How about predicting the certainty of transformation in the economic growth process due to increasing instability in the feedbacks that cause it. That would be useful if you could successfully make the case by any generally conclusive means, right?
Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Francisco > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:48 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied > Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] RE Complexity and dispair. > > > 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 > > ============================================================ 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
