True is What is Considered True—What is Considered True is True

  • Günter Küppers
Part of the The Frontiers Collection book series (FRONTCOLL)


Based on the concept of self-organisation and using results from neurobiology an attempt is made to show the mechanism of the social construction of knowledge: the reduction of uncertainties as to which statements about the world would always be confronted with. This uncertainty management has a technical as well as a social dimension. Within the technical dimension it is mainly the progress of measurement technology. Within the social dimension it is the emergence of social rules for the evaluation of theoretical progress. These rules are not given in advance, they emerge during the process of knowledge production. They are triggered but not determined by reality. Therefore, scientific knowledge has always a strong relationship with reality. But whether scientific knowledge ultimately constitutes a ‘true’ description of nature is and will remain a moot question, at least if one assumes a certain degree of complexity in nature. For the rules of scientificity determine the quality of knowledge but not all features of nature. In view of the assumed complexity, some of them will always remain obscure.


Scientific Knowledge Knowledge Production Social Construction Uncertainty Management Theoretical Progress 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahrweiler, Petra and Nigel Gilbert (eds.; 1998 ), Computer Simulations in Science and Technology Studies. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Cantoni, Virginio, Alessandra Setti, Vito Di Gesù, and Domenico Tegolo (eds.; 1999 ), Human and Machine Perception: Emergence, Attention, and Creativity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Haken, Hermann (1988), Erfolgsgeheimnisse der Natur. Frankfurt/Main: Ullstein.Google Scholar
  4. Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1999), Epistemic Cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Krohn, Wolfgang and Günter Köppers (1990), “Science as a Selforganized System: Outline of a Theoretical Model,” Sociology of the Sciences (yearbook), vol. 14, pp. 208–222.Google Scholar
  6. Küppers, Günter (1996a), “Selbstorganisation: Selektion durch Schließung.” In: KÜPPERS (ed.; 1996b ), pp. 122–148.Google Scholar
  7. Köppers, Günter (ed.; 1996b ), Chaos und Ordnung: Formen der Selbstorganisation in Natur und Gesellschaft. Ludwigsburg: Reclam.Google Scholar
  8. Köppers, Günter (1998), “The Selforganization of Social Systems: A Simulation of the Social Construction of Knowledge.” In: Ahrweiler/ Gilbert (eds.; 1Google Scholar
  9. Langthaler, Wolfgang and Günter Schiepek (eds.; 1995 ), Selbstorganisation und Dynamik in Gruppen. Münster: LIT-Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Prigogine, Ilja and Isabelle Stengers (1984), Order out of Chaos. London: William Heinemann/Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  11. Schiepek, Günter, Günter Köppers, Karin Mittelmann, and Gerhard Strunk (1995), “Kreative Problemlösungsprozesse in Kleingruppen.” In: Langthaler/Schiepek (eds.; 1995 ), pp. 236–255.Google Scholar
  12. Singer, Wolf (2001), “Wie gelangt Wissen über die Welt in das Gehirn? Neurobiologische Anmerkungen zum Konstruktivismus-Diskurs.” In: Velbrück Wissenschaft Almanach Herbst 2001, Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Günter Küppers

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations