Chaos or complexity theory distinguishes the presence of social
disorder from order within social disorder (Young, 1992; Milovanovic, 1997). The notion of
patterned regularities operating deep within the apparent randomness of dynamic systems
(including the behavior of society as a macro/micro system) challenges the assumptions
informing correctional, psychiatric, and/or legal practice.
What chaos is - and isn't - andrewclem.com/Chaos.html
"Chaos theory" is the popular term used to describe a novel, quite revolutionary
approach to a wide range of mathematical, pure science, and applied science fields. Other
people prefer the terms "complexity theory" or "dynamic systems
theory." It purports to be a "new paradigm," that is, a comprehensive
framework to guide and evaluate research and analysis that transcends the limitations of
conventional ("normal") science. The fundamental lesson of chaos theory is that
the behavior of a wide range of "dynamic systems" (e.g., the atmosphere, the
solar system) is extremely sensitive to minute fluxes in initial conditions, thus making
it virtually impossible to obtain accurate medium- and long-term predictions. Although
this finding seems quite discouraging, in fact it opens the door to solving or coping with
a wide range of heretofore vexing problems.
Most people who have heard of Chaos theory associate it with the idea that tiny
disturbances can cause enormous long-term differences. In the movie Jurassic Park, for
example, the actor Jeff Goldblum waxed manic about the "butterfly effect," the
idea that a butterfly flapping its wings could set in motion a sequence of
self-reinforcing events that would ultimately result in a hurricane on the other side of
the world. While within the realm of (distant) possibility, this misleading image has had
an unfortunate effect, reducing Chaos theory as conceived by most people into a generic
cliche for "the world's just a big, unpredictable mess." One often hears pundits
invoking chaos theory to complain about frustrations with daily life, but that really does
a disservice to the task of bringing the important insights of chaos theory to a wider
audience.
Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology & Life Sciences
The purpose of the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology and Life Sciences (SCTPLS)
is to provide a forum for scholars and practitioners who share an interest in the
application of nonlinear dynamical systems models in psychology, social sciences and life
sciences. SCTPLS is an international organization with participating members from over 30
countries, and one of the few truly interdisciplinary organizations where a shared
nonlinear dynamical systems framework permits us to communicate effectively across
disciplinary boundaries.
Members of SCTPLS share an interest in a wide range of nonlinear dynamical phenomena, such
as chaos, catastrophe theory, fractal geometry, and far-from-equilibrium systems, and they
appreciate the wide range of possibilities for application in such areas as clinical and
organizational psychology, neurobehavioral science, medicine, economy, biology and
education. -
societyforchaostheory.org/
Chaos Theory and Its Implications for Social Science Research
Hal Gregersen, Lee Sailer
Based on theoretical and mathematical principles of chaos theory, we argue that the
customary social science goals of "prediction" and "control" of
systems behavior are sometimes, if not usually, unobtainable. Specifically, chaos theory
shows how it is possible for nearly identical entities embedded in identical environments
to exhibit radically different behaviors, even when the underlying systems are extremely
simple and completely deterministic. Furthermore, chaos theory arguments are general
enough to apply to any type of entity, including individuals, groups, and organizations,
and therefore they are relevant to a large domain of social science problems. As a result,
this paper concludes with six familiar claims about the study of social phenomena for
which chaos theory provides new theoretical arguments. -
hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/46/7/777
Social Structures and Chaos Theory - Smith, R. D. (1998)
Sociological Research Online, vol. 3, no. 1,
socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/3/1/11.html
Abstract: Up to this point many of the social-scientific discussions of the impact of
Chaos theory have dealt with using chaos concepts to refine matters of prediction and
control. Chaos theory, however, has far more fundamental consequences which must also be
considered. The identification of chaotic events arise as consequences of the attempts to
model systems mathematically. For social science this means we must not only evaluate the
mathematics but also the assumptions underlying the systems themselves. This paper
attempts to show that such social- structural concepts as class, race, gender and
ethnicity produce analytic difficulties so serious that the concept of structuralism
itself must be reconceptualised to make it adequate to the demands of Chaos theory. The
most compelling mode of doing this is through the use of Connectionism. The paper will
also attempt to show this effectively means the successful inclusion of Chaos theory into
social sciences represents both a new paradigm and a new epistemology and not just a
refinement to the existing structuralist models. Research using structuralist assumptions
may require reconciliation with the new paradigm.
