Guys--
I usually stay out of this, having a true appreciation of my own limitations
(to paraphrase Clint Eastwood in one of the Dirty Harry movies, I believe) but
there are at least two venues where this work is appreciated: in the American
Association for History and Computing (they will be having a cyberconference in
the spring) and the Midwest Political Science Association Modeling Section
(mutatis mutandis--the section's name changes as often as the Artist Formerly
Known as Prince.) If those with appropriate knowledge skills would care to
contribute, these are areas to establish beachheads.
Chris Newman
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Robert Holmes
Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 9:55 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] (GWAVA: SPAM) What have the Romans - sorry -
complexitydone for us?
You beat me to it Mike. I was re-reading Kuhn this morning because I'm pretty
darn sure that complexity science is failing to establish itself as a paradigm,
and I wanted support for this contention from someone a whole load cleverer
than me. I'll report back on my readings...
Just as a starter, Kuhn suggests that a field's history is largely represented
in the new textbooks that accompany the paradigm shift. I'm thinking that if we
don't have the textbooks (see Owen's thread), it's hard for us to even claim
that a new paradigm exists ("there's no there there").
Robert
On 7/24/06, Michael Agar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, there's the roads, yeah, and then there's the...
Romans are the right metaphor, since much of what's happened in the
last X years has been diffusion of ideas--ideas, not measures--into
numerous different domains. Like Kuhn said...
Mike
On Jul 24, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I really enjoyed Joe's post and it set me thinking - exactly what
> has complexity science achieved? IMHO, one measure of a field's
> health is that the field moves forward (radical, huh?). If I look
> at particle physics, they now know stuff that they didn't 15 years
> ago (neutrino mass for example); if I look at high-temperature
> superconductivity, Tc moves ever upwards. If I look at string
> theory they ask (and occassionally answer) ever more abstruse and
> unlikely questions that might not bear any relation to the real
> world but are at least based on what was asked before.
>
> So here's the question: in the field of complexity science, exactly
> what can we do now that we could not do 15 years ago?
>
> Robert
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
