Jump to content

Talk:Complex adaptive system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Systems science portal" Icon Clipping Image Caption

[edit]

There is a "System science portal" box hovering over the caption for the second, bar-graph image. This is really annoying; I have to copy/paste, or open up the source-code to read a caption. I can't see how to immediately fix this, but I think someone should address this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.132.171 (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

As it sits, the external link to the Redfish Group with no description looks like spam. Any comments or differing characterization of the link before it gets removed? --Blainster 23:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

[edit]

The universe seems to be arranged in hierarchies. There are various levels at which you can understand it. The level we are most famililar with is the level of everyday life. Going down we run into the levels of organs, cells, molecular biology, chemistry. Each level has its own laws which work in certian "special cases" with all violations at the "extreams". Complex Adaptive Swarms exhibit similar layered behavior also, at each layer the swarm is made of smaller complex adaptive systems. This layered behavior doesn't appear in swarms made of simple systems. This all seems to imply that either there is no bottom to the layers of the universe(and no TOE) or, the bottom layer is made of smart, adaptive particles.--SurrealWarrior 18:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name change [plural -> singular]

[edit]
  • JA: I had posted the reason for this change at the Requested moves page. I thought that this was pretty straightforward, but needed admin help because of the pre-existing undeveloped article with the singular title. This article was initially titled with the singular Complex adaptive system, then listed for speedy deletion due to lack of content or lack of work expanding the stub. Then it appears that a new article was created under the plural title. I think that it's standard to use singular forms for titles unless there is some overriding reason to use the plural, as this makes it easier to wiki both forms as needed, by Complex adaptive systems, and so on. There is now a complex tangle of redirects involving this article and several others on complexity that I encountered in the process of trying to reference it properly, and I can sort that out after the change is made. Jon Awbrey 02:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, move: I don't have a problem with this move. It seems strange that the singular title was previously redirected to complex system instead of here. Since there was no substantive article or any discussion at the singular title, I can't see any need to try to preserve the history there. --Blainster 02:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notes & Queries

[edit]

Jon Awbrey 05:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions need fix

[edit]

The Revision as of 13:50, 20 December 2006 Michael Hardy, (→Definitions - cquote) resulted in the deletion of the original text. But I can't figure out how to fix it. Help, anyone?Fireproeng 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Fireproeng 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maybe an example or two would help?

[edit]

i'm having trouble understanding these articles. i.e. complexity almost doesn't say anything specific. can we have an example of a complex adaptive system, what makes it complex, what makes it adaptive? Is a thermostat one? or is it not complex?

a quote from the article (a definition?)

What distinguishes a CAS from a pure multi-agent system (MAS) is the focus on top-level properties and features like self-similarity, complexity, emergence and self-organization. A MAS is simply defined as a system composed of multiple, interacting agents. In CASs, the agents as well as the system are adaptive: the system is self-similar. A CAS is a complex, self-similar collectivity of interacting adaptive agents. Complex Adaptive Systems are characterised by a high degree of adaptive capacity, giving them resilience in the face of perturbation.
Other important properties are adaptation

the article just keeps saying the same words over and over again: self-similarity, compexity, adaptive capacity... but it defines none of these. I have no clue what self-similarity is doing here, it usually refers to a subsystem being similar to the whole system, of course this is strictly speaking impossible for a finite system so i don't get it. i also don't see how that makes it adaptive. does it make a snowflake complex?

pick a few systems and define in what way they are self similar, define what it means for the system to be adaptive.

the section on biology only discusses a technical issue of the left hand wall in evolution of complexity. again, it doesn't describe what it means for a cell or a mouse to be a complex adaptive system (other than the obvious gut sense that of course that sounds like what they are. work your way down the scale from mouse to cell to ribosome to enzyme to amino acid to carbon atom to proton. at what point in this hierarchy is the system no longer a complex adaptive system?

I'd try writing it, but i've been trying for 20 years to no avail. the best i can come up with is a collection of 60 descriptions of interesting systems and let the reader decide on the categories if there are any. perhaps it is too early in history for such a treatment, these things are only 150 years old. I think it took longer than that to define what oxygen was.Wikiskimmer 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, an example might help. I'll muse on this for a while... also, might I suggest that the Literature and External Links be somehow worked to be in-line references with the text instead? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I removed a list of scientists from the external links section, for the third time. Now it really looks like a random list of scientists, which shouldn't be in this section in the first place. Main articles like this in Wikipedia simply don't show a list of external links to scientists in the external links section. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you justify this article having a further 35 external links? That is a ridiculous amount. Wikipedia is not an internet links directory. EL policy states; "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their accuracy." What information do these pages add to the subject of the article? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to toss my view into the fray as well, I agree with removing the external links as they existed in the previous versions. Wikipedia is not a repository of links nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information on all programs ever everywhere. One would not have links to every prominent biologist or biology department on the Biology page, so why then all the links on scientists, research programs, etc. here? Madcoverboy (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the external links section in this article did not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. There is no question about that. But these links in a way seems to be important. This article is the main article about the new field of "Complex adaptive system", which is a scientific paradigm developed by scientists, institutes, and in conferences and in magazines. Now I am not a real expert in this field. But it seemed to me that those 35 links gave a good representation of this scientific field. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't argue that it doesn't. However the article subject is Complex adaptive systems, not Everyone involved in the field of complex adaptive systems. As Madcoverboy notes above; all scientific fields are a collaborative effort, and their articles don't attempt to list everyone and every organisation involved in it. The only ones listed in the External Links should be those who have contributed significantly enough to merit a mention in the article itself.
Is there not any professional or organisational web sites that collate this information that could be linked to? Wikipedia shouldn't be attempting to be a directory. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I wish there was a simple solution here? I have noticed this problem existing in more articles about new fields. It would be better if in the article had a chapter about the organization of the field based on reliable sources. Until that time this listing is an acceptable alternative to me. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • Complexity Digest comprehensive digest of latest CAS related news and research.
  • Complex Adaptive Systems Research website by Mark Voss with many links.
  • A description of complex adaptive systems on the Principia Cybernetica Web.
  • Quick reference single-page description of the 'world' of complexity and related ideas hosted by the Center for the Study of Complex Systems at the University of Michigan.
  • Analyx real-world applications of agent-based modeling drawing on Complexity science.
  • Biology-inspired techniques for self-organization in dynamic networks.

University Programs

Organizations

Journals

That list of Researchers and scientists

[edit]

I have removed the following list of scientists from the article several times now:

An anomynous editor keep putting this list back. Now I wonder, why he wants this list here in the first place. Maybe he can explain first. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And about Thermodynamics?

[edit]

See modern view of open systems and systems far from equilibrium: there are a "hard Science" behind Complex adaptive systems theory! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.111.77.219 (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

[edit]

The illustration at the start of the Overview has no citation. Checking its origin it was produced by a wikipedia editor "inspired" by a couple of books. Aside from the fact that it is inaccurate it is clearly original research. If no citation is produced to support it I am removing it again. --Snowded TALK 19:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation about John Holland ist wrong

[edit]

1) In the quoted book M. Mitchell Waldrop. (1994). Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. - I have to refer to the Simon & Schuster Paperback issue - M. Mitchell Waldrop wrote a protocol of a lecture of John Holland "THE ECONOMY AS AN EVOLVING COMPLEX SYSTEM". You can not cite that as an original text of John Holland.

2) Also Waldrop´s protocol is cited wrong, what we can see in the article is a summary of what Waldrop wrote and is not marked as a summary.

3) Even in the original paper of John Holland the article citation can not be found. Santa Fe Institute: "The economy as an evolving complex system - The proceedings of the evolutionary paths of the global economy workshop, held september, 1987 in Santa Fe, New Mexico", Editor: Anderson, Philip W. Addison-Wesley, 1988

--Torbrax (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all definitions were cited wrong or do not lead to existing references

[edit]

As said before the John Holland citation was just wrong and the links for the references of the other two citations did not work any more.--Torbrax (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored File:Complex-adaptive-system.jpg

[edit]
File:Complex-adaptive-system.jpg

Recently this file was removed with the argument "unsourced picture of dubious value" (see here) however:

  • The source is clearly: Own work by Acadac
  • The image is a concept map, which pictures the relationships between some of the main concepts.

