One of the problems I see in trying to explain my work is that the solutions I discovered are so different from how we tend to look at science that I essentially have to write the steps to creating a completely new science with new theories, new methods, and new practical applications. I want to get people to “think differently” and this seems to be a challenging task.
To complicate matters, almost none of my work has been published previously. I have few “scientific followers” who might help me disseminate this work through the scientific community. I have a backlog of scientific papers to write and publish that stem from several decades of research. I should probably write about 10- 20 scientific research articles and four books instead of one.
To make matters worse, I am almost 70 years old. My years remaining are starting to dwindle and so are my cognitive faculties and energy levels. The clock is ticking…
This book covers my experiences and discoveries from a personal point of view. I think that my life has provided some “good drama” that others might find amusing. Starting with a lofty goal, I experienced a series of failures. I kept “failing forward” until I achieved partial success. Time will tell if I can fail forward fast enough to achieve my ultimate goal of writing that classic book that will change the world.
I could probably point to 10-20 scientific discoveries I have made that seem revolutionary. These build upon each other and it appears that some can only be understood if you understand the work that went before. There are varying levels of scientific literature to support my work. Some areas are well covered, but many of the areas I have studied have few followers. Sometimes, I only have one or two people to cite.
To complicate matters even further, each scientific discipline has its own language. Often terms that mean something in one language mean something else in another. In essence, I have to come up with a new universal vocabulary to discuss some of my work.
Imagine, if you will, an explorer who trekked through largely unexplored territory and returned with tales of what he or she found there. The sights were spectacular and almost indescribable. The people spoke several different languages and so the words they used would be unintelligible to the rest of the world. To complicate matters, almost no one knows that this lands exists. It is a “lost world” that is not on existing maps. Hardly anyone is even looking for this world. How does the explorer explain all this? That paints a picture of the task I am faced with.
Enough whining. I need to get down to work. I have carved up my task into three areas, theory, method, and practice. I have developed a theoretical framework for the study of living systems called “The Physics of Living Systems.” In order to work with the types of data I am analyzing, I used methods of data analysis I call “Data Pattern Analysis.” Finally, I developed a set of practical applications for my work, which I am calling “Theory Driven Data Science.”
Theory, Method, and Practice
Scientific discovery is an iterative process. A new theory generates new discussion which generates further research and more new discoveries. If one is working with a new type of data, new methods are required to work with that data. Under the best scenario, the net result are new practical applications that provide improved results over the old applications.
Typically, it takes years for the process of changes in science to unfold in the greater scientific community. There are a series of “paradigm shifts” that occur where people gradually come to understand the world differently. I experienced a series of paradigm shifts over many decades and am several steps into the process. My view of the world is different enough from the old view that I doubt that I can bring people to understand things the way I do without providing some intermediate path.
When I started, I thought I “knew” how the world worked, but I discovered that I didn’t. I had to unlearn much of what I knew about how the world worked before I could explore new paradigms and build new theories, methods, and practices. Part of that unlearning involved realizing that my existing theories were inadequate. I also had to unlearn what I “knew” about data analysis and learn new “methods” of working with data. Finally, I discovered that these new methods had new practical applications in my work as a data scientist. Eventually, I realized that “theory driven” data science was more effective than non-theory driven data science.
I could try to write up the descriptions of these discoveries all at once but I think that approach would fail. This was a journey of discovery and simply pointing out the end result would probably not make much sense.
In addition, most journal articles focus on one thing at a time. Trying to get readers to experience paradigm shifts in multiple areas at once seems to be an almost impossible task. I can write about one thing at a time, but I don’t have a ready literature to cite for my reasons for doing what I did.
For all of these reasons, I am breaking my work into three sections which will be in complete enough form that I can cite them for anyone who is interested. Given the two to three year lag time to publishing, I will be self-publishing at first I to create a body of literature that I can build from.
My self-publishing will begin with separate web pages to describe my work. Then, I will be compiling these works into online articles and book. Finally, I will begin the task of writing books and articles for publication.