Science as a Social Self-organizing Extended Cognitive System. Coherence and Flexibility of Scientific Explanatory Patterns



We conceptualize science as a social cognitive embodied-extended system with a perpetual action-perception-explanatory pattern formin cycle. This cognitive cycle encompasses the natural environment. The cycle is irreducible to inner cognitive processes of scientists. Its technologically embodied-extended nature necessarily makes the cognitive cycle to be context dependent, bringing about context dependence in the explanatory part shared via language. Despite of the context-dependence of scientific practices the past decades have witnessed a large-scale diffusion of explanatory concepts, i.e. themata, coming from dynamical systems theory and statistical physics into science fields which, till then, seemed totally disconnected. This trend increases the coherence of explanatory patterns and consequently enhances and diversifies the language communication possibilities between scientific practices. The structure that emerges is one which, on the one hand, possesses explanatory stability, that is, a coherent and pluri-contextual explanatory backbone that co-relates classically independent or weakly dependent scientific fields, and on the other hand, allows context-dependent flexibility and adaptivity of explanatory patterns to specific processes it strives to understand. The picture that emerges reveals the science as a social self-organizing adaptive cognitive system.



This research was partly financed by the “University of Sts. Cyril and Methodius” program for research projects, No. 02-663/28 from 14.09.2012.


  1. Anderson, P. W. (1972). More is different. Science, 177, 393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araújo, D., Davids, K., & Hristovski, R. (2006). The ecological dynamics of decision making in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 653–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruineberg, J., & Rietveld, E. (2014). Self-organization, free energy minimization, and optimal grip on a field of affordances. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–14. Scholar
  4. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cvitanović, P., Jensen, M. H., Kadanoff, L. P., & Procaccia, I. (1984). Renormalization, unstable manifolds, and the fractal structure of mode locking. Physical Review Letters, 55, 343–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Englert, F., & Brout, R. (1964). Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons. Physical Review Letters, 13(9), 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Froese, T., Gershenson, C., & Rosenblueth, D. A. (2013). The dynamically extended mind. In Presented in IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Cancún, México.
  8. Fusaroli, R., Raczaszek-Leonardi, J., & Tylén, K. (2013). Dialog as interpersonal synergy. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Glansdorff, P., & Prigogine, I. (1971). Thermodynamics theory of structure, stability and fluctuations. London: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  11. Haken, H. (1964). Theory of coherence of laser light. Physical Review Letters, 13, 329–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haken, H. (2000). Information and self-organization: A macroscopic approach to complex systems. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  13. Higgs, P. (1964). Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons. Physical Review Letters, 13, 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hopfield, J. J. (1982). Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 79, 2554–2558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hristovski, R. (2013). Synthetic thinking in (sports) science: The self-organization on the scientific language. Research in Physical Education Sports and Health, 2, 27–34.Google Scholar
  16. Hristovski, R., Balagué, N., & Vázquez, P. (2014). Experiential learning of the unifying principles of science through physical activities. In F. Miranda (Ed.), Systems theory: Perspectives, applications and developments (pp. 37–48). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Isnard, C. A., & Zeeman, E. C. (1974). Some models in the social sciences. In L. Collins (Ed.), The use of models in the social sciences (pp. 44–100). London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  18. Kadanoff, L. P. (1966). Scaling laws for Ising models near Tc. Physics, 2, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelso, J. A. S., & Engstrøm, D. (2006). The complementary nature. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kelso, J. A. S., Southard, D., & Goodman, D. (1979). On the nature of human interlimb coordination. Science, 203, 1029–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18, 513–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landau, L. D. (1969). Collected papers. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
  23. Laughlin, R. B., Pines, D., Schmalian, J., Stojković, B. P., & Wolynes, P. (2000). The middle way. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 97, 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mainwood, P. (2006). Is more different? Emergent properties in physics. Oxford: PhilSci Archive.Google Scholar
  25. Massip-Bonet, A. (2013). Language as a complex adaptive system: Towards an integrative linguistics. In Á. Massip-Bonet & A. Bastardas-Boada (Eds.), Complexity perspectives on language, communication and society (pp. 35–60). Berlin: Springer, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pollack, G. H., & Chin, W. C. (2008). Phase transitions in cell biology. Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Raczaszek-Leonardi, J., & Kelso, J. A. S. (2008). Reconciling symbolic and dynamic aspects of language: Toward a dynamic psycholinguistics. New Ideas in Psychology, 26(2), 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Raczaszek-Leonardi, J., Debska, A., & Sochanowicz, A. (2014). Pooling the ground: Understanding and coordination in collective sense making. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1233), 1–13. Scholar
  29. Rovelli, C., & Smolin, L. (1995). Spin networks and quantum gravity. Physical Review D, 53, 5743–5759. Scholar
  30. Sutton, J., Harris, C. B., Keil, P. G., & Barnier, A. J. (2010). The psychology of memory, extended cognition, and socially distributed remembering. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9, 521–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tognoli, E., & Kelso, J. A. S. (2014). The metastable brain. Neuron Perspective, 81, 35–48. Scholar
  32. Turvey, M. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4, 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weinberg, S. (1995). Reductionism redux. The New York Review of Books, 15, 39–45.Google Scholar
  34. Wilson, K. G. (1975). The renormalization group: Critical phenomena and the Kondo problem. Reviews of Modern Physics, 47, 773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson, R. A., & Clark, A. (2009). How to situate cognition: Letting nature take its course. In M. Aydede & P. Robbins (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 55–77). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wolynes, P., Onuchic, J. N., & Thirumalai, D. (1995). Navigating the folding routes. Science, 267, 1619–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Physical Education, Sport and HealthSs. Cyril and Methodius UniversitySkopjeMacedonia
  2. 2.National Institute of Physical Education (INEFC) Health and Applied SciencesUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations