Complex Systems and Complexity Thinking
This chapter introduces fundamental aspects of what is popularly called complexity theory, though, for reasons explained in the chapter, we prefer the term complexity thinking. The concept of complexity and its accompanying cluster of key ideas, such as reduction, nonlinear relations and emergence, is outlined and discussed. Crucially, the chapter distinguishes between restricted complexity and general complexity. Whilst restricted complexity has proven to have wide applicability within mathematics and the natural sciences, we argue that it is general complexity that is more relevant to major portions of the human and social sciences. This chapter also identifies and discusses three kinds of emergence, concluding that it is weak emergence that is vitally important for the human and social sciences. Though complexity thinking remains a contested field of inquiry, this chapter does not attempt to resolve ongoing disputes within complexity thinking itself. Rather its aim is to present a coherent version of complexity thinking, one that suggests novel and fertile understandings of the unresolved issues identified in previous chapters. It is the task of the remaining chapters of the book to demonstrate the power of complexity thinking to deepen and expand our understanding of these pressing issues.
- Bedau, M. A. (2002). Downward causation and the autonomy of weak emergence. Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology, 6(1), 5–50. https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/17003/15556. Accessed November 23, 2016.
- Bedau, M. A. (2010). Weak emergence and context-sensitive reduction. In A. Corradini & T. O’Connor (Eds.), Emergence in science and philosophy (pp. 46–63). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Bedau, M. A., & Humphries, P. (Eds.). (2008). Emergence: Contemporary readings in philosophy and science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2014). Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Chalmers, D. (2006). Strong and weak emergence. In P. Clayton & P. Davies (Eds.), The re-emergence of emergence (pp. 1–13). Ox-ford: Oxford University Press. http://consc.net/papers/emergence.pdf. Accessed November 23, 2016.
- Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Cilliers, P. (2006). On the importance of a certain slowness. Stability, memory and hysteresis in complex systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8(3), 105–112.Google Scholar
- Cilliers, P. (2008). Responses. In C. Gershenson (Ed.), Complexity: 5 questions (pp. 27–32). Copenhagen: Automatic Press.Google Scholar
- Cilliers, P. (2010). The value of complexity: A response to Elizabeth Mowat and Brent Davis. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 7(1), 39–42.Google Scholar
- Cilliers, P. (2013). A crisis of knowledge: Complexity, understanding and the problem of responsible action. In P. Derkx & H. Kunneman (Eds.), Genomics and democracy: Towards a ‘lingua democratica’ for the public debate on genomics (pp. 37–59). Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
- Deacon, T. W. (2007). Three levels of emergent phenomena. In N. Murphy & W. R. Stoeger (Eds.), Evolution and emergence: Systems, organisms, persons (pp. 88–110). Oxford: Oxford Universi-ty Press.Google Scholar
- Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. (1989). Knowing and the known. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works: 1949–1952 (Vol. 16, pp. 2–294). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press (Original work published 1949).Google Scholar
- Hager, P. (1996). Relational realism and professional performance. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 28(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.1996.tb00234.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover Publications (Original work published 1890).Google Scholar
- Prigogine, I. (1997). The end of certainty: Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. London: The Free Press.Google Scholar
- Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. London: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
- Reed, M., & Harvey, D. L. (1992). The new science and the old: Complexity and realism in the social sciences. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22(4), 353–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1992.tb00224.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rosen, R. (1987). Some epistemological issues in physics and biology. In B. J. Hiley & F. D. Peat (Eds.), Quantum implications: Essays in honour of David Bohm (pp. 314–327). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Taylor, C. (1995). To follow a rule. In C. Taylor (Ed.), Philosophical arguments (pp. 165–180). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Winch, C. (2010). Dimensions of expertise: A conceptual exploration of vocational knowledge. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar