We are what we eat.

Man does not live by bread alone…

   The World According to ChatGPT:

Knowledge is Not Static

Over the years, there have been several food and beverage items that were initially considered dangerous for health based on scientific studies, but later the declarations were withdrawn or revised due to further research and evidence. Some examples include:

1. Eggs: In the past, eggs were thought to be unhealthy due to their cholesterol content. However, later research clarified that dietary cholesterol has a minimal impact on blood cholesterol levels for most people.
2. Coffee: Coffee was once believed to be detrimental to health, being associated with heart issues and cancer risks. Subsequent studies revealed that moderate coffee consumption can actually have some health benefits and is generally safe for most individuals.
3. Butter: Butter was deemed unhealthy due to its saturated fat content, leading to the popularity of margarine. However, more recent research suggests that natural fats like butter can be part of a balanced diet when consumed in moderation.
4. Chocolate: Chocolate was linked to various health problems, including acne and weight gain. Later research showed that moderate consumption of dark chocolate can offer certain health benefits, particularly in terms of antioxidants.
5. Nuts: Nuts were previously avoided by some people due to their high-fat content. However, studies have shown that nuts, particularly almonds, walnuts, and pistachios, are rich in healthy fats and can be beneficial for heart health when consumed in moderation.
6. Red Wine: Red wine was once associated with negative health effects, but later research highlighted the potential benefits of moderate consumption, particularly in terms of its antioxidant properties and potential cardiovascular benefits.
7. Salt: Salt was believed to be a significant contributor to hypertension and heart disease. While excessive salt intake can be problematic for certain individuals, recent research has indicated that it may not be as harmful as once thought for the general population.
8. Artificial Sweeteners: Artificial sweeteners, such as saccharin and aspartame, were initially linked to cancer and other health concerns. Subsequent studies have shown that these sweeteners are generally safe for consumption, but some individuals may have sensitivities or reactions to them.
9. Coconut Oil: Coconut oil was once viewed as unhealthy due to its high saturated fat content. More recent research suggests that its effects on health may be more nuanced, and it can be included in a balanced diet in moderation.
10. High-Carb Diets: Low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets were once promoted as a healthy approach to weight management. However, current research indicates that the quality of carbohydrates and fats matters more, and some high-carb diets can contribute to health issues like insulin resistance.
11. Dairy: Dairy products, particularly whole milk and full-fat dairy, were once believed to contribute to heart disease due to their saturated fat content. However, recent studies have suggested that consuming certain full-fat dairy products may not be as harmful as previously thought and could even have some potential health benefits.
12. Red Meat: Red meat, such as beef and lamb, was linked to an increased risk of heart disease and cancer. While excessive consumption may still be a concern, newer research emphasizes the importance of choosing lean cuts and moderating portion sizes, acknowledging that red meat can be part of a balanced diet.
13. Cholesterol-rich Foods: Foods high in cholesterol, such as shrimp and lobster, were discouraged for individuals with high cholesterol levels. However, dietary cholesterol’s impact on blood cholesterol levels is now considered less significant for most people, and these foods can be enjoyed as part of a balanced diet.
14. Gluten: Gluten, a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye, became a concern for some individuals due to gluten-related disorders like celiac disease. However, a gluten-free diet is not necessary for those without gluten sensitivities, and it may lack essential nutrients when not properly balanced.
15. Saturated Fats: Saturated fats were once widely condemned for their presumed link to heart disease. While excessive consumption remains a concern, recent research indicates that some sources of saturated fats, such as those found in nuts and avocados, can be part of a heart-healthy diet.
16. MSG (Monosodium Glutamate): MSG was once associated with “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” and negative health effects. However, most people can safely consume MSG without adverse reactions, and it is considered a safe food additive.
17. Coconut Water: Coconut water gained popularity as a natural hydrating beverage, but concerns were raised about its high potassium content, potentially posing risks to individuals with kidney problems. However, for most people, moderate consumption is safe and can be a refreshing source of hydration.
18. Alcohol: Alcohol consumption has been associated with both positive and negative health effects. Moderate alcohol intake, particularly red wine, has been linked to potential cardiovascular benefits, but excessive consumption can lead to a range of health issues.
19. Artificial Food Colors: Artificial food colors were once implicated in hyperactivity and behavioral issues in children. While some studies suggested a possible link, the overall evidence was inconclusive, and regulatory bodies considered them safe for consumption.
20. Caffeine: Caffeine, found in coffee, tea, and energy drinks, was once a subject of concern for its potential impact on heart health and dehydration. Moderate caffeine intake is generally safe for most individuals, and it can even have performance-enhancing effects for certain activities.
21. Grains: The popularity of low-carb and gluten-free diets led to skepticism about the health benefits of grains. However, whole grains are rich in fiber and nutrients and can be part of a balanced diet, promoting digestive health and providing essential nutrients.
22. Non-Dairy Milk Alternatives: Plant-based milk alternatives, such as almond, soy, and oat milk, gained popularity as dairy alternatives. While they are suitable for individuals with lactose intolerance or dietary preferences, their nutritional content varies, and some may lack certain nutrients present in cow’s milk.
23. Fermented Foods: Fermented foods like kimchi, sauerkraut, and yogurt were historically avoided due to concerns about bacteria. However, these foods are now recognized for their probiotic content, which can promote gut health and support the immune system.
24. Avocado: Avocado was once considered fattening and avoided by some people trying to lose weight. Nowadays, avocados are celebrated for their healthy monounsaturated fats and various nutrients, making them a popular addition to many diets.
25. Artificial Trans Fats: Artificial trans fats were widely used in processed foods and linked to heart disease. In response to health concerns, many countries have banned or limited their use, leading to a shift towards healthier fats in processed foods.
26. Coffee and Bone Health: There were concerns that coffee might negatively impact bone health due to its potential to leach calcium from bones. However, current evidence suggests that moderate coffee consumption doesn’t significantly affect bone density for most people.
27. Reducing Dietary Fat: In the past, low-fat diets were heavily promoted for weight loss and overall health. However, recent research indicates that the type of fat consumed is more important than the amount, and healthy fats play a crucial role in various bodily functions.
28. Artificial Sweeteners and Weight Gain: Artificial sweeteners were initially seen as a way to reduce calorie intake and aid in weight loss. Some studies have since suggested a possible link between artificial sweeteners and weight gain, but the evidence is inconclusive and requires further research.
29. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Genetically modified crops and food products have sparked debates about their safety and potential health risks. Regulatory authorities generally consider GMOs safe for consumption, but public opinions on this topic vary.

