Abstract
Three objections to Max Urchs’s paper on complexity are discussed. First, Urchs’s macroeconomic illustrations of the benefits of complexity thinking are open to more conventional interpretations. Second, Urchs formulates a thesis concerning the relationship between science and society which is untenable if taken as a historical claim and insufficiently developed if taken as a metaphor. Third, methodological problems in history and philosophy of science plague Urchs’s discussion of neuroscience.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Unlike Urchs, however, I would strongly caution against a definition of complexity in which subjective psychological experiences such as surprise play a role.
- 2.
Urchs also gives us quotations from Keynes’s Treatise on Probability (1973b), and I have no comments to make about these. I agree that it would be worthwhile to read the Treatise on Probability from the point of view of complexity.
- 3.
Proponents of austerity would not, however, deny the savings/investment equality. Instead, they might argue that government investment in the present would increase interest rates and so “crowd out” private sector investment. Or they might argue that increased government spending would be taken as a sign of higher government deficits in the future. This in turn would lead to an expectation of higher future corporate taxes, which would again induce companies in the present to reduce investment.
- 4.
This is not a rejection of neuroeconomics (for a discussion, see Mäki 2010). My rather more modest argument is that the neurosciences may not be needed in the particular case discussed by Urchs.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
Another worrisome note is offered by a reviewer of Mitchell’s book. Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2012) points out that some of Mitchell’s phrases such as “flexible management”, “continued investigation” and “learn by doing” can be weaponized by Washington lobbyists to mean toothless regulation, delayed action and science-blindness.
References
Arthur, W.B. 1999. Complexity and the economy. Science 284: 107–109.
Keynes, J.M. 1973a. The general theory of employment, interest and money. Vol. VII of The collected writings of John Maynard Keynes. London: Macmillan.
Keynes, J.M. 1973b. Treatise on probability. Vol. VIII of The collected writings of John Maynard Keynes. London: Macmillan.
Krugman, P. 2011. IS-LMentary. Accessed April 16, 2013.
Ladyman, J., J. Lambert, and K. Wiesner 2012. What is a complex system? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3(1): 33–67.
Mäki, U. 2010. When economics meets neuroscience: Hype and hope. Journal of Economic Methodology 17(2): 107–117.
Mankiw, N.G. 2002. Macroeconomics. 5th ed. New York: Worth Publishers.
Mitchell, M. 2009a. Complexity: A guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, S.D. 2009b. Unsimple truths: Science, complexity, and policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shrader-Frechette, K. 2012, forthcoming. Sandra D. Mitchell: Unsimple truths: Science, complexity, and policy. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Scholl, R. (2014). Confessions of a Complexity Skeptic. In: Galavotti, M., Dieks, D., Gonzalez, W., Hartmann, S., Uebel, T., Weber, M. (eds) New Directions in the Philosophy of Science. The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04382-1_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04382-1_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04381-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04382-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)