Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T03:44:32.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Philosophical Evaluation ofthe Chaos Theory “Revolution”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Stephen H. Kellert
Stephen H. Kellert*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

I would like to begin by addressing two pressing questions that may be raised regarding chaos theory: Is it actually about “chaos” at all? And is it actually a “theory?” The short answers to these questions are, respectively, “no” and “it depends.” With respect to the first question, scientists have appropriated the ordinary term that means utterly unintelligible disorder. But chaotic behavior in the contemporary scientific sense is manifestly intelligible, and the word “chaos” may lead to rnisunderstandings as weil as legitimate interest. So, in the first part of my presentation, I will offer a characterization of chaos theory and briefly address the use of this term in scientific enterprises.

Type
Part II: Chaos Theory
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1992 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1992 , 1993 , pp. 32 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Footnotes

1

I am grateful to Roger Jones, Lisa Heldke, Eric Winsberg, and John Winnie for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Barrow, J. (1988), Review of Gleick 1987. New Scientist, 118 no. 1614 (May 26): 73-74.Google Scholar
Bergé, P., Pomeau, Y., and Vidal, C. (1984), Order within Chaos. L. Tuckennan, trans. Paris: J. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, P. (1976), “Introduction” in Turbulence, P. Bradshaw (ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1-44.Google Scholar
Chapman, G. T. and Tobak, M. (1985), “Observations, theoretical ideas, and modeling of turbulent flows-past, present, and future”, in Theoretical Approaches to Turbulence, D.L. Dwoyer, M.Y. Hussaini, and R.G. Voight (eds.). New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 19-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crutchfield, J., Farmer, J. D., Packard, N., and Shaw, R. (1986), “Chaos”, Scientific American 255: 46-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devaney, R. L. (1986), An Introduction to Chaotic Dynamical Systems. Menlo Park: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
Devaney, R. L. (1990), “Chaotic Explosions in Simple Dynamical Systems”, in The Ubiquity of Chaos, S. Krasner (ed.). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 1-9.Google Scholar
Dresden, M. (1992), “Chaos: a new scientific paradigm—or science by public relations?—o part 1”, The Physics Teacher 30: 10-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emrich, R. J., et al. (1978), ‘Thirty years of fluid dynamics”, Physics Today 31 :38-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleick, J. (1987), Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1992), ‘“Style’ for Historians and Philosophers”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 23:1-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983), “The Accumulation of Styles of Scientific Reasoning”, in Kant oder Hegel?, D. Henrich (ed.). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, pp. 453-465.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1987), “Was There a Probabilistic Revolution 1800-1930?”, in The Probabilistic Revolution vol. 1, L. Krüger, L. J. Daston, and M. Heidelberger (eds.). Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 45-55.Google Scholar
Hao, B.-L., (ed.) (1984), Chaos. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Hayles, K. (1990), Chaos Bound. Ithaca: Comell University Press.Google Scholar
Hirsch, M. W. (1989), “Chaos, Rigor, and Hype”