Will I want I think the University of Hamburg is this
tool out. The University of Hamburg and the vice president
and they head of the academy for the slottly introductions.
I think it's do that. Okay, now you want
it such a head a great. Okay, good.
Welf see. And I do want to say,
what an honor it is to have been envided to give
the fund video secret lexures,
as we've heard his objectives of integrating ringing into the
same conversation pholosophy and science
And bringing that conversation to the wider public audience,
are increasingly important today, as science in technology,
are shaping new futures for us in ways that make as shape to revisit,
the question of what it is even to be human in the new worlds.
And so I'm match one or two give these lectures.
What I like to do is,
give you a sense of that very broad breath framework in
which the questions that I will address can we low cated
Before I go drill down, as we say,
into some more specific issues,
and use examples that illustrate the philosophical points,
I will be making from contemporary structural biology or in this lecture,
the experimental, detection of the three demential structure of proteins.
But that want seems so strange by the time we get
there, I hope,
this is my goal
I want to say that in fact,
one of the motivations for this series of ideas,
at I will be presenting in the lectures,
this week has a rison from five your collaboration that I have been engaged and with Angela Gron in Born,
who is the Chair of the Department of Structural Biology,
at the University, a Pittsburgh medical school,
who is a expert both in nuclear emignetic,
resident spect truscopy you that experimental detection our putting instructure,
as well,
as it's they are radical,
the few radical development
And algorithms that are used to predict that's structure.
So I myself feel like a benefit at greatly from the eneractions
with scientists that I have had and I hold out hope,
that they have also benefit it from the ineractions with the philosophers that they have engaged with this well.
So one I want to suggest to night is that.
For lots of your science is in general in an
an undertaking that tries to and an annalize how we as
me mortals can hope to have an an understanding of nature
And what we do is look at the scientific practices,
historically and contemporary,
as a model of a least the human institution that is,
when best developed to find out what nature is like,
how things work, what will happen,
if I interviewen in this way or an that way.
And how best to use that knowledge to it to some
pregmatic goals that I might have and a curring this easers or the midding symptomers or building rocketships or,
whatever it the problem, we said before,
so it is scientific knowledge,
that we appeal to if we want to be the most likely to succeed in a cheaving our goals.
And so science actually is, the settle practices that tells as more,
about what nature is like,
then anything our humans have to developed in our history on the planet.
And so for last we science, in it a long
tradition of a pistomology in philosophy your what is knowledge, going at last back
back, at least in the western world, other way,
to play to, as if a last for one myself,
also always, match in play town at a talk or they take away your your card, that says you are full hassefer.
So the questions about what is knowledge and how do
we know what we know
It's has a very long tradition. And Science is been
part of that investigation about how we have knowledge and how we get knowledge.
But what I want to do is share with you some
of what I think have been in very broad terms.
Part of the history of follows, of you and of Science,
that have maybe letters to have use about this activity,
that are not quite into and with what Science does today.
So and on the way and when explain the tyle.
So the mir of nature metter for
Oh, place less our match in my talk to
Alice to Louis Carols Alice and one to Land,
which is maybe were you first heard it.
But in fact was developed in the 17 century as a
way of the scribing voth how art and science stuart in relationship to nature,
that they mear of the way nature
was and could paint the picture of how things were outside of
the human mind. But in fact, Alice in Wonderland,
did experienced some of the perspectivel consequences of the mear of nature matter for.
In so far us, when she went through the looking glass,
your spiegel, when you went to the other side of it,
the world look very different.
In fact, the book she had been reading before,
all the words, very, all the letters became reversed.
And many other things, that seem natural enormal in
the world on the front side of the mayer,
we're completely different on the other side of the mayer.
But that be in the case,
this meter for my appear to the metter for to night,
is not quite this alice in one to land one.
But routher other others more to, it's historical world in understanding
sicientific and historical role and understanding scientific and artistic representation.
And especially in the wake of the 1979 book by Richard Rurdy,
which you might the familie with call the mayer of nature,
in which he criticizes is this metter for
For in philosophy, both for its love reliance on
a representational theory perception and a corespondent theory of truth.
Now, I share with more the certain features,
nämlich a kind of pragmatic madic appeal to what those are
what do are beliefs or are nowledge do for us.
But take a very different path for more thing in understanding,
how we would replace this matter for with some other kind
of big way of understanding the relationship between scient to ignowledge
and nature.
We're wordy relies on history
of philosophy
To see where to go next. And where he goes
is actually to a social conception of knowledge. I myself,
rely on contemporary science, to know where to go next.
And really on more ever analytic philosophical and psychological account of that.
So as you will see. So the mear of nature matter for.
In part, also eckos, has been ecko through,
these broad cate categories in which philosophy, has organized,
what knowledge is and how we get knowledge.
From and period sissm to rationalism. And in fact,
Experience, right, our experience of nature, whether it's too experiments or
abservations, is infract constitute to to of contemporary science,
that's the string there is might not a goal, it that.
Well, it that decide. That's your electure and how my like sure.
But the role of experience has been constituted to tive of what it is,
to do sciences, it constitutes, something being scientifically justified,
it's a source of discovery about what nature is like,
within the logical empires, tradition, carral tempo,
actually character is the scientific entiprise,
as an it tempt to predict in explain the deliverances
of the sensors
And something last evers have taken, these components,
the alternity division course, that we can just,
we're not just taviola rasa, as just join lock,
that we were, just student passively well,
the nature inpressed, it's so for partner sensors.
And then we knew how things were, right? But rather,
we use are rational coupacities are analytic coupacities are logical coupacities,
to make sense of nature,
not just to sit back like a, you know,
eine Peace of Wide Axt,
das ging not to day card to peace of wacks and let it impressed so for partners.
And so reason is also another important foundation of knowledge.
It's not just sensors. But it's also a regional capacities our concepts,
which are prior to experience and knowledge and there asult about
a bar intuisions and our logic in a special mathmatics,
right, which is part of that same rationals can contribution.
Now it has been the sense that some people in the history use.
And so take in one or the other of these components,
right, either experience only or reason, only,
as the primary way in which knowledges defined and leaving out the significants of the other part.
But as, we are should know, we are we
are in Germany. As emanual kindset. And now just
read a little quote from the kritik of pureason.
That reason in order to be talk by nature.
So you need reason and end experience.
Mast approach nature with its principles in one hand.
And in the other hand, the experience thought out in
accordence with those principles.
In order to be instructed by nature, not like a people,
who has reseited to him whatever that teacher once to say.
But like an appointed judge, who compelles witnesss
to answer the questions, you puts to them.
So interraction with nature is it passive. It's not passive,
like a people, it's interract to like a judge.
And in order to do that, we deep to engage
booth experience and reason. And think post card,
that is the consensus view in flast of your science
I'm sure there are outliers, because for last wars all like, there are
fluss was hold just about anything you can imagine as a position.
But in general, I think, for lots,
your science, recognizes. The contributions, essential contributions are
both, the empirical site and the the theoretical site.
And you see this too our all of the sciences today.
But I would like that are the third component to what structures are
scientip epgnowledge that is both a source and a constraint on
what it is we do and this is very much in light,
what the president,
the cademia just mention in Terms of using ccience in
Policy and in practical matters
That it's not just experience to Observation and Experiment plus in tangled with reason,
which is involved largical and math medical infrance and conceptual preserpositions.
But in fact, what science to does in the practice science,
is always it also directed by are goals and questions in problems,
that we bring to be are.
What is studied? What aspects of nature,
do we focus our attention on?
And we've been this repeated they through the history of sciences,
what I think it's very important to see to make explicit
the role,
that goals in questions in aims play
in understanding
It's contemporary science, when you're looking at, what is
is being done, why is this experiment being performed why
or these questions the ones at our the models,
or being developed to answer.
So for me, there is a try partied sense of resources,
that are fundamental two scientive ignality experience, reason and pragmatics,
the goals in questions, that we want to answer.
So what I want to do in this
talk is the following
I want to talk about scientific models. Because in these
days it's models that have have the language just scientific models
that have to a certain next back extent represent,
what have been traditionally appealed to a scientific Theories,
or that scientific high prophecies.
They much of the work of every day sciences and creating models,
a particular their features of nature, we want to understand,
we want to product and we want to have the means
to interview on ways to achieved are goals.
So I want to consider models in terms of the how
our models stands and relationship to the world,
how it does it repare is that,
if it's not a meer.
Okay, so what is going on if we
reject the meer
Mehr davor. How does it relate to our goals?
Since I believe that that's very much. That will become a
sential component once you, if you walk down this,
this road with me a little further in terms of the kind
of answer to the first question that I'm going to give,
then the question about the goals become absolutely essential.
And how do the different models,
that we have of nature that signed this produce of nature,
how do they relate to each other?
And again, that question becomes more silien,
when you if you excrept the argument sible present about the absolute necessity a model pluralism.
So pluralism mistol very much part of my view about science
to eggnolate and integrated plarolism has has been part of my
view for a long time has a new,
I have a new understanding up that as the interactions with Pertin scientists have informed my view much,
more deplay.
So and are do to do that, for somewhen I talk
about models in general, what you into what models are
? And then I want to talk about what I don't
like to call philosophical resources for understanding the model world model,
call and model model relationships
Mirror of Nature was one such matter for.
But otherful last overs have also a lot of to artistic
representations as a way of understanding scientific models and representations.
And they are also appeared to maps as way of understanding.
The relationship between a model. And it's target object in nature.
I want to talk about those two ways that side,
they're for last of for a source two resources and what we can learn
from that my buildly we can learn something for meats of them.
But not everything we we might want to know.
And so after introducing those I like to introduce a new
win into the conversation
That's too look at the resources a brands. And brains,
I think, give a some insights, into model world
and model goal and model model relationships that are devailable from these other resources.
And so my plyral is a miss pretty white, white ranging.
I don't think any in them are around. There are just each of these resources,
gives as a peace of the story and I went to
that repetoire of tools and the toolbacks of a last of as for understanding,
scientive ignoled, by looking at some of the features,
that are on brains actually apparate in terms up
Given those arguments,
I then will turn two and example to illustrate why,
I think, this ext this other resource of looking at brains,
helps as understand some features of contemporary models in protein science, in this lecture
or all those, you come to the other electures or
be other pieces of the protein story, in some of those lectures is,
well, but in this lecture I'm looking at experimental practices,
namely, the models that can't that scientist use as the fundations for Creating,
creating models, approaching structure and I look just today at extra cristolography and niclare mignetic resident spectosks copy,
which is too long to say every time and you all now this anyway,
so which will be called NMR from now one.
Okay. And then I want to conclude,
what I hope it will be a different picture that replace
is the mehr of nature and after we've shadow that freedoms,
the freedom our before that.
Okay. So that me proceed to taker little bit
about models.
So scientipic models
Can take many different forms from what's an increaks plates and clips with illustrated,
the structure of DNA, when they first discovered it,
to model sether math madical,
that represent certain features of DNA in terms of the tortion,
computer generated models of scale models that we can build.
And the way and which we indirect with these models is also
a function of how they work, what there we,
you know, what there we can to actually pick a muppet move in murround and see
hell that help and so what there we you something house.
And the extra this is actually crystal a graphic model auf DNA,
also showserst some features. So models say very and how much detail they expose,
they very, and the scale,
you can scale up or down the models,
you can look at my more details, all of them abstract,
but all of them my want to suggest, have the fouling features.
There all abstract, namely, they all leave things out. Right,
they abstract the way from certain features in order to focus and represent other features,
someone a look at the camical banding between the Adams in
the New click assets that build up to any some of them one of look at the crew,
double heal extructure,
to figure out what at that scale hulical structures provide as as a feature of the behavior,
our this large multiple.
And they do these in different way.
So models are all powersal, they are all abstract.
But they abstract in different ways. And that's an important
feature of them, that these philosophical ressources will want to helpsure.
And some of the features, that they do represent.
They do so, they represent to could they may
rappers and a correctly, they are idealized.
And so you smoothout, I mean,
nothing is a round little ball like that in the melakily.
World nothing static. It all the conomic channical forces, is everythings
balancing around in moving around. Okay. So the models,
take features of nature that are determined to be significant or relevant,
relevant, represent those liebing out other things, right?
And even with the ones that they choose to represent that
are chosen to be represented in the model,
some of those features are right dealized.
And idealization have upstraction are,
if you like part of those central features of models,
in which fill us,
was of science happening engaged for a long time
So given that models, irre now, what we think
about. Instead of high parthesies and theories,
some very interesting features of last of your science,
that need to adjust in order to understand,
models as now the carriers, abscient to egnology.
And some of those features are these are not propositional.
Okay, if you go talk about them, right,
you can talk about them, I'm talking,
in propositional ways in a language.
And language has the features of that propositions can be too
or forth. But models art those kinds of things,
models or not through or fouls,
models are ablicable
Mai, was soll ich helfen, Madls or Accurate,
Madls or Precise, but models are two refarces,
there more like tools, then they are like sentences.
So there's a really interesting question about how scientive it knowledge,
how tools are related to the world, if you like,
that as very different questions in how propositions or are,
if we can join backup with a broady from minute,
this core respondent stereo of two,
that's has propositions are true,
if what they say,
is the
way the world is
That relationship of true this no longer vabel for us in understanding how models,
can be knowledge, can incode knowledge, represent knowledge of nature.
We have to talk about the minute different way.
We have to pick out different relationships and true to care
to rise, model world relationships. So the questions,
then are, once we breakdown the mear of nature,
how do we answer these questions, about model,
world, model,
goal in model,
model relationships
With now walking in the door, knowing for well that
these are things, that do not have true to values.
There you can't say that models true. Okay. We know it's
not true, it's at best all models or falls in the sense that they include
idealizations name, they they they include aspects. That we
have good reason to believe art characteristic of that target properties in nature that they representing,
right,
they prett they model something a static when it's dynam,
make they not marvel things a smooth when there,
when there not not smooth they model things as point masses,
when we know that having mass and having shape affects the behavior of the things that are being model.
So it best modelserve are always falls and which case,
you have dancer how can that be knowledge?
Or I think better that models or more like tools that
have are needer two or falls that we use them in
order to do do certain epistemic doubts.
So given that, we have to give up this
kind of propositional view the correspondent serious truit and thinking of models
as knowledge as proposition or only then the questions will come really interesting to ask.
So we have to look at other resources than language and logic to try the figure out,
what's the what makes something a model of this piece of nature,
what makes it give us knowledge,
gives us the ability to explain product in in Innovena and nature in ways that promote are goals.
So here is where we have resources from other,
matter for us or fill asselfical resources that for us,
for us, have a peel too.
And there is include, art and maps, okay.
So some of suggestred that the relationship between models scientipic models in natures
like the rect presentation that like the relationship between artistic representations and there's subject.
There's something like picturing going on. It's picturing the relationship in nature.
So a model live a protein is picturing the relationships that
actually this in the world amongst the component molotiles of approaching.
Okay, so there's a picturing relationship.
Now this that replaces truth. Right. And other help
suggested that maps in their relationship two that kind of geographical
and geological features of nature that they were present is what's
going on in models. And that's more of up a causal
our rather restructural relationship. So maps give a structure, right?
They give a structures that are supposed to map on and perhaps they simorphic to.
The structures, we think are infact in nature,
the relations that are important to represent.
So we have these two other phillists off a co-resources,
that each are tell us, tell us,
something that my help a center stand the way scientific models,
rappers that nature.
But there are the model world relationship. But I think
each of them other day those something doesn't tell us everything
and which is why I compiled to add to this liste of resources and other one.
So that's look briefly the way in which artistic representations are
the post to stand in relationship to the world,
we will little music here.
Not too lad, because you have to hear me over it.
So this is a picture of the moldow
river in the check republic that maybe little load.
And we have we know the way, a fotograph represents it,
the mays so this down for second.
