Abstract
In this chapter we deal with the epistemological problem of the new science of complexity. This is, in short, the problem of our knowledge and the process of knowing, of getting knowledgeable about the complexity of reality: “How do we know what we know about this new, real complex reality?” Right from the start we may realize that this problem is not just an epistemological problem. In this chapter we will show how this problem connects with the problem of method, of methodology and with ontology and how all of these problems in the new science relate to the real(m).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Cf. Kant and his ‘Sapere aude!’ (Have the courage to think!) as foundational for the start of Enlightenment.
- 2.
- 3.
Retrieved on the 1st of December 2008 from http://groups.haas.berkeley.edu/gem/essays/complex.html
- 4.
In Rosser (2004), the problem, which really is a transdisciplinary problem, is nicely formulated for economists as follows: “how to know what they (the economists) know in a complex reality” (p. 2).
- 5.
This also being the case for teachers and their epistemological beliefs concerning their own practice (see e.g., Niessen 2007).
- 6.
cf. Smolin 2006, p. 258, about this problem of how to go on in the physics of these days.
- 7.
In this chapter, it was shown in Figure 6.2, that (the question what is) science itself is not an object of study in science (cf. Philipse 2002, p. 158).
- 8.
Interestingly, he is an economist. Being an economist, his new way thinking confirms that a transdisciplinary approach can be engendered by any scholar who is reflective, from any discipline.
- 9.
Again, Rosser states the problem for economists and their related problem of fundamental uncertainty in economic analysis (Rosser 2004, p. 3), which is, as we view it, a real, transdisciplinary problem.
- 10.
For Vygotsky, we believe, this overall focus on how science operates in and relates to the real(m) was what Vygotsky has always been up to, in his mission to invent a new science.
- 11.
In Russia, the word ‘method’ means two different things: (1) the research method, (2) the epistemological method or methodology, which determines the research goal, the place of the science and its nature (see Vygotsky 1997a, Vol. 3, p. 274).
- 12.
See e.g., Niessen 2007, p. 57, about teachers and their opening up of new ways of knowing and outlook about their inherently complex practice.
- 13.
Cf. von Foerster 1993, about so-called bothersome states of learners.
- 14.
- 15.
We agree that we live in a kind of conceptual quicksand but we do not agree with van Fraassen (1999) that we function perfectly well (p. 14).
- 16.
Although we respectfully agree with Wallerstein (1991) that “the only epistemology that is plausible lies in the swampy middle ground of the concept of a historical system” (p. 271).
- 17.
See e.g., for the discipline of economy, in Rosser (2004, p. 11), making reference to the publication by Lawson (1997) “Economics and Reality”; see also Archer (1995) and Byrne (1998) for a similar inspiration from the scientific realist approach, which is very much inspired by the work of Bhaskar.
- 18.
This seems very much the problem of the ontological complicity for scientists, doing science, referred to above (Wacquant, in Archer 2007, p. 41).
- 19.
cf. Vygotsky on ‘solving’ the crisis of psychology in his day.
- 20.
The understanding of natural selection was also a problem for scholars around Darwin, like his famous friend Lyell, the geologist, who was not able to grasp the concept of natural selection, even after repeated explanation.
- 21.
Stressed by Cilliers, 2007, in Capra et al. 2007, p. viii (italics in original)
- 22.
Also known, for the more general case, as the Jörg-effect!
References
Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Capra, F., Juarrero, A., Sotolongo, P., & Van Uden, J. (Eds.). (2007). Reframing complexity. Mansfield: ISCE Publishing.
Chia, R. (1998). From complexity science to complex thinking: Organization as simple location. Organization, 5(3), 341–369.
Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of teaching: A genealogy. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Delgado Díaz, C. J. (2007). Complexity and environmental education. In F. Capra, A. Juarrero, P. Sotolongo, & J. van Uden (Eds.), Reframing complexity: Perspectives from the North and the South (pp. 47–58). Mansfield: ISCE Publishing.
Dennett, D. C. (2003). Freedom evolves. New York: Viking.
Devlin, K. (2002). Does a new kind of science require a new kind of scholar or a new kind of university? In P. Tindemans, A. Verrijn-Stuart, & R. Visser (Eds.), The future of the sciences and humanities (pp. 91–98). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Elias, N. (1991). The society of individuals. New York: Continuum.
Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Fleener, J. (2002). Curriculum dynamics. New York: Peter Lang.
Gohr, S. (2000). Magritte. San Francisco: Abrams Inc.
Jardine, D. W., Friesen, S., & Clifford, P. (2006). Curriculum in abundance. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Juarrero, A., Sotolongo, P., Van Uden, J., & Capra, F. (2007). Reframing complexity: Perspectives from the North and the South. In F. Capra, A. Juarrero, P. Sotolongo, & J. Van Uden (Eds.), Reframing complexity (pp. vii–xix). Mansfield: ISCE Publishing.
Kauffman, S. (1993). The origins of order. Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kauffman, S. (2008). Reinventing the sacred: A new view of science, reason and religion. New York: Basic Books.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Montuori, A. (2004). Edgar Morin: A partial introduction. World Futures, 60, 349–355.
Morin, E. (2007). Restricted complexity, general complexity. In C. Gershenson, D. Aerts, & B. Edmonds (Eds.), Worldviews, science and us: Philosophy and complexity (pp. 5–29). Singapore: World Scientific.
Morin, E. (2008). On complexity. Cresskill: Hampton Press.
Niessen, T. (2007). Emerging epistemologies: Making sense of teaching practice. Unpublished Dissertation. Maastricht: Fontys University of Applied Sciences.
Oyama, S. (2000). Evolution’s eye. Durham: Duke University Press.
Philipse, H. (2002). Science and democracy. In P. Tindemans, A. Verrijn-Stuart, & R. Visser (Eds.), The future of the sciences and humanities (pp. 153–219). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
PPCCS (Program Preparation Committee for the Cognitive Sciences). (2001). Fruits of enlightenment. A special program for the cognitive sciences. Report of the NWO Program Preparation Committee for the Cognitive Sciences. The Hague: Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
Rescher, N. (1998). Complexity: A philosophical overview. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Rip, A. (2002). Science for the 21st Century. In P. Tindemans, A. Verrijn-Stuart, & R. Visser (Eds.), The future of the sciences and humanities (pp. 99–148). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Robbins, D. (2001). Vygotsky’s psychology-philosophy. A metaphor for language theory and learning. New York: Kluwer Academic.
Ruurlo Manifest (2006). Crossing boundaries to New Horizons (Declaration of the Founders Meeting of the ‘Institute Para Limes’). Retrieved at http://wmstest.com/about_ipl_history.htm
Sandywell, B. (1996). Reflexivity and the crisis of Western reason (Logological investigations, Vol. 1). London: Routledge.
Scheffer, M. (2009). Critical transitions in nature and society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Smolin, L. (2006). The trouble with physics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Taylor, M. (2001). The moment of complexity: Emerging network culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Van Benthem, J. (2002). Science and society in flux. In P. Tindemans, A. Verrijn-Stuart, & R. Visser (Eds.), The future of the sciences and humanities (pp. 63–90). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Von Foerster, H. (1993). Understanding understanding. New York: Springer.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
Vygotsky, L. (1987a). Thought and language (A. Kozulin Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1987b). In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Problems of general psychology, Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1997a). In R.W. Rieber & J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Problems of the theory and history of psychology, Vol. 3). New York: Plenum Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jörg, T. (2011). New Ways of Knowing About the Complexity of Reality: The Epistemological Problem. In: New Thinking in Complexity for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1303-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1303-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1302-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1303-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)