Advertisement

Beyond Telling: Where New Computational Media is Taking Model-Based Reasoning

  • Sanjay Chandrasekharan
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics book series (SAPERE, volume 27)

Abstract

The emergence of new computational media is radically changing the practices of science, particularly in the way computational models are built and used to understand and engineer complex biological systems. These new practices present a novel variation of model-based reasoning (MBR), based on dynamic and opaque models. A new cognitive account of MBR is needed to understand the nature of this practice and its implications. To develop such an account, I first outline two cases where the building and use of computational models led to discoveries. A theoretical model of the possible cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying such discoveries is then presented, based on the way the body schema is extended during tool use. This account suggests that the process of building the computational model gradually ‘incorporates’ the external model as a part of the internal imagination system, similar to the way tools are incorporated into the body schema through their active use. A central feature of this incorporation account is the critical role played by tacit and implicit reasoning. Based on this account, I examine how computational modeling would change model-based reasoning in science and science education.

Keywords

Science Education Intentional Action Procedural Knowledge Rubber Hand Declarative Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Banzhaf, W. (1994). Self-organization in a system of binary strings. In R. Brooks & P. Maes (Eds.), Artificial life IV (pp. 109–119). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bohannon, J. (2009). Gamers unravel the secret life of protein. Wired Magazine, 17(05), 17–05.Google Scholar
  3. Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature, 391, 756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandrasekharan, S. (2009). Building to discover: A common coding model. Cognitive Science, 33(6), 1059–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandrasekharan, S. (2014). Becoming knowledge: Cognitive and neural mechanisms that support scientific intuition. In L. M. Osbeck & B. S. Held (Eds.), Rational intuition: Philosophical roots, scientific investigations (pp. 307–337). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chandrasekharan, S., & Nersessian, N. J. (2015). Building cognition: The construction of computational representations for scientific discovery. Cognitive Science, 39(8), 1727–1763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandrasekharan, S., Nersessian, N., & Subramanian, V. (2012). Computational modeling: Is this the end of thought experiments in science? Thought Experiments in Philosophy, Science, and the Arts, 11, 239.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, S., Khatib, F., Treuille, A., Barbero, J., Lee, J., Beenen, M., & Popović, Z. (2010). Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature, 466(7307), 756–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Di Paolo, E. A., Noble, J., & Bullock, S. (2000). Simulation models as opaque thought experiments. In artificial life VII: The Seventh International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems (pp. 497–506).Google Scholar
  10. Dunn, J., & Clark, M. (1999). Life music: The sonification of proteins. Leonardo, 32(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards, L., Peng, Y., & Reggia, J. (1998). Computational models for the formation of protocell structure. Artificial Life, 4(1), 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehrsson, H. H. (2007). The experimental induction of out-of-body experiences. Science, 317, 1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farne, A., Iriki, A., & Ladavas, E. (2005). Shaping multisensory action-space with tools: Evidence from patients with cross-modal extinction. Neuropsychologia, 43, 238–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guterstam, A., Gentile, G., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2013). The invisible hand illusion: Multisensory integration leads to the embodiment of a discrete volume of empty space. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(7), 1078–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guterstam, A., Petkova, V. I., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2011). The illusion of owning a third arm. PLoS One, 6(2), e1720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hestenes, D. (2006). Notes for a modeling theory. In E. van den Berg, T. Ellermeijer & O. Slooten (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2006 GIREP conference: Modeling in physics and physics education (Vol. 31, p. 27). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  17. Hestenes, D. (2011). Notes for a modeling theory. In Proceedings of the 2006 GIREP Conference: Modeling in Physics and Physics Education. (Vol. 31).Google Scholar
  18. Hestenes, D. (2013). Remodeling science education. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 2013.Google Scholar
  19. Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurons. NeuroReport, 7, 2325–2330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khatib, F., DiMaio, F., Foldit Contenders Group, Foldit Void Crushers Group, Cooper, S., Kazmierczyk, M., Gilski, M., Krzywda, S., Zabranska, H., Pichova, I., Thompson, J., Popovic, Z., Jaskolski, M., Baker, D. (2011). Crystal structure of a monomeric retroviral protease solved by protein folding game players. Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, 18, 1175–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, J. S., Greene, M. J., Zlateski, A., Lee, K., Richardson, M., Turaga, S. C., et al. (2014). Space-time wiring specificity supports direction selectivity in the retina. Nature, 509(7500), 331–336.Google Scholar
  22. Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with external representations. AI and Society, 25(4), 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koerner, B. I. (2012). New videogame lets amateur researchers mess with RNA. Wired Science.Google Scholar
  24. Landy, D. H., & Goldstone, R. L. (2009). How much of symbolic manipulation is just symbol pushing? In Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1072–1077). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  25. Landy, D., Allen, C., & Zednik, C. (2014). A perceptual account of symbolic reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.Google Scholar
  26. Langton, C. (1990). Computation at the edge of chaos: Phase transitions and emergent computation. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42, 12–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Langton, C. G. (1984). Self-reproduction in cellular automata. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 10, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, J., Kladwang, W., Lee, M., Cantu, D., Azizyan, M., Kim, H., et al. (2014). RNA design rules from a massive open laboratory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(6), 2122–2127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lehrer, R., Horvath, J., Schauble, L. (1994). Developing model-based reasoning, Interactive Learning Environments, 4(3), 218–232.Google Scholar
  30. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In Sawyer, R. Keith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, (pp. 371–387). NY, US: Cambridge University Press, xix, 627 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Lenggenhager, B., Tadi, T., Metzinger, T., & Blanke, O. (2007). Video ergo sum: Manipulating bodily self-consciouness. Science, 317, 1096–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lenhard, J. (2004). Surprised by a nanowire: Simulation, control, and understanding. Philosophy of Science, 73, 605–616.Google Scholar
  33. Lenhard, J. (2006). Surprised by a nanowire: Simulation, control, and understanding. Philosophy of Science, 73(5), 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Majumdar, R., Kothiyal, A., Pande, P., Agarwal, H., Ranka, A., Murthy, S., et al. (2014). The enactive equation: Exploring how multiple external representations are integrated, using a fully controllable interface and eye-tracking. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E), IEEE.Google Scholar
  35. Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marghetis, T., & Núnez, R. (2013). The motion behind the symbols: A vital role for dynamism in the conceptualization of limits and continuity in expert mathematics. Topics in cognitive science, 5(2), 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nersessian, N. J. (1999). Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 5–22). US: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Nersessian, N. J. (2010). Creating scientific concepts. MIT press.Google Scholar
  39. Ocklenburg, S., Peterburs, J., Rüther, N., & Güntürkün, O. (2012). The rubber hand illusion modulates pseudoneglect. Neuroscience Letters, 523(2), 158–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ong, W. J. (2013). Orality and literacy. Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Ottmar, E., Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012). Teaching the perceptual structure of algebraic expressions: Preliminary findings from the pushing symbols intervention. In The Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2156–2161).Google Scholar
  42. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Prusinkiewicz, P., Lindenmayer, A., & Hanan, J. (1988). Developmental models of herbaceous plants for computer imagery purposes. Computer Graphics, 22(4), 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reynolds, C. (1987). Flocks, herds, and schools: A distributed behavioral model. Computer Graphics, 21(4), 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rotman, B. (2008). Becoming beside ourselves: The alphabet, ghosts, and distributed human being. Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Runions, A., Fuhrer, M., Lane, B., Federl, P., Rollang-Lagan, A., & Prusinkiewicz, P. (2005). Modeling and visualization of leaf venation patterns. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 24(3), 702–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schneider, B. (2012). Climate model simulation visualization from a visual studies perspective. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate change, 3(2), 185–193.Google Scholar
  49. Sims, K. (1994). Evolving virtual creatures. Computer Graphics, 8, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sincell, M. (2000). NanoManipulator lets chemists go mano a mano with molecules. Science, 290, 1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van der Hoort, B., Guterstam, A., & Ehrsson, H. (2011). Being barbie: The size of one’s own body determines the perceived size of the world. PLoS One, 6(5), e20195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Von Neumann, J. (1951). The general and logical theory of automata. Cerebral mechanisms in behavior, 1, 41.Google Scholar
  53. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and instruction, 24(2), 171–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Winsberg, E. (2006). Models of success versus the success of models: Reliability without truth. Synthese, 152(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Learning Sciences Research Group, Homi Bhabha Centre for Science EducationTata Institute of Fundamental ResearchMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations