复杂性科学的承诺:批判

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Fabrizio Li Vigni
{"title":"复杂性科学的承诺:批判","authors":"Fabrizio Li Vigni","doi":"10.1162/posc_a_00592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Complexity sciences have become famous worldwide thanks to several popular books that served as echo chambers of their promises. These consisted in departing from “classical science” defined as deterministic, reductionist, analytic and mono-disciplinary. Their founders and supporters declared that complexity sciences were going to give rise (or that they have given rise) to a post-Laplacian, antireductionist, holistic and interdisciplinary approach. By taking a closer look at their content and practices, I argue in this article that, because of their physics-oriented, computationalist, and mathematical assumptions, complexity sciences have paradoxically produced knowledge at odds with these four tenets.","PeriodicalId":19867,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"15 1","pages":"465-502"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Promises of Complexity Sciences: A Critique\",\"authors\":\"Fabrizio Li Vigni\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/posc_a_00592\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Complexity sciences have become famous worldwide thanks to several popular books that served as echo chambers of their promises. These consisted in departing from “classical science” defined as deterministic, reductionist, analytic and mono-disciplinary. Their founders and supporters declared that complexity sciences were going to give rise (or that they have given rise) to a post-Laplacian, antireductionist, holistic and interdisciplinary approach. By taking a closer look at their content and practices, I argue in this article that, because of their physics-oriented, computationalist, and mathematical assumptions, complexity sciences have paradoxically produced knowledge at odds with these four tenets.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19867,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Science\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"465-502\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00592\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00592","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

复杂科学之所以在世界范围内闻名,要归功于几本流行的书,这些书充当了它们承诺的回音室。这包括背离被定义为决定论、还原论、分析和单一学科的“经典科学”。它们的创始人和支持者宣称,复杂性科学将会(或者已经)产生一种后拉普拉斯的、反还原论的、整体的、跨学科的方法。通过仔细研究它们的内容和实践,我在本文中认为,由于它们的物理导向、计算主义和数学假设,复杂性科学自相矛盾地产生了与这四个原则不一致的知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Promises of Complexity Sciences: A Critique
Abstract Complexity sciences have become famous worldwide thanks to several popular books that served as echo chambers of their promises. These consisted in departing from “classical science” defined as deterministic, reductionist, analytic and mono-disciplinary. Their founders and supporters declared that complexity sciences were going to give rise (or that they have given rise) to a post-Laplacian, antireductionist, holistic and interdisciplinary approach. By taking a closer look at their content and practices, I argue in this article that, because of their physics-oriented, computationalist, and mathematical assumptions, complexity sciences have paradoxically produced knowledge at odds with these four tenets.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perspectives on Science
Perspectives on Science Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信