As scientific knowledge expands and evolves, so does our understanding of the potential health effects of various food and beverage items. It’s essential to approach dietary choices with a balanced perspective, considering individual needs, preferences, and overall lifestyle. Keeping yourself informed with evidence-based information from reputable sources can help you make informed decisions about your diet and well-being. Consulting with healthcare professionals or registered dietitians can also provide personalized guidance tailored to your specific health goals.

The Case of Coconut Oil

One food item that has been controversial for several years with conflicting research findings is “coconut oil.”

For decades, coconut oil was widely used in various cuisines and products due to its unique flavor and versatility. However, starting from the late 20th century, coconut oil faced a significant backlash from health organizations and experts. The controversy mainly revolved around its high saturated fat content, which was believed to contribute to heart disease and raise cholesterol levels.

During this period, health authorities advised reducing or eliminating coconut oil from the diet in favor of other vegetable oils with lower saturated fat content. This recommendation was based on the prevailing belief that saturated fats were generally detrimental to heart health.

However, in recent years, there has been a shift in the perception of coconut oil. Some studies and proponents of the “coconut oil craze” claimed that it might offer health benefits, including improved metabolism, weight loss, and increased levels of “good” HDL cholesterol. Advocates suggested that the type of saturated fats found in coconut oil, primarily medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs), could have unique metabolic effects that differed from long-chain saturated fats.

