engineering modelling and the frameworks (general ie UML etc.)

what are engineering models in difference to theories

The view taken herein is that theories and engineering models are related but distinct in their purpose and attributes. A theory is taken as being more academic, and as a way of explaining or understanding some phenomenon. An engineering model, on the other hand, allows us to build something that services some intent. It is the distinction between science and engineering; the academic and the practical. Memetics is seen as both a scientific theory and a scientific theory-building endeavour and can be used to understand the phenomenon of cultural evolution. Cliology is about engineering models and their usage in making intentional, value-adding changes to culture.

Theory is about the pursuit of truth (given some epistemic stance) whereas engineering is about utility. A theory does not necessarily require any practical value; an engineering model does not have to be true. This has led some theoreticians to consider the application their work as being below them while some engineers think of theory as being useless knowledge. These are extreme and snobbish views, but most real scientists and engineers tend to fall in the middle whereby engineers tend to need to know, or are at least curious, as to understanding while scientists are funded by investors who need a payoff, or at least dream that their work will one day be of some benefit. But let’s look at the roles of the conceptual extremes of pure science and what might be called pure engineering.

The partition arises from the nature of explanations. An explanation consists of two parts: an explanandum – that which is observed and needs to be explained; and the explanans – that which offers a reason for the observed explanandum. Usually, there is more consensus about an explanandum than the explanans. There is a common observation, a shared experience that those exposed can agree upon. How those observers account for the experience may differ wildly: creationists and evolutionists have no quarrel that we live in a world filled with myriad life. An explanans is often about causality. In cases where causes are especially opaque, perhaps shrouded in the mists of geological time, then alternative explanans often arise as hypotheses. Competing hypotheses are often disputed, indeed the very principle of causality itself isn’t universally accepted. The goal of science can be seen as (an neither is this universally accepted) as finding evidence that makes for the most promising hypothesis. This is the process of scientific theory-building – the quest for the true explanans of an experience. There are often plenty of potential practical uses stemming from scientific investigation, but the role of pure science is providing an understanding of how things occur in nature.

For engineering the situation is different: it works towards intent – getting a particular outcome to occur. The idea of “pure” engineering is somewhat paradoxical as the philosophy of engineering is not something many engineers engage with – an explanandum/explanans exploration of engineering may seem to strain the terms. Knowing the reasons why a particular outcome occurs is not a necessity; the overriding criterion is the downstream result. The result here is some goal we want to see realised. Perhaps it could be viewed as the replication of, or variation on, some desired explanandum. The engineer or artisan will often know the techniques and have the tools to achieve that result – some working instrumental theory. Academia would insist on arguing which theory is right, but the engineer only requires a working model, any working model, that is practically sufficient to get the job done, irrespective of its actual truth. Parallels, models, mappings and metaphors are considered extensively across this site. Their commonality is that they are in the information domain, offering a re-presentation that maintains some structural similarity, a morphism, with the source domain of “reality”; each is a special case of any other. Both scientific theories and engineering models are really just tight metaphors. A complete representation, however, can begin to lose utility whereby it presents too much detail. Usefulness is gained by cutting out any distracting clutter and highlighting the essential details. An engineering model allows for the representation of key features that can be manipulated and implemented in the service of attaining a goal. Hence, an “explanans” (if it could be called such) is judged according to the benefit it will yield.

A cautionary point on confusing the two. This results in a crippling fallacy whereby rejection of explanans leads to denial of the explanandum. A model may be highly useful, but not fit with existing theory. In such cases, the model will be rejected as if it were a theory. This is a practical loss. A better approach would be to accept the benefits of the un-true model, but as it works, then consider constructing a better theory.

relationships between the Th and em

science, applied science, engineering, technology

what engineering models are for

Engineering models exist for a purpose. Software engineering is a field that very much centres on modelling in both the construction of software and the resulting executables. The start to end production process is well tested, documented, and tooled, but confusingly the many different methods are termed methodologies. Because cliology and culture are about information flow, software development methodologies are a good starting template for understanding engineering models.

representation, requirements specification, solution manipulation, schematics for construction, communication, documentation

software modelling systems

where engineering models are used

software engineering models – for modelling things in the information domain, particularly with the application of business information systems.

examples: soft systems to hard SSADM

Memetics is about building theory, a theory that knowledge is subject to evolution and persists because it is good at surviving and replicating rather than being true or useful. That memes affect human behaviour, and that they spread leads to the inference that they are the fundamental unit of cultural evolution. Cliology is about adjusting culture for the better; it is not a theory, but the application of such, in particular, memetics. Memeticists and their opponents have quarrelled endlessly over whether this theory is right, and these disputes have stalled progress. Cliology

theory, cliology as engineering model

cliological frameworks; cultural evolution and memetics

Cultural evolution has become an academic discipline, it is a scholarly approach that aims to yield explanations and cultural theory through scientific methods. It is a precursor to applied science, to engineering, of culture: cliology. Theory is often not directly practical and needs some manipulation into engineering models to become so. Engineering models, while ideally based on solid theory are different to theories. Theories are about understanding; a model is an instrument, a tool, employed by an artificer in realising their intentions. Cliology as the practical application of cultural science requires engineering models.

The theory that the meme is the fundamental unit of culture, has been contentious. The theory’s development has been arrested owing to definitional uncertainties. However, these theoretical hindrances are not such a barrier in constructing an engineering model pertinent to culture. The emphasis is on utility rather than truth, and the meme concept is rather useful.

Memes exist in the information domain, whereby culture can be seen an expression of those memes. A plethora of tools and models already exist for dealing with information. Rather than reinvent the wheel, as it were, the existing tools for handling information can be recycled with a little specific modification. As memes and culture are essentially software, and one of the intended outcomes is that of tech-enabled memetic manipulation (computer software) then the field of software engineering becomes a clear candidate from which to borrow methodologies. Software engineering, from soft systems analysis through to coded implementation, is well-developed and there are plenty of tools that can be adapted to suit cliological ends. As with the Heikalian bridge, the principle is to adopt software engineering wholesale, but make adjustments or ruthlessly discard ill-fitting elements. For example, ideas such as Unified Modelling Language (UML), Object Orientation, Configuration Management and Version Control (CMVC), and Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) offer the potential for repurposing and are considered in the following sections.

Much of what underpins software are automatic machine arithmetic manipulations. Software is essentially the implementation of mathematical systems and software engineering is the attempt to formulate engineering models of real-world systems, though mathematical representation, as executable applications. Adopting a software engineering attitude, as relevant to building engineering models of culture (as assumed as part of the information domain) then necessitates the same mathematical treatment that is given to other software engineering models. The mathematics of computer science that cliology emulates is not exactly the same as pure mathematics. Computer science is to mathematics as modelling is to theory. That is, it is a move towards practice and software engineering, as an extension of computer science, is about use rather than fundamental truths. Hence, cliology approaches the problem of codifying culture using the modelling approaches of computer science, with a view to practical implementation methods as drawn from software engineering. The mathematically based modelling systems are termed here as the frameworks. These frameworks offer a coherent symbolic language for constructing engineering models of culture.

The symbolism is chosen with the intention of providing a form of visual calculus for conceptualising, manipulating, recording and communicating cliological ideas. This symbolism does not particularly resemble mathematical notations, such as those of differential calculus or algebra, but has more semantic glyphs dedicated to its purpose. While Latin and Greek, along with Phonecian letters are used, the encoding looks more like the molecular structure diagrams used in organic chemistry. The reason for this is that the symbolism is attempting to depict something that is structural in essence. Consequently, these diagrams are not equations; they are formulae. The system is designed such that the user can see at a glance what is going on, and can quickly doodle such diagrams manually on a whiteboard or back of a beermat allowing variation to be explored. In many ways, the method of depiction is similar to those of software engineering such as Unified Modeling Language. The frameworks are therefore intended for behavioural and cultural analysis, synthesis and simulation, for designing strategic communications that spread and have a specified impact on culture. Machine executable implementations are anticipated and are in development.

One application is the derivation and taxonomy of archetypical scenarios and their behavioural elements (eg. sales, environmental awareness etc.) These elements can then be recombined to produce and test novel “molecules”. Archetypical scenarios can also be used as templates, whereby parameters can be assigned. Filling in the blanks is a prompt to establishing well-formedness of the model in both analysis and synthesis.

need for new lexicon

Memetics in attempting to produce a theory has suffered many setbacks; not least because of the type of language it has employed as borrowed from microbiology and epidemiology. For example, the virus of the mind metaphor has lead many to think that all memes are bad. Furthermore, there have been many definitional uncertainties that have attracted criticism that has stalled progress. On the other hand, memetics has developed a whole fringe lexicon peculiar to itself, which has meaning to those who have embraced memetics but has scared away many in the mainstream with reputations to protect.

Cliology is not about building a theory, that is what memetics is for. Cliology might have a basis in memetic theory, but it is actually about finding the most useful way of constructing engineering models for cultural intervention. It has a different purpose to memetics and has its own particular needs. While many memetic ideas are inherited, because cliology is wholly pragmatic, it does not have to inherit the impasse memetics has stumbled over in its attempts at theory building. Many terms are passed down, but because of the special purpose of the application, terminology takes on a different shade of interpretation. Where a different meaning arises, then it is worth considering a more dedicated term. Doing so not only makes the cliologicial application explicit but also takes the opportunity to part with what might otherwise be ambiguous or confusing.

The general approach (and perhaps overzealously done on this site) is to adopt “clio” as a prefix to some stem. For example “cliome” would be roughly the equivalent of a co-evolved meme complex (memeplex); a “clion” would be the phenotypical expression of a cliome (or memeplex) as a cultural object or action. The cliological terms are not identical to their memetic counterparts, but rather, have tighter definitions as demanded in the production of engineering models. Clio, itself has been assigned the retronym of Cultural Linnean Information Object. In addition, there are some other introductions such as the “noam” (possibly Narrative Object Analysis Model), which is half a meme, and along with the other new terminology, is discussed elsewhere.

the frameworks

overview of framework structure

A set of modelling frameworks for cliology fall under the umbrella of the “Grand Framework” – because it is the large overarching structure. The Grand Framework (GF or just Grand) consists of a hierarchy of abstract classes, or sub-frameworks, each of these has a dedicated section.

The frameworks that fall under the GF are intended to model excellence, analyse currently dysfunctional systems, determine areas for remedy and improvement, specify the desired state of emerging systems, planning and project management of change, and as documentation for and of the change process.

format structured for clioanalysis

The linked pages provide API style documentation listing attributes and properties along with examples and navigational aids to related framework components. The GF itself constitutes a framework and therefore is documented as such.

CMVC

framework evolution

versioning and tracking

semantic versioning

core components and other components (eg deme) explain

Grand Framwork: a framework for the overall structure
Cliome: the collective encoding of cultural traits for an artefact; equvalent of a meme-plex.
Meme: the replicating code for a single cultural trait of an artefact.
Noam: a behavioural model that forms part of a meme.
Fabula: the logical connection between the properties of a noam.
Toulmin: a form of argumentation involved in the logic of the fabula framework.

The higher levels of framework (above noam) are most suitable for work at the populational level, while the lower ones (below noam) can be used at the level of interaction between individuals. The frameworks are however integrated and higher frameworks are derived from the lower ones.

noam is quite central for both individual and population level modelling and so this c. framework deep dive

3. Frameworks