Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 195, Issue 1, pp 55–78 | Cite as

Network representation and complex systems

  • Charles RathkopfEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this article, network science is discussed from a methodological perspective, and two central theses are defended. The first is that network science exploits the very properties that make a system complex. Rather than using idealization techniques to strip those properties away, as is standard practice in other areas of science, network science brings them to the fore, and uses them to furnish new forms of explanation. The second thesis is that network representations are particularly helpful in explaining the properties of non-decomposable systems. Where part-whole decomposition is not possible, network science provides a much-needed alternative method of compressing information about the behavior of complex systems, and does so without succumbing to problems associated with combinatorial explosion. The article concludes with a comparison between the uses of network representation analyzed in the main discussion, and an entirely distinct use of network representation that has recently been discussed in connection with mechanistic modeling.

Keywords

Network Representation Explanation Mechanism Decomposition Idealization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the National Science Foundation (award number 1430601). The author would like to thank Dr. Paul Humphreys for providing extensive comments on multiple drafts of this article.

References

  1. Baker, A. (2012). Complexity, networks, and non-uniqueness. Foundations of Science, 18(4), 1–19.Google Scholar
  2. Bansal, S., Grenfell, B. T., & Meyers, L. A. (2007). When individual behaviour matters: Homogeneous and network models in epidemiology. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(16), 879–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barabasi, A. L. (2012). The network takeover. Nature Physics, 8(1), 14–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batterman, R. W., & Rice, C. C. (2014). Minimal model explanation. Philosophy of Science, 81(3), 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2010). Dynamic mechanistic explanation: Computational modeling of circadian rhythms as an exemplar for cognitive science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 41(3), 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1993). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(4), 370–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craver, C. F. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese, 153(3), 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunningham, W. P., Freeman, D., & McCloskey, J. F. (1984). OR forum—Of radar and operations research: An appreciation of A. P. Rowe (1898–1976). Operations Research, 32(4), 958–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Easley, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, crowds, and markets reasoning about a highly connected world. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gross, J. L., & Yellen, J. (2006). Graph theory and its applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  12. Humphreys, P. (2014). Explanation as condition satisfaction. Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 1103–1116. doi: 10.1086/677698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huneman, P. (2010). Topological explanations and robustness in biological sciences. Synthese, 177(2), 213–245. doi: 10.1007/s11229-010-9842-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, N. (2014). Bowtie structures, pathway diagrams, and topological explanation. Erkenntnis, 79(5), 1135–1155. doi: 10.1007/s10670-014-9598-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ladyman, J., Ross, D., Spurrett, D., & Collier, J. (2007). Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lange, M. (2009). Dimensional explanations. Noûs, 43(4), 742–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levy, A., & Bechtel, W. (2013). Abstraction and the organization of mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 80(2), 241–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pastor-Satorras, R., & Vespignani, A. (2001). Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. Physical Review Letters, 86(14), 3200–3203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pincock, C. (2012). Mathematics and scientific representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern epidemiology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Lipincott, Williams, & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  21. Rual, J.-F., Venkatesan, K., Hao, T., Hirozane-Kishikawa, T., Dricot, A., Li, N., et al. (2005). Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein-protein interaction network. Nature, 437(7062), 1173–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schwikowski, B., Uetz, P., & Fields, S. (2000). A network of protein-protein interactions in yeast. Nature Biotechnology, 18(12), 1257–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Silberstein, M., & Chemero, A. (2013). Constraints on localization and decomposition as explanatory strategies in the biological sciences. Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 958–970. doi: 10.1086/674533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.Google Scholar
  25. Strevens, M. (2005). How are the sciences of complex systems possible? Philosophy of Science, 72(4), 531–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Supekar, K., Menon, V., Rubin, D., Musen, M., & Greicius, M. D. (2008). Network analysis of intrinsic functional brain connectivity in Alzheimer’s disease. PLOS Computational Biology, 4(6), e1000100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang, P., Hunter, T., Bayen, A. M., Schechtner, K., & González, M. C. (2012). Understanding road usage patterns in urban areas. Scientific Reports, 2, 1–6.Google Scholar
  28. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. The Journal of Philosophy, 104(12), 639–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weslake, B. (2010). Explanatory depth. Philosophy of Science, 77(2), 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Center at the City University of New YorkPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations