We had our last discussion with the Uni Vienna MSc students today.
A little reflection… 👇🏻 /1
It’s been an incredible journey. Very wide-ranging, but also very compressed & intense. Deadlines are the only thing that forces me to overcome eternal procrastination due to excessive perfectionism. I’m still a bit dizzy (and exhausted) from the experience. /2
The product is far from perfect. I consider it like a demo tape. Something you produce before you sign up with a label to record a more professionally produced album. It’s raw in many spots. But I think the story it attempts to tell is shining through clearly enough. /3
It is a call to scientists (especially biologists) to reflect on what we are actually doing & what the big questions in our field currently are. I think that it is a shame we have forgotten about many of them lately. Biology is at heart about life itself, about living beings. /4
Peter Medawar famously remarked that “science is the art of the soluble.” Many central questions in biology are not quite soluble yet. But if we forget about them, we lose context. We start to forget just how little we know. We fall for the illusion that we understand nature. /5
I strongly believe that a lecture like this, reminding us of the things we *don’t* know, grounding our thinking in philosophical principles, should be part of any science curriculum at the undergraduate & graduate level. /6
Unfortunately, very few scientists today learn about philosophy. Few are encouraged to reflect on what they are doing. Instead we rush to produce, to publish, to go for the low-hanging fruit. We are trained to become very high-level technicians. /7
I hope, most of all, that this series of lectures encourages people to think more, reflect more, to take their time, to long after wisdom, not just facts. The academic system we have built is killing this. We need a better system. /8
Contemporary academia has trapped itself in a monoculture with a very low diversity in perspectives. We life in a time where the future is more unpredictable than ever. We need more diversity, not less. You never know, which perspectives will be useful in the future. /9
My lecture is a call for you to explore! This is what basic science should be all about. As René Thom put it: “At a time where so many scholars are calculating, is it not desirable that some, who can, dream?”
You can! And ou don’t need a Fields Medal for it. /10
I would like to thank all those who have followed me on this journey. I hope it inspired you.
I would like to thank all those who have provided feedback. It means a lot to me.
I am more determined to go on with my journey. It’s been a struggle, but it’s never dull. /11
We need to find our purpose back in academic research. We need to tackle the big questions with courage & abandon. We need to escape the constraints of the system. You can’t do this alone. But we can do it together.
So, stay in touch. Let’s discuss. And let’s move forward! /12
One day, I'll turn #BeyondNetworks into a book & will popularise its contents, because we should have this discussion across society.
In the meantime, it will remain available here. Pls share it & the ideas expressed in it!
Enjoy the ride! I hope to see you along the way. /13
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@balazskegl @drmichaellevin @ThouArtThat I don't know what @drmichaellevin posted above since he blocked me. But just to make sure: we are *not* part of the same family. And the differences between our philosophies are fundamental, not "minuscule." Neither is @drmichaellevin a revolutionary. Indeed, he is a reactionary.
@balazskegl @drmichaellevin @ThouArtThat I explain why @drmichaellevin's "philosophy" is vacuous, just a PR stunt, here: . TAME is an attempt at disguising that his approach is, in fact, utterly reductionist, the culmination of modernist thinking, not the beginning of a metamodern science.johannesjaeger.eu/blog/why-tame-…
@balazskegl @drmichaellevin @ThouArtThat That's one difference between his work and that of @ThouArtThat and I, who are trying to do serious work, based on solid philosophy, which is aimed at *understanding* the world and our place in it, not to control and manipulate (i.e. engineer) everything.
I traveled to Paris to give my philosophy crash course for scientists () to a wonderful group of @lpiparis_ @FIREPhD students, as I do every year.
Contact me if you want to bring this course to your own institute! It's not only fun, but also useful...johannesjaeger.eu/philosophy.html
... allowing you to become a better researcher through philosophy. The course has an interactive, discussion-based format that is based on an online series of lecture which are freely available: .
It helps you reflect on your own scientific practice and world view using a (1) process-based, (2) perspectival-realist, and (3) deliberative approach to the philosophy of science. The course heavily focuses on students' own experiences, practices, and questions.
"I think assembly theory has lots of merit and potential, but this particular paper frames its argument in a way which is unfortunate and, frankly, more than just a bit misleading. My personal suspicion is that this has two reasons: (1) the authors hyped up their claims ...
... to get the paper published in a glam journal, plus (2) they also overestimate the reach and power of their model in ways which may be detrimental to its proper application and interpretation."
I submitted the paper knowing full well that @eLife usually restricts its scope to empirical work. The idea was to challenge that restriction, since (in my opinion) biology urgently needs a revival of serious conceptual efforts to prevent the descent of the field into pointless..
@eLife ... construction of large data sets that are increasingly costly to produce but yield diminishing returns in terms of insight and understanding into the workings and organization of living systems. Hence, no surprise when my work was deemed "out of scope." That's fair enough.
The current #COVID19 media coverage around me seems to agree on three things: (1) there is nothing we can do against #omicron, (2) this variant is mild & the wave will be over soon, (3) we're soon going "endemic," to "live with the virus," & back to normality. /1
There seems to be very little push-back against this narrative, which is something that really surprises me. But worse than that: it does *not* bode well for the next pandemic (whether the next #COVID19 variant or something altogether more worrisome). /2
Re (1): we can't do anything & #ZeroCovid was never an option.
Well, we never really tried. Those few countries that did were isolated (either geographically or surrounded by countries who didn't implement any low-incidence measures). /3
Our second paper on dynamical modularity, "Dynamical Modules in Metabolism, Cell and Developmental Biology" by @NickMonk14 & myself is now available as a preprint: osf.io/rydbn via @OSFramework /1
It complements our earlier evolutionary perspective on the subject (osf.io/vfz4t) with its more regulation-based approach and a long list of practical examples that illustrate our novel conceptual framework for the dynamical decomposition of complex systems. /2
Just like our earlier paper, the argument starts with the following observation: modular phenotypic traits imply that the underlying regulatory processes—the epigenotype of the organism—must be dissociable as well. How to decompose them, however, is not a trivial task. /3