The pitch

The miraculous achievements of science have transformed every aspect of our existence. Are we really calling the scientific method "a narrow frame", and comparing it to a pair of candles?!

Scope

Science, in the role of truth and meaning provider to our culture at large, has never been created for that role. The fact that it finds itself in that role is a result of a series of historical accidents.

Reversal

The science myth

Considering what is "scientifically proven" (and only that), as "true" and hence worth knowing.

The hammer error

So now that we have "the right" approach to knowledge, which is metaphorically a 'hammer'—we either consider everything to be a nail; or we look for the nail.

An alternative formulation of this paradox is "searching for the lost keys (or watch) under a streetlight", the story we told at a transdisciplinary conference...

Ideogram

When we understood that the tools for knowledge work are not written in stone and handed down to our scientific ancestors, but humanly created, it became natural to tailor them to the purpose the serve—the purpose of seeing more.

Polyscopy ideogram

Stories

Quoting Heisenberg is enough

One may say that the most important change brought about by its results consists in the dissolution of this rigid frame of concepts of the nineteenth century.

The rest can be found in Federation through Stories, exactly here.

Actions

A general-purpose (transdisciplinary) science

There is an obvious way to overcome the narrow frame issue:

• define concepts by convention (and eliminate the linguistic narrow frame)
• create an approach to knowledge that is purpose-drive, not tool-driven (by providing a flexible toolkit, not only a hammer; and changing the knowledge-work ethos accordingly)

Prototypes

Polyscopy

Polyscopy is exactly that—it is (a prototype of) a general-purpose methodology for knowledge work. A toolkit, not a hammer.

Action 2

Text