Chaos Theory and the Social Sciences
Abstract: The explosion of scientific interest in chaos and nonlinear dynamics has
brought with it a number of attempts to draw broad implications for areas usually
considered far removed from the physical sciences. Philosophical analysis can play a role
in the important task of critically evaluating these interpretations, extensions, and
appropriations of nonlinear dynamics. Such analysis can help us sort out the broad
conceptual implications of scientific results, and to clarify the possible connections
with other fields, including the study of human societies.
In this paper, I examine three ways researchers in the social sciences have used chaos
theory. The uses I consider include straightforward application of mathematical techniques
as well as more speculative uses to which I have given the name "metaphorical
extension." I also consider some attempts to draw normative conclusions from results
in the physical sciences. These examinations are part of an ongoing project to understand
what chaos theory means and what it does not mean, as a way to investigate the general
question of how research in the physical sciences is and ought to be translated across
disciplines.
These reflections will concentrate on chaos theory narrowly construed: that is, the
application of the techniques of nonlinear dynamical systems theory to bounded, aperiodic,
unstable deterministic systems. The first type of use of chaos theory is the application
of mathematical techniques. In the physical sciences, a typical experimental situation
will yield a long series of measurements, from which a "strange attractor" can
be sought in reconstructed phase space. Social systems present a genuine challenge to such
attempts, though perhaps not an impossible one. Under what circumstances can the
mathematical techniques of nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory be applied to social
systems? - web.hamline.edu/personal/skellert/sample.htm
CHAOS: The Geometrization Of Thought
(Talk given to the Chaos in Psychology Association) -
fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/text/oril.txt
F. David Peat
Introduction
As a result of the popular books and magazine articles that have appeared over the last
few years the topic of chaos theory has become familiar to many people. While some
psychologists may not be comfortable with the mathematical details of the theory they are
probably acquainted with its broad outlines and general concepts. Thus, for example, the
image of "butterfly effect" is often applied to systems so extraordinary
sensitive that a perturbation as small as the flapping of a butterfly's wings produces a
large scale change of behavior. While chaos theory holds that such systems remain strictly
deterministic they are, nevertheless, so enormously complex that the exact details of
their behavior are, in practice, unpredictable even with the aid of the largest computers.
On the other hand, since such systems remain within the grip of their strange attractor
while the details of their fluctuations appear to be random, nevertheless, their chaos is
contained within a particular range of all possible behaviors. Their dynamics may, for
example, exhibit a fractal structure in which similar patterns are repeated at smaller and
smaller scales of space and intervals of time. As an example, while it is impossible to
predict the exact value of a particular share on the stock market at an arbitrary date in
the future one may be able to say something about its general pattern of fluctuation over
a month, day or even an hour.
In a sense, therefore, chaos theory is something of a misnomer for it is not so much the
study of systems in which all order has broken down in favour of pure chance but rather of
those which exhibit extremely high degrees of order involving very subtle and sensitive
behavior. The full description of such systems would require an enormous, potentially an
infinite, amount of information. On the other hand, highly complex behavior can sometimes
be simulated in very simple ways through the constant repetition of an iterative processes
such as Prigogine's baker's transformation or the non-linear feedback associated with the
changing size of insect populations.
While chaos theory and fractal descriptions are capable of simulating a wide variety of
natural processes it remains an open question as to the extent to which such theories
actually offer a full account of the inner workings of nature and society. For example,
while repeated iterations can generate complex results this does not necessarily mean that
such iterations are part of the actual generative processes of nature itself. Another
pertinent question is to what extend dues absolute randomness and chaos occurs within the
universe. While chaos theory is purely deterministic may there exist certain natural
processes that are essentially chaotic, indeterministic and random? Quantum theory would
be an obvious choice, for the time at which a radioactive nucleus disintegrates is,
according to the theory, absolutely indeterministic - it is a matter of pure chance. David
Bohm, however, has produced a deterministic version of quantum theory which perfectly
accounts for all the empirical findings and predictions of the theory without invoking the
assumption of absolute chance.
Another area in which intrinsic randomness occurs is in the sequence of digits of an
irrational number. But what is the ontological basis of such numbers in nature? Are they a
manifestation of intrinsic randomness in the universe or do they represent the abstract
limits of processes that involve an infinite amount of information? At present there seems
to be no way of deciding whether pure chance and randomness plays a role in the cosmos or
if all systems are essentially deterministic in nature. |