On 4/14/07, Nicholas Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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!!!!
One way might be to look at it this way. Life goes on without complexity science. Decisions get made. Events happen. Now, what does a decision look like that is informed by complexity science? How is it different? What does an event look like when ideas from complexity science are woven into the process of that event? The proposition here is to think about the validity of complexity science by what it does in the world rather than soley in a world of ordinary science. If complexity science has tunneled under and loosened the foundations of ordinary science then it would seem that concepts such as induction and deduction are loosing meaning. I suppose the idea would be to think about our critieria for evaluating good science. But even saying this I can't really imagine a better standard than prediction, except predicting something that is important. > > 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 > -- Matthew R. Francisco PhD Student, Science and Technology Studies Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ============================================================ 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
