[FRIAM] kuhn
Michael Agar
magar at anth.umd.edu
Wed Jul 26 19:11:33 EDT 2006
Got to admit I read it a long time ago, though I did see the movie
recently (:. It was part of a new lit in those days, including Winch
and Toulmin, not to mention the then scandalous The Double Helix,
that noticed that science had a personal, social and political
context. Imagine that.
Mike
On Jul 26, 2006, at 10:39 AM, David Breecker wrote:
> Kuhn's book (all of it) has had a substantive impact on my overall
> intellectual and analytical development (and I'm neither a
> scientist nor a
> philosopher). I consider it a truly seminal work, and imho well
> worth any
> thinking person's time.
>
> And, you get to feel cool because you know where "paradigm shift"
> came from
> ;-)
>
> David
>
> dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
> www.BreeckerAssociates.com
> Abiquiu: 505-685-4891
> Santa Fe: 505-690-2335
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] kuhn
>
>
>> All -- Everybody should "read" The Structure of Scientific
>> Revolutions,
>> which is to say, start it and see how far you get before you are
>> totally
>> bogged down. But, my philosopher friends warn me, that book does not
>> contain Kuhn's mature opinion. I am afraid I have never gotten
>> beyond his
>> immature ones.
>>
>> "My philosopher friends" also tell me that the two volume
>> Encyclopedia of
>> Philosophy is the best philosophy crib notes ever, respectable for
>> citation, even.
>>
>> Nick
>> Nicholas Thompson
>> nickthompson at earthlink.net
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson
>>
>>
>>> [Original Message]
>>> From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
>>> To: <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Date: 7/25/2006 10:31:21 PM
>>> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 46
>>>
>>> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
>>> friam at redfish.com
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> friam-request at redfish.com
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> friam-owner at redfish.com
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us?
>>> (Carlos Gershenson)
>>> 2. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us?
>>> (Robert Holmes)
>>> 3. Is it economics or biology (Tom Johnson)
>>> 4. Re: Definition of Complexity (Robert Holmes)
>>> 5. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us?
>>> (Phil Henshaw)
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:56:19 +0200
>>> From: Carlos Gershenson <cgershen at vub.ac.be>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done
>>> for us?
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID: <B4A51DC3-01F8-462A-A6E6-61CE2E2361AE at vub.ac.be>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>>>
>>> I think this discussion is productive, because it seems it is
>>> bringing some light and agreement on "what is complexity and what it
>>> is not"...
>>>
>>>> I didn't form the question well - what I meant was: what can we do
>>>> now that we couldn't do 15 years before as a direct consequence of
>>>> advances in complexity science?
>>>
>>> In line with what other people have said, complexity has been
>>> invading all sciences. e.g. you cannot do systems biology without
>>> taking a complexity stance, but all these advances will be seen as
>>> biology or medicine...
>>> Same for other disciplines... so maybe the question could be
>>>
>>> what can we do now that we couldn't do 15 years ago as a consequence
>>> of complexity thinking?
>>>
>>> Then the list I gave earlier would be a valid answer... even if the
>>> advances come from physics, biology, engineering, they required
>>> ideas
>>> from complex systems...
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Carlos Gershenson...
>>> Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
>>> Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium
>>> http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/
>>>
>>> ?Tendencies tend to change...?
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/34560ae7/
>> attachment-0001.h
>> tml
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:26:53 -0600
>>> From: "Robert Holmes" <robert at holmesacosta.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done
>>> for us?
>>> To: FRIAM <Friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <857770150607251726o3f75176ek56e6df960cc957ce at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>> I'll be honest, I cheated. I could have gone to the source and
>>> read the
>>> man's own words, but sometimes it's just easier to read the Cliff
>>> notes
>> (or
>>> equivalent). In this case:
>>>
>>> http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> On 7/25/06, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Which if Kuhn's books would be good to read? There are apparently
>>>> several!
