Customer Reviews

Complexity: A Philosophical Overview (Science and Technology Studies)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I was enthused to discover this book when I did because it appeared to present complexity at precisely the level I was hoping for: as a philosophical and practical concept not necessarily dependent upon difficult mathematics or theory. I dove in, and it was fairly challenging reading. The tragedy of this book is that the topics and many of ideas offered-up appeal a great deal to my intellect, but the astonishingly poor editing is a significant distraction. There are cases of material repeated verbatim, painfully obvious typographic errors, and an insufficient degree of conciseness overall. It seems as if the book was under-funded, over-rushed or simply assigned the wrong editor. It is indeed a shame, since discussions such as why the growth of science may not have an inherent limit, but may be limited by resources are interesting. I also enjoyed the taxonomy of complexity. It has allowed me to consider, with greater subtlety, the complexity in the systems with which I work, and alternatives to manage it. I would give the ideas in this work 4 or 5 stars, but the lack of effective editing make this a difficult read.

I agree with another reviewer's criticism that this book could be more concise and less repetitive, but this negative is far outweighed by the positives of the book. As the subtitle says, the book provides a (much needed) "philosophical overview" of complexity, and Rescher covers a lot of ground with great depth and precision. Another nice feature is that Rescher is generous with providing summaries, and here's my own summary of the key points from the book:

(1) "Complexity" is itself a complex notion that combines compositional, structural, and functional elements.

(2) While complexity may have an ontological basis, our best practical index of something's complexity is the cognitive difficulty we experience in dealing with it. Our evolutionary endowment of intelligence, though substantial, limits the amount of complexity we can handle effectively.

(3) Complex systems tend to exhibit hierarchy, nonlinearity, and increasing heterogeneity.

(4) Both the natural and manmade (intellectual and technological) worlds are inexhaustibly complex, and their complexity inherently tends to increase over time, which makes decisions and management increasingly more difficult and increases risk of unintended consequences, including the risk of social gridlock.

(5) Complexity means that our science is particular to our species, culture, and history, and could otherwise be different.

(6) For practical reasons, we may aim for inductive simplicity in science, but this will always be in tension with the complexity we actually encounter. Science is also limited by the limitations in what we can conceive.

(7) Continued acquisition of scientific information requires ever more technological advancement.

(8) As new information comes in and we rethink things, our models of reality continue to change, disciplines proliferate, and science expands (exponentially), so the overall effect is destabilizing and dis-integrating.

(9) As scientific information increases, the associated useful knowledge increases more slowly and becomes harder to sift out, so we face a situation of diminishing returns.

(10) Computers offer partial but limited help in dealing with complexity.

(11) Because of complexity, our broad scientific, technological, and social projects can't be expected to achieve ultimate perfection and completion, and we have no guarantees of success. But aiming for perfection, completion, and success still generally has productive value, and our ignorance of our exact limitations fosters our striving for improvement.

(12) Ultimately, to deal with complexity, we must simply do our best and proceed very carefully, hoping for outcomes which are at least satisfactory, if not ideal. Sometimes, this may mean that "watchful waiting" is better than taking action.

Recommended for anyone who senses or realizes that reality is complex (for humans), and wants to delve deeper.

Instead, I just want to give you information about a "misprint" in his book: Unfortunately, on page 164, note 6 a paper of mine is cited incorrectly.

The corrected source is:

Theodor Leiber "Chaos, Berechnungskomplexität und Physik: Neue Grenzen wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis?" Philosophia Naturalis, vol. 33 (1996), pp. 23-54

With best regards

Theodor Leiber