A Silent Revolution in Reflexivity 1

2017

This paper describes the basic features of the theories of complexity and reflexivity, their early history, their evolution, and reactions to date. Although complexity is a major change from previous modeling methods, it does not violate any informal fallacies or any assumptions underlying the philosophy of science. Reflexivity does. Accepting reflexivity as a legitimate movement in science will require an expansion of the conception of science which still prevails in most fields. A shift from Science One to Science Two is now being discussed. The paper explains what is being proposed. 1. Four Current Models in Science In recent years complexity theory has captured the attention of many people interested in transdisciplinary research. The excitement surrounding the work at the Santa Fe Institute is an example. [Waldrop, 1992] Current research on complexity can be thought of as the working out of ideas related to self-organizing systems, which were developed about 1960. Much more adv...

Springer eBooks, 2014

Reflexive research can be grouped into five clusters with circular relations between two elements x ↔ x, namely circular relations between observers, between scientific building blocks like concepts, theories or models, between systemic levels, between rules and rule systems or as circular relations or x ↔ y between these four components. By far the most important cluster is the second cluster which becomes reflexive through a re-entry operation RE into a scientific element x and which establishes its circular formation as x(x). Many of the research problems in these five clusters in reflexivity research are still unexplored and pose grand challenges for future research.

2022

This summary of the original paradigm of the universal science of complexity starts with the discovered exact origin of the stagnating "end" of conventional, unitary science paradigm and development traditionally presented by its own estimates as the only and the best possible kind of scientific knowledge. Using a transparent generalisation of the exact mathematical formalism of arbitrary interaction process, we show that unitary science approach and description, including its imitations of complexity and chaoticity, correspond to artificial and ultimately strong reduction of the natural plurality of unreduced interaction results called realisations to a single, "average" or "exact", realisation. This severe reduction of the natural world dynamics in unitary science underlies all its unsolvable "mysteries" and "paradoxes", persisting "difficult problems", and finally the modern "end" of the progress of just that, actually very special kind of knowledge, whose irreducible limits lead to the modern deep crisis of the global civilisation development. We show then how the rigorously substantiated restoration of the full richness of real-world dynamics within the intrinsically unified knowledge of the universal science of complexity provides not only the causally complete solution to the old and new problems of unitary science but opens practically unlimited possibilities for the new progress of science and civilisation as a result of this crucial extension, which we call complexity revolution. The unreduced analysis of the universal complexity science shows that at the current critical bifurcation point of development, we have only two incompatible possibilities and emerging tendencies, either the dangerously growing degradation within the dominating unitary science and thinking limits (irrespective of purely empirical technology power becoming even dangerous here) or the new golden age of scientific discoveries and civilisation progress with the qualitatively extended approach and results of unreduced complexity science and the new thinking it implies.

In the development of science, since antiquity, it's been developed with the main purpose to study regularities. This has meant that insofar as complexity is viewed as the absence of regularities, it has tended to be ignored or avoided. But the frustration occurred among scientists because of specialization and isolation of scientific discipline. For centuries, Newtonian ideology has made many natural phenomena remain unsolved. Since the development of complexity, there are many changes in science, instead in its paradigm. The study of complexity, or complex system, or nonlinear dynamic system, has been increasing in the last three decades. It has become plausible that the study of self-organizing, self-producing system is, in some sense, have similar problems, though the details differ considerably. Henceforth, the theory that explains and predict of "emergent phenomena" across discipline is very important to this science.

• ariegler/at/vub.ac.be > Context • Many recent research areas such as human cognition and quantum physics call the observer-independence of traditional science into question. Also, there is a growing need for self-reflexivity in science, i.e., a science that reflects on its own outcomes and products. > Problem • We introduce the concept of second-order science that is based on the operation of re-entry. Our goal is to provide an overview of this largely unexplored science domain and of potential approaches in second-order fields. > Method • We provide the necessary conceptual groundwork for explorations in second-order science, in which we discuss the differences between first-and second-order science and where we present a roadmap for second-order science. The article operates mainly with conceptual differentiations such as the separation between three seemingly identical concepts such as Science II, Science 2.0 and second-order science. > Results • Compared with first-order science, the potential of second-order science lies in 1. higher levels of novelty and innovations, 2. higher levels of robustness and 3. wider integration as well as higher generality. As first-order science advances, second-order science, with re-entry as its basic operation, provides three vital functions for first-order science, namely a rich source of novelty and innovation, the necessary quality control and greater integration and generality. > Implications • Second-order science should be viewed as a major expansion of traditional scientific fields and as a scientific breakthrough towards a new wave of innovative research. > Constructivist content • Second-order science has strong ties with radical constructivism, which can be qualified as the most important root/origin of secondorder science. Moreover, it will be argued that a new form of cybernetics is needed to cope with the new problems and challenges of second-order science.

2013

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.

Koers, 1999

In this article I interpret science as a complex system. I do this against the background of three common assumptions of recent philosophy of science. I first explain the concept of complexity in ordinary language. The explanation of science as a complex system starts with a definition of the basic rules that guide the behaviour of science as a complex system. Next, I show how various sciences result through the implementation of these rules in the study of a specific aspect of reality. The explanation of the growth of science through evolutionary adaptation forms the core of the article.

Monography, 2022

17 The word 'law' in the seventeenth century is synonymous with 'form', 'principle', and 'axiom'; it does not mean an empirical regularity contrary to what we hear today in the wake of the empiricism of the Humean tradition (lawlike regularities). And the determination exercised on a natural or social phenomenon by its form-or law, or structureis not conceived as a causal determination: it determines the phenomenon in the sense that it circumscribes its possible becomings. 18 Bacon advances a series of experimental rules: variation of experience, prolongation of experience, translation of experience, reversal of experience, etc. (F. Bacon, De Dignitate, liv. V, ch.II, 1623 19 Experience is therefore in no way reduced to causal investigation. 20 I describe the inductive nature of analysis in ch.4

Argumentation, 2001