• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Adaptive Reorganization or Theoretical Reorganization?

A Reply to Frank Visser

Joseph Dillard / ChatGPT

Frank Visser has now responded to my essay by turning Adaptive Reorganization Theory (ART) back upon itself. That is exactly what I hoped he would do.

His critique is considerably stronger than his original essay because it asks precisely the questions a scientific theory ought to be asked. Can ART distinguish itself from existing concepts? Is precipitation more than a metaphor? How should reorganizability be operationalized? What would falsify ART? Can ART reorganize itself in response to criticism, or does it merely assimilate criticism into its own conceptual framework?

These are not objections ART should evade. They define the research agenda ART must pursue if it is to become more than another comprehensive worldview. For that reason, I regard Visser's essay less as a refutation than as an invitation to clarify what ART actually claims, and equally important, what it does not yet claim.

Reorganization Is Not the Same as Relabeling

Visser repeatedly suggests that ART may simply redescribe familiar phenomena, such as confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, paradigm preservation, institutional inertia, and cognitive rigidity, in an evolutionary vocabulary. This criticism deserves serious consideration.

Scientific progress rarely consists of discovering entirely new phenomena. More often it consists of recognizing a deeper organizational principle connecting phenomena previously studied separately.

Darwin did not discover inheritance, variation, competition, or reproduction. Those were already well known. His contribution was recognizing that they were components of a single organizational process governed by natural selection. Likewise, Newton did not discover falling apples or planetary motion. He demonstrated that both expressed the same underlying principle.

ART makes an analogous claim.

It does not claim to have discovered confirmation bias, bureaucratic rigidity, scientific paradigms, identity protection, dreaming, organizational inertia, or civilizational decline. It proposes that these are diverse manifestations of a common adaptive organizational process: the continual balancing of stability and reorganizability across multiple levels of organization. Whether that proposal ultimately succeeds remains an empirical question.

It is therefore considerably stronger than a change in terminology, but considerably weaker than an established scientific law. ART should be understood as a unifying hypothesis requiring investigation rather than as a completed theory demanding acceptance.

Has ART Reorganized?

Visser also offers an elegant performative criticism. He observes that I understood his essay, accepted much of it, and then interpreted it through ART. In doing so, he suggests, I demonstrated exactly the phenomenon ART describes. There is genuine truth in this observation.

Every scientific theory assimilates new information through its existing conceptual organization. The relevant question, however, is not whether assimilation occurs. Every successful theory does this. The question is whether criticism changes the future organization of the theory itself. I believe ART has already begun doing so.

The distinction between perspective-taking and adaptive participation became considerably sharper through dialogue with Visser. The concept of international law as an adaptive tribunal capable of externalizing corrective participation likewise emerged only through continued reflection on our disagreement concerning Harris. More recently, Visser's insistence upon explicit falsifiability has pushed ART toward formulating empirical predictions and clearer research criteria.

Are these genuine reorganizations of ART or merely sophisticated accommodations? That remains an entirely legitimate question. Scientific communities, not authors, ultimately decide such matters. The important point is that ART explicitly recognizes this question as one of its own research problems rather than assuming it has already been answered.

Reorganizability Is Not a Substitute for Truth

Visser worries that ART risks replacing correctness with reorganizability. If ART were making that claim, the criticism would be justified. It is not. Truth and reorganizability describe different adaptive properties. An individual or institution may correctly interpret present circumstances while becoming progressively incapable of recognizing future error. Conversely, another may currently hold mistaken conclusions while remaining highly capable of self-correction. Neither condition guarantees the other. Reality testing therefore remains indispensable.

Throughout my work I have emphasized behavioral experimentation, triangulation, comparative testing, repeated confirmation, and multiple independent sources of evidence. Reorganizability is therefore not a substitute for truth. It is a property affecting whether truth can continue emerging under changing conditions. Evolution requires both.

Operationalization and Falsifiability

Here I believe Visser identifies ART's most important unfinished task. How should reorganizability and precipitation be measured? At present, ART provides only provisional answers.

Possible indicators include openness to disconfirming evidence, diversity of corrective participation, decentralization of decision-making, responsiveness to failed predictions, flexibility of organizational revision, and behavioral adaptability following environmental change. Whether these prove adequate remains an empirical question.

Likewise, precipitation presently functions as a theoretical construct rather than a fully operationalized variable. Its scientific usefulness will ultimately depend upon whether reliable measures can be developed and whether those measures improve prediction beyond existing concepts such as cognitive rigidity, motivated reasoning, institutional inertia, or path dependence.

This is not a weakness unique to ART. Most scientific theories initially introduce explanatory constructs before reliable methods for measuring them become available. The responsibility of ART is therefore not to deny this limitation but to reduce it.

The same applies to falsifiability. ART would be seriously undermined if adaptive participation consistently failed to predict reorganizability better than existing theories; if organizations minimizing distributed correction consistently outperformed those maximizing it over long time scales; if increasing adaptive participation reliably reduced rather than enhanced adaptive flexibility; or if precipitation proved unrelated to declining adaptive responsiveness. These are empirical questions. ART should stand or fall on their investigation.

The Evolutionary Argument

Visser also identifies an important philosophical issue. Even if distributed corrective participation tends to enhance long-term adaptive capacity, this does not by itself establish that it constitutes the correct epistemic or moral criterion in every particular dispute. I agree.

Evolution cannot by itself derive an “ought” from an “is.” ART therefore does not claim that adaptive success alone establishes moral truth. Rather, it proposes a narrower hypothesis:

Systems that preserve stronger mechanisms of corrective participation generally maintain greater long-term reorganizability than systems that remain predominantly self-correcting.

Whether humanity ought to value such reorganizability depends upon ethical commitments extending beyond evolutionary theory itself. ART therefore offers an evolutionary hypothesis rather than a complete moral philosophy.

International Law as an Evolutionary Experiment

Our disagreement concerning international law illustrates this distinction. Visser correctly observes that international institutions can themselves become captured, politicized, self-referential, or precipitated. Science suffers similar problems, and so do constitutional courts, democratic governments, and peer review. Their existence therefore guarantees neither truth nor justice. ART does not claim otherwise. The claim is more modest.

Science, constitutional review, and international law all represent evolutionary experiments in externalizing corrective participation beyond the adaptive systems they evaluate. Whether these experiments succeed remains contingent rather than guaranteed. Indeed, ART predicts that they too require continual adaptive correction if they are not themselves to become precipitated.

The issue therefore is not whether international law is infallible; it is whether adaptive systems generally become more or less reorganizable when they increasingly submit themselves to external standards of correction rather than remaining their own highest judges. That proposition remains open to empirical investigation.

What ART Predicts

If ART contributes anything distinctive, it should generate predictions extending beyond existing theories. Among them are these:

• Adaptive systems increasingly insulated from external corrective participation should become progressively more precipitated before major adaptive failures become visible.

• Organizations distributing corrective participation more broadly should display greater long-term reorganizability than organizations concentrating corrective authority within themselves.

• Increasing organizational complexity without corresponding increases in adaptive participation should predict rigidity rather than adaptive intelligence.

• Institutions capable of correcting themselves through distributed criticism should generally prove more resilient than institutions primarily dependent upon self-adjudication.

These predictions may prove mistaken. If so, ART should be revised accordingly.

Why This Matters

This returns us to the Harris debate. My disagreement with Ray Harris is therefore not fundamentally about Israel and Palestine, nor is it simply about competing historical narratives.

It concerns whether the long trajectory of institutional evolution continues toward increasingly externalized mechanisms of corrective participation, including supranational institutions, or whether the nation-state should remain the highest adaptive tribunal. ART predicts no automatic victory for either position.

It predicts only that societies preserving stronger capacities for distributed corrective participation should display greater long-term adaptive resilience. Whether present international institutions embody that principle successfully remains an open question rather than a foregone conclusion.

The Real Test

Visser finally asks the question ART itself must continually answer. Can ART reorganize? I believe it can. More importantly, it must.

If ART eventually proves incapable of modifying its assumptions, operational definitions, predictions, or explanatory structure in response to evidence and criticism, it will have become precisely the kind of precipitated adaptive organization it seeks to explain.That would not merely weaken the theory; it would falsify its central aspiration.

I therefore welcome Visser's challenge, not because I believe he has refuted ART, but because he has identified the questions ART most needs to answer if it is to mature into a genuinely scientific research program.

Operationalization, prediction, falsifiability, and self-correction are not external demands imposed upon ART. They are themselves expressions of the very adaptive reorganizability ART proposes to investigate.

Whether ART ultimately succeeds should be determined not by my confidence in it, nor by Visser's skepticism, but by its demonstrated ability to generate fruitful research, survive criticism, and reorganize itself when reality requires.

For readers interested in the broader theoretical foundations of ART, including its proposed methods for adaptive self-correction, I refer them to The Development Trap, The Harmony Trap, and the forthcoming The Adaptive Civilization.