We know the way a photograph represents it is takes
a three dementional
Structure, right? The ribber flowing, it's in motion,
the buildings behind it, everythings to in three depensions,
or for if you had time.
And what a pick a photograph those is takes that,
like a meer, in translate sit in the two dementional static relationships, right?
Okay. But we are other way is in which we
can depect right. Artistically the way and which the ribber
the moldow ribber and the city behind it are.
And Obsips, I know, I was not spost do that.
I told myself, I wasn't not do that,
then I did it, okay.
And that is too look at the way,
which is going to come up in
a minute
The eagle, you gone childle, expressionist patics,
represent the very same seen, right?
The mold out ever and the buildings behind it. Now,
it's interesting that our judgments of what it that's a
good artistic representation and what it that's a good fotograph,
depends on what we were trying to do,
and this is again with a goals, come on.
That art is doesn't have the same goals as scientific representations,
nämlich, it's goal is into be objective
To capture what is actually going on. But rother,
and those as the editions of the audience,
no better than me this, but together,
to give some expression, some feeling in the viewer of these paintings.
Some sense of what the moldow reverdous. For us,
emotionally, right? We have you a third representation,
which your hearing, which is smadness, symphonic, polem,
just to at the more literary content to the discussion.
And again, it's so post to be a representation and artistic interpretation of the moldow reverd.
But no this that one we get to, if we one and now,
what problembilityers, that the moldorivers going of flight.
Right. Those I'm the kinds of representations, that were want to appeal to. Right,
look at some Accounts of to predict flatting of the magnet two,
and fraquit say a flotten flows in the River,
that are estimated by a questions developed by regression in Alysses,
that represents the basic in characteristics, like train ageria,
the mean basic in elevation and the percentages of carbon,
carbonite, bed rack the urban area,
the storage with the in a basic.
And these are going to be the relevant
features.
So depending I'm what we want to do, right?
This form of picturing is a rother week relationship,
that seems not to tell us a little bit about how
science tific models might stand in relation to the things,
they are targeting.
But since the goals, and the enerprise of art is
so different in science, right?
It seems that they're art going to give a say
a lot of insight into how to understand or judge
The quality of rapper at models and representations that science delivers. So lotto,
art stands to some our ject in our course that relationship
over the history of art his change to in hormersely
from rappresentationalists to expression ism to abstract in not and conceptual
and non-representational and all of these different ways and which art
can can in some sense in duce in us and idea or feeling about it's a our ject right.
Those seem very far a feel from the way,
what scientivic models, what do that?
The standards for judging them are going to be so different
because their goals or
so different
So arctos, tell us something,
all of these different representations are partial, they don't give
us the full account of what the more down River is.
And one of the interesting things is, they may give us different,
speed, different aspects of what the more down River is.
But they don't do it in an a kind of object to way.
So that the people to art as a resource,
the picturing relationship as a resource,
seems to me
fairly,
That it's said, others subset, okay, okay,
what, you know,
because you know in a picture the actual properties,
you want to really sciences interested in the relations,
the calls of relations, the structure relations, that constitute are universe.
And so we want to know what those relations are,
we don't care whether, you know,
the moldow every looks blue to astrict.
We want to know what the relationships are. And map
sour things that are our design to give that kind of
structural representation. So maps, thank it then I
would here
Are do you have a kind of similarity,
a structural similarity to the Lionscapes that they are depecting?
And those special relationships, we might think up as I
simorefice. Namily, this graphical representation, again,
it's two the mention all and then then the relationship between the Landscape,
the edge of other content and the sea arguing it be three demential.
And there's also sorts of interesting measurement problems about you,
what scale you measure things that how one the cost line
is.
And so
these questions maybe
That I so morph is and much is an art.
I is a category that the lot something last rest rescience
of the peel to to understry and the relationship between scientivic models and they're target,
seem to be something that maps
try to to do. But that's not all the things,
things that maps to. And this is an example of
the 19 our on the last is the 1909 8 map
of the lond and underground. Right,
which is a geographically is so morphic in the sense that
it shows actually the deography of the all the different stations,
at that time,
that the underground treverse
And so you can see, they underground kind of wanders around,
you geographically, quite a wide distance. And so the
distance with two instations is the actual measure distance in the landscape.
But they turn up, this was completely users. As underground map,
if you wanted it actually, you know,
get from white hall to bucking ham powers, hi,
or the hide park, or to any of the land,
that this the locations that the two might go to.
It turns out that it was users, because if
you give this geographically actually, accurate, representation over,
The actually inner sections between the lines in the center,
were most things happen or so small, you can actually read them.
And so they became rather impossible to use for that function.
In 19931 harry back and vernted, what the cyclonic two map,
which is now replicated all over the world and other crimes to subway systems,
which gives up, teographic, I sim more faces,
for functional usability.
So it tells you what you need to know,
you're represents information in a way,
that let's you travel on the underground effectively and efficiently with
out being I simorphic toographically.
So again
The question about which relations are the important ones. There both correct maps,
are both good maps, one's good at Giography and the other scoot it function for,
you know, changing, subway start, subway starts.
So these are all accurate, hi. But they have different,
which want to use, dipension,
what I want to do. Again, the goals,
come in, when to use that you have many different ways,
and which you can partially and in target it ways represent any feature of nature,
ups, sorry, I did that again. I know,
I promised,
I would do that.
I can't just go a head
of it
So it turns out again that map showers,
other things, like different scales,
emoved a looper
So, the same messages for different, this is now pittsburgh my home town these days,
shown in the relationship it's at the far left corner on
the top in the relationship of other cities in the state of pensilvania,
he we have a city mapper pittsburgh, which tells me the streets,
that I can travel one by car, by good walking,
and I have a top a graphical mapper pittsburgh too.
And again, now these are all merps of the same thing,
they target different features,
they are that they have different uses,
okay.
Are they
all accurate
Question. Yes, that's a great that they are.
They could all be in accurate with respect to the features
they pick out to represent, right?
But they pick out different features. So what you can
get is a which when I should used depends on what I want to do?
But what's important is to see, they're all partsal and
different ways, they're all correct.
In so far is they're accuratedly to picking what they want to depect.
But that, I have applorality of maps to toos from
. Right. Given that all of them are partial
The choice will come down to what my goal is and a be.
Wether I'm climing, my washington or weather I'm driving from down
to the cathy drill of learning, where my offices.
So here is the argument. Here is what we've learn
from looking at. Representations, artistic and matt representations,
and what we can learn about representations and general that might
help percender stand scientific models as representing.
Some piece of nature that is there target.
If every aspect
The first lesson from votes that all mullos are partial our representations are partial.
Now, this is the infect has to we the case.
Because if every aspect, at the correct scale in
the world, is in the mullotal, right?
Think about what that would look like right?
I've now going to model to River, the moldow River.
I need to model that we know that there are scale effects,
right? We know that there are a particular,
effects about what the constituence byoder is in the River to
what the River
We know, there's polution in the River, we know,
it depends on the rain, for we know,
all these things, about what the River is,
if I want a model like.
And if I were two, include, absolutely get a complete model, okay.
Of nature. I wouldn't have a representation of it all
at the end, I would have a double cott.
A full scale double cott. And then I would be know better off,
in terms of knowing what anything about the demold that River,
then I was, when I was standing in frontable, right?
And so once to,
once You excepted if you accept as I do,
that all representations and how do to be useful it all
for giving as knowledge, have to be partial.
And that's different features in the web representations are partial in different ways, right?
Then you see that we have to have a plurality of models.
So, some features all my own all these representations are partial in complete.
I think that's also too of scientific models otherwise,
there just double cat. And some of the features are
simplified or smilith that are right dealized.
And so they are in some sense non,
I simorphic
or non
Not, they're not that true that they're not the whole true.
Okay. They're partial and they're eidealist. Okay. But they're
not just partial. If you like the flip side of partial,
the other side of partial, is that they're perspect typle.
So if mothers are partial than somethings are represented in the
mother well other things or not, that's all it means.
Right. But what is represent in the model and codes
a perspective? That's what the perspective is.
How the world looks to me us and codes are to
expression is egan shealer, I would see it, right?
How the land in underground looks to me,
if I care about that diagraphy in the stations and not there,
there temporaler functional relationship as I'm trying to trivers the toop, right?
So perspect those
I're going to be the things at it include are pre-conceptions.
What is relevant? What is not relevant? Took include
in our model. They're going to include some kind of
a detection apparators, what the model seas, right?
So some forms of representation, or going to have constraint,
some them graphical representations or good for certain things, symbolic,
linguistic representations, where other different forms of math madical representation, continue
is in this continue is things, they were present, are better
get capturing those features, depending on when I think,
is significant. So my perspective is going to be encoded
in the things at a captain
a model
Wethere not I even have an tended that even the sign to sintended that,
because working with in certain math medical models, one my discover,
what they with the limits are of their representational capacities.
And so the model, it's self, if you like,
has these perspectives build in some of the mintentially,
some of them perhaps, unintentionally.
The method of representing them is part of the perspective,
namely, what it can say?
I not just what it can see,
but how much it can say about what it is?
And the questions a model answers,
what we want to do are also perspective,
because that's going to be useful in the determining
what's relevant
What are the relevanten Features to include and what not to include.
And so scientific emodels, given that they are partial and perspect typel.
Or necessarily going to be plural. And the argument
goes like this. Persol scientific models leave features out,
perspect typle scienti mode models leave some features in,
right, that's the devide.
The ignored features from one model,
can and our represended in other scientific model perspectives
So that one model, puts it leaves out.
Another model can make that the target focus of that representation.
Give and that this generate supply reality of models for any single for namen on.
So when you open any book, any scientific journal,
right, open science or nature, any the specialize journals.
You don't can't everybody working on one model. Right?
Okay. Snot like, there's one scientific model of nature,
that's doesn't happen. Okay, well, fine,
but what is that plurality of models, what is that?
Okay. Well, it's many things. Okay,
some of it is that they're competen at counts
This is the way to model listen phänomen and other cycriple
of scientists say, no, it's this where in the compete.
And they're incompatible. And one of om is going to
be better, if they share the same goals and functions,
one of thems going to be better than the other one,
bright, one captures, the data better than the other one does,
one does, it more elegently than the other one does,
it depends one what your standards are, which are directly reledity your goals.
Okay. Some of the pluralities in competition. Some of it is into,
some of the pluralities, so now got of the library,
it's not just with in a journal,
or it pick it journal like science to enhagy,
which has many categoris,
We devide the world up, also in to some my
just creep domains. So if you study,
one part of nature and some onstruct studies and other part,
your models, are going to be in direct competition,
if they really discreed, they want be then convert competition in it all.
And so some of the plurality of models,
might be a function of the fact that we card about
a nature to study science typically and lots of ways,
in that everybody who's developing their partshow models,
is do heard unpart of nature, right?
And those parts or difference, different. So we don't expect
that a model of The Nirro Science of Major depressive disworder,
right? So if you look at Sarah Townan,
we apped take and hippeders and you look at the way in,
which very his kinds of Nirol Transmatters, function,
it differently and different to sort of psychiatric,
to sort of we not expect those to be in competition,
with the model of the Flenflower in the mold how river.
So we just carbing up the world differently. So some of
the pluralism has to do with that discreed differences in part,
that kind of personal accounts of parts right.
But the one I want a focus on that are as attracted my attention is,
even moment, we pick up the very same for namen on.
And first later in this talk, it's going to be the phänomen on.
What's the three demential functional structure even to get a protein?
We still have lots in different models of it.
Okay. So what we do with that? So it there's
account so, why we have a pluroliality of models,
there are our partials. There was one complete model of
the Universe that included everything at every scale. Well,
for me, it wouldn't there are can't be.
Because in ordered to be used for it all,
every some, it has to leave something out, that's größt
first somebody else is model or two addopt as there focus. Okay,
so There is it, this even if we are touched,
just a single phänomelan. There still room for applyralism up models.
And so the question is, how arties different models,
of the very same very namen on related to each other.
And for me, I think, this is where,
the resource of the brain,
right, in edition to art and maps,
might give a some insight into how to think about sight the relationship between different signed,
tific models, that are attached, or representing the same phänomen on.
And it has some, are relationship to more homie forms our perspectivism.
So one of the things, we can look at is sensory persperspectives,
we have human eyes and we have BIs and I used
just been a lot of time steading and modeling, self-organization in honeybuy-Secieties.
Some very found of bies, they're pretty cute to.
And we both bies and humans are her trying crow make color detectors in their visuals resources,
we see in blue, green and ready ellow,
the BCs in ultraviolett, blue and green.
So we save the same kind of receptor organization
try partied, but we have different peaks
Flower on the loved, is the way,
a flower looks to a human, sorry.
I did it again. I know us,
I wouldn't do it. I do a policies,
the timing of these things is not perfect.
Okay. So the,
but the flower as it looks to a human,
is the yellow flower, that we see on the loved.
I don't know what's doing this to me. I
didn't push the wrong thing. And the,
what you would a come up in the comes up
very fast
So if I can make it start of the right time.
It's the flower on the right, which is the very,
very same flower. Okay, this is going to slow.
It's what how do how it looks to a be right?
Okay. And Fortune, there's not music behind this one
to get be enertained for the next three seconds.
Okay. Come my make it start of the right time.
I wanted push it here
Okay. So, this is the way, it detags,
this is what those representational apparated, so different apparated.
And they detect different features, if you like,
what is the information in midded from the source namely the flower.
And it's the, but it's a very same flower.
So perspective is on allows us to see that,
different apparated us, right, can be from the very
same flower can afford different representations that both accord, which is correct.
We pick up certain signals,
way lanks that we can do tech in in decode in
the Colors and the be picks up different detectors that it in codes and of colors.
And I want to sick just that infact,
scientibic models, share in that kind of perspectivism.
So here is the poss puzzle that arrises,
if you, but the story,
so far if you walk down this right with me,
at these congenial even if you not a fully
100% behind it. And that is, scientibic models,
explain predict in inner veen on natural phänomenab,
but we live in just one world.
Okay, one universe, maybe a multi-universe, but we live in it.
The one we live in is a one is were weedly.
What science is steading is one Universe.
Shouldn't successful science produce that one correct model on natural phänomen
and one phänomen and that what's the color of the flower?
What's the structure of the poety? In practice science use
is multiple models to represent a single for namen and.
So why is there and why should there be this peloriality of models?
And the answer here is that knowledge of nature is not just partial and perspect type,
which we could see from the other philosophie of our resources.
It's also interractive and integrative. So one of the ways again,
that we can see how this the way in which the
brain works in terms to of the ways.
So now we know time but two species, right,
beast in human single flower. But the humans are sells
have different means of taking up information in the world.
And this is one, so that's say your trying
to learn had a play the gitarr.
Play particular song and the gitarr. Well, we
get information
Visually, we look at we are a fingers are.
And the I has a corny a like
a look camer lands that focuses like onto the rettner,
which has millions are white sensitive sells, rates and cornes.
And this like hits it in the comforts and to electrical
signal that's relate to the brains visual core text by the aptech nerv.
Okay, so we have an apparatest that,
uptakes visual in for signal from the playing of the Gitarre,
ticke a long time to learn had a play the good hard.
All you can do it see it.
But we also
here it
And the sound that is produced. Also gives as auditory
information about what's going on in this thing.
It's sound wave not like that's to detective goal detectivel,
the baselor membrain and the inner ear detects frequencies of sound waves by vibration,
different frequencies activate different groups of their rounds and this manbrain in
the different to at detecting what town is being a medited by the targets force,
hereing can also
low cate the source by use in the different sense
in loadness in timing between the two ears.
And we also have haptic sensation, we can feel how are
hell, how are are are Fingers are depressing the strings
on the Freds, how it's plugging the strings and etc.
And we use all of these sources it beinformation,
in order to do to do something in the world to
a chief some practical goal, learning how to play the gitarr.
And what's really interesting about this model, how the brain users,
multiple representations from they're really different features out the phänomen and
sound waves and like made waves are different features being detected here.
You can learn to here, what you can see,
and you can't see, what you here, right,
these are really different ways and which we take up
But the brain users it all. And it users it
in a way that's we ford to as multi-censory integration.
And then has very interesting properties. So here's a case,
this is a little these are the kinds of cases or then
how you wish Maskidos, but Maskidos make a soul.
I identify with these kinds of cases.
But these are cases that our what are the experiments in
your oscient to be experiments can show us.
And here, what use happens that on Maskido that you can build
see and here. And so the input to the
brain through the eye and through the ear.
You excites visual narrounds and additory mut narrounds.
And this is a very simple representation of that.
But what's really important about this? Is that in
the and if these are competible signals,
what happens in the integration of these signals is that
The excitation of the Neurance is not simply additive. It's not like,
I like this much from my side and this much from hering.
And I know this plus this. But rather, it's in
online year and subredditive. And so in the task,
it's hask experiments, using more than one censury modellity,
make you not twice is good,
it our twices face that locating the objector,
twices successful is grass being the outject.
But all lot lot better than that. So the
integrative processes in the brain that takes into account information,
that's represent it, but in different ways that attaches to
different features of nature
Through different modellities or mechanisms for generating those representations,
in fact is one that is super additive.
So a quote from eneuro scientists, these, you know,
collective use increases, they like they heard of detecting and it genifying,
I'd been sure objects using this plusses,
I'm going to get better attent.
How are protease it the end agos pail,
quote in comparation with those of forted by the Ability to
combined sources of information? And this case,
the integrated product reveals more about the nature of the external of them,
and does so fester and better than would be predicted from
the some of the individual contributors
So this super editivity, I think, is a really important feature.
And what I like to do in my remaining type,
is talk about how this very same feature.
I think is also found, when you look at the experimental detection of protein structure
in this case, in the sign to be models case.
So just stripping you a little bit up to speed about
what proteins are. Proteins, you know,
are complex molicals, that are coded for a in the DNA.
So DNA codes for proteins and with the help of Arnay,
transcribing the information from the DNA
Into our name. Und dann translating that information on a
ryberzone in the cell. This is how you get proteins
for that. You create the ryberzone actually changs out this linear
string over me no assets, that is what defined supporting.
Is it string of a mino assets? And all proteins,
there's more than an 100.000 proteins in humans,
and there's not made a provenly 220 mino assets in these different string combinations.
But to be functional and what we're critical, what to be a functional
protein in your body. It can just be that linear
string over mino assets, it has to fold
into a three dementional
Confirmation, a functional confirmation. Now,
and all talk about this, and other electures,
the space of possible configurations that are string of a mino.
So it's because you're not tably small, Malikals, right?
The space of confirmations is nearly infinite. It's nearly end pe-hard to reandably,
determine what is going to be the functional right stable confirmation of approaching.
And so It's really important that they get to the right,
the confirmation, because we know there are many disses like
perkins institutions and helps himers just is that are called fold
protein folding, missfolding disses is, where the proteins failed
to continue to folding to their functional form.
So they perfailed the performed that functions that, there's a post to perform.
And they have a taxic function, cause you get this mass of spagarians
stead of a nice fold that protein in the self where they are are card.
It's also the case even for a correct folding,
if you want to know how to interview on AJV8s,
and you can determine with the protein structure is a very features of the virus,
that gives as the ability to interview and force it to yes fold,
or be miss aligned in a way that fails to be have its decised function.
So proteinful than getting the right understanding what that full this is really important.
There are two different mainways of detecting experimentally,
what those folds are, one is sexually crystal ography,
which I'm going to go three pretty quickly,
it's a perceder where you first crystalizing ex-raise.
And then again, just like all these persperspectives,
it it tachoos to certain features of the now motherfied proteins into this sullet
crystal form, nämlich it is use You use a and ex-ray,
a beam of incident ex-race to the fract,
the electron clouds of the Adams in the in the mulker,
that is the poeting right.
So your using ex-race you were tak your picking up information from the electrons,
because everybody wants in attamic model of the structure of the protein, okay.
And from those defraction emplatterns,
what the signed has can then create and electron dencity map,
of we are all the signals from the ex-race and these
electron clouds that detection is curring
The eyes, how the eyes, detect the light,
right the extra maschine, it the extra crystal out out ography experiment
is going to detect certain features of different in patterns.
And from that, the scientist using,
a lot of physics and a lot of algorithms and a
lot of work, he's not a mediate,
can then produce a attomic model of the proting.
Right. From picking up the signals from the elector on clouds.
And what the signals tellers is, they can in
for the relative position of Adams to most der Protein-Structure.
So, that's in the give is relative position information through this particular their experimental technic.
The other major technology is in a marshpect trask up.
And that is away in which you clown, proteins,
producer who whole buncher from have the minute test tube.
And then put it in a big magglen. Okay. Okay,
want to put in a big magg,
that we know that now a different feature of the Adams that
constitute the minute assists a constitute the protein in it structure,
are going to be targeted for detection.
And that's going to be that the quantum mechanical proprities of
the nuclears of the Adams,
that are going to be effected by the big protein
Okay, good now,
you get it in a qualibrem and that the big protein that new,
he did with a radio of frequency,
that push is it out of we good overym.
And then, you can see what happens as a goals back.
Okay, tickle away. And you look at the spin right
into to understand what the magnetic transferences, between the different Adams.
And from this information, you can produce a resident sussign and of internugally or distance.
So there are not getting really to position,
which you getting really to distance,
between the Adams by cargetting properties of the nuclears not the electron clouds,
but then nuclears,
and it's magnetic introaction with your experiment
And what this laws, you do is than produce to
a lot of an eurosers and all of these algorithms and stuff.
The scientists can then in fire and construct a model of
this structure of the protein. Again. Like,
it's hearing and it's like the relations between seeing and hearing. I
do can see certain features you can hear out their features,
extrahy gets you had some features in a more other features
. And so in this way they are perspect typeal in
the same way is multiple sensory, detections are.
What they see or hears different, what they?
We are they way what client of constitution
Of the Protein, right, is different, that they can detect these features.
And what we can know from what they see here is different,
you know, position, we cannot distance.
And they, you can get better,
you can work at developing what better in a bigger magnets.
You can get better your technic of creating the crystalize protein
and it better your technics even furing, what you can do.
And each of these can get to be be better,
just like you can get better hearing if you pay spendalout time tooning your hearing,
get better at seen things,
if you got to trainerself to a tend to different things,
you can be a better wine taste,
we know had it do that strike
If you pay a tension and learn how to two your sensors,
but what's interesting is that there's a similar kind of integration their happens in that multine
century integration in the brain in the scientive of models from the detectional,
these structures in the two experimental setups.
So just it you have this nonly in the year response
to stimily like detective by different century modellities,
give you the super additive right, now linearly better response.
Similarly, you can't do that and it is done with
these different ways of detecting protein structure.
I eat one can be in proto made more precise right
But joint refinement, using them together, can produce emanuel, rack
can lebt the scientist production model, that's more accurate.
Not just more precise. More accurate the same way that multi-centry modellity,
makes us, more accurate it grabbing and swide in the masquera.
Okay. And this straight refinement, is a way in which,
there's kind of a mutual air correction process goes on is a
dynamic in a reaction, where you look at the models.
And in for the flassifers, we are know that any
of the experimental data under the termins of the models,
there were going to be able to who make quiddit.
There can be money models at federn.
It's andry determinal specific models, going to determine.
And there's one way, you can talk about this joint,
refilement is a way of reducing that under do termination.
And what you get it at the end is in a
tomic model of the protein that fits the data vote sets of data better,
then the original models. I cause it's more determined direct.
It's makes that and you do to termination sets model.
And one the hears at just divisual of how that works.
These are just ribbin models of ribbin visualizations of a prote
over at the tom at prote and where There is as
you we turpalate a smooth curve to the party peptite background,
a backbone right and then you have this outfor healuxes,
which are quiet, ribbinser toops and badestry and seas or different,
you like three did we structural features right
you have outful strands and badestrands on the protein and the badestrands or eros and lot and minds or thin toops,
right or quiets and loops and the direction of the poly peptity chanission,
locally by the eros and it etc. Okay,
so this is there different visualization forms,
visualization forms art,
what it stake here,
but what they are visualizing
And what they are visualizing and this is we could have done with the ball and stick model,
there's other kinds of visual ways of doing us.
And what you see here is that, apparticular protein,
this is a look at to in protein.
As in firt from the data from an extra,
is it the top, right, at the bottom,
right, is the same protein structure,
that we would right that from using and an a markt experiment to do Terminate.
And you know this that in certain features on the end of more that turquoise,
you know, spirally thing on the right is,
much well diff, much better defined than up a buff,
words, just a lot of stringy, we loop right.
And there's other features like the The little,
the red error, what the top right on the extra,
that's much better defined than this oder funny thing on the Bardemone.
So each of them is using different features,
to extract information about the stract the atomic structure the poetine
and there getting at bits of it.
And drying refinement, gives you are product,
that is better then either of them.
It's more the terminate and it better captures, the data right,
that's how we know it's equite accuracy is relative to the data.
And then you get from me the one of them.
And no this that these forms of the integration art ones
that are unifying, somehow we know the unifight theory,
protein structure,
experimental modeling
These are both, what these are ways that maintain the plurality of detection.
But use them jointly in a great of late to
get better isols. I think that's exactly on a parallel
with the with the multise centery representation that the brand.
So as another, matter for ressource or another logue to
how we understand models. The model model relationship,
which is one we have to address,
once we accept there's a plurality of models dictated by the
person elity and perspect typle character,
model representation
That surreality models, when they are competible,
and of the same thing, we can into great
those models with out having developed just one unified account.
And get increase are knowledge in an accuracy, up are
understanding of nature. So to conclude. I said just
that rather than the that me are of nature,
we just passively reflect back and we help things in are,
that rather it scientive, scientive it models
are integrative perspect typle employalistic, that what they R is
there are percial, there perspect typle and there innerective.
And this these features allowers to make judgments about models,
how it there are they two or falls, no,
we can say that two are falls.
But we can say what there are accurate,
I he how they see and then relationshould the empirical data.
And we can also judge them for heather,
they're addequite namely for doing, what it is,
I wanted to do with the speed of knowledge.
And so on that, I would like to think
you again for listening to this talk.
And thank the organizers for and viding meeting of them