneof the biggest cosplay fandom inthe world. But who is really hidingbehind the white beard?

Everything started in the 3rdcentury, when a boy namedNicholas was born to wealthy par-ents in Patara in Asia Minor. Afterhis parent’s death he dedicated hislife in to serving God and becameBishop ofMyra. All his life he washelping the needy, the suffering

and the sick. There are almost 40stories of good deeds and miraclesconnected to him. One of the mostfamous stories is about three sisterswho didn’t have enough dowry toget married and were ordained tobe sold into slavery. In disguise, St.Nicholas threw three bags of goldat three different nights through thewindow of their house. Allegedly,the bags of gold landed in the shoesleft before the fire to dry and fromhere comes the tradition of leavingstockings on the fireplace. Afterhis death, St. Nicholas has becomea patron saint of children, sailors,falsely accused and many other.

St. Nicholas is until todayone of the most revered saintsand he is celebrated with a feaston the date of his death on 6 De-cember. In some countries (such

as Netherlands, Germany, CzechRepublic and others) there is agift giving tradition on the eve ofSaint Nicholas’ day, 5 December.Saint Nicholas got different names(Sinterklaas in Dutch, Nikolausin German, Mikuláš in Czech),but the appearance stayed fairlysimilar. He is usually portraited asa tall man with long white beardwearing his bishop clothing. WhenDutch colonized the America, theybrought along with pancakes andwaffles the tradition of Sinterklaas.With time his name changed yetagain, he had a slight wardrobechange, but his beard is still aswhite as the snow.

Lenka Dvořáková[email protected]

UEFDSA Christmas party on 13.12.2019 in Joensuu.

UEFDSA wishes you Merry Christmas, and happy new year 2020!Photos:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Jonathan_G_Meath_portrays_Santa_Claus.jpg"UEFDSA Christmas party on 13.12.2019 in Joensuu", by Juha-Matti Huusko

[email protected]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Jonathan_G_Meath_portrays_Santa_Claus.jpg

UEFDSA newspaper, Science seriesAri J. Tervashonka – Re-thinking the themes of systematic analysis – Method essay II

I. Essays December 19, 2019 1

ContentsI. Essays 1

I.I Ari J. Tervashonka, Re-thinking the themes of systematic analysis — Method essay II . . . 1

IV. Abstracts 16IV.I Rahul Mallick, Docosahexaenoic acid,22:6n-3: Its roles in the structure and function of

the brain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16IV.II Juha-Matti Huusko, Methods for complex ODEs based on localization, integration and

operator theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Scienti˛c Paper‘ { I. E‘‘ay‘Re-thinking the themes of

systematic analysis – Methodessay II

By ARI J. TERVASHONKA

John Dewey and the weight of ar-gumentIn his 123 pages long book JohnDewey (1859–1952)has shown his views on how to reconstruct thinkingin philosophy. Dewey’s views and arguments arecoupled with historical and philosophical-logicalarguments on what directions philosophy should beheading to. The book itself is deviously small butit contains usual several arguments per page so interms of an argumentative volume it could have been500 pages long1 and still comprehensive explana-tion on Dewey’s views. Dewey forms argumentativecounterpoint in comparison to more strict views byPaul Feyerabend (1924–1994). To Dewey similarproblems in philosophy and science apply, but still,there are major differences on how those problemsare being solved. Dewey calls for disturbance of sci-

entific enquiry so that science could benefit from it.He believed that partly disturbing effects on theorycreation could benefit scientific progress. This is avery mild version of Feyerabend’s total methodolog-ical anarchy.2

Methodological mishaps and critical ar-gumentsTo us, the most interesting parts are arguments thathave some food for thought towards systematic anal-ysis. This chapter follows critical arguments and rea-soning in that regard by Dewey. The book was writ-ten 25 years after the first world war. In connectionwith the biggest humanitarian disaster of Dewey’stime, first world war shaped new skepticism, canany philosophy lead us to better understanding andbetterment of society. With this setting Dewey startsto open what he means by Reconstruction in philos-ophy (1920).

Reconstruction boils down to arguments thatDewey has used to point out flaws and possible newoutcomes. For the history of science one of the mostinteresting argument is that intellectual developmentcan lack depth when the functions of a theory are in-volved:

1I needed discard over 1000 pages after reading because there were no fruitful arguments.2Dewey 1948/2004, x



“ More definitely, abstraction is indispens-able if one experience is to be applicable inother experiences. Every concrete experi-ence in its totality is unique; it is itself, non-reduplicable. Taken in its full concreteness, ityields no instruction, it throws no light. What iscalled abstractionmeans that some phase of it isselected for the sake of the aid it gives in grasp-ing something else. Taken by itself, it is a man-gled fragment, a poor substitute for the livingwhole from which it is extracted. But viewedteleologically or practically, it represents theonly way in which one experience can be madeof any value for another – the only way in whichsomething enlightening can be secured. Whatis called false or vicious abstractionism signi-fies that the function of the detached fragmentis forgotten and neglected, so that it is esteemedbarely in itself as something of a higher orderthan the muddy and irregular concrete fromwhich it was wrenched. Looked at function-ally, not structurally and statically, abstractionmeans that something has been released fromone experience for transfer to another. Abstrac-tion is liberation.

Dewey 1948/2004, 86.

Dewey continues to argue that abstractions cansimultaneously create new explanation and enlargeour understanding regarding certain phenomena, butthere is always an inherent danger that text will becut too much and misused conflicted way. This canmean that taken for granted attitude for the subjectcan lead researcher stray from the optimal path. If aresearcher makes abstractions based on old, in casesof history this can mean misrepresentation at large.

Systematic analysis is partly a great method forfinding out flaws and functions and connectionsthrough them. Still, it needs a great deal of work todo properly. Qualitative research can display manyabstract ideas, a good example is the history of sci-ence. It has to take into scope large quantities ofqualitative materials that cannot be made quantita-

tive research if we talk about research that actuallycan make explanations for research questions hon-estly. Therefore, if the systematic analysis is usedearlier to cut parts apart, these fragments cannot beused at random. There has to be a systematic hierar-chy of thought involved to ascertain needed cohesionthat will make logical sense. This logical structureis the key to why systematic analysis as a method canbe used for scientific research in qualitative fields ofstudy.

It is interesting to find that Dewey has contin-ued his train of thought similarly to comment ondifferent areas of science that try to describe certainaspects of their respective fields. To him, if there isno equal amount of “idealization without struggle”it will contribute only “systematized delusions andmistake” which will then conduct research in ownterms without being deep enough in an argumenta-tive sense. There are large varieties of problems thatcan cause this effect. Studying subjects with system-atic analysis is not an easy task. The usual methodis picked because clean-cut logical easiness, but Icannot say that systematic analysis could or evenshould follow this logic. The use of this methodis not always justified, needed work concerning re-search question could be achieved otherwise, but itcan safeguard handling of the subject matter. If re-search has any relation towards interdisciplinary ap-proach systematic analysis is one of the safest ways toconduct researchmethodologically. This safety doesnot come with ease, but with logical structures thatfailsafe different arguments. Because when usingthis method every argument needs to be explained interms of source-logic. This means that paths fromdifferent qualitative sources need to be clean-cut rea-soned, without flawed abstractions and unreasonableconnotations. If done correctly, systematic analysisis handled in a way that every single argument that isput to display within research text, has full reasoningbehind from abstraction to connectivity, from that tofunction and from function to smaller parts that formthat certain lines of reasoning. This is mainly whyI cannot recommend this method to anyone who isnot willing to make this effort, because without log-ical structure from idea fragment to the abstractionsthere is no systematical analysis.3

3Dewey 1948/2004, 78-80.



But does argument need to be within a certainform? Wouldn’t it be beneficial to view certainfacts differently and arrange arguments respectively?With identification problem, we will continue withthe Deweys argument on systemization related is-sues. Another related argument was that rationaliza-tions should be broken sometimes to further devel-opment in history:

“ In contrast with this experimental and re-adjusting intelligence, it must be said that Rea-son as employed by historic rationalism hastended to carelessness, conceit, irresponsibil-ity, and rigidity- in short absolutism. A certainschool of contemporary psychology uses theterm “rationalization” to denote those mentalmechanisms by which we unconsciously put abetter face on our conduct or experience thanfacts justify. We excuse ourselves to ourselvesby introducing a purpose and order into that ofwhich we are secretly ashamed. In like fash-ion, historic rationalism has often tended to useReason as an agency of justification and apolo-getics. It has taught that the defects and evilsof actual experience disappear in the “rationalwhole” of things; that things appear evil merelybecause of the partial, incomplete nature of ex-perience. Or, as was noted by Bacon, “reason”assumes a false simplicity, uniformity and uni-versality, and opens for science a path of fic-titious ease. This course results in intellectualirresponsibility and neglect. . . ”

Dewey 1948/2004, 56

With this, I can agree completely. Without aquestion themajority of mywork relates to this prob-lem. Oversimplified theory creations, utter lack ofdepth in analysis concerning the development of thehistory of science and almost copy-paste like com-parative processes have cumulated too similar voicesabout the history of science. Theoretically, there isno stability left, mainly because theoretical winnersof scientific history have formed an almost full pic-ture of development involved. This is so far from

the truth as Dewey has put it. With too much gen-eralization on top of older generalized abstractionshistory of science often displays lean and progressivenature that is in itself only a partial shadow of real-ity. The researcher will notice from original sourcesinconsistencies in comparison to these alternativeovergeneralized storylines.

Now, how can this argument be justified?Doesn’t field know what to do by now? The biggestproblem is halted progression and consistency withresearch and funding alike. With these conflict-ing things only rarely can full pictures even partlyemerge from this field of study. To do analysiswell enough, time must be put to task. To me,the difference was drawn mainly by Olivier Dar-rigol. Externally or internally illogical and brokentheory-structures can be displayedwith possible easeif enough research is conducted before. This how-ever, needs time, certain types of memory and notonly years but decades. This can be a tall order, butI would say that with logical enough method choicesresearchers could similarly make difference.

This apparent difficulty has shaped different fam-ilies of research. On the other side, there are vig-ilantes of total history view and on the other gen-eralists who try scope a whole with the evidentlyleast amount of research time. Both ways can bejustified differently and mostly it can be a fundingproblem. However, in comparison to Dewey’s ar-gument, it seems that if we think research quality,the systematic analysis could provide needed effort.Because if a method is used, it inherently requiresfull workload, the alternatives do not suffice. On thistheme, Popper has also much to offer.

Dewey has also written much on the conceptof feelings within the research. One of his thesisis that philosophy is not merely a construction ofknowledge. To him, it is more true to say that itis reasonable to assume hypothetically, that philoso-phy is constructed from social and emotional mate-rials. As we can see many times historians too haveviewed history through idealized lenses to conveytruth through feelings. To make the end result ofany research humane, some phenomenological fea-sibilities can be thought. At best it can mean the dirtand dust, color and feel of microhistory. It puts lifeinto the past, and then even memories of commoners



can be as vivid as best arguments by centuries deadperson. To breath life into ideas and old feelings isa difficult undertaking without systematic mentality.It can mean a voyage that has no limit or argumenta-tive merit to back it up. If views cannot be justifiedargumentatively research faces ruinwithin the publiceye.4

Despite this difficulty that the phenomenologi-cal approach can yield, I think essentially Deweysargument on feelings is correct. The difference isthat I would go even further. If we think intuitiveprocesses that people use to create ideas we can forthe sake of argument describe scale from

Argumentative breaking intuition——- ‘Kuhn’snormal science’——–System building intuition

Now it needs to be mentioned that these “oppo-sites” are only opposites in a sense of focus. One canbe a great builder of theories, but also avid in a criti-cally argumentative sense. The only limit is how wechoose to spend our time in our lives. On the scalecan be seen as end results of different intuitive pro-cesses. Breaking intuition is a type of Kurt Gödel,Esa Saarinen, Paul Feyerabend, and John Dewey.They are not the best system builders, but their meritis that they can break down systems and thoughtswith relative ease. On another side of the intuitivescale is system builders, great cohesive forces of sci-ence, Gottfried Leibniz, Isaac Newton, Ludwig vonBertalanffy, and Clerk Maxwell. These are peoplewho can breathe in horrible amounts of irregular dataand turn it into systematic cohesion with builder’sintuition. Systemizationers if you will. These arecharacteristics of different thinkers who are by nomeans very similar in comparison. The only simpleway to put it, is the following result judgement basedon their work and use of intuition within theory cre-ation.

Now, after all, if we follow their lead into in-tellectual discussions that have been waged throughdecades and centuries, we can see that viewing re-sults by these people is futile if we only look onthe dust side of the data. To understand the intel-lectual past, one needs to take the partial leap intounsureness that will follow. Intellectual history is anaccumulation of not only intelligent processes butalso those that are built up from different intuitive

processes that do not follow regulations of thought.To this end, I agree fully with Dewey but I want tomake a point on, not only to the emotional nature ofhuman thought but also mark that intuition has beena hugely influential part of idea creation.

How can we follow this? If we take only on theintuitive side and proceed with only feelings to guideus, we will be doomed to counter fanciful ideals thatdo not reflect the nature of truth. If we only limitourselves to describeminute tendencies with the sys-tematic analysis we can only come so far with thefeelings involved. To make ends meet we have to dosomething simple and wonderful, we will do both.

Systematic analysis can work as fail-safe methodagainst unsureness. However, this will not suffice ifsome new ideas or views about certain phenomenaare constructed. We have to use a similar mentalapproach that the creators of those ideas have usedto create those wonderful things that form an areaof intellectual history. This doesn’t mean that theresearcher is supposed to be as smart as Kurt Gödelto research his ideas. No. The point is to try tounderstand substance intuitively and to check theseabstract intuitive processes through vigorous system-atic analysis. With this mixed modular way, we canuse systematic analysis as a base method for soundscientific arguments without killing needed intuitiveprocesses.

To help intuition sometimes extra measures needto be taken. On the study of Maxwellian theories,I have used entities based view on theories. Withthat, I mean that I imagine theories as entities andthese entities are given attributes that are functionsof those theories. Through this process, theoriescan be played out intuitively and research can bechecked with systematic analysis to keep relative se-curity on any new point and discovery. With partlypersonalizing theories through this mental trick, onecan use intuitive processes that could be otherwisenon-accessible. This is just one of many ways howto proceed with the use of intuitive processes.

Dewey – call for the systemizationAt his own time, Dewey ventured to argue that sci-ence needs systemization. To him, cohesive struc-tures were important despite his philosophical style

4Dewey 1948/2004, 1, 15, 59.



was the opposite as one can be. Full proof of thatis this book where reconstruction in philosophy ac-tually means decisive arguments against old views.Despite and maybe just because of this Dewey sawthe systemic approach important. To his call hasanswered many researchers with different systemicintentions. These views are also the basis of sys-tematic analysis so small recoup is needed. It allbegan with systems theory, based on the old militarytheory that found a systemic approach needed whenmilitary campaigns were facing totally new prob-lems. Footwear shortages, food, replacements, andhospital services. All those things were needed inthe largest quantities never imagined before. It was awake of WWI. With similar note was developed sys-tems theory that has many engineers and creators.Systems way of thinking combined old data withnew logical structure and it was once heralded asone of the best methods and avenues of explanation.Systems approach varied from different disciplines,but basic the core of it was nearly similar in eachcase. The point of it all was to make systematic co-hesion and develop systems from available data toshow problems and solutions. Economics, law, biol-ogy and many other disciplines used this approach.Then came even more cohesive methodology intro-duced by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the form ofGeneral systems theory GST. Bertalanffy’s idea wasto combine every systemic approach within differ-ent disciplines to bridge methodology between ever-increasingly different disciplines. His book on GSTshows one of the largest attempts to create a philo-sophical model of all disciplines based on the ideaof inherent systemic nature within each discipline.

This attempt was heavily supported and arguedagainst. Today we can see disciplines such as systemanalysis and systematic thinking on playing field.These all are partly foster fathers of systematic anal-ysis that has not been created as a notion but as a needfrom different disciplines. Systematic analysis is akind of odd notion. It has been simultaneously inter-preted by different disciplines that have connectedideas from systems analysis, GST and systematicthinking.

These developments have formed systematicanalysis, shadow Dewey’s intention for systemiza-

tion in science. His book starts with similar worriesof breaking science too far apart, a similar concernvoiced by Bertalanffy in his GST. However, Deweywent further than that, despite he has written way be-fore. The Deweys problem with systemization wasthe danger of dogmatism. If left uncheck dogmatismcould spoil many old and new views by followingreasoning5:

“ If we take into account the supposed bodyof ready-made knowledge upon which learnedmen rested in supine acquiescence and whichthey recited in parrot-like chorus, wefind it con-sists of two parts. One of these parts is made upof errors of our ancestors, musty with antiquityand organized into pseudo-science through theuse of the classic logic. Such “truths” are in factonly the systemized mistakes and prejudicesof our ancestors. Many of them originated inaccident; many in class interest and bias, per-petuated by authority for this very reason- aconsideration which later actuated Locke’s at-tack upon the doctrine of innate ideas. Theother portion of accepted beliefs comes frominstinctive tendencies of the human mind thatgive it a dangerous bias until counteracted by aconscious and critical logic.

Dewey 1948/2004, 20.

As one can see, Dewey was not a friend ofscholastic systemization without critical thinking.This is the key element that also can be found onsystematic analysis. As a method, systematic analy-sis does not impose the idea of the system on whatis being researched, quite the opposite. The sys-tematic analysis only uses systemic structured as thevenue of explanation only if reality supports thisstructure. This method uses systemic argumentationthat verifies in best cases what has been researchedand puts all arguments under the light of scrutinyand falsification.

5Dewey 1948/2004, xxiii, 20.



Methodological systemization problemfrom Dewey’s argument on cohesivesupremacyIn short, Dewey calls for generic systemizationwithin theory creation to pave the way for the moreclear narrative and science -is well put argument.Anyone who tries to explain something should try tomake the job of it. Surround problem with equallyproficient tools, tackle arguments one by one andcreating a cleanest and leanest functional pile of ar-guments, fitting for great theory. Now, the question iswhat could go wrong here? I would say everythingrelated to the chaos that corners every qualitativeproblem. Let’s start with Dewey’s position on theissue.

“ At the same time, a classification is nota bare transcript or duplicate of some finishedand done-for arrangement pre-existing nature.It is rather a repertory of weapons for attackupon the future and the unknown. For success,the detail of past knowledge must be reducedfrom bare facts to meanings, the fewer, simplerand more extensive the better. . . . . . They mustbe arranged so as not to overlap, for otherwisewhen they are applied to new events they in-terfere and produce confusion. In order thatthere may be ease and economy of movementin dealing with the enormous diversity of oc-currences that present themselves, we must beable to move promptly and definitely from onetool of attack to another. . .. . . Classification transforms a wilderness ofby-ways in experience into a well-ordered sys-tem of roads, promoting transportation andcommunication in inquiry. . .. . . If the view held as to the later is understood,the conception of truth follows as a matter ofcourse. If it be not understood, any attempt topresent the theory of truth is bound to be con-fusing, and the theory itself to seem arbitraryand absurd. . .. . . If they fail to clear up confusion, to elimi-nate defects, if they increase confusion, uncer-tainty and evil when they are acted upon, thenare they false.”

Dewey 1948/2004, 89-90.

One could say this is a spectacular battle cryfor consistent, coherent and correct science making.Dewey starts his position by arranging classifica-tion and systematic evidence-based build up to bea key element of the correct theory building. Butwhile making this assessment he makes some re-ally striking definitions of the nature of unsureness.Dewey sees it as unsureness and chaos within theworld is something that the modern scientist odd tobe confronting. He even goes as far as to virtu-ally weaponize rightful arguments as a weapon ofchoices. This has been seen many times. It is part



of western philosophy, science, and individual out-reach towards reason and logic. No chaotic cornercan be left or untouched. It is similar to the ViennaCircle and their arguments on metaphysics. How-ever, as Kurt Gödel has shown with logic, you can-not take metaphysics out of science without usingmetaphysical methods, therefore science cannot dis-regard metaphysics altogether from theory building.Within late years this notion has developed new sci-entific results such as systematic thinking and otherimportant aspects that can help scientific progress.Meta can guide us wrong sometimes, but it is alsometa that can find a way to new areas in science.This is one of the most important works within phi-losophy as science.

I would like to point out in similar relation toKurt Gödel (1906–1978) that Dewey and old west-ern philosophy are wrong on account of unsurenessand chaos. When we consider larger and more com-plex systems of data, we can systematically explainhow things functionally work. At this point, I agreewith the intention of Dewey. But here is wherewe must take steps apart. Some systems as big ascomplex they are can have inherent qualitative prob-lems. Systems can be functionally “broken systems”that work, but some of the parts or functions are notthere or they do not work. It is, as describing beehivewith occasional random events that take place withinits ordinary form. Similar things happen in reality.Things like the uncertainty principle by Heisenberg,the second law of thermodynamics and other cleverchaos, creating inventions have been breaking havocloose, ever since they were created.

In my work this relation is mostly a question ofthe broken system and about superpositions of truthswhen we compare different ideafamilies or histori-cal theory creation processes. Sometimes the onlything that we can do is to determine that there aregaps of logic and to that extent I believe that Deweywould agree with me. To him, philosophy was not abuildup of cumulative orderly data. As he has writ-ten it was an accumulation of emotional material, anargument that I can agree. In many cases, a scien-tist cannot chance upon anything new without usingintuitive processes. This limitation means also theliberation of theory creation in a way towards morehumane and intuitive ways of thinking. Sometimes

chaos can ruin theory, but sometimes it is part of itsinner workings.

Popper I – The logic of scientificdiscoveryKarl Popper’s (1902–1994) almost perfectly capti-vating book on the logic of scientific discovery re-veals some fundamental aspects of how scientificenquiry works. I have chosen this book to be first,despite Proofs and refutations is a clearer version ofthe mentioned problematic. The reason for this isthat within this book, Popper has shown the criticaloutlines for falsification and demarcation. Falsifica-tion is the very basic concept in science, but demar-cation has not reached an equal level of recognition.Demarcation is the basis for falsification, it is the sci-entific limit for empirically supported sciences thatdetermines science from “pseudo-science”. To thisend, Popper has voiced a very harsh opinions onwhatis science and what is not. Within later years, thisquestion took the form of division between hard andsoft questions, quantitative and qualitative researchand so forth.

Based on demarcation; If a theory has beencreated there are some aspects that can cause de-marcation of a theory. Therefore, the theory willbe falsified by the arguments that are not supportedby theory, even if it should be. This conflict withtheory and reality is the argumentative basis to breaka theory partly or fully. The theory is by this actionfalsified through falsifiability that makes the the-ory scientifically open system. The following essaywill be concentrating on the merit of falsifiabilitywithin qualitative sciences. Namely rules for fal-sification and demarcations are not introduced byPopper within this area. Popper’s argument is madefor scientifically “hard” questions that can be an-swered by some exact measure. This, however, doesnot go within similar borders with the qualitativeexamination.

Popper denies inductive logicOur problem starts with Popper’s introduction to thequestion of demarcation:



“ . . . my main reason for rejecting induc-tive logic is precisely that it does not providea suitable distinguishing mark of the empiri-cal, non-metaphysical, character of a theoreti-cal system; or in other words, that it does notprovide a suitable ‘criterion of demarcation’.

. . . The older positivists wished to admit,as scientific or legitimate, only those concepts(or notions or ideas) which were, as they putit, ‘derived from experience’; those concepts,that is which they believed to be logically re-ducible to elements of sense-experience, suchas sensations (or sense-data), impressions, per-ceptions, visual or auditory memories, and soforth. Modern positivists are apt to see moreclearly that science is not a system of con-cepts but rather a system of statements. Ac-cordingly, they wish to admit, as scientific orlegimate, only those statements which are re-ducible to elementary (or ‘atomic’) statementsof experience-to ‘judgments of perception’ or‘atomic propositions’ or ‘protocol-sentences’or what not. It is clear that the implied crite-rion for demarcation is identical with the de-mand for and inductive logic. Since I rejectinductive logic I must also reject all attemptssolve the problem of demarcation. With thisrejection, the problem of demarcation gains inimportance for the present inquiry. Finding anacceptable criterion of demarcation myst be acrucial task for any epistemology which doesnot accept inductive logic.”

Popper 1959/2002, 11-12.

As we can see here Popper did not like inductivelogic as a method of scientific discovery. To himif the criterion of demarcation was vague, that wasone of the signs that would tell him is enquiry sci-entific or not. However, qualitative research is notas black and white as an empirical science. Induc-tive logic can be an elementary part of qualitativeresearch. It is also the basis for meta-anything. In-cluding meta-methodology or meta-discussions ofideal origins within intellectual history. Despite this

Popper knows pretty well this question of meta. Hehas also used many examples such as Schrödinger’scat or Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty. It hasbeen an amusing comparison to some extent to seeone of the greatest achievements used in this way tonarrate reasoning why deductive logic has to be thebackbone for empirical sciences. These theories arereally good examples of counter deductive measuresin a theoretical sense. For that inductive logic is atoo big portion of a qualitative methods and researchto be left out. To my question of dividing scienceinto parts of meta and non-meta, hard or soft ques-tions or qualitative and measurable logical subjectsis a hindrance to scientific progress. In this mannerI oppose Popper with systematic analysis, if someof the principles and criteria are corroding to newthoughts, the whole enquiry faces injury. Now, withthis, we can see there is a huge argumentative gapbetween empirical and qualitative research. This dif-fering basis is also the basis for the different criteriafor different disciplines within qualitative research.

As earlier, we have seen Paul Feyerabend didn’teven like demarcation, little alone any principle over-shadowing scientific enquiry. This totalistic view onmethodological choices is anti-thesis for the Poppe-rian view. In only principle being “anything goes”rules for demarcation would be non-existing or therewould be no real value for them. Therefore, forqualitative sciences demarcation and partly the basisfor Popper’s falsifiability would become very prob-lematic. To that end, I agree and don’t agree withboth of them. This is the key element for systematicanalysis, it’s touch needs to be tender enough tograsp qualitative truths and super-positions of sub-jective truths. The method also needs the basis fordemarcation. At first, these two different views areon the opposite end, but I have written the follow-ing solution for this problem by eclectic reasoning.There are a variety of choices that we canmake theseopposite grounds benefiting for systematic analysis.

