Got to admit I read it a long time ago, though I did see the movie recently (:. It was part of a new lit in those days, including Winch and Toulmin, not to mention the then scandalous The Double Helix, that noticed that science had a personal, social and political context. Imagine that.
Mike On Jul 26, 2006, at 10:39 AM, David Breecker wrote: > Kuhn's book (all of it) has had a substantive impact on my overall > intellectual and analytical development (and I'm neither a > scientist nor a > philosopher). I consider it a truly seminal work, and imho well > worth any > thinking person's time. > > And, you get to feel cool because you know where "paradigm shift" > came from > ;-) > > David > > dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc. > www.BreeckerAssociates.com > Abiquiu: 505-685-4891 > Santa Fe: 505-690-2335 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:14 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] kuhn > > >> All -- Everybody should "read" The Structure of Scientific >> Revolutions, >> which is to say, start it and see how far you get before you are >> totally >> bogged down. But, my philosopher friends warn me, that book does not >> contain Kuhn's mature opinion. I am afraid I have never gotten >> beyond his >> immature ones. >> >> "My philosopher friends" also tell me that the two volume >> Encyclopedia of >> Philosophy is the best philosophy crib notes ever, respectable for >> citation, even. >> >> Nick >> Nicholas Thompson >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson >> >> >>> [Original Message] >>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Date: 7/25/2006 10:31:21 PM >>> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 46 >>> >>> Send Friam mailing list submissions to >>> [email protected] >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? >>> (Carlos Gershenson) >>> 2. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? >>> (Robert Holmes) >>> 3. Is it economics or biology (Tom Johnson) >>> 4. Re: Definition of Complexity (Robert Holmes) >>> 5. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? >>> (Phil Henshaw) >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:56:19 +0200 >>> From: Carlos Gershenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done >>> for us? >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> <[email protected]> >>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >>> >>> I think this discussion is productive, because it seems it is >>> bringing some light and agreement on "what is complexity and what it >>> is not"... >>> >>>> I didn't form the question well - what I meant was: what can we do >>>> now that we couldn't do 15 years before as a direct consequence of >>>> advances in complexity science? >>> >>> In line with what other people have said, complexity has been >>> invading all sciences. e.g. you cannot do systems biology without >>> taking a complexity stance, but all these advances will be seen as >>> biology or medicine... >>> Same for other disciplines... so maybe the question could be >>> >>> what can we do now that we couldn't do 15 years ago as a consequence >>> of complexity thinking? >>> >>> Then the list I gave earlier would be a valid answer... even if the >>> advances come from physics, biology, engineering, they required >>> ideas >>> from complex systems... >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Carlos Gershenson... >>> Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel >>> Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium >>> http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ >>> >>> ?Tendencies tend to change...? >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/34560ae7/ >> attachment-0001.h >> tml >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:26:53 -0600 >>> From: "Robert Holmes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done >>> for us? >>> To: FRIAM <[email protected]> >>> Message-ID: >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> I'll be honest, I cheated. I could have gone to the source and >>> read the >>> man's own words, but sometimes it's just easier to read the Cliff >>> notes >> (or >>> equivalent). In this case: >>> >>> http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> On 7/25/06, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Which if Kuhn's books would be good to read? There are apparently >>>> several! >>>> >>>> -- Owen >>>> >>>> Owen Densmore >>>> http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 24, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/8ba86f35/ >> attachment-0001.h >> tml >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:40:29 -0600 >>> From: "Tom Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Subject: [FRIAM] Is it economics or biology >>> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] com" <[email protected]> >>> Message-ID: >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> Of interest to the list, I hope. >>>> From the current issue of The Economist: >>> The Cambrian age of >>> >> economics<http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm? >> story_id=7189617 >>> >>> Evolutionary economics is surviving, but not thriving >>> >>> http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617 >>> >>> -- tj >>> >>> ========================================== >>> J. T. Johnson >>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA >>> www.analyticjournalism.com >>> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) >>> http://www.jtjohnson.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. >>> To change something, build a new model that makes the >>> existing model obsolete." >>> -- Buckminster >>> Fuller >>> ========================================== >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/1b1906ea/ >> attachment-0001.h >> tml >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 4 >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:46:12 -0600 >>> From: "Robert Holmes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity >>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >>> <[email protected]> >>> Message-ID: >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> One can certainly start from the partition function. But the >>>> partition >>>> function is something that is additional to the microscopic >>>> description, hence emergent. Indeed, the partition function is >>>> different depending on whether you are using microcanonical, >>>> canonical >>>> or grand canonical ensembles, each of which is a thermodynamic, not >>>> microscopic concept. >>> >>> >>> I'm surprised that you consider the partition function as being "in >>> addition" to the microscopic description. Is this the common view in >>> statistical mechanics? Just to be specific, if I've got a system of >>> distinguishable particles and the energy levels aren't >>> degenerate, the >>> single particle partition function Zsp is given by: >>> >>> Zsp = sum( exp( -ei/k.T ) ) >>> where ei is the energy of the energy level i, the sum is over all >>> i (i.e. >>> over all energy levels), k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the >>> temperature. >>> >>> Now that seems about as microscopic description of a system as >>> you can >> get. >>> Could you explain why it's not please? >>> >>> Thanks for your patience! >>> >>> Robert >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/95bc13de/ >> attachment-0001.h >> tml >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 5 >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:30:59 -0400 >>> From: "Phil Henshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done >>> for us? >>> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" >>> <[email protected]> >>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> If you actually wanted an opening to complexity theory that would >>> actually >>> assist government decision making, you'd learn to train computers >>> how to >>> recognize the mathematical difference between homeostatic >>> fluctuation and >>> structural divergence. >>> >>> >>> >>> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> 680 Ft. Washington Ave >>> NY NY 10040 >>> tel: 212-795-4844 >>> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: McNamara, Laura A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>> Behalf Of >>> McNamara, Laura A >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:15 AM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity >>> done for >> us? >>> >>> >>> To follow on Mike's comments: what SFI, NECSI, UCLA, and other >>> hotbeds of >>> complex thinking have in common is some luxury to consider >>> complexity, >>> modeling, and social evolution, to creatively push the >>> application of >>> complex systems studies to culture and society. >>> >>> And here I go on my soapbox (with apologies to those of you >>> who've heard >> me >>> rant about this before): what's disturbing is the number of >>> people in >>> government (go figure) who are touting agent based models and >>> complexity >> as >>> predictive tool and theory, respectively, for making decisions about >>> wickedly complex quagmires in places like... oh, maybe Iraq...? I'm >>> spending the summer studying computational modeling and simulation >>> technologies in the DoD and the level of interest in complexity >>> theory as >>> the holy grail of social theory is both remarkable and >>> worrisome. This >>> being Washington, I've seen more than a few contractors grabbing >>> at DoD >>> money to get that grail up and running, without considering the >>> manifold >>> issues involved. My Sandia colleague, Tim Trucano, and I are >>> gearing up >>> to >>> write about this issue and will likely be at FRIAM quite a bit to >>> toss >> ideas >>> around with y'all. >>> >>> Lurking in the discourse about complexity, computational >>> modeling, and >>> society is epistemological question, I think, that requires us to >>> consider >>> how we use modeling and simulation tools to produce knowledge >>> about the >>> world we live in. In academia, we have a great deal of latitude >>> in the >>> purpose of knowledge-making activities; we're engaged in >>> discovery over >> the >>> long run. Inside the Beltway, it's a different story entirely: >>> they want >>> decision tools, and they want them yesterday. >>> >>> Of course, this begs the question of why common sense is so utterly >>> absent >>> in our nation's fine capitol... >>> >>> Laura >>> >>> >>> _____ >>> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Michael Agar >>> Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 6:49 AM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity >>> done for >> us? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 24, 2006, at 6:51 AM, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But more seriously, which university has a department of complex >>>> systems? Theres the Santa Fe Institute, and possibly NECSI, but >>>> where >>>> else? >>>> >>> >>> SFI and NECSI make room for visiting students at different levels, >>> but neither are degree-granting. In the social realm, >>> UCLA has a new Human Complex Systems institute that is going >>> gangbusters in its first year, but it is undergrad only right now, >>> though the interest there hints that the younger generation is into >>> it already. At NECSI the Portland State University computer science >>> program drew some student attention, since they can cobble together >>> complexity like courses of study. Couple of student emails on the >>> NECSI list pointed to other possibillities, like George Mason >>> University's Center for Social Complexity. Otherwise it seems like >>> academic pockets in various domains. For instance, at NECSI I met a >>> student who works with Reuben McDaniels, prof at the University of >>> Texas biz school, known on the Plexus list for his work applying >>> complexity org development to health care. He works with their >>> Prigogine Center, though I'm not sure what they do. I'm sure there >>> are many other centers and institutes and academic pockets that >>> folks >>> on the list know of as well, and many others in other countries. >>> David Lane's group at Reggio-Modena comes to mind. It's an >>> interesting "shreds and patches" kind of situation that probably >>> reflects the scattered and multi-perspectival nature of the field at >>> the moment that motivated Owen's original email. >>> >>> I've been disappointed that anthro hasn't been more active, though >>> there are some good SFI external faculty examples like Steve Lansing >>> in ecology and Doug White in networks and George Gummerman and Tim >>> Kohler on the ancient Anasazi (a questionable label now, since it is >>> a Navajo term and some Pueblo people object). Shortly before >>> electricity was invented, when I was in grad school, we learned >>> about >>> our "holistic" perspective and the "emergent" nature of our work and >>> how our goal was to learn a new perspective "bottom-up," though that >>> term we didn't use. Sander van der Leeuw, former SFI faculty, took >>> over the department at Arizona State and looks like he's changing >>> things in a complex direction, so maybe it's starting to happen. We >>> never did anything rigorous and general with the concepts in the old >>> days, instead learned them by reading ethnographic case after >>> ethnographic case, like lawyers learn legal reasoning. You'd think >>> the field would notice the parallels. If anyone's interested, >>> Lansing >>> did an overview of complexity for the Annual Review of >>> Anthropology a >>> few years back, and I did a piece in Complexity that complexifies >>> some ethnographic issues (We Have Met the Other and We're All >>> Nonlinear) that's on my web page. >>> >>> And now, for something completely different, this week's Economist >>> has a feature on evolutionary economics: >>> http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617 >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> 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 >>> <http://www.friam.org/> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >>> Name: winmail.dat >>> Type: application/ms-tnef >>> Size: 9780 bytes >>> Desc: not available >>> Url : >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/5fe098b1/ >> attachment.bin >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Friam mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> >>> >>> End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 46 >>> ************************************* >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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
