Re: What to do with knowledge

[Phil Henshaw-2]

Thanks, yes that way of asking it does expose the fact that I often deal with the issues of poorly explained complex systems like those one finds all over the place in societies and ecologies.    Science is a policy to understand things better, though, with the knowns ultimately nested in unknowns, so the posture is still basically similar.    

 

For less defined systems the main “system model” is not in a computer, though, but in the experience of the people involved, reflected mostly in their way of making snap judgments or asking probing questions, say, about whether it’s time to use the opposite rule as before…     You can have interacting systems requiring alternating choices, for example, like when driving on a road where you’d expect a left turn to follow a right turn and so forth, like a period of adding followed by one of subtracting to keep a balance, and not always make progress by turning in the same direction as before.     It can be both necessary and rather difficult to convince people with institutional habits to consider remarkable concept like that…   ;-)

 

Phil Henshaw  

 

From: Russ Abbott [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:07 PM
To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge

 

When I first read this question, I thought that it was somewhat off topic. It is asking about policy rather than science. But the implication of that perspective is that there is no science of policy, i.e., that political science or sociology isn't a science. But of course it should be. In fact it should be one of the sciences of the complex.

-- Russ

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Phil Henshaw <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doesn't the most dangerous knowledge often come from having a blind spot to
the danger?   That's often the problem when people don't recognize the
meaning of changes in scale or kind, like looking for 'bigger' solutions
(the bigger bomb or bigger shovel approach) when the nature of the problem
changes unexpectedly with scale.

Would you include that in your problem statement?

Phil Henshaw  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Steve Smith
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 4:13 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
>

> I believe this is an important but subtle topic that deserves much more
> discussion.
>
> I believe that the sfComplex should host a series of live discussions,
> probably starting with a Panel presentation by a handful of people
> representing differing but well-considered points of view.
>
> I have been considering this since we opened our doors in June, but
> find
> that it is a very difficult topic.  Perhaps the most difficult is the
> polarization that seems to come with it.   I have a lot of strong
> opinions on this subject, some of which I've begun to try to share
> here.  This thread (and the one it emerged from) have tapped a few of
> the ideas and opinions that need to be discussed.
>
> We would need a format and possibly a good moderator to help avoid the
> many opportunities for spinning out.
>
> Ideas, issues, topics are welcome.
>
> - Steve

>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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