A Complexity Theory for Public Policy by Göktug Morçöl

Author:Göktug Morçöl [Morçöl, Göktug]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Public Policy, Political Science, Public Affairs & Administration, General
ISBN: 9781136283468
Google: StExwiSWNG8C
Goodreads: 17136811
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2012-04-01T00:00:00+00:00

Context of the Observer

Is the knowledge of a system subject to epistemological limitations as well? In other words, is the knowledge of a system at least partly in the eye of a beholder? Complexity theorists Prigogine and Stengers (1984), Rössler (1986), and Casti (1994), and Gell-Mann (1995) answer the question affirmatively. Gell-Mann points out that when measuring the complexity of an entity, one has to take into account the level of the detail of its description, which depends on the previous knowledge and understanding of the observer of a system. Also the language employed by the observer will contribute to, or constrict, the perception and measurement of complexity, according to Gell-Mann. Prigogine and Stengers and Rössler and Casti agree that the knowledge of complexity, or reality in general, is constricted by the cognitive apparatuses and situatedness, or embeddedness, of an observer in the world he/she observes.

Casti points out that the knowledge of a system depends on the position of the knowing subject—whether he/she is inside or outside the system:

… sometimes things look different if you're inside the system than if you look at what's happening from the outside. … And so it is when it comes to chaotic processes. We have an entirely different set of tests for identifying the presence or absence of chaos if we are given the vector field of the system (the insider's view) then if all we have to go on is the outsider's record of only the system's observed behavior (i.e., its output). (p. 98)

The knowledge of a system is not merely determined by whether the observer is inside or outside the system, according to Casti. The main issue is that the complexity of a system is not independent of the observer, it is partly determined by the subject: “[W]hatever complexity such systems have is a joint property of the system and its interaction with another system, most often an observer and/or controller” (p. 269). In other words, complexity is both ontological and epistemological. He goes on to say

[J]ust like truth, beauty, good and evil, complexity resides as much in the eye of the beholder as it does in the structure and behavior of a system itself. This is not to say that there do not exist objective ways to characterize some aspects of a system's complexity. … The main point here is that these objective measures only arise as special cases of the two-way measures, in which the interaction between the system and the observer is much weaker in one direction than in the other, [emphasis in original] (p. 270)

Casti also posits that some observers may be more attuned to observing the complexities in phenomena better than others (p. 276). He gives the example of a stone. Whether it is a simple or complex system depends on if you are a layperson or a geologist. A layperson interacts with stone differently and is likely to see it as a simple object. A geologist sees it as a complex system, with an understanding of

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.