Although it may seem redundant, it is not; For science, it is argued in this document, if there is no creation of knowledge, there is no breakdown of paradigms, and there is no generation of innovation. If knowledge does not flourish, it is not useful to society. Smart organizations are those that through the mastery of 5 techniques (Senge, 2005), manage to innovate, learning to learn. There are rules for practicing knowledge, but you don't have to follow them to get knowledge.
Science as a puzzle solution.
Perhaps the most surprising feature of the problems of the investigation, are the little pretension that is had to produce important novelties, be they conceptual or of phenomena. Solving a research problem is to achieve what was planned in a new way; This requires the solution of a new complex puzzle, mathematically and conceptually instrumented.
Who knows success, proves to be adept at solving puzzles, and the challenge of solving this puzzle is what motivates the researcher.
Puzzles are a special category of problems, used to test the investigator's ingenuity and skills. A person may be attracted to science for different reasons: 1) for being truly useful,
- for the excitement of exploiting the unknown, and for testing the knowledge acquired.
The scientific enterprise is useful because it opens new territories, introduces order and tests previously accepted theories.
Throughout the eighteenth century, scientists tried to explain lunar movements based on the laws of Newtonian mechanics and universal gravitation, but they failed. To get this explanation, they proposed a new explanation of the square of the distances, that is, they had changed the paradigm, they would have to define a new puzzle, but with the pieces of the previous one.
Thomas Kuhn, an expert in Philosophy and a leading figure in the world of science, was the one in charge of renewing the theoretical definition of the term "paradigm" to give it a meaning more in keeping with current times, adapting it to describe the series with him. of practices that outline the guidelines of a scientific discipline over a certain period of time.
He claims that a scientific paradigm establishes the observable; the questions to be developed to obtain answers about the purpose pursued; as well as the structure of the questions and models the way to interpret the results obtained from a scientific investigation.
When one paradigm can no longer compensate for the requirements of one science, it is replaced by another. By this, it is understood that a paradigm shift is somewhat dramatic for science, since they appear stable and mature.
That is, science is full of paradigms that must be observed, scrutinized and interpreted, thus becoming a model to be able to reproduce. For scientific practice, a paradigm is an experimental model, it responds to the scientific objective, but it is also a social one. And not only that, it also responds to the way in which the agents of the scientific field understand, think and do science. It also occurs on the social scale, for example, in terms of how societies at one point in history understand the world in one way or another.
When speaking of “paradigm shift,” then, reference is made to the evolution of thought that occurs in disciplines and societies throughout history and that promotes the emergence of a new model of thought.
(Kuhn, 2007).
Science must be directed by man.
He mentions (Tamayo, 2008), in his book on the structure of science: Aladdin, who won the jackpot for the lottery when he found the wonderful lamp, being this lamp, a tool from which the genius of maximum powers arises, but whose will is subject to the wishes of its master. In contrast to the story of Dr. Frankenstein, who is wholly independent of his creator; this uncontrollable monster, with criminal desires that even attacks its creator. Of these analogies, says (Tamayo, 2008), science is more like Aladdin's lamp than Frankenstein's indomitable monster, because despite having enormous powers, it obeys its master's order unconditionally. Science has not usurped, nor can it usurp our intentions, by
"Invent", men have reserved the right to give direction and objectives to what we create or invent.
The reduction of one science to another, as the first way to solve the problem.
Specialization has favored the segmentation of knowledge, in branches isolated from each other, and the consequences of this fragmentation have been severe. Now we must return to the problem in the environment of this century. (Geymonat). In this century, we are facing an inverse movement: the unification of the sciences.
The unity of them constitutes the application of science, since it depends on many premises induced by different scientific disciplines, but connected to each other.
But what is the significance of reducing a science?
- In the first half of the 20th century, the first idea of unification emerged with the
"International Encyclopedia of Unified Science". In which the unification of the laws of the natural sciences is proposed. Every scientist admits the use of his discoveries in any field of study, with this he admits the unity of scientific language, but this unity is not entirely clear, due to the very specialization of science.
Due to the technification of the languages of each science, it is more complex to translate the results of one science, with the laws of another, and much more difficult, to have it in an ordinary language.
- The second concept is to unify the method; in the second half of the 20th century, this is known as the counterfeiting method. This means that they do not apply different methods, rather it means that they try specific methods to their field of study, in these terms the authentic sciences are those that do not try to achieve irrefutable truths, but are aware that their results may be falsified. the one that scientists are always motivated to devise a new theory, capable of replacing the already falsified one, that is, that there is already a better theory that was able to replace it.
- The dynamic unification of science and technology.
There is a static and dynamic unification of the sciences; it is intended to unite laws, language and method. Until now, this unification is the requirement of our culture, which is not a general formula, it is a gradual response, not static, it is transformed through time, that is, it is dynamic.
Social production of knowledge.
Knowledge is a form of merchandise, and a universal measurement of scientific products is made in order to measure their profitability, the knowledge produced must show its validity by responding to context-specific problems, gathering from all areas, not only cognitive. (Heler, 2005).
- The social production of knowledge supposes a specific production through the cooperation of the sciences and techniques, which stabilizes models that are at the service of human life.
When we speak of knowledge production, we speak of innovation and change, based on what is given, but without given mechanisms, as previously stated, in the analogy of the puzzle. Production is linked to the new, it does not seek the permanence of the same, but the emergence of the new. This is exemplified in the following table:
| Usual use | Biological | From what is given |
| Continuity | Conservation
(species) |
|
| Reiteration of the same | Variation
(individuals) |
Innovation and change |
| Permanence | Permanence and change | Creation |
| Refers to power as domain | Given re-mechanisms of the species. | Invention
"Empowerment" |
Source: (Heler, 2005).
- Production is a creation with a plus, which responds to what exists, new species emerge, in an impulsive process and aimed at transformation.
Thus, we have production and product, they are not separated. The product has a use value and production gives it meaning and value. As if we were talking about a vector, in which the production is the arrow and the arrowhead, the product with value.
- Production must be fruitful, production operates, contributes to the increase of the forces of production. then it acquires sense of revisions, the corrections of the production process is a constant learning.
Reflecting on the link of reason, experience, thought, reality, theory and practice achieve scientific knowledge, where theory is the result of order, production and practice is the flourishing, modification of society. For example, psychoanalytic theories modified family and work relationships; Administrative sciences modify the organization charts of companies, the way of managing production, where equality and freedom serve to cooperate in the organization, and enrich the community.
From the point of view of the production of knowledge, it is the producers of knowledge who must have the privileged place, because when it comes to responding to the needs of production; it is until they manage to break the subordination that creativity to produce knowledge occurs. (Heler, 2005).
What does not build knowledge.
Peter Senge Quote: Fragmenting the world makes complex tasks easier, but we lose our intimate connecting interaction with the vast whole.
Destroying an illusion of a world whose building forces are separated is not building knowledge. When we abandon this illusion, we can build intelligent organizations, where the collective aspiration is released, ordinary people learn to learn together.
The most successful company will be the so-called "smart organization"; the ability to learn faster from competitors will be the only competitive advantage. It is no longer possible to survey the panorama and send others to follow orders from the great strategist. Successful organizations will be the ones to discover how to enthusiastically harness the learning ability of people at all levels of the organization. Those who dare to break paradigms, to integrate and assemble the puzzle, those who come to innovation.
Smart organizations are possible, because we are all learners, because learning is part of our nature.
The business community is learning to learn, transforming itself into a community open to learning. What will distinguish intelligent organization from traditional authoritarian control will be the mastery of certain disciplines of intelligent organization. (Senge, 2005). What will allow us to create freely; break the paradigm, find the model, innovate, create and generate knowledge.
Disciplines of the intelligent organization.
Scientists say an idea has been generated when it is shown to work in the laboratory. The idea turns into innovation only when it can be produced seamlessly, on a large scale, and is also affordable. If the idea is important enough, it is called "basic innovation", it creates a new industry or transforms an existing industry. Smart organizations must innovate.
In engineering, when an idea goes from invention to innovation, various technologies compose it. As long as these technologies are not combined, the idea, although possible in the laboratory, does not reach its potential level in practice, we cannot speak of knowledge generation.
It is the present, but it will be the future, that the five new component technologies converge to innovate smart organizations. Although they have been developed separately, each one will be decisive for the success of the others. These five new technologies are:
- systemic thinking personal control mental models building a shared vision team learning.
Scientist's commitments
Finally, for the scientist trying to put the puzzle together, there is a set of commitments without which no one will be a scientist. The scientist must be concerned with glimpsing the world and understanding the precision and breadth with which it has been ordered.
This commitment leads him to examine some aspects of nature in great detail, only with the help of his colleagues. Now, if such an examination reveals pockets of apparent disorder, then these pose a challenge for the scientist to define observational techniques or to better articulate his theories, that is, to innovate.
conclusion
- The existence of this powerful network of conceptual, theoretical, and methodological commitments is the main source of the figure that relates normal science to the solution of a puzzle. There are rules for the practice of scientific knowledge, since science is an activity highly determined, although it should not be completely determined by rules. (Kuhn, 2007). Knowledge as such is a product, which must be produced and sold in the intelligent organization.
Bibliography.
- Definition of. (November 2015). Obtained from http://definicion.de/paradigma/#ixzz3qxVtX6taGeymonat, L. (sf). Current limits of the philosophy of science. Gedisa.Heler, M. (2005). The social production of knowledge. Biblios.Kuhn, TS (2007). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Fondo de Cultura Económica. Senge, P. (2005). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of intelligent organization. Buenos Aires: Granica.Tamayo, RP (2008). The structure of science. Fund of Economic Culture.
