http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/What-have-the-Romans-sorry-complexity-done-for-us-tp522232p522240.html
development of a paradigm shift, not the absence of one. I'm seeing
organizational map. Problem is the thing mutates like fruit flies on
stereoids, though there's still a there there. I keep trying to
> Guys--
> I usually stay out of this, having a true appreciation of my own
> limitations (to paraphrase Clint Eastwood in one of the Dirty Harry
> movies, I believe) but there are at least two venues where this
> work is appreciated: in the American Association for History and
> Computing (they will be having a cyberconference in the spring) and
> the Midwest Political Science Association Modeling Section (mutatis
> mutandis--the section's name changes as often as the Artist
> Formerly Known as Prince.) If those with appropriate knowledge
> skills would care to contribute, these are areas to establish
> beachheads.
> Chris Newman
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com on behalf of Robert Holmes
> Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 9:55 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] (GWAVA: SPAM) What have the Romans - sorry -
> complexitydone for us?
>
>
> You beat me to it Mike. I was re-reading Kuhn this morning because
> I'm pretty darn sure that complexity science is failing to
> establish itself as a paradigm, and I wanted support for this
> contention from someone a whole load cleverer than me. I'll report
> back on my readings...
>
> Just as a starter, Kuhn suggests that a field's history is largely
> represented in the new textbooks that accompany the paradigm shift.
> I'm thinking that if we don't have the textbooks (see Owen's
> thread), it's hard for us to even claim that a new paradigm exists
> ("there's no there there").
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 7/24/06, Michael Agar <magar at anth.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> Well, there's the roads, yeah, and then there's the...
>
> Romans are the right metaphor, since much of what's happened in the
> last X years has been diffusion of ideas--ideas, not measures--into
> numerous different domains. Like Kuhn said...
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I really enjoyed Joe's post and it set me thinking - exactly what
> > has complexity science achieved? IMHO, one measure of a field's
> > health is that the field moves forward (radical, huh?). If I look
> > at particle physics, they now know stuff that they didn't 15 years
> > ago (neutrino mass for example); if I look at high-temperature
> > superconductivity, Tc moves ever upwards. If I look at string
> > theory they ask (and occassionally answer) ever more abstruse and
> > unlikely questions that might not bear any relation to the real
> > world but are at least based on what was asked before.
> >
> > So here's the question: in the field of complexity science, exactly
> > what can we do now that we could not do 15 years ago?
> >
> > Robert
> > ============================================================
> > 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