Ok, let me ask the question less coyly. Most of the impact of complexity has been to tunnel under and loosen the foundations of ordinary science. Is that correct, or is it not? One of the important messages of complexity is that no matter what we know about a process, we cannot ever know what it is going to do next. It is like the problem of induction: no matter how much evidence we collect for the proposition that Grass is green, that evidence equally supports the proposition that grass is "grue", i.e., green up til the time we stopped measuring it, and blue thereafter. So in order to do any inference, we have to believe aprori that properties like grue are just shitty properties and we arent going to consider them. But think of some of those models in A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE that are "green" for a gazillion repllications only suddenly to bloom into "blueness" on the 34, 739th run. Surely complexity tells us that there is Grueness in the world.
What can complexity science do other than humble us all? If scientists dont induct, then they dont DEduct because every deduction requires an induction along the way. So what DO we do? Build social consensus? Ugh!!!! Nick ============================================================ 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