>>>>
>>>> -- Owen
>>>>
>>>> Owen Densmore
>>>> http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 24, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/8ba86f35/
>> attachment-0001.h
>> tml
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 3
>>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:40:29 -0600
>>> From: "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
>>> Subject: [FRIAM] Is it economics or biology
>>> To: "Friam at redfish. com" <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <e04090490607251740t5c3970b7i2fffeb537c7f0567 at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>> Of interest to the list, I hope.
>>>> From the current issue of The Economist:
>>> The Cambrian age of
>>>
>> economics<http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?
>> story_id=7189617
>>>
>>> Evolutionary economics is surviving, but not thriving
>>>
>>> http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617
>>>
>>> -- tj
>>>
>>> ==========================================
>>> J. T. Johnson
>>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
>>> www.analyticjournalism.com
>>> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
>>> http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.com
>>>
>>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
>>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
>>> existing model obsolete."
>>> -- Buckminster
>>> Fuller
>>> ==========================================
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/1b1906ea/
>> attachment-0001.h
>> tml
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 4
>>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:46:12 -0600
>>> From: "Robert Holmes" <robert at holmesacosta.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity
>>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <857770150607251746x23932aaahba0d2956f0d10bad at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One can certainly start from the partition function. But the
>>>> partition
>>>> function is something that is additional to the microscopic
>>>> description, hence emergent. Indeed, the partition function is
>>>> different depending on whether you are using microcanonical,
>>>> canonical
>>>> or grand canonical ensembles, each of which is a thermodynamic, not
>>>> microscopic concept.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm surprised that you consider the partition function as being "in
>>> addition" to the microscopic description. Is this the common view in
>>> statistical mechanics? Just to be specific, if I've got a system of
>>> distinguishable particles and the energy levels aren't
>>> degenerate, the
>>> single particle partition function Zsp is given by:
>>>
>>> Zsp = sum( exp( -ei/k.T ) )
>>> where ei is the energy of the energy level i, the sum is over all
>>> i (i.e.
>>> over all energy levels), k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the
>>> temperature.
>>>
>>> Now that seems about as microscopic description of a system as
>>> you can
>> get.
>>> Could you explain why it's not please?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your patience!
>>>
>>> Robert
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/95bc13de/
>> attachment-0001.h
>> tml
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 5
>>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:30:59 -0400
>>> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done
>>> for us?
>>> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID: <002601c6b05b$887c5540$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>> If you actually wanted an opening to complexity theory that would
>>> actually
>>> assist government decision making, you'd learn to train computers
>>> how to
>>> recognize the mathematical difference between homeostatic
>>> fluctuation and
>>> structural divergence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
>>> NY NY 10040
>>> tel: 212-795-4844
>>> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
>>> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: McNamara, Laura A [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
>>> Behalf Of
>>> McNamara, Laura A
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:15 AM
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity
>>> done for
>> us?
>>>
>>>
>>> To follow on Mike's comments: what SFI, NECSI, UCLA, and other
>>> hotbeds of
>>> complex thinking have in common is some luxury to consider
>>> complexity,
>>> modeling, and social evolution, to creatively push the
>>> application of
>>> complex systems studies to culture and society.
>>>
>>> And here I go on my soapbox (with apologies to those of you
>>> who've heard
>> me
>>> rant about this before): what's disturbing is the number of
>>> people in
>>> government (go figure) who are touting agent based models and
>>> complexity
>> as
>>> predictive tool and theory, respectively, for making decisions about
>>> wickedly complex quagmires in places like... oh, maybe Iraq...? I'm
>>> spending the summer studying computational modeling and simulation
>>> technologies in the DoD and the level of interest in complexity
>>> theory as
>>> the holy grail of social theory is both remarkable and
>>> worrisome. This
>>> being Washington, I've seen more than a few contractors grabbing
>>> at DoD
>>> money to get that grail up and running, without considering the
>>> manifold
>>> issues involved. My Sandia colleague, Tim Trucano, and I are
>>> gearing up
>>> to
>>> write about this issue and will likely be at FRIAM quite a bit to
>>> toss
>> ideas
>>> around with y'all.
>>>
>>> Lurking in the discourse about complexity, computational
>>> modeling, and
>>> society is epistemological question, I think, that requires us to
>>> consider
>>> how we use modeling and simulation tools to produce knowledge
>>> about the
>>> world we live in. In academia, we have a great deal of latitude
>>> in the
>>> purpose of knowledge-making activities; we're engaged in
>>> discovery over
>> the
>>> long run. Inside the Beltway, it's a different story entirely:
>>> they want
>>> decision tools, and they want them yesterday.
>>>
>>> Of course, this begs the question of why common sense is so utterly
>>> absent
>>> in our nation's fine capitol...
>>>
>>> Laura
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com on behalf of Michael Agar
>>> Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 6:49 AM
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity
>>> done for
>> us?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2006, at 6:51 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But more seriously, which university has a department of complex
>>>> systems? Theres the Santa Fe Institute, and possibly NECSI, but
>>>> where
>>>> else?
>>>>
>>>
>>> SFI and NECSI make room for visiting students at different levels,
>>> but neither are degree-granting. In the social realm,
>>> UCLA has a new Human Complex Systems institute that is going
>>> gangbusters in its first year, but it is undergrad only right now,
>>> though the interest there hints that the younger generation is into
>>> it already. At NECSI the Portland State University computer science
>>> program drew some student attention, since they can cobble together
>>> complexity like courses of study. Couple of student emails on the
>>> NECSI list pointed to other possibillities, like George Mason
>>> University's Center for Social Complexity. Otherwise it seems like
>>> academic pockets in various domains. For instance, at NECSI I met a
>>> student who works with Reuben McDaniels, prof at the University of
>>> Texas biz school, known on the Plexus list for his work applying
>>> complexity org development to health care. He works with their
>>> Prigogine Center, though I'm not sure what they do. I'm sure there
>>> are many other centers and institutes and academic pockets that
>>> folks
>>> on the list know of as well, and many others in other countries.
>>> David Lane's group at Reggio-Modena comes to mind. It's an
>>> interesting "shreds and patches" kind of situation that probably
>>> reflects the scattered and multi-perspectival nature of the field at
>>> the moment that motivated Owen's original email.
>>>
>>> I've been disappointed that anthro hasn't been more active, though
>>> there are some good SFI external faculty examples like Steve Lansing
>>> in ecology and Doug White in networks and George Gummerman and Tim
>>> Kohler on the ancient Anasazi (a questionable label now, since it is
>>> a Navajo term and some Pueblo people object). Shortly before
>>> electricity was invented, when I was in grad school, we learned
>>> about
>>> our "holistic" perspective and the "emergent" nature of our work and
>>> how our goal was to learn a new perspective "bottom-up," though that
>>> term we didn't use. Sander van der Leeuw, former SFI faculty, took
>>> over the department at Arizona State and looks like he's changing
>>> things in a complex direction, so maybe it's starting to happen. We
>>> never did anything rigorous and general with the concepts in the old
>>> days, instead learned them by reading ethnographic case after
>>> ethnographic case, like lawyers learn legal reasoning. You'd think
>>> the field would notice the parallels. If anyone's interested,
>>> Lansing
>>> did an overview of complexity for the Annual Review of
>>> Anthropology a
>>> few years back, and I did a piece in Complexity that complexifies
>>> some ethnographic issues (We Have Met the Other and We're All
>>> Nonlinear) that's on my web page.
>>>
>>> And now, for something completely different, this week's Economist
>>> has a feature on evolutionary economics:
>>> http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> 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
>>> <http://www.friam.org/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>>> Name: winmail.dat
>>> Type: application/ms-tnef
>>> Size: 9780 bytes
>>> Desc: not available
>>> Url :
>> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/5fe098b1/
>> attachment.bin
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Friam mailing list
>>> Friam at redfish.com
>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>
>>>
>>> End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 46
>>> *************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> 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
More information about the Friam
mailing list