This led to an ongoing debate in the scientific community and among health enthusiasts. While some research suggested potential health benefits of coconut oil, other studies maintained that its saturated fat content could still pose risks to heart health.

As a result, the view on coconut oil has remained contentious, and research on its health effects continues to evolve. Health experts often emphasize the importance of moderation and balance in dietary choices, recommending a mix of different fats and oils rather than relying solely on one type.

The coconut oil controversy serves as a reminder that nutritional science is complex, and findings can vary based on the research design, study population, and other factors. It also highlights the need for continued research and evidence-based guidelines to inform dietary recommendations accurately. As new studies emerge, our understanding of coconut oil’s potential health effects may continue to evolve, adding further nuance to this ongoing debate.

Who’s Research?

It is challenging to provide an exact percentage of nutritional science research produced by commercial operators or food producers versus independent researchers because the landscape of research funding and sponsorship is continuously evolving.

However, it is important to acknowledge that conflicts of interest can exist in research, particularly in the field of nutrition, where food companies may have a vested interest in promoting their products. Studies funded by commercial operators may influence research outcomes and potentially bias the interpretation of results in favor of their products.

Independent research, on the other hand, is generally conducted by academic institutions, government agencies, non-profit organizations, or researchers with no financial ties to food producers. This type of research is typically considered to be less influenced by external interests and more impartial in its conclusions.

To ensure the credibility of nutritional science, it’s crucial for researchers and journals to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and for consumers and professionals to critically evaluate the sources of information. Relying on a diverse range of studies and considering the consensus of the scientific community is essential when making evidence-based decisions about nutrition and health.

Scientific Reviews

The process used by publishers to vet research articles in the field of food and nutrition typically involves a rigorous peer-review process. Here’s an overview of how this process works and its effectiveness:

1. Submission: Researchers submit their articles to scientific journals for publication consideration. The submitted articles contain the results of their food and nutrition research, including methods, data analysis, and conclusions.

2. Editorial Screening: Upon submission, journal editors conduct an initial screening to assess whether the article meets the journal’s scope and guidelines. Articles that are not aligned with the journal’s focus are typically rejected at this stage.

3. Peer Review: The next step involves peer review, where the submitted article is sent to independent experts or peers in the field for evaluation. These reviewers assess the quality, validity, and significance of the research. They provide feedback, suggest revisions, and recommend whether the article should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

4. Revisions and Resubmission: If the article is recommended for revisions, the authors are asked to address the reviewers’ comments and concerns before resubmitting the article.

5. Final Decision: After the revisions, the article undergoes a final review by the editor, who considers the revised version and the reviewers’ comments to make a decision on acceptance or rejection.

Effectiveness:

The peer-review process is generally considered an essential step in ensuring the quality and validity of scientific research. However, it is not without limitations:

1. Time-Consuming: The peer-review process can be time-consuming, which may delay the publication of important research findings.

2. Potential Bias: While peer reviewers are expected to be impartial, there is a possibility of bias, either unintentional or due to conflicts of interest.

3. Unidentified Flaws: The process may not always identify all methodological flaws or errors in the research.

4. Reproducibility Concerns: Even after publication, some studies may face challenges in reproducing the results, raising questions about the robustness of the peer-review process.

Despite these limitations, the peer-review process remains a crucial safeguard in maintaining scientific integrity and credibility. Publishers and journals continuously strive to improve the process and address potential issues to ensure the best possible evaluation of food and nutrition research articles. Researchers, readers, and the scientific community as a whole play an important role in critically evaluating published research and contributing to ongoing scientific discourse.

Growing Concerns And Problems With The Peer Review Process In Science

Studies and observations since 2000 have highlighted growing concerns and problems with the peer review process in science and science publishing. While peer review remains an essential mechanism for maintaining scientific integrity, it is not without its challenges. Some of the main issues identified include:

1. Peer Review Bias: There is evidence to suggest that peer review can be susceptible to bias, both conscious and unconscious. Reviewers may show preference or prejudice based on factors such as the author’s affiliation, previous work, or the novelty of the findings.

2. Lack of Diversity: Peer review panels may lack diversity in terms of gender, ethnicity, and geographic representation. This lack of diversity could influence the types of research that receive favorable reviews and can lead to underrepresentation of certain research areas or perspectives.

3. Delays and Time Pressure: The peer review process can be time-consuming, leading to publication delays. In some cases, journals may impose tight deadlines on reviewers, which could result in less thorough evaluations and impact the quality of reviews.

4. Inefficiency: Some studies indicate that peer review may not be as effective at identifying errors, fraud, or methodological flaws in research as it is often assumed to be. Certain controversial studies have passed through peer review only to be later questioned or retracted due to flaws.

5. Publication Bias: Journals might show a preference for publishing positive or statistically significant results, leading to an underrepresentation of negative or inconclusive findings. This “publication bias” can skew the overall scientific literature and lead to an incomplete understanding of certain topics.

6. Emergence of Predatory Journals: The rise of predatory journals, which prioritize profit over scientific rigor, has led to concerns about the quality and credibility of the peer review process in these outlets.

7. Lack of Transparency: The anonymity of the peer review process can sometimes hinder transparency and accountability. Reviewers’ identities are typically kept confidential, making it difficult to assess potential conflicts of interest or biases.

While the peer review process has its challenges, it is essential to note that there are ongoing efforts to improve the system. Many scientific organizations and journals are implementing measures like open peer review, preprint servers, and post-publication peer review to enhance transparency and ensure a more robust evaluation of research.

As the scientific landscape evolves, it is crucial for researchers, reviewers, publishers, and the scientific community as a whole to continue discussing and addressing these issues to maintain the highest standards of scientific integrity and credibility.

Conclusion

Based on the assessment of the peer review process and the challenges it faces, we can draw several conclusions about the nature of science and the scientific process as a human activity:

1. Science is a Dynamic and Evolving Process: The scientific process is not static; it evolves over time based on new evidence, discoveries, and societal needs. The challenges and improvements observed in the peer review process are reflective of the ongoing efforts to refine scientific practices.

2. Imperfect, but Self-Correcting: The scientific process, including peer review, is not immune to flaws and biases. However, science has a built-in mechanism for self-correction. As new research emerges, it can challenge or correct previously held beliefs, leading to a more accurate understanding of the natural world.

3. Subject to Human Influences: Science is conducted by humans, and as a result, it is influenced by individual perspectives, biases, and motivations. The peer review process may be affected by reviewer biases, potential conflicts of interest, or institutional pressures.

4. Requires Transparency and Openness: To enhance the scientific process, transparency and openness are crucial. Promoting transparency in research methods, data sharing, and peer review can lead to a more thorough evaluation of research and improve the reliability of scientific findings.

5. Collaboration and Dialogue are Essential: The scientific process benefits from collaboration, open discussion, and constructive criticism. Engaging in dialogue and welcoming diverse perspectives can help identify and address weaknesses in research and promote a more inclusive scientific community.

6. Continual Improvement is Key: The assessment of the peer review process highlights the need for ongoing improvement and adaptation in scientific practices. Adopting new methodologies, embracing technological advancements, and fostering a culture of critical thinking can strengthen the scientific process.

7. Scientific Integrity is Paramount: Despite its imperfections, upholding scientific integrity is fundamental. Honest reporting of results, ethical conduct, and adhering to established research standards are essential for maintaining trust in scientific endeavors.

In conclusion, the nature of science and the scientific process as a human activity is multifaceted. While the peer review process faces challenges, it remains a vital part of the scientific method, contributing to the pursuit of knowledge, advancement of research, and the development of evidence-based understanding of the world around us. Recognizing the limitations and continuously working to improve scientific practices can lead to more robust, reliable, and credible scientific outcomes.

By ChatGPT

Prompted by Randal Adcock

Imagine a small community that relies heavily on a social media platform for communication and information sharing. The platform initially serves as a valuable tool for connecting community members, sharing news, and coordinating events. However, over time, negative network effects start to emerge, leading to constraints on the community’s degrees of freedom.

Scenario: 1. Misinformation spreads: A rumor about an impending environmental threat circulates on the social media platform without verification. The misinformation gains traction quickly, leading to widespread panic and fear among community members. As people become increasingly anxious, their ability to critically assess information diminishes, and they rely heavily on emotionally charged posts without fact-checking.

2. Polarization and echo chambers: The misinformation on the social media platform fuels a divide within the community. Individuals with differing perspectives on the environmental threat become polarized, forming separate echo chambers that reinforce their beliefs. Interactions between the opposing groups decrease, leading to a loss of empathy and understanding.

3. Erosion of trust: As misinformation spreads and polarization deepens, trust among community members and in the information shared on the platform erodes. People become hesitant to rely on each other or the platform for accurate information, and collaboration becomes more challenging.

4. Disengagement and loss of agency: With growing distrust and polarization, some community members disengage from the platform and the community discussions altogether. They feel overwhelmed by the negative environment and perceive a loss of agency in influencing the discussions or addressing the environmental concern constructively.

5. Feedback loops: The lack of diverse perspectives and trust in the information shared on the platform perpetuates the negative network effects. As people disengage and withdraw from conversations, the platform becomes more dominated by polarized viewpoints and misinformation, reinforcing the constraints on degrees of freedom for meaningful dialogue and problem-solving.

In this scenario, the negative network effects on the social media platform have imposed constraints on the community’s degrees of freedom in various ways:

– The spread of misinformation has led to increased fear and reduced critical thinking, constraining the community’s ability to make well-informed decisions.

– Polarization and echo chambers have limited the diversity of perspectives and constructive discussions, impeding the exploration of innovative solutions.

– Erosion of trust has hindered collaboration and collective action, reducing the community’s ability to address the environmental threat effectively.

• Disengagement and loss of agency have diminished the community’s capacity to influence the direction of discussions and decision-making processes.
• This simple scenario illustrates how negative network effects can have compounding consequences, imposing constraints on the degrees of freedom within a community and hindering its capacity to address challenges and adapt effectively.

When you live in a small community for a while and then travel to a full scale city, you are likely to get a sense of being overwhelmed. The streets are full of cars. The commuter roadways have many lanes of speeding lane-shifting traffic. The business districts are built upward towards the sky, while the suburbs apparently reach out to infinity in all directions. The shopping malls are flooded with pedestrians zig-zagging to and fro.

As an urbanite, you may have had a similar experience when traveling abroad to another city or different country. Its called ‘culture shock‘. Its a sense of disorientation due to the lack of familiarity, but compounded by so many diverse, interacting, and interdependent moving parts. There is a lot of uncertainty in the urban world in contrast to the simpler world of rural life. I expect most rural people enjoy a couple of days of excitement in the city and then are bound to head for the comforts of home.

Back home in the countryside, you know people. You know where they live, what car or truck they drive, what school and church they go to, and what work they do for a living. You nod when you meet them, or even strangers, on the village sidewalk. You might spontaneously strike up a conversation with them about a mutual acquaintance who just got a new job, got married or had an accident.

In the city, you will almost never run into anyone you know by accident. Its hard enough to make an appointment to meet for coffee when you live 45 minutes apart through traffic jams and a full workday schedule. The point is this, that we’re so smart that we don’t stop and think about the invisible complexities that surround us until there is a sudden change in complexity.