Solution for demarcation problem forqualitative researchWe are left with the following question: What canbe the methodological basis for systematic analysisas proof of scientific inquiry? Can there be any cri-terion of demarcation within qualitative sciences if



we only look at the basic idea of demarcation, notPopper’s totalistic view of empirical sciences andnon-science. This question is about the reliabilityof the method. In qualitative research, there can-not always be the same line of reasoning or sameevidence-based research, mainly because judgementwithin these choices can be built on ideals or opin-ions of some sort. With this. we could say thatdemarcation as Popper meant it doesn’t work withqualitative research and be done with this.

Certain qualities could benefit qualitative re-search. It is the basis of a softer criterion for quali-tative research. I have intentionally used word softbecause as Poppers followers have put it there is thedivision of hard/soft questions. If we use these defi-nitions we might as well talk these issues with equaldefinitions. For further reading, I only mean withsoft questions, examinations that cannot bemeasuredwith some exact terms. Basically, every qualitativeresearch is generally definable as soft questions. Ob-viously many qualitative researchers do not like thisdivision, but it will serve our purposes for reasoninghere.

Despite the demarcation criterion being meantfor empirical research, we can take this idea andquestion the basis of qualitative research made withsystematic analysis with it. The reason, why thiswould be beneficial for the development of thismethod, is that Popper has used falsification as acriterion for demarcation. Hence the theory thatemerges by systematic analysis needs partly falsifi-able grounds. It is important that falsification is nottaken for granted in the case of qualitative science.It is the notion that if evidence does not support thetheory, the theory must be modified or discarded. Ithink that falsification is a far more superior crite-rion for demarcation than its alternative, verification.But there are limits within qualitative research so wecannot apply the full amount of falsification. Whatthen can be the basis of the criterion of demarcation?

If we research subject with a systematic analysisthat means systematic evidence breaking in an argu-mentative sense. We need to take qualitative mea-sures, define its criteria and form arguments basedon evidence and follow our criterion. For this, I use

term logical verification. It has some similarities forverification, but the intention is the opposite. If theresearcher uses systematic analysis, the systematicnature of this method will ask for evidence-based ar-gumentation that can be fully shown within the text.This means that research logically verifies itself ar-gumentatively, but it also means that every evidencestructures made, need to be shownwith the flaws andlimitations within the problem.6 Obviously, humanscannot do this fully. It is a merit of clear ideal re-search if researchers could do this in a total manner.

Logical verification is therefore philosophicalend for argumentation. It is a notion for systematicanalysis that demands argumentative consistency.While doing so it does the opposite of verification, itopens all arguments and evidence for scientific en-quiry. With this, we can say that systematic analysiscan have certain falsifiability based on argumenta-tion and evidence used. Theories are not ‘verified’their judgement is openly discussed in line with theevidence, therefore the use of logical verification.If logical verification is done right, it is done withintentionally displayed criticism to own work ratherthan to form cohesion. This could sound counter-intuitive for that purpose. The theory is usuallyto form a cohesive structure of knowledge. Withsystematic analysis, this changes a bit. The honestmentality needs to guide research inquiry more thanall alternatives when natural complexity and ‘brokensystems’ are accounted for.

Simplicity and complexity, -extra logical?Usual question on what makes a system or any struc-ture complex is deeply connected with the referenceframe. To me it is a question of principle if the refer-ence frame grows, so grows the need for more com-plex explanation to achieve criterion that has newlimits. The simple closed system can be air withinthe tire. Without light, movement or anything. Butwhen we raise our level of reference frame we startto account for the atomic level of movements, quarksand fundamental basis for quantummechanics. Sud-denly the scope of this enquiry has enthralled us toface the vast complexity of that at start apparentlysimple closed system. In that manner, I always think

6This is a very similar idea that Popper has written in the relation of falsification and consistency. Popper differs naturallyby the intention, the intention being empirical.



complexity in terms of scope, what is the degreeof zoom we use for the subject area. That scopedetermines the criteria for scientific enquiry.

For Popper, this subject entails much criticismagainst the whole measure of quality that word sim-plicity entails. As his stand on qualitative sciencesand inductive logic, he doesn’t like term simplicityand treats it as ‘extra-logical’.7 To him, the questionis merely aesthetical or pragmatic:

“ What, if anything, remains after we haveeliminated the aesthetic and the pragmatic ideasof simplicity? Is there a concept of simplicitywhich is of importance for the logician? Is itpossible to distinguish theories that are logi-cally not equivalent according to their degreesof simplicity?”

Popper 1959/2002, 122.

For him whole argument whether or not systemor theory is simple or complex, is a qualitative de-scription choice. This is the exact same basis as Ihave formulated before. However, because of thedivision between empirical and qualitative sciencethese views collide heavily. Now the question iswhy would we need to use the systems as the basisfor study in qualitative research? To me, systematicnature of the subject can vary so much that this ques-tion cannot be held in equal measure within everydiscipline or subject. If systematic analysis would bebuilt only for the study of systems, it would ruin thewhole freedom of this method. Therefore, it is vi-tal to avoid this strict distinction between qualitativeand empirical studies and build systematic analysiswith this thought in mind.

We as human beings naturally look for systemicentities when we face different realities and life ingeneral. Patterns and connections flow through ourminds as the evolutive success story. Therefore,to see systematic nature somewhere as humans canbe as easy as looking with eyes. Maxwell did thiswith mathematical outlines concerning electromag-netism. He took the pile of evidence and breath out

mathematics as a systematic basis for these two phe-nomena. This event in the history of science can bebetter and the worst example of where a systematicapproach can lead us. My problem with it is that ifwe always think that a system can be found or phe-nomena or subject in question can be qualifiedwithinsystematic reference frameswithout extorting realitytoo much, we can be jailed by our fancy for system-atic thinking. This is exactly why I write concerningthe system, the reason is not only about complexity,but the whole point is to show also that there can bebroken or otherwise irrational systems. These do notfollow fluent logic or even functionality that couldbe assembled as a system. The resounding point is,there are no systems to be found everywhere.

If we accept this as base truth or as a principle, wewill face the difficulty that relates to the dilemma ofsimplicity. If we have no form bywhichwe can studycertain subjects and we cannot according to Poppertakes the complexity for granted, how we can con-duct research? The solution would be in qualitativesciences to approach problems systematically andfail to check argumentative reasoning in this logicalmanner in terms of analysis. This approach is verydifferent from systems theory or even from generalsystems theory (GST). This solution is the same asearlier, to study systematically, without reliance onsystems or to believe that there are systems to befound.

It is fine in the analytical sense if some system oreven systematic element is found. But for our prob-lem, we cannot assume this attribute to be foundeverywhere when we solve different questions withsystematic analysis. In correlation with Popper, ifwe think the theory creation of different theorieshistorically, we have similar problems that Popperhas written for us. Intellectually, these theories can-not be qualified with an equal standard, every mea-sure would be uneven by Popperian standards, but itwould be just right if done correctly by the measureof systematic analysis.

If we analyze the scope and reflections of eachtheory based on their functions, we can by access-ing those functions also degree workings of differ-ent theories in comparison to another. The biggestlimitation for this is imagination and comparative

7Popper 1959/2002, 122.



outlines and scope for different functions. This canmean varied qualities that Popper has voiced to bean unreachable goal. However, if we acknowledgethat qualities can be measured qualitatively by theirfunctions we can, therefore, access different theo-ries based on their functional relations. I judge thatthis can be done by using systematic analysis as amethodological medium for different disciplines toaccount for differences. If such an agreement canbe made by using this method we can corner border-lines for complexity and maybe, just maybe reacha point where analysis can question the functionalsimplicity without tainting the whole picture of the-ory. For Popper, this would be hugely disagreeablefor he looked for the criterion for demarcation andfalsification goals. As we have earlier shown falsi-fiability cannot be a strict measure for that withinqualitative sciences. But for qualitative processes,we can see how beneficial it is to agree that someparts of Popper can be used to formulate a moresound theoretical reference frame for methodology.

Bertalanffy – GST, General sys-tem theory structures for system-atic analysisLudwig von Bertalanffy (1901–1972) researched acouple of decades of theoretical biology. To him,one of the main difficulties during his time on thefield was tension between mechanical and vitalis-tical approaches in biology. These different viewswere colliding over how one should be thinking qual-ities and attributes of a living organisms. A solutionthat Bertalanffy used was to connect systems think-ing to this problem and his suggestion was to useorganizational logic to even out organic structuresfrom non-organic. This meta-level approach wasdeveloped by him to a degree of general system the-ory that had an interdisciplinary notion to it. As atheory book, General system theory is grand bridge-building between different disciplines. The scope bywhich Bertalanffy has attacked the problem of inter-disciplinary questions is one of the biggest theoriesformed. The core of this theory is to apply similari-ties from different disciplines in the form of systemsand systematic outlines. It is a methodological com-parison through similar meta-methodological inten-

tions. With this scope, Bertalanffy’s general systemtheory has striking attributes in comparison to theLeibnizian Monad theory. It is bred from biologi-cal systems to physical systems, from mathematicalsystems to organizational social systems and so on.

Now, hardest part is to explain exactly what theGST is. To define this theory is to say it is a bigattempt to explain the inherent systematic nature ofdifferent disciplines and double attempt to use thisquality to connect ever-increasingly autonomic disci-plines back together. Bertalanffy has definitely useddecades of intellectual material and connections tomake this theory as cohesive as possible. The read-ing experience of this theory for the first half of thebook is striking to intuition, claims are justified bythe evidence. But, in the second part of the book,it leaves the question hanging in the air. At first,Bertalanffy has shown general principles that are allagreeable and realistic. Enquiry starts by stating thesystematic nature and need for cohesion:

“ In fact, similar concepts, models and lawshave often appeared in widely different fields,independently and based upon totally differentfacts. There are many instances where iden-tical principles were discovered several timesbecause the workers in one field were unawarethat the theoretical structure required was al-ready well developed in some other field. Gen-eral system theory will go as long way towardsavoiding such unnecessary duplication of labor.. . . Which principles are common to severallevels of organization and so may legitimatelybe transferred from one level to another, andwhich are specific so that transfer leads to dan-gerous fallacies? Can societies and civiliza-tions be considered as systems?

Bertalanffy 1969/2015, 33–34.

In general, it is easy to agree with Bertalanffy’swork. However, after half of the book whole notionof general system theory becomes an example basedsystem seeking that is evidence-based but it does notwarrant continuation. It seems that different theo-retical lines are made and Bertalanffy leaves these



systemic natures as they are. It is a similar researchapproach as Kuhn’s paradigm. Vitally important initself, but there is no analysis or continuation fromthat point onwards.

To my dismay general system theory hits, it’slimitations in the first 130 pages. The limiting factoris that the general system theory is theory to grasponly the obvious parts. My argument is that we canfind a systematic nature from anything if we lookfor it. To that end, GST offers much to start, butmethodological finalization is not there. Later partsof the book are almost like case studies from differ-ent fields to show that there are systemic qualitiesfrom different disciplines. No further analysis orinterdisciplinary outlines that were suggested at thebeginning of the book. Of course, it is not a veryreasonable argument to be made since the wholepoint of this theory was to awake different disci-plines to work further together to avoid duplicationon methodological meta-questions, such as how thesystematic structure can explain a certain phenom-ena. But to get even there systematic analysis isneeded to bridge these interdisciplinary substancestogether. There is an intention and even directionand road map, but the compass is missing. To me,this compass is systematic analysis. Despite theroad map and the general direction it is easy tolose direction in the forest of chaotic nature, themethodological compass is needed to avoid losingthe direction. Systemic understanding is needed, butwithout a forced thought that there would always bea system to be found.

GST – bare skeletonEarlier we focused on the scope of GST, now we willlook upon focus. As Bertalanffy has put it, GST isa summary of general systems structure shared be-tween different disciplines in science. To what endGST was successful can be criticized heavily, butBertalanffy starts from the following reasoning:

“ Not only are general aspects and view-points alike in different sciences; frequently wefind formally identical or isomorphic laws indifferent fields. Inmany cases, isomorphic lawshold for certain classes or subclasses of “sys-tems,” irrespective of the nature of the entitiesinvolved. There appear to exist general systemlaws which apply to any system of a certaintype, irrespective of the particular propertiesof the system and of the elements involved.These considerations lead to the postulate of anew scientific discipline which we call generalsystem theory. Its subject matter is formula-tion of principles that are valid for “systems”in general, whatever the nature of their com-ponent elements and the relations or “forces”between them. General systems theory, there-fore, is a general science of “wholeness” whichup till now has considered a vague, hazy, andsemi metaphysical concept. In elaborate formit would be a logico-mathematical discipline,in itself purely formal but applicable to the var-ious empirical sciences.

Bertalanffy 1969/2015, 37.

What Bertalanffy tried to do was no more or lessthan a new discipline with the main purpose of gath-ering all workable systematic meta-philosophy fromeach discipline and breath out solutions that couldnurture new approaches. While doing so this dis-cipline would have been extremely useful in termsof negating tons of duplicating work between differ-ent autonomic disciplines. In a named logical wayBertalanffy has shown that there might be a way toconnect different disciplines through meta. How-ever, there are huge argumentative gaps between dif-ferent disciplines. Even more so for the accountof methodological and science, philosophical no-tions that each individual discipline holds. For ba-sic extent I agree with Bertalanffy, but what I don’tlike is the meta approach of it. This theory is re-ally grand but lacks a methodological backbone thatcould bridge these vaguely connected dots in inter-disciplinary form. What we have here before us is



an archive of different wonderful systematic thingsthat are working logically similarly that could becombined, mixed and modularly enchanted for newidea creation within different disciplines. It does noteven matter whether or not these autonomic disci-plines would agree on every point with each other.The point is to make connections and share that metain a modular sense for a desired enchanting effect.

We will continue in the next chapter on a so-lution to how Bertalanffy would make more sensemethodologically. As for continuation, Bertalanffydoes not provide any strict criterion for inclusion orexclusion for theories in question. What he has donein GST is to point out a general direction. The onlypoint for the methodological approach is made onGST page 95, where he suggests “empirico-intuitiveprocedure”. This is partly why the Bertalanffys ini-tial theory was just interpreted and partly re-used,but never really enchanted upon. The reason couldbe that the scope was horrifyingly big, while themethodological side was conflicting with the fash-ionable Popperian scientific philosophy of empiriclogical science. This part of scientific philosophy,however, scorned and distanced itself from hazymeta. That being the main part of Bertalanffy’sGST’s only outcome is what we see here. A theorywithout continuation. It has to be said that manyresearchers have benefitted heavily in the work ofBertalanffy. The scope of GST can be found partlyfrom systems theories discipline, system analysis,and even from the field of systematic thinking.

Meta is not the only problem with the connec-tion to Popper. The demarcation criterion is notdiscussed. Despite Bertalanffy has mentioned inan offhanded way on page 112, that methodologyneeds to follow verification or falsification. In a strictsense meta- anything could not follow falsificationto the letter and since he thought falsification as theonly measure for the demarcation whole theory ofBertalanffywould be left out. All that, despite Berta-lanffy’s opinion on empirical connectivity betweenintuitive processes. I would say that this conflict iscaused mainly because Bertalanffy does not dividequestions as we do today in terms of empirical andqualitative research. Different sets of demarcationsare applicable and for that demarcation for empiricintuitive processes would conflict. I will continue

with this problem by suggesting solutions for qual-itative research based on the systematic analysis inconnection with interdisciplinary subject areas.

What in science warrants for a system-atic approach?This question is a question of justification. Howcan systematic analysis be methodologically justi-fied to study reality or subjective realities (such asin history). What is the quality that would make itbetter than alternatives? This broad criticism in theform of question leads to a similar point that I haveused to battle against alternative outcomes. Rea-son is clarity. The end result of systematic analysisis and can be more clear, than for example studydone with discourse analysis. That is to say, it iseasier to guide the reader wrong using variable ba-sis for analysis that are not self-evident enough forreasoning. Method wrongly used can be used as ascapegoat from reason. It can be used as justificationfor flawed intuitive reasoning, that would not meritsuch statements made by the research. These lim-itations lie before us when we look at the criterionfor demarcation within different methods. To somemethods those criteria are nonexistent.

If we think theory, generally we hear the usualexplanation of certain coverage. A theory supposessomething based on a hypothesis with some arrange-ment supporting facts and statements and it claimscoverage through those facts to explain phenomena.Concerning theory and its creation systematic anal-ysis studies theories based on their functions. The-ories are seen as the accumulated sum of functionsthat act accordingly by chosen principles. In doingthat, this methodological approach highlights rela-tions between functions and relations to have chosentheory principles. The explanation of coverage isthen usually resulted from the analysis, not startingpoint of it.

However, if we follow similar reasoning that Ihave used against alternatives in the form of thisargument; if you look for the system you will findit, despite the fact that there never was one. Withsimilar logic can be said that systematic analysis isjust a breath of air without substance. At least thereis substance in systems theories because they showus patterns and connections that are logically struc-



tured.It is true that some of the parts will never be in

the form of logical patterns if we look results thatcome from systematic analysis. Although we canalso argue that there is merit to this based on thefact that we cannot know beforehand will every re-search subject bend to reasonable logic in the formof systemic structure. There is also a question ofcomplexity involved. Bertalanffy used the followingreasoning:

“ A steam engine, automobile, or radio re-ceiver was within the competence of the en-gineer trained in the respective specialty. Butwhen it comes to ballistic missiles or spacevehicles, they have to be assembled from com-ponents originating in heterogeneous technolo-gies, mechanical, electronic, chemical, etc.; re-lations of man and machine come into play;and innumerable financial, economic, socialand political problems are thrown into the bar-gain. Again, air or even automobile traffic arenot just a matter of the number of vehicles inoperation, but are systems to be planned or ar-ranged. So innumerable problems are arising inproduction, commerce and armaments. Thus,a “systems approach” became necessary.

Bertalanffy 1969/2015, 4.

Bertalanffy continues with the analogy to pointout the need for a systems approach within differentareas in modern society. It is a question of eco-nomics, politics, and science put together. However,we are concerned with science and methodology. Ifwe take the earlier problem of the difficulties forinterdisciplinary approaches and inherent heteroge-neous development in science we are facing ever-increasingly difficulties of communication betweendifferent areas in science. In that decadewhenBerta-lanffy was writing his book personal computing wasslowly coming into the light of commerce in the fol-lowing decade.

Also, science and communication in volumehugely increased by every decade afterward and it

now seems to be developing into even more confus-ing mass of instantaneous forms of communications,with ever-increasing chances of failure. Things arenot that bad in general, wemakemistakes andwe cor-rect them by every year, but in regard to science it hasbeen an uphill battle since Bertalanffy to stay evenupright in a current of articles and inputs by a va-riety of methodological approaches and individuals.To some extent this has been a hugely profitable andexpansive way to grow scientific knowledge. Thatbeing said worst fears of Bertalanffy has become re-ality. An interdisciplinary approach has become sodifficult that even the word interdisciplinary is be-ing scorned on. The reason is that people tend tobelieve that a multidisciplinary approach is easierand can be way more valid than an interdisciplinaryapproach that almost no one can do and only rarelypeople can follow through. Although this view is ajustified and reasonably probable outcome, it limitsmethodological thinking. If we think something isimpossible or impractical, we avoid it like cancer.

So, should we jump off the cliff or no? If we fol-low the analogy by Bertalanffy we are facing risingdifficulties to do interdisciplinary science. However,if we don’t think things just in the form of systems,but we indulge in systematic enquiry then we canmake smaller steps and interdisciplinary study be-comes a more reasonable target. Why this has notbeen done? I would say that the best researchers arealready doing it. The main problem here is to under-stand each sub-problems of bigger interdisciplinaryproblems as modular in relation to others. However,this cannot be handled in the current main way howresearch is conducted by workgroups today. The dif-ficulty is that researchers are usually focusing on themultidisciplinary side of things. By this focus, weget books that are collections of articles from a sim-ilar subject with each being unique in methodologyand focus. This is as far from the interdisciplinaryapproach as one can be and even far from the multi-disciplinary approach if done incorrectly.

Kuhnand idea of paradigm– com-mentaryI have just one problem with the book by Kuhn. Itdescribes one of the most complex ideas, develop-ment phases and structure of scientific progress with



uncanny ease. The problem part being that it is allthat this book is for. It is an essay, description ofan idea that is already there, or is it? Paradigm cap-tivated the imagination of scientists and this wordhas been overused ever since to describe many me-nial tasks. Overselling what Kuhn would have called“basic science” is today’s standard to yell paradigm!That message that many try to convey is rarely eventrue. (mostly because of funding systems)

This is one of the key difficulties when we thinkof intellectual history. What are the cause and ef-fects of a theory? How can we tell in what way effecthas been taken into the minds and hearts of fellowresearchers and can theory creation therefore everbe called paradigm but until late? To historian, thisis far easier or we can suppose so, but the difficultycomes from a multitude of realities. For example,we can say Alessandro Volta (1745–1827) causeda paradigm in the way how we think of electricity.Similarly, James Clerk Maxwell (1871–1879) hasbeen hailed to be the father of electromagnetismdespite he is merely connected works by André-Marie Ampère (1775–1836) and Michael Faraday

(1791–1867) with a mechanical twist from LordKelvin, also originally known as William Thomson(1824–1907). It depends on perspective, what is aparadigm. Generally, paradigm is defined when itscauses are ever reaching in different disciplines oriconic effects in one. Within their own right, eachof these persons had affected how we think of elec-tricity. To Faraday question was experimental, toAmpère strictly mathematical, Kelvin took a mech-anistic side and Maxwell created hybrid based onwork from the other three.

Now the question is how to define paradigm, isthere 1 or 3 or even 4 at play? That sum dependson how paradigm plays out. If the paradigm shift ismade that affects the reference frame, we can reallytalk about the unquestioning paradigm change. Itis changing how we do and think about phenomenaor theories. A major change in the scenery is notyet a paradigm, it is paradigm when the glasses thatwe use to see changes. And to that end change ofthe paradigm is always incremental because of thesocial inertia within the scientific community.

Selection of sourcesBertalanffy, Ludwig 1969. General System Theory. Revised edition 2015, George Braziller Inc, NewYork.

Dewey, John 1948. Reconstruction in Philosophy. Reprint 2004, Dover Publications, Inc. Mineola, NewYork, United States.

Popper, Karl 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Reprint 2002, Routledge, London.

UEFDSA newspaper, Science seriesRahul Mallick– Docosahexaenoic acid,22:6n-3: Its roles in the structure and function of the brain

IV. Abstracts December 19, 2019 16

Scienti˛c Paper‘ { IV. Ab‘tra˝‘

Docosahexaenoic acid,22:6n-3: Its roles in thestructure and function of the brain

Rahul Mallick, Sanjay Basak, Asim K.Duttaroy

Marine fish and oils sourced docosahexaenoicacid, 22:6n-3 (DHA) is an essential long-chainpolyunsaturated fatty acid (LCPUFA) for humanhealth. DHA can also be converted from anotherLCPUFA, named as eicosapentaenoic acid,20:5n-3(EPA). But with age the DHA conversion capabilityis reduced. DHA is vital for numerous processes inthe body, e.g., signal transduction, membrane struc-ture and function, cellular proliferation, inflamma-tion, angiogenesis and host of other processes af-fecting health and disease. DHA and its metabolitesinfluence the structure and functional brain develop-ment of the foetus and infants. DHA also maintainhealthy brain function of adults. As DHA is themajor prevalent fatty acid in the brain membrane,so DHA is essential nutrient required throughoutthe life cycle for the maintenance of overall brainhealth. Brain maintains its fatty acid levels mainlyvia the uptake of plasma free fatty acids. So, circulat-ing plasma DHA is significantly related to cognitiveabilities. The signalling pathways of DHA and itsmetabolites are involved in neurogenesis, antinoci-ceptive effects, anti-apoptotic effect, synaptic plas-ticity, Ca2+ homeostasis in brain diseases, and the

functioning of nigrostriatal activities during ageingand is inversely associated with cognitive decline.DHA metabolites’ mode of action on various pro-cesses in the brain are not yet well known. Differentstudies support a link between low intake of DHAand a higher risk of brain disorders. Higher con-sumption of foods containing high in n-3 fatty acids,and/or lower intake of n-6 fatty acidswas strongly as-sociated with a lower Alzheimer’s Disease and otherbrain disorders. Supplementation of DHA improvessome behaviours associatedwith attention deficit hy-peractivity disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia,and impulsive behaviour as well as cognition. Nev-ertheless, the outcomes of trials with DHA supple-mentation have been controversial. Many studieswith DHA have shown effectiveness in brain func-tion. However, there is no alternative of clinical trialsfor definitive conclusions . Dietary deficiency of n-3fatty acids during foetal development in utero and thepostnatal state has detrimental effects on cognitiveabilities. Further research on DHA supplementationin humans is required to assess a variety of clinicaloutcomes.

For further reading, please follow the link:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073657481930214X

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073657481930214X

UEFDSA newspaper, Science seriesJuha-Matti Huusko– Methods for complex ODEs based on localization, integration and operator theory

IV. Abstracts December 19, 2019 17

Methods for complex ODEs based on localization,integration and operator theory

Juha-Matti Huusko

This thesis introduces some new results concerning linear differential equations

f (n) + An−1 f (n−1) + · · · + A1 f ′ + A0 f = An, (∗)

where n ≥ 2 and A0, . . . , An are analytic in a simply connected domain D of the complex plane. Typically Dis the unit disc. Before presenting these new results,some background is recalled. Localization combinedwith known results implies lower bounds for the iterated order of growth of solutions of (∗). Straight forwardintegration combined with an operator theoretic approach yields sufficient conditions for the coefficients,which place all solutions of (∗) or their derivatives in a general growth space H∞ω (D). Moreover, theoperator theoretic approach combined with certain tools such as representation formulas and Carleson’stheorem indicates sufficient conditions such that all solutions are bounded, or belong to the Bloch space orBMOA. A counterpart of the Hardy-Stein-Spencer formula for higher order derivatives and the oscillationof solutions are also discussed.

For further reading, please follow the link:http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_978-952-61-2507-7/

http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_978-952-61-2507-7/

UEFDSA new‘paperintegraali.com/dsa/2019-8-small.pdf · UEF DSA UEFDSA new‘paper...

Documents

Transcript of UEFDSA new‘paperintegraali.com/dsa/2019-8-small.pdf · UEF DSA UEFDSA new‘paper...