RE Complexity and dispair.

[Nick Thompson]

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

[Matthew Francisco]

On 4/14/07, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> 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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> 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!!!!
>  
I'd say just do our best to make contingency plans from models for a
range of probable outcomes, as well as any less probable but
catastrophic ones.

[Phil Henshaw-2]

More good questions.  

The easy way to solve that is to recognize that you may not be able to
answer all the questions you'd like, but you can answer some.   Just be
smart.   With natural complex systems pay attention to the questions you
can answer!!  

The fact that no physical thing can be 'adequately' represented to
satisfy the old scientific model of the designs of nature, doesn't mean
the parts that *can* be usefully represented aren't perhaps more valid
than the old model itself in the domains beyond which that perspective
effectively applies.  These are just tools, no??  Put down the hammer
when you need a screw driver...


Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com    

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 1:15 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] RE Complexity and dispair.
>
>
> 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
>
>

[Phil Henshaw-2]

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: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com    

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Matthew Francisco
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:48 AM
> To: nickthompson at earthlink.net; The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] RE Complexity and dispair.
>
>
> On 4/14/07, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> 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
>
>

[Carl Tollander]

Well,

Nicholas Thompson 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.
>  
Aeration (in moderation) is good for the garden.   One likes to believe
we can do more,
though.
> 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.
Let's not so fully conflate Chaos with Complexity.  It seems to me that
the Complexity work
enables us to search for better sense of what the available
transformations and paths are,
though of course it is not news that a better characterization of
climate (or biological
development) doesn't necessarily tell us what the weather will be two
weeks from now.
Especially in Santa Fe.
>   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.  
With enough properties, you can wave parameter settings around in the
dark and say anything.
> 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.  
Shorn of semantic context, the new improved clarity does not seem much
of an improvement
on the  good old-fashioned kind.    A definition, perhaps, of compost.  
Oh boy, more compost...
(this seems harsh, but it's directed towards the book).
> Surely complexity tells us that there is
> Grueness in the world.
Complexity (or any community of practice) does not "tell" us anything,
any more than
a microscope "tells" us specifics about cells.  It may, we hope, enable
better contextualization
of a set of environments and issues, and thereby help some community of
practice gain
better focus on a set of problems.
> 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
 From Corfield,  "For Lakatos the remedy is to take a larger entity as
the right unit to assess
a piece of science. This is his notion of a /research programme/, a
series of theories, with
a unifying heuristic spirit which provides the resources for deciding
which path to travel,
how to react to obstacles, and so on.  Rationality is not about which
proposition to believe,
but about which programme it is rational to sign up to..."  He goes on
to talk about how
communities of practice may emerge around such research programs.

Consensus building around such a focus does seem to be more a core
(necessary though
not necessarily sufficient) of complexity or any other science, so I'm
not prepared to say Ugh
here.

As to hope here, I see it more in Havel's terms, not so much the
conviction that our work
will turn out well or contribute to some worthy cause,  but the
certainty that what we are
doing makes sense.  In that context, opposite of complexity is not
simplicity, for simplicity
is about accessibility and exposition.  The opposite of complexity is
the inconsequential,
the trivial, the banal.  So, complexity is about sense-making and focus;
it's a good thing.

Carl

[Tim Densmore]

Hi all,

Steve (or whoever controls the list) could you please unsubscribe me?  I
rarely read anything posted to this list, and the volume has increased to the
point I'm missing mail I need to read.

Thanks,

Tim Densmore

[Mikhail Gorelkin]

> 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?

Two things: 1) to evolve, and 2) to be brave to build a new kind of
science... the game is about to begin again...

--Mikhail

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]>
To: <friam at redfish.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 1:14 AM
Subject: [FRIAM] RE Complexity and dispair.

> 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
>