You can always question the use of such concept maps in Wikipedia. But if there are around so long, there should be a discussion and some consensus first. -- Mdd (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subscrip of the image has been questioned and trimmed before (again) by the User:Snowded, see here, with the argument
picture is one take only, not representative and I'm not sure its right anyway.
This argument can be questioned again. A search for "Complex adaptive system" in Google images ([1]) show multiple similar images. -- Mdd (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry its original research or synthesis. It is unsourced, the fact it is been allowed to hang around is no reason to retain it. Find a source before you restore it ----Snowded TALK 17:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don;t understand. This illustration is clearly own work by a Wikipedia user, and bears great resemblance with similar images in the field. What more source then "own work" do you require? Since I don't understand your argument I also have asked a question here. -- Mdd (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Diagrams are subject to the same rules of evidence as anything else. To allow a diagram to illustrate the field it would need to represent a secondary source which summarises the field as a whole. This one confuses systems dynamics with complexity theory and is idiosyncratic at best.----Snowded TALK 02:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion on Wikipedia talk:No original research there is a common understanding, that it is acceptable if the diagram simply illustrates what is in accompanying text. This can establish by looking at the terms mentioned in the specific concept map:

Now all of these terms relate to systems theory in general and Complex adaptive system in particular, so the image should be accepted. -- Mdd (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to assume that CAS is a subset of systems theory which is not universally held. There is nothing there about systems which alter their control parameters, nothing about phase transitions/bifucations. The whole idea if strategy from the main text is omitted (and that is just for starters). The language is that of systems theory for what is a biological/chemical/anthropological concept. Neither do the terms you list dominate the article. If a concept map was built from Axelrod and Cohen then there would be little objection. It is however build from two books that make little contribution to the text. So the terms relate to systems theory, sometimes are used for CAS and are not significantly used in the article text. ----Snowded TALK 18:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This becomes a never ending story, when one refuses to acknowledge that a "diagram simply illustrates what is in accompanying text": In this particular case that a concept map around the term "Complex Adaptive behavior" indeed relates to Complex adaptive system. -- Mdd (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article about Systems Theory or is the article about CAS? Oicumayberight (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Oicumayberight, The article is about "Complex Adaptive System, the concept map around the term "Complex Adaptive behavior", and the objections seems to keep shifting:
  1. First, "the image has no value", whatever this means, and is being removed
  2. Second, "you should find a source", while the sources of the images are given, and is being removed again
  3. Third, the claim "Sorry its original research or synthesis", and the discussion on Talk:WP:NOR gets started
  4. Forth, the fact, that this concept map represents main terms in the field is being ignored
  5. Fifth, instead new speculations, what this concept map should be about are presented... as what?
This seems like the recipe of the never ending discussion, for which I pass. -- Mdd (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It uses some terms in the field but a limited set, and the representation of how they interoperate reflects neither the text nor the articles from which the article claims to be sourced. Your summary is inaccurate and misleading ----Snowded TALK 20:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no hard evidence, that "...the representation of how they interoperate reflects neither the text nor the articles from which the article claims to be sourced." This is just your interpretation. -- Mdd (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then show me how it does. I have been explicit about material in the article which is not included and no one has shown how the diagram reflects the text. You seem to think that just saying something is or is not the case is enough. It isn't. Please respond to the points raised ----Snowded TALK 20:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are missing the point here (see also here): Wikipedia article can be illustrated with images from reliable sources, such as the File:Complex-adaptive-system.jpg, just like this article can be expanded by adding appropriate quotes. The only thing required is that they are about the same topic, which even you confirmed "It uses some terms in the field but a limited set...". -- Mdd (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration has to reflect the text not just be about the same topic. Now try and answer one of the questions I posed. The primary definition of complexity in the article is from Axelrod and Cohen's Book as well as Cilliers. There is nothing in the illustration that in any way matches those two sources. So how can it illustrate it. Once you have handled that please explain why the two sources of the illustration (per its author's designation) and not reflected in the text of the article. ----Snowded TALK 23:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to explain here, that there is a difference between earlier published images and new created images. New illustration indeed need to reflect the text and not just be about the same topic. Earlier published images (just like quotes) from reliable source can add additional information. Then there doesn't have to be any exact match (if that is even possible). -- Mdd (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a new image is created, I think, the illustration still doesn't have to reflect the article's content. For example, your HBR article (p.3) gives a listing of six characteristics of CAS, which are quite different from the listing Andrus (2004) gave (see below). If an illustration is made that reflects those six characteristics, it could also be added to the article here. -- Mdd (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not answered the questions, I suspect because you can't. You also now demonstrate that different sources describe a CAS in different ways. You seem to be arguing that every theory should have its own illustration. That would be OK if there were sections for each theory. The problem is that this picture in its position in the article purports to represent the field and it very clearly does not by your own admission----Snowded TALK 07:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, every notable theory/definition about CAS can be concluded in this article, and can have its own illustration. Now in this discussion it has become clear to me, that the article mentioned just one definition and the image reflects another definition. In this situation I would have preferred, that either the article and/or the image subscript would have been improved. -- Mdd (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it will be a very messy article. The article mentions more than one definition, although the lede does not reflect that well. The illustration does not reflect one definition, it is a somewhat contrived interpretation of two books in the field, both early, only one notable. When I checked both books I could not derive the figure from them. The article needs to be improved, then we can look at illustrations. We really need a third party source that reviews the field however as it is a fragmented emergent field. The modelling side is reasonably well established, the question of human CAS more controversial etc. ----Snowded TALK 11:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the source: The Wiki and the Blog (2004)

[edit]

In The Wiki and the Blog: Toward a Complex Adaptive Intelligence Community (2004) D. Calvin Andrus explains the image as follows:

The six critical components of a complex adaptive system are:
  1. Self-organization – individuals (people, ants, chemicals) decide to act in similar ways in proximity to and in concert with each other, for their own reasons...
  2. Emergence – the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
  3. Relationships – individuals look at their nearest neighbors to try and figure out what is happening so they can make decisions...
  4. Feedback – information circulates in the system, is modified by others, and then comes back to influence the behavior of the originator either as a positive (amplified) or negative (dampened) influence...
  5. Adaptability – the system is open so that information (and/or energy) flows in and out of the system...
  6. Non-Linearity – Small changes in the initial conditions or external environment have large (unpredictable) consequences in the outcomes of the system – also known as the “butterfly effect,” cited earlier...
This graphic depicts these six characteristics. From simple, self-organized personal relationships emerges complex adaptive behavior. Information from the external environment enters the system and impinges on the on these relationships as either positive or negative feedback. The personal relationships are changed and the complex behavior adapts.

Now this article itselve is according to Google Scholar currently cited by 70 sources, see here. This makes it notable enough for inclusion. -- Mdd (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? It explains a picture that appears in Wikipedia. It doesn't reference the field as a whole. The article text uses two other mainline reputable sources (A&C and Cilliers) to explain CAS. That is the text of the article and any picture should illustrate the text ----Snowded TALK 07:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we use the image, but we qualify the figure by using the following caption: 'A greatly oversimplified depiction of complex adaptive system (CAS). Note, however, that a CAS can not be explained by reduction to its fundamental parts.' I hope that may be an acceptable compromise?
In my view, it is practically impossible to capture the enormous complexity of CAS in an image/ figure, and this image is probably as good as any - it may be as good as it gets.
Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not only over simplified its incomplete, out of date and inadequate. ----Snowded TALK 23:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific. Try to list exactly how it is incomplete, out of date and inadequate, and hopefully Mdd may be willing to update the figure to accommodate your suggested improvements. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not even a good starting point, more systems dynamics than complexity. Nothing there about loose or tight coupling, exaptation, constraints, boundary conditions, fitness landscapes and that is for starters. It gives the highly misleading impression that it is just about feedback so its also wrong. It is very questionable whether any attempt to diagram complexity could be successful given the diversity of the field. At a very basic level the diagram does not reflect the references (see my comment above on A&C and Cilliers). If we need a picture, then I suggest something that is a picture of a CAS in nature, or maybe swarming behaviour by way of illustration. Ironically complexity is all about non-reductive systems and the diagram is reductionist. ----Snowded TALK 13:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions - section

[edit]

Eight years ago in 2005 (see here) this article offered a set of three definitions:

A CAS is a complex, self-similar collection of interacting adaptive agents. The study of CAS focus on complex, emergent and macroscopic properties of the system. Various definitions have been offered by different researchers:
  • John H. Holland

A Complex Adaptive System (CAS) is a dynamic network of many agents (which may represent cells, species, individuals, firms, nations) acting in parallel, constantly acting and reacting to what the other agents are doing. The control of a CAS tends to be highly dispersed and decentralized. If there is to be any coherent behavior in the system, it has to arise from competition and cooperation among the agents themselves. The overall behavior of the system is the result of a huge number of decisions made every moment by many individual agents. (source: Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos by Michael Waldrop)

  • Kevin Dooley

A CAS behaves/evolves according to three key principles: order is emergent as opposed to predetermined (c.f. Neural Networks), the system's history is irreversible, and the system's future is often unpredictable. The basic building blocks of the CAS are agents. Agents scan their environment and develop schema representing interpretive and action rules. These schema are subject to change and evolution. (source: K. Dooley, AZ State University)

  • Other definitions

Macroscopic collections of simple (and typically nonlinearly) interacting units that are endowed with the ability to evolve and adapt to a changing environment. (source: Complexity in Social Science glossary a research training project of the European Commission)

Now in 2013 only the following fraction is left, see (here):

A CAS is a complex, self-similar collection of interacting adaptive agents. The study of CAS focuses on complex, emergent and macroscopic[1][2][3] properties of the system. Various definitions have been offered by different researchers:
  • John H. Holland "Cas [complex adaptive systems] are systems that have a large numbers of components, often called agents, that interact and adapt or learn."[4]

An other Wiki (see here (also created by User:JFromm)) even list five defintions by John H. Holland, Kevin Dooley, Murray Gell-Mann, Stephanie Forrest, and an rather unknown source.

Now it seems like a good idea to either integrated the section in the article, expand it, or create a Wikiquote article. Either way, the current quote must be checked and improved. -- Mdd (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We really need a third party source which reviews the various definitions an schools. For example the constraint based definition (Juarrero & others including my HBR article) is not there. The distinction between human and non-human complex systems and the disputes around that are not reflected. The field has matured, fragmented and developed. However as far as I know no one has yet summarised the field to the point where we could produce a reliable referenced summary here----Snowded TALK 23:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This very cautious approach requiring some external summary is not dictated by WP policy. In such a situation, primary sources can be cited to represent various views. There is no implied endorsement of any of these views, but only statements like " ‘So-and-so said such-and-such’, see [1]". The concern about such an approach based upon primary sources is that some of the views so-presented may be of minor importance. The justification of their inclusion, lacking a secondary source, is that these views are published in reputable sources, and that publication implies some vetting by either peer review, or by the referees selected by the publisher. It seems to me that WP is better served by mentioning such reliable sources than by sitting on its duff waiting for years for some outside encyclopedia to get current or to become more inclusive. Brews ohare (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You argued something similar on a policy board and it was rejected. In fact you were clearly told that secondary sources are required for wikipedia not editors stringing together quotations from primary sources they think are appropriate. ----Snowded TALK 20:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this subject did come up, but your summary of the discussion is baloney. Brews ohare (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what you think of anyone who disagrees with you Brews. An Arbcom subject matter ban, multiple failed RfCs and more recently multiple failed attempts to change policy have not convinced you otherwise. I've run our of patience for dealing with your obduracy ----Snowded TALK 10:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following may help to raise this exchange from the abysmal level where you place it: the discussion you mention is found here as a proposal to amplify the policy regarding primary sources. In contrast to your summary that "you were clearly told that secondary sources are required for Wikipedia", the conclusion was that WP:Primary already clearly supported the the proposal, and that changes in policy were not necessary. Masem's position was "If it's not broke, don't fix it", and he required that diffs be presented to show that problems with applying WP:Primary were sufficiently serious that a modification was needed. As that burden of proof seemed to me to be an invitation to prolonged and fruitless debate, I did not pursue making WP:Primary more emphatic on this point, where numerous parties felt the existing policy was already clear enough. Brews ohare (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And a simple reading of that exchange shows you trying to use policy to win a content argument (again). Sorry Brews but you have had so many 'prolonged and fruitless' debates with so many different editors (the latest on Dilemma of Determinism) that the pattern of disruptive (albeit probably well intentioned) behaviour is all too clear. If you can point to a single diff where other editors have supported one of your positions in any dispute I'd be interested to see it ----Snowded TALK 19:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGF hard at work, eh Snowded? Keep trying to make WP a cesspool. Brews ohare (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Facts hurt Brews, if you can answer my question I'll consider withdrawal. AGF is not required in the face of continued un-rectified intransigence, its something you need to earn ----Snowded TALK 00:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference CAS-T-12 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference CAS-T-11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference CAS-T-13 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Holland, John H.; (2006). "Studying Complex Adaptive Systems." Journal of Systems Science and Complexity 19 (1): 1-8. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/41486

Lack of criticism?

[edit]

Imma doubting. I mean, you could say a social network is a "complex adaptive system", or you could say that the guy that said that should get his head out of his/her ass, and some people participating in the social network actually did some thinking.88.159.79.223 (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Complex adaptive system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Complex adaptive system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

problematic paragraph in the lede

[edit]

I've removed this paragraph twice now for the following reasons

  1. the lede is meant to summarise the article not introduce material
  2. the paragraph is largely original research or synthesis
  3. that one author has talked about memes as a CAS may or may not be justified within the body of the next but it does not carry enough weight for the lede. The emphasis in memes and the references to social Darwinism again may belong in the text but the vast bulk of the literature is not about this.  It may justify a section or subsection but not the lede
  4. the origination of the term is controversial and it needs a third party source not a conclusion drawn from the title of an aticle.
  5. in general there are controveries over the various origins of CAS and one school that wants to root it into systems theory (dynamics/cybernetics) but we should not speak in wikipedia's voice on that

Snowded TALK 11:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this removal. Please add balanced discussion to the body of the article rather than the lede. jps (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why you're reacting so strongly to this. The lede should let the reader know what exactly the approach is all about. Less jargon, more clarity. Of course it sounds very hi-tech to talk about complex adaptive systems, but I would suggest CAS is not a specific computational model, but an evolutionary metaphor. As such, the reader is interested to know how it relates with other similar models – there seem to be quite a few out there. One would be interested to know which side of the nature—nurture debate it falls into. There's quite a bit of discussion on the matter in the cited sources which Snowded keeps deleting, and surely elsewhere, too. To answer all your list items:
  1. the lede is meant to summarise the article not introduce material —> The lede will however have to explain what CAS is, and here one may indicate its relation to other models. However, I can additionally start a new section.
  2. the paragraph is largely original research or synthesis —> I'm avoiding OR articles and using reviews and standard sources, so I disagree.
  3. that one author has talked about memes as a CAS may or may not be justified within the body of the next but it does not carry enough weight for the lede. The emphasis in memes and the references to social Darwinism again may belong in the text but the vast bulk of the literature is not about this.  It may justify a section or subsection but not the lede —> The way this went is you began with suggesting the sources are not valid or that they're cited incorrectly. As I had to add more sources and explain them, you now suggest there's too much material. Now you're also saying that only one author has discussed memes, although it's pretty much all of them. But you're again saying I should add material to make a point, and remove material so it's not heavy. Was it heavy in the first place?
  4. the origination of the term is controversial and it needs a third party source not a conclusion drawn from the title of an aticle. —> Your description of the cited sources is not correct at all. But can we make an a priori agreement that if a third-party source is found (i.e. without Buckley as a co-author), the information is valid and will be accepted?
  5. in general there are controveries over the various origins of CAS and one school that wants to root it into systems theory (dynamics/cybernetics) but we should not speak in wikipedia's voice on that. —> We should also not delete the information. Whatever competing views there are, we should take such discussion into account. NB Axelrod – suggested by yourself – discusses CAS's origins in cybernetics and systems theory, but also Dawkins's Selfish Gene. There's clearly a confluence, but I'd like the lede to be sufficiently clear. Just between the two of us, isn't the case actually that CAS is so loosely defined that it subsumes invisible hand, natural selection, memetics, and whatever else there's been around for the past 2000 years? As such, Wikipedia will either have to make it reasonably clear, or state that CAS has no exact definition or substance, but can be understood by way of its relation to similar concepts. Note that WP is not an advert, so it can say whatever is useful for the reader whether it's best for the advocates of CAS or not.Weidorje (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weidorje, I think you have some good ideas, but put together some of this in well-cited text for the body of the article. Then we can think about how to appropriately summarize it for the lede. See WP:SUMMARY as a general principle. I'm happy to help you put together something for the body of the text. jps (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deal, I'll leave the lede alone for now and start working on the body in the near future :) Weidorje (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I have no issue with something in the body of the text on the links some authors make between memetics and CAS. However Dawkins is metioned once in Axelrod and Cohen (p55) in reference to propsering as a team and it is a minor reference at best. It doesn't support your wording so you will need more to support something in the body of the article - memetics may be easier than Dawkins there. Otherwise you would expect Kauffman to reference him if significant but he just provides one incidental quote on 643 of the Origins of Order and that in the epilogue. I'll happily check the other CAS writers from a biological background but I don't recall anything off hand. Otherwise I know that Castelli and others have produced evolutionary maps of CAS which was recently updated. You can find the 2018 version here (full disclosure it now names me). I know from conversations that they are currently updating that material and inteviewing people in the field as a part of that. That will be important as it is a third party source rather than original research using primary sources but I suspect that we will have to wait a year for that. What he has already published shows cybernetics as one of the sources. Otherwise CAS itself has different fields or approaches - there is one group that base their work in cybernetics, others around Santa Fee I would describe as computational complexity and my own field is anthro-complexity. However all of this language is emergent as the field is very new and we need to be cautious what we say. As to prior use of language - gravity was a word before Newton, but after Newton the meaning is different -----Snowded TALK 16:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's look for answers and slightly widen the scope of the article. I don't think it's a complete coincidence that it's part of WikiProject Evolutionary Biology... As I understand it, this is part of a universal Darwinian framework where people who do CAS are assumed to be evolutionary biologists of a kind regardless of their actual training and profession. The paradox seems to be that you need to go interdisciplinary to get a funding, but scientifically focussed if you want to be taken seriously. This is why people sometimes let you understand they're biologists and sometimes explicitly deny it. So what is CAS? I think it's little more than a concept (i.e. similar to a word). To elucidate, you could say that replicators, for example, form a CAS (but this is not a fundamentally new idea).Weidorje (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The origins of CAS are in various disciplines - Arthur in Economics, Page in Archeology, Kauffmann in Biology, Prigogine in Chemistry, Juarrero in Philosophy and I could go on. I haven't seen evidence of the paradox you mention as I have seen a lot of funding move into computational complexity on manufacturing for example. I sat on a NSF panel awarding grants to people working on complexity in Aviation and was Director of a EPSRC programme in the UK which awared money to various types of modelling (swarm robots, insects etc). I don't know of anyone who assumes CAS is only about evolutionary biology Darwinian or neo-Darwinian. Mind you I don't know anyone in the field who is Creationist,<irony> thank god </irony>. There are common themes - the properties of the whole are not any aggregate of its parts and so on. Paul Cilliers has a much cited list of the characteristcs of a CAS and we can use that - happy to replicate it here if you are not familiar. John Holland establishs the split between Complex physical systems and complex adaptive systems. I and others see the distinguishing feature of a CAS as the lack of material linear causality. The overall point I am making is that evolutonary biology has a CAS element but it does not define it -----Snowded TALK 22:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, like I said, it is interdisciplinary. But the underlying model is called Universal Darwinism. What we gather so far is that some use the term CAS purely as relates to memetics, some see little connection, and others stand somewhere in between. Snowded, I see you have much inside knowledge, but also that you have a personal/financial interest in this article. Weidorje (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a brief comment I'd like to add that, as you say, no one doing CAS believes in Creation. You should be aware that the question of creation, planning or intelligent design stand right in the middle of the potential problematics of this kind of approach. In aviation, for example, CAS suggests that the macro-level phenomenon emerges from individual actions. I wonder why this is a useful description of air traffic, when we look at how all of its complexity actually arises.Weidorje (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you have no evidence to support the assertion that the underlying model is 'Universal Darwinism' - It is certainly not in most of the third party sources I have so please, if you have them, cite them. Air traffic is susceptable to agent based modelling and there are also interesting human factors in air traffic control which is one area I have worked in; your link to creationism is obscure at best so if it is relevant to the article then you will have to explain this. Otherwise I'm sorry but I am a SME as far as this page is concerned, check your wikipedia rules on COI and you will find out that you are in error there. I do have a COI in the Cynefin Framework article which is declared. -----Snowded TALK 11:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, this WP article is not meant to be a mere reflection of your professional opinion. As much as the issues are discussed in legitimate sources, there is a place for them on the page. Weidorje (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I asked you to come up with some sources for your assertion (a reflection of your personal opinion) that the underlying model is 'Universal Darwinism' and my providing mainstream sources that made no mention of memetics. I also gave you a link to a third party source on the origins of CAS. If you check back I said the article was no place for my separation of computational from anthro-complexity as that was not yet more broadly established. There is a place for some reference to memetics and CAS on the page, something I suggested when you were edit warring on the lede but it needs to be proportional to the literature as a whole. -----Snowded TALK 08:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deal.Weidorje (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics Section

[edit]

The first part of the characteristics section doesn't actually refer to CAS, it's just for complex systems. This should be adjusted. TPen94 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between complex system and complex adaptive system?

[edit]

Is there any difference between complex system and complex adaptive system? Otherwise we need a merge between these two articles. There's a lot of material in the two articles, so some adaptation ;) would be needed in a merge by our complex system of editors. Boud (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Complex_adaptive_system&oldid=1230304334"