The Complexity-Systems Divide
Notes on Nature's New Direction
I read a paper in Nature in which they announce their new journal Complexity and outline their vision for complexity science as a hub for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research.1
A few points stood out to me.
The authors argue that part of the value of using the term complexity is in “embracing the openness of the community through the vagueness of the term.” I can appreciate the perspective, but am not sure how helpful this will be for a field seeking to establish itself as a science. To that point, they also argue that complexity, “lacking a specific set of shared systems of interests or methodological tools,” is not a science, but rather a community with a shared approach to science.
I appreciate that they drew attention to the fact that complexity has its roots in philosophy, economics, and physics and was originally a community based on abstract thought experiments and models. To me, this stands in stark contrast to systems which has deep roots in theoretical and applied biology along with very practical challenges in technology and engineering. Perhaps this helps explain why the systems community, for all its flaws, has always felt more alive to me?
My favorite part was their mention of a French philosopher and sociologist, Edgar Morin — a name I had never seen. Morin argued in the early 90s that the holistic systems paradigm was flawed because it overlooked the important issues of interaction and organization.2
I appreciate this critique because it speaks to one of the exact issues that I’m addressing with my work on software tools for applied systems science. The problem is highlighted by Susan Stepney, a computer scientist focused on non-standard computing and bio-inspired algorithms, in her review of Bertalanffy’s General System Theory.3
“We need a way to capture the dynamics of the relationships and couplings. This is more than just class diagrams with associations: we also need a view of coupling strength, and more importantly, a high level view of the coupling dynamics: changes in relationships and coupling strengths. We need to move the focus from the nodes to the (dynamics of the) edges of the graphs.”
Ultimately, reading the paper mainly served to reinforce my conviction that systems is a more useful overarching paradigm for transdisciplinary research, one that can easily include complexity and complex systems under its umbrella.
But I’m curious to hear the steel man argument for complexity. What do you think of the piece in Nature? Do you think complexity is a more useful paradigm than systems, or have you seen anyone make a convincing case?
Hébert-Dufresne, L., Allard, A., Garland, J., Hobson, E. A., & Zaman, L. (2024). The path of complexity. Npj Complexity, 1(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44260-024-00004-0
Morin, E. (1991). From the Concept of System to the Paradigm of Complexity. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/1061736192900248
Stepney, S. (2009). SS > book reviews > Ludwig von Bertalanffy. https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ss44/books/pages/v/LudwigvonBertalanffy.htm
Wow. Complexity vs. systems science. This deserves a thoughtful response--at least a post. But it will have to wait until after Christmas!