The following quotes are subject to the following stipulations:
1. All quotes are lifted out of context.
2. No attempt has been made to use the quotes in a manner consistent with
the authors intent.
3. All quotes were chosen from the biased perspective of the correspondent
that complexity will soon join the ranks of catastrophe theory and chaos
theory as interesting but dead end streets toward unified theories of anything.
O.K. here goes:
The article subtitle: "Can science achieve a unified theory of complex systems?
Even at the Santa Fe Institute, some researchers have their doubts."
David Liddle, chairman of the Board of the Institute says "There is a lot to
be proud of". "There certainly is, at least from a public relations
standpoint" states Horgan.
"What Liddle does not say is that even some scientists associted with the
institute are beginning to fret over the gap between such rhetoric and reality."
Jack D. Cowan helped found the Institute and remains on the board, He
thinks:
"some Santa Fe theoretists exhibit too high a 'mouth-to-brain ratio' for
his taste. "'There has been tremendous hype' he grumbles."
"Cowan finds some work at Santa Fe interesting and important, but he
deplores the tendency of research there 'to degenerate into computer
hacking'. Too many simulatore also suffer from what Cowan calls the
reminiscence syndrome. 'They say, "Look, isn't this reminiscent of a
biological or physical phenomenon!" They jump in right away as if it's a
decent model for the phenomenon, and usually, of course it's just got some
accidental features that make it look like something.' The major discovery
to emerge from the institute thus far, Cowan suggests, is that "it's very
hard to do science on complex systems."
"Some residents blame the media for the exaggerated claims
associated with the institute. 'Ninety percent of it came from journalists.'
Arthur [nonlinear economist] asserts. Yet the economist cannot help but
play the evangelist. 'If Darwin had had a computer on his desk,' he
exclaims, 'who knows what he could have discovered!' What indeed: Charles
Darwin might have discovered a great deal about computers and very little
about nature."
An interesting discussion ensues about the inability to define complexity.
Ten of some 31 or more current and often mutually confuting definitions are
listed in a sidebar.
John Maynard Smith, who took an early interest in the institute, and has
twice spent a week visiting there, "...concluded that artificial life
[research at the institute] is 'basically a fact-free science.' During his
last visit, he recalls, 'the only time a fact was mentioned was when I
mentioned it, and that was considered to be in rather bad taste.'"
Regarding Bak's sandpile:
"...Sidney R. Nagel of the Unoversity of Chicago asserts that Bak's model
does not even provide a very good description of a sandpile. He and other
workers at Chicago found that their sandpile tended to oscillate between
immobility and large-scale avalanches rather than displaying power-law
behavior."
There's lots more but these objective random samples will serve to stimulate
you to read the article.
Art