Foundations of Science

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 687–705

Complexity, Networks, and Non-Uniqueness

Article

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to introduce some of the history and key concepts of network science to a philosophical audience, and to highlight a crucial—and often problematic—presumption that underlies the network approach to complex systems. Network scientists often talk of “the structure” of a given complex system or phenomenon, which encourages the view that there is a unique and privileged structure inherent to the system, and that the aim of a network model is to delineate this structure. I argue that this sort of naïve realism about structure is not a coherent or plausible position, especially given the multiplicity of types of entities and relations that can feature as nodes and links in complex networks.

Keywords

Complexity Networks Connection Nodes Links 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barabasi, A.-L. (2003). Linked: How everything is connected to everything else. Plume.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs N., Lloyd E., Wilson R. (1986) Graph theory 1736–1936. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley, R., Sandifer, C. (eds) (2007) Leonhard euler: Life, work and legacy. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Butts C. (2009) Revisiting the foundations of network analysis. Science 325: 414–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christakis N., Fowler J. (2011) Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. Back Bay Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunbar R. (1992) Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution 22: 469–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunne J., Williams R., Martinez N. (2002) Food-web structure and network theory: The role of connectance and size. PNAS 99: 12917–12922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans, T., & Rivers, R. (2012). Interactions in space for archaeological models. Advances in Complex Systems, 15.Google Scholar
  9. Freeman L. (2004) The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Empirical Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Gouy-Pailler, C., et al. (2007). Topographical dynamics of brain connections for the design of asynchronous brain–computer interfaces. Proceedings, Annual International Conference of the IEEE: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2520–2523.Google Scholar
  11. James, I. (eds) (2006) History of topology. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. Knoke D., Yang S. (2007) Social network analysis (quantitative applications of the social sciences. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  13. Ladyman, J. (2009). Structural realism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/.
  14. Leicht E., Glarkson G., Shedden K., Newman M. (2007) The large-scale structure of time evolving citation networks. European Physics Journal B 59: 75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Milgram S. (1967) The small world problem. Psychology Today 1: 60–67Google Scholar
  16. Onnela J.-P., Saramaki J., Hyvonen J., Szabo G., Lazer D., Kaski K., Kertesz J., Barabasi A.-L. (2007) Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 104: 7332–7336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sachs H., Stiebiz M., Wilson R. (1988) An historical note: Euler’s Königsberg letters. Journal of Graph Theory 12: 133–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Watts D. (2004) Six degrees: The science of a connected age. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. West D. (2001) Introduction to graph theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySwarthmore CollegeSwarthmoreUSA

Personalised recommendations