Ken,
I agree with most of what you say.
One question remains: Can complexity be "not
wicked"? Seems to depend upon the definition of
complexity and wickedness.
So we should stop this discussion here.
Have a nice evening.
Jonas
_____________
At 17:00 Uhr +0200 27.08.2007, Ken Friedman wrote:
>Dear Jonas,
>
>Thanks for your note. The formalisms are
>descriptions. They don't resolve. They model.
>It's what we learn through models and formalisms
>that give us clues for ways to resolve some
>kinds of wicked problems rather than treating
>them as intractably wicked.
>
>Complex adaptive systems include human actors
>and human observers -- they may or may not
>involve wicked problems. When people resolve
>disagreements by negotiation among differences
>or by postulated agreements, complexity is not
>wicked.
>
>It's difficult to say that I'm an optimist. One
>can just as well say that I am a pessimist, but
>that I see this kind of work as necessary no
>matter how difficult. Finding out what doesn't
>work is always important. Every time Edison
>failed with the filament of his incandescent
>light, he'd say, "We're one step closer. Now we
>know 784 [fill in the number] things that don't
>work." He went through more than 1,000 trials
>before succeeding, and his career as an active
>inventor involved tens of thousands of failed
>trials for his several hundred successes.
>
>It's not quite up to the level of King Lear, but
>struggling with challenges more like to fail
>than succeed is one of the tragic necessities of
>research.
>
>"How shall I live and work?
>My life will be too short,
>And every measure fail me."
>
>-- King Lear, Act IV, Scene 7
>
>Yours,
>
>Ken
>
>
>
>Wolfgang Jonas wrote:
>
>--snip--
>
>I agree with most of what you say. You are
>probably right that Rittel spoke more about
>disagreement than about complexity.
>
>But, as soon as CAS includes human observers,
>then we have to deal with disagreement (in
>"politics, ethics, taste or other areas"), which
>cannot be resolved by formalisms.
>
>And then we do not have to refer to Gödel (who
>demonstrates that even formal systems cannot be
>described completely and uncontradictory from
>inside), but we may turn to 2nd order
>cybernetics, which I find more appropriate.
>
>I think our main disagreement lies in the degree
>of optimism regarding the degree of possible
>asymptotic approximation to a kind of consensual
>view of designing?
>
>--snip--
|