Prof Trecek-King on Doing Your Own Research. What's the problem?

Recently SkepticalScience.com reprinted an interesting article: "Thinking is Power: The problem with 'doing your own research'” by Melanie Trecek-King Associate Professor of Biology at Massasoit Community College in Massachusetts, she also maintains the website Thinking is Power with a series called Don’t Trust Yourself.

The title and article caught my eye since I’m one of those who does a fair amount of my own “research” - someone who has also become leery of misleading labels and convinced of the importance of respecting definitions.  Too often a group of people will be tossing around a term with everyone investing it with their own poetic license. 

For example, poetically speaking I consider myself a “student of Earth,” but I don’t do any real research, any more than I’m a real Student. 

Fact is, I’m a lifelong enthusiast who does homework, trying to learn what I can about my subject of the moment.  It’s my honest curiosity that keeps me on the straight and narrow and defines the quality of my collective knowledge.

The serious college student, researcher, professor, scientist are on altogether different levels, ones that deserve to be recognized and respected by all enthusiasts.  After all, they do all the hard work, they digest the data, coherently report on it and share their efforts with the rest of us - that's how we learn.

That’s why I think Melanie Trecek-King words are overdue and should be part of any young student’s reading list.  They also belong on the enthusiast’s reading list because they make for a good self-evaluation checklist for those who fancy themselves lovers of learning and knowledge.

The professor’s article makes a fitting addition to my collection, and it gives me a chance to expand on her theme with the addition of some thoughts of my own, coming from the outside looking in, so to speak.

At first I wanted to select specific quotes, but her 900 word text is a concise whole that I couldn’t slice and dice without damaging, it deserves to be read in its entirety.  I thank Professor Trecek-King for allowing me to repost her excellent article.  

========================

The problem with “doing your own research”, 

by Melanie Trecek-King

The phrase “do your own research” seems ubiquitous these days, often by those who don’t accept “mainstream” science (or news), conspiracy theorists, and many who fashion themselves as independent thinkers. On its face it seems legit. What can be wrong with wanting to seek out information and make up your own mind?

The problems with “doing your own research”

1. That’s not what research is. 

Definitions matter. When scientists use the word “research,” they mean a systematic process of investigation. Evidence is collected and evaluated in an unbiased, objective manner, and those methods have to be available to other scientists for replication. 

Conversely, when someone says they’re “doing their own research,” they mean using a search engine to find information that confirms what they already think is true. We are all prone to confirmation bias, and the effect is especially powerful when we want (or don’t want) to accept a conclusion. 

Cc:  Definitions matter. 

Steven Koonin, liar for hire. A bibliographic collection - Student Resource

Let’s start with a couple short informed observations of why Steven Koonin’s repetitive “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters”, is nonsensical claptrap.

There is no development of the arguments, no counter-points, no constructive back and forth, just the same arguments that they appear to have thought up once and never examined.

Personally, I like taking on smart criticisms. They help hone the science, clarify the arguments and point to areas of needed research. But there isn’t a single thing here worth taking on.

Dr. Gavin Schmidt, PhD

Director of GISS 

Climate scientist Ben Santer, (with appropriate links added by myself):

“It is simply untrue that Prof. Koonin is confronting climate scientists with unpleasant facts they ignored or failed to understand.” 

Dr. Ben Santer wrote in his resignation letter to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: “The climate science community treats uncertainties in an open and transparent way. It has done so for decades. 

At LLNL, we routinely consider whether uncertainties in models, observations, and natural climatic variability call into question findings of a large human influence on global climate. They do not.”

 My question: Why has Koonin rejected honesty, learning and self-skepticism, which are the foundations of serious science?

========================

Time to finally get “Steven Koonin’s liar for hire, a bibliographic collection” posted and behind me.  I need to complete this, rather than simply blowing it off, because I’m driven by my utter incomprehension at the success of Koonin’s 2021 stale rerun of the same one dimensional anti-science rhetorical campaign strategy pioneered by the Father of Science By Slander, Fred Seitz back in the tobacco war days.

“Steven Koonin’s Liar for Hire, a Bibliographic Collection”

A Student Resource

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steve Koonin Coasts On ‘09-’11 Obama Gig, Pens 'Unsettled,' a Pre-Re-Debunked Climate Denial Book

ClimateDenierRoundup for Climate Hawks and Kos, 2021,05,06

Five statements author Steven Koonin makes that do not comport with the evidence.   

Marianne Lavelle, May 4, 2021, ClimateNews.org

Koonin’s case for yet another review of climate science

Gavin Schmidt @ 15 June 2019, RealClimate.org

EPA - Here's the Obama energy guy that Pruitt might hire

Robin Bravender, E&E News reporter, August 7, 2017, eenews.net

Climate Science Is Settled Enough - The Wall Street Journal’s fresh face of climate inaction.

Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, slate.com/technology

A New Book Feeds Climate Doubters, but Scientists Say the Conclusions are Misleading and Out of Date

Marianne Lavelle, May 4, 2021, InsideClimateNews.org

Steven Koonin to Step Down as DOE Science Honcho

Adrian ChoNov. 9, 2011, ScienceMag.org

Ben Santer: Climate Denialism has no place at Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab

Ben Santer, May 25, 2021, SkepticalScience.com and Union of Concerned Scientists

A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’

Mark Boslough, June 1, 2021, SkepticalScience.com and Yale Climate Connections

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is “Earth Centrism”?

edited November 5, 2021

The Earth Centrist’s perspective acknowledges that Earth; her material constituents and physical processes, unfolding one day at a time, are our fundamental touchstone with reality.  We acknowledge Earth and glory in understanding her pageant of Evolution and appreciating how that pageant is reflected within our own bodies. 

We find justification in the physical fact that humans were created out of Earth's processes. 

Science shows us that we belong to the mammalian branch of one of Earth’s amazing animal kingdoms.  Yet, it’s undeniable that something quite unique happened around six million years ago when certain apes took a wild improbable evolutionary turn.

By and by, besides the marvel of our two hands, we developed two feet and legs that could stand tall or run for hours and a growing brain that learned rapidly and remembered. 

During this period our brain physically morphed in some significant ways that enabled it to host a profound leap in cognitive information processing, storage and retrieval ability. 

On the outside hominids learned to make tools, hunt, fish, and select plants, plus they mastered fire for cooking and better living.

On the inside our brains were growing and benefiting from the new super nourishment while human curiosity and adventures started filling and stretching our Mindscapes with experiences and knowledge beyond anything the "natural" physical Earth ever knew.

By Mindscape, I mean the product of all that our body/brain perceives and processes, which of course, evolutionarily speaking, was dependent on our brain’s hardware keeping pace with and driving the ever increasing volume of information and thoughts.

While the human mind and spirit seem ineffable mysteries, they are also of tremendous consequence and real-world physical power.  They drove our growing ability to study and manipulate our world; to communicate and record our experiences; and to formulate explanations for a world full of mysteries, threats and wonders.

People learned to think and gossip and paint pictures upon the canvas of cave walls, and even better, upon the canvas of each other’s imaginations.  We’ve been adding to our mind’s awareness and complexity ever since.

Students’ Resource: A representative cross-section of Dr. Mark Solms' scientific publications.

We're now into section five of a larger project that’s intended to be a ‘Student’s Resource for Defending Physical Reality.’  In this third chapter of my introduction to Dr. Mark Solms, Ph.D., ( #1, #2 ), I provide a bibliography of his insightful publications (books & scientific papers) which explain the basis for bringing the study of our human consciousness, and the so-called Mind-Body Problem, into the realm of sober, physical reality respecting, evolution appreciating, science.  (Incidentally, thereby putting the lie to the claim that meta-physical outside agents are needed to explain and understand human consciousness.)

This list is not complete by any stretch, but it is an impressive introductory sampling, and it’s intended to serve as a reference that’s guaranteed to inform, perhaps inspire, the serious student, along with serious enthusiasts of science.  People interested in better understanding how Earth’s evolution made us who we are. 

 …  (Continued at the end of this bibliography)

Dr. Mark Solms, PhD.

Professor of Neuropsychology

CURRICULUM VITAE Mark Leonard Solms

Born district of Lüderitz, Namibia, July 17, 1961

The International Neuropsychoanalysis Society

Co-chairs, Mark Solms with Cristina Alberini

Google Scholar list of Dr. Solms' scientific papers

Solms-Delta Wine Estate

Franschhoek Valley, South Africa

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dr Mark Solms, Ph.D. (WITS)

University of Cape Town, Department of Psychology

Background and research interests

• Brain mechanisms of dreaming, emotion, motivation.
• Psychological mechanisms of confabulation and anosognosia syndromes.

Teaching responsibilities - Neuropsychology – Research and Clinical.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute  |  Mark Solms PhD

Psychoanalyst and neuropsychologist.

Affiliations:

Dr. Solms holds the position of Chair of Neuropsychology at the University of Cape Town and Groote Schuur Hospital (Departments of Psychology and Neurology) and is the President of the South African Psychoanalytical Association. He is also Research Chair of the International Psychoanalytical Association.

Dr. Solms founded the International Neuropsychoanalysis Society in 2000 and was a Founding Editor (with Ed Nersessian) of the journal Neuropsychoanalysis. He is Director of the Arnold Pfeffer Center for Neuropsychoanalysis at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute, a Trustee of the Neuropsychoanalysis Fund in London, and Director of the Neuropsychoanalysis Trust in Cape Town.

Dr. Solms’ Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis can be viewed here.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Regarding Mark Solms South African Farm and dealing with a history social injustice

Jill Choder-Goldman interviews Mark Solms, August 2019.

“I started to realise that the first thing is not to impulsively, concretely enact something, but rather just sitting with it and letting it be the ugly thing that it is, until you start to see what the nature of the thing is,” says Mark Solms.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What is Neuropsychoanalysis?

Turnbull Lab, Prifysgol Bangor University, Wales, U.K.

The term 'neuropsychoanalysis' was first used in the late 1990s by Mark Solms, as the title of the journal Neuropsychoanalysis. 

Critical Thinking Skills - In Defense of Reality - A Student Resource

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Considering my Case For Reality project is all about striving to develop a valuable resource for students who want to defend serious fact-based science against frauds using pseudo-science masquerading as fact - a formal consideration of Critical Thinking & Reading Skills is a must.

The way towards success is by studying and learning to recognize the patterns of deceptive rhetoric.  That way you become prepared for those tricks and find yourself ready and poised with effective responses.  

Don't ignore the lies, use those lies to your advantage.  Namely, by intelligently and confidently coming right back and spot-lighting the reality behind the concocted lie, with a compelling counter-story that explains what's actually happening within ourselves, biosphere, climate system, whatever the topic might be.  Also remember, there's always an audience to consider, meaning it's worth the effort to make the malicious lie, a teaching moment.

Solid evidence along with a narrative of the story behind the science, enabling people to form a better understanding.  Easier said than done, but unless we are changing minds we are losing.  

Consider the philosophy of Jiu-Jitsu, which besides being about the mental discipline of a warrior, is a philosophy about winning by yielding to an opponent's force, instead of trying to oppose force with force.  Rather than playing by the contrarian script, why not develop some intelligent rhetorical jiu-jitsu skills.

It starts with sharp Critical Thinking and Reading Skills, and for developing that we have clearly defined strategies.  Below I share from five sources;

Critical Reading and Reading Strategy

SkillsYouNeed.com

The Foundation For Critical Thinking

CriticalThinking.org

Critical Thinking

courses.LumenLearning.com

The SQ3R Method of Studying

Francis Pleasant Robinson - RememberEverything.org

21 Century Middle School Guide Student’s Guide to Study Skills

MiddleSchoolGuide.com

Diary - But, wait! There’s more. Hoffman's responses.

I thought I was finished with the review section of my "Hoffman playing basketball in zerogravity" project.

Then I decided to send Professor Hoffman an email asking if he’d responded to Dr. Mausfeld’s paper and he was kind enough to send me a link to more than I had bargained for: “Probing the interface theory of perception: Reply to commentaries” Hoffman, Singh, Prakash, September 30, 2015.  It's their response to a collection of 10 expert comments.  Some critical and some excited about further exploring Hoffman, Singh & Prakash's Interface Theory of Perception (IT).

So far, I only read through Anderson’s section, because I went off to read the paper in question and it captured my attention.

I’ve spent the past few hours with Barton Anderson's critique (highlights to appear in my next post), and it’s surprisingly interesting, edifying and humbling.  It makes me want to repeat that I’m no scholar and don’t presume to be one.  What I am is a guy who’s spent my days paying attention to my life, the natural world around me and the lessons Earth scientists have discovered and distilled for general consumption.  I’m a serious student and that demands exploration and pushing limits.  

The main reason the Case Against Reality and Hoffman’s Interface Theory captured my interest is that it promised to provide a vehicle for exploring and developing my own rather more down to earth notions.  

For instance, that we, as a people, and too often scientists included, lack an explicit appreciation for the divide between Physical Reality, (which includes our bodies and brains), and our ever so imaginative Mindscape.  Which is the sum total of our dreams, thoughts and perceptual awareness - the me, myself and I.

I believe an explicit appreciation for Earth, as the only touchstone to reality that we humans have, is a necessary prerequisite for wise decision making and constructive living on a crowded, shrinking planet.

That's because, what comes from ignoring this fine point (namely, the ‘Physical Reality ~ Mindscape’ divide), is that people, including scientists, tend to fall in love with the beauty and ingenuity of their own ideas, then pushed by the needs of our egos, lose sight of the physical reality we are actually embedded within every moment of our existence.

The past decades of strategic and lavishly funded mass campaigns* of pure, deliberate disinformation intended to manufacture doubt in complete disregard for honesty, scientific facts, physical reality, or Fair Play for that matter - has been nothing less than brainwashing committed to normalizing disregard for science, and honesty, while enabling delusional thinking.

(*For whatever scientific findings were inconvenient to special interest groups with rich lobbyists and the best advertising minds money could buy.  Look where it’s brought our once well run, fairly happy, mightiest government and society in the world.  To the brink of self-destruction driven by people embracing belligerent ignorance that was fostered by an acceptance of deliberately manufactured fear, anger and cluelessness.  But, I digress, there’ll be time for that later.)

With that rambling introduction, here’s the paper Hoffman shared with me this morning.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Probing the interface theory of perception: Reply to commentaries Donald D. Hoffman, Manish Singh & Chetan Prakash" 

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. volume 22, pages1551–1576(2015)

Rainer Mausfeld, ‘Truth’ has no role in explanatory accounts of perception. Student Resource.

Prof. Dr. Rainer Mausfeld writes:  ¶24.  “Needless to say, in certain contexts of ordinary discourse, the general question that seems to motivate Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash’s (HSP) endeavour, namely whether perception mirrors the ‘true structure of the objective world,’ can be a meaningful and sensible one. 

Such a question, however, will hardly survive the transition into a natural science context. It rather seems that no question remains that can be posed in a coherent and intelligible way. 

Hence, the appropriate response to such a question is not to evaluate specific proposals but rather to dispel the delusion that an intelligible question has been raised. …”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While researching the book “Case Against Reality” I came to recognize the name “Rainer Mausfeld” because he was referenced in various articles.  However, it wasn’t until working on the paper “Objects of Consciousness,” that I sat down to read his critique of Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash’s Psychonomic Review and Bulletin 2015 paper and it felt like a cosmic giggle.

“Notions such as ‘truth’ or ‘correspondence to the objective world’ play no role in explanatory accounts of perception”  Rainer Mausfeld - 

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (v22, p1535–1540. Sep 18, 2015) 

I’m glad my discovery waited for the end of this journey.  Had I read it a half year ago, I might not have engaged in this effort to begin with and that would have been a shame.  Not that it’s been fun, but because it has been well worth the effort.  My payoff has been a deeper appreciation for the scientific and philosophical mind/body debate, along with helping me better define my own curious perspective.  At least that’s my impression.  My next essays will put the conceit to the test.  You’ll get to decide for yourselves.

In any event, for a lifelong student of such things, it’s gratifying to see my homegrown naïve understanding echoing a genuine expert’s learned appraisal.  

I received an okay from Springer to reproduce 800 words worth of highlights from the 4,700 word long paper, all it was going to cost me was $360.  If I were earning money with any of this, I’d have a budget for such expenses, but alas, no can do.

After much consideration, including reading through H.G. Zaharoff’s ‘Guide to Fair Use’ (You can find more on that at the end of this post.), I’m declaring Fair Use and am going ahead and sharing interesting quotes from Mausfeld’s work as a teaser, an invitation to serious students.  

For all who are searching for a deeper realistic appreciation of the mind, physical reality divide, you don’t want to miss reading Mausfeld's complete 7400 words.  Don’t be intimidated, Mausfeld writes about these arcane details with refreshing clarity.  Meaning his writing is accessible to intelligent curious non-academics.  Check it out for yourself:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Notions such as “truth” or “correspondence to the objective world” play no role in explanatory accounts of perception” 

Prof. Dr. Rainer Mausfeld, University of Kiel 

Publications available online at Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review - Springer, DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0763-6

volume 22, pages1535–1540(2015) - September 18, 2015

¶01.  Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash (Psychonomic Review and Bulletin, 2015, in press) intend to show that perceptions are evolutionarily tuned to fitness rather than to truth. 

I argue, partly in accordance with their objective, that issues of ‘truth’ or ‘veridicality’ have no place in explanatory accounts of perception theory, and rather belong to either ordinary discourse or to philosophy. 

I regard, however, their general presumption that the evolutionary development of core achievements of the human perceptual system would be primarily determined by aspects of fitness and adaption as unwarranted in light of the evidence available.

Physical origins of mind, Dr. Siegel, Allen Institute Brain Science, Tononi, Koch - Student Resource

I was going to start the year with a review of the 21 Questions and Responses attached to Hoffman’s 2014 Frontiers of Psychology paper.  My intention was a summary, but it turned into a four part dissection peppered with links to authoritative resources that give substance to my assertions and the perspective I’m trying to convey.  While in the process of sorting through resources, I discovered Dr. Dan Siegel.  He inspired me to start the year with something a little more fun, interesting, and constructive. 

Dr. Siegel is a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine and the founding co-director of the Mindful Awareness Research Center at UCLA.  It’s a fun irony, for me, that he’s another* Californian, who at two years younger than Hoffman and myself has lived the same historical footprint.  I find it curious how Hoffman and Siegel were exposed to the same evidence, yet they achieved diametrically opposite conclusions, one confined to the realities we live within, the other a flight of fancy for fun and profit.  

Hoffman’s many references to advertising prowess indicates his affinity with Madison Avenue Ad-man priorities and perspective.  Creating a perfect vision is a serious goal and profits is the metric of success, regardless the negative fallout.  The amazing success of “The Case Against Reality, supports that notion.  

On the other hand, from reading Dr. Siegel's bio and listening to a half dozen recorded talks about his work, he seems to me a humanist focused on helping individuals with their actual lives.  It was refreshing never hearing the usual red flags of ‘disingenuous self-promotion’ and scientific misrepresentation that I’ve come to expect from Hoffman’s performances. 

I feel comfortable saying Siegel possesses “scientific realism”; along with an abiding respect for physical reality; a deep interest in people; a dose of humility; and a realistic perspective on limitations, while constantly pushing at the frontiers of understanding.

For me, Dr. Siegel is an example of “What A Scientist Sounds Like,” and a perfect bracer before re-entering the intellectual mine-field of Hoffman’s Case Against Reality.   

After reviewing Dr. Siegel’s videos I felt a need to add a little more physical reality, the biological meat and potatoes, so have added a few selections featuring Tononi and Koch, Allen Institute for Brain Science, mind-blowing microscopy and more.

The Mind as a Complex Mathematical System with Emergent Properties Daniel Siegel

A Scientific Explanation of the Human Mind | Daniel Siegel

Dan Siegel: The Neurological Basis of Behavior, Mind, Brain and Human Relationships Part 1 to 3 

Allen Institute for Brain Science

Giulio Tononi on Consciousness

Consciousness: here, there and everywhere?  Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch

Video, Giulio Tononi on Consciousness

The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness, Dr. Christof Koch,

Allen Institute for Brain Science

Allen Brain Observatory: Visualizing the brain in action

Allen Cell Types Database: Understanding the fundamental building blocks of the brain

Allen Institute for Brain Science,  Coding & Vision 101, 12-part undergraduate-level lecture series

Brain Expansion Microscopy, Harvard Medical School,

Lattice light-sheet microscopy

Gut bacteria and mind control: to fix your brain, fix your gut!

New center advances biomedical and brain imaging, University of Delaware,

Stunning Brain Map Reveals Tiny Communication Network

Brain Research: New Discoveries and Breakthroughs at UC Davis

“Emergence” - A Handy Student Summary and Resources

 “Emergence” a students’ summary.

      

       

My appreciation for “emergence” is a natural outgrowth of decades worth of proactive learning via the flow of fascinating new findings that Earth scientists, from geology to biology, to complex systems science, share with the world.

It seems self-evident to me that we can see emergence on a grand scale throughout the history of evolution, and also on the fine scale of my own mind and watching how accumulating understanding reaches certain breakthrough thresholds that have elevated my overall thinking to entirely new levels of (previously unimaginable) appreciation.

As a youth I accepted the Biblical reassurance: “Seek and ye shall find,” with time I discovered it’s a fundamental rule of nature.  Pay attention, remember, process your experiences and findings, then, once in a while, something goes pop, a veil drops and a whole new vista of understanding opens up.  To be folded into the rest of my understanding and echoed throughout my mindscape, where it blends in and retunes the previous state of affairs. 

Or to put it more simply, it feels to me like education and increasing knowledge of Earth’s evolution produces it’s own cascade of emergent awarenesses within our minds. For those paying attention, that is.

I bring it up because while surfing Google and YouTube for this C.A.R. project, I was surprised by some of the cynicism directed towards the notion of emergence and evolution.  Seems founded on misunderstanding, often willful, sometimes not.  All of it should be vulnerable to thoughtful, tactical, constructive, intellectual confrontation.  Unless we are changing minds, we are losing.  

Figure out how to take every cynical challenge and flip it around to a learning opportunity.  (The act of doing it, will teach you more, than you might be able to teach them.)

The confusion about "emergence" inspired me to collect this selection of YouTube videos that presents a variety of people, with varying expertise, explaining “emergence” within our physical reality, in a sober constructive manner.  I’ve also added some papers, though if you’re still interested in the topic by then, it’s time to visit GoogleScholar.  

Besides informing, hopefully this introduction to “Emergence” might inspire and help some with their own assignments. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Emergence” - A Handy Student Summary and Resources

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Emergence (or: How Ants Find Your Picnic Basket): Jane Adams at TEDxGallatin

September 22, 2013 - TEDx Talks - 9:24 min

Jane Adams is a graduate of the NYU Gallatin School of Individualized Study.  Her studies focused on the theory of emergence, the phenomenon by which simple systems governed by simple rules give rise to complex phenomena on a larger scale.