Maybe you grew up and continue to live in the city. You are familiar with the buzz, the sirens, car horns, the busy parking lots and shopping malls, the six or ten lanes of speeding shifting traffic with entrance and exit lanes. Maybe you were accustomed to kids in your classroom, or co-workers, with whom you have never had a conversation. Imagine when you go and visit your country cousin and you feel out of place, or exposed. Suddenly you are expected to interact with strangers as a whole person, not just in a prescribed role. You are expected to know that everything happens at the general store. Your cousins seem to know everything about everyone! The simplicity is overwhelming!

Managing Complexity

I derive a lot of my arguments from an evolutionary point of view. That’s because that’s where we all came from. Our biological constitutions were designed by Nature to align with the complex patterns of opportunities and threats in our native ecosystems. Our capacity for managing complexity is biologically constrained.

There was a natural limit to the number of people that could survive in a hunting and gathering lifestyle within a geographic range. In many ecosystems our ancestors became nomadic in order to find enough food to survive and thrive. Early languages had only enough words and names, to identify perhaps as few as 500 items that we had to talk about. The division of labour was simply by age and sex. But if you wanted to get the best arrow head for hunting, you knew who the master was and where to find him, even without thinking much about it. You knew who could give the best parenting advice or help someone who was sick.

When all is familiar we are automatic, efficient and effective. We can find time to deliberate, reflect or meditate on the grand scheme of things without disruptions. Some of the greatest wisdom we find today was captured by ancient sages of more than 2,000 years ago.

Today’s world is very busy and getting busier. But it seems as though the busier it gets, the less time we take to really get to the bottom of our struggles. We often treat the symptoms, not the root causes. We frantically grasp at the straws of truth. Its like a feeding frenzy of starving masses, all bumping elbows to get to the trough. I am reminded of the legend of the stampeding lemmings.

Our brains are obviously complex enough to handle more civil complexity than the simple hunting and gathering lifestyle. We can form abstract concepts and principles that allow us to learn from one experience and extrapolate to quite different scenarios. But our capacity for managing complexity is not infinite.

We apparently evolved from tree-climbing apes. That’s why we are upright, bipedal and have great manual dexterity. Our gymnasts demonstrate our species talent for swinging from tree limbs. Most animals have trouble grasping anything except by mouth. So we can become tool makers and tool users. Tools amplify our range of abilities to modify our environments. We can make our worlds quite complex if we want. Some cultures promoted technical progress to an obsession.

The other important thing that makes us different from most other animals is the capacity for vocalizing. Because of the variety of sounds we can make with our mouths, we can code sounds to meanings. Other animals can get language if we teach them. The capacity for language is not ours uniquely. But we have capitalized on this vocalization to be able to capture and share lessons for living, from one generation to the next and across great distances. It is like an accelerated evolution. It is based on memes, or parceled meanings, rather than genes.

There is competition amongst cultures, so no one could afford to ignore progress in food production, health, manufacturing, education and, of course, defense. There is a cultural race that drives the growth of civil complexity. Minority cultures, those that have a smaller population or less influence, must either adopt technology or be consumed by the majority cultures.

Native languages disappear. Traditional cuisine, arts, music, dance, and fashions are threatened. Becoming “normal” by adopting the global standards becomes the preferred route. Most people don’t want to appear to be “backward”. Being backward implies being stupid. Being an early adopter of innovation generally implies higher intelligence, whether true or not.

Our brains were designed by Nature to be able to manage a certain level of complexity, a level we were likely to experience in a rain-forest ecosystem. That served us very well. There were a lot of plants and animals, some of which we could eat, others would poison us or otherwise kill us. Some water sources were safe while others would make you sick. In other words, there were opportunities and threats and we could tell the difference and act accordingly. We approach opportunities and avoid threats. What our instincts didn’t tell us about good and bad, then our culture would tell us, originally by mimicking, then by oral traditions such as instruction or story-telling.

But now we find ourselves in a different world, a world in which civil complexity often exceed Nature’s complexity. We live in a world in which our environment does not evolve over centuries and multiple generations, but in decades, or now in a matter of months.

I have come to believe that our brains have a dysfunctional way to dealing with unmanageable complexity. We know there are many dysfunctional coping mechanisms. Usually successful coping mechanisms begin to fail when over-used, or used inappropriately. Denial, for example, used appropriately in small doses, can be quite useful. But when we rely on denial too often or at critical decision points, it can be disastrous.

Denial is one way we can habituate to complexity. Denial is a kind of filtering. We do it all the time to get focused and stay focused. We deliberately decide to ignore some things and attend to a limited number of other things. When cooking, cooks experiment with one or two variables at a time, such as volumes of salt or sugar, to see what change results in the end product. In scientific experiments, scientists hold most variables constant and experiment with a limited number of variables to study their effects.

However, real life is more complex than simple patterns of cause and effect. We have more things, more types of things, more relationships among things and more types of relationships among things. We have more people, more diversity of people, more jobs and more specialized jobs, more of everything — and more variety of cars and buildings, transportation routes, and other public infrastructure. These are all variables in the civil system we call the city.

The more variables you have in system, the more unpredictable it becomes. There are not only more variables, but more relationships among those variables. The parts of a modern city are generally all interdependent. Any variable could impact any other variable at any time.

This complexity produces uncertainty. The uncertainty produces anxiety. Anxiety produces defensive herding behaviour, then defensive posturing. Defensive posturing leads to polarization of people along some emergent faction lines. Existing faction lines are likely to become exacerbated. Other faction lines may dissolve in favour of predominant factions. In other words, we put down other boundary lines that previously divided us in order to accept newcomers into our tribes. Open conflict, driven by mass hysteria will escalate in a winner take all, kill-or-be-killed, mentality. When a winner emerges, the losing competitor is erased, taking with it the complexity it had contributed to the society. So life is somewhat simpler for a while, for the victors.

But civil complexity continues to grow once again.

In the urban city there are more variables than you will find in rural villages. In modern times you will find more variable than in ancient times. We need better tools for understanding and navigating civil complexity.

Knowledge engineering is the applied science of developing knowledge bases, some of which are more efficient and effective than others. To understand complex systems we can use the body of knowledge called systems science.

While knowledge engineering is primarily associated with computer-based systems and technologies, the principles and methodologies of knowledge engineering can have practical applications even without the use of a computer. Here are a few examples:

1. Knowledge Organization: Knowledge engineering techniques can be applied to organize and structure information or knowledge in various domains. For instance, you can use knowledge engineering principles to develop a well-organized personal library or create a systematic classification system for physical documents or books.
2. Decision Making: Knowledge engineering emphasizes capturing and representing expertise and domain-specific knowledge. Without a computer, you can still utilize knowledge engineering methods to formalize decision-making processes. For complex decisions, you can employ techniques such as decision trees, decision matrices, or rule-based systems to organize and evaluate different options systematically.
3. Knowledge Sharing: Knowledge engineering emphasizes knowledge acquisition, representation, and dissemination. You can apply these principles in non-computer contexts by documenting and sharing your expertise or domain-specific knowledge with others. This can involve writing manuals, guides, or instructional materials that systematically present and explain knowledge for others to learn and apply.
4. Education and Training: Knowledge engineering methodologies can be employed in educational contexts to design effective learning materials and curriculum. Even without a computer, you can structure educational content using knowledge representation techniques such as concept maps, hierarchical organization, or knowledge frameworks to enhance understanding and facilitate learning.
5. Expertise Development: Knowledge engineering involves capturing and representing expert knowledge. Without a computer, you can still engage in knowledge engineering techniques to document and formalize your expertise or the expertise of others. This can include creating written guides, manuals, or mentoring frameworks that codify and transmit expert knowledge to others.

While the practical applications of knowledge engineering without a computer may not fully leverage the computational power and automation that computer-based systems provide, the principles and methodologies can still be applied to enhance knowledge organization, decision making, knowledge sharing, education, and expertise development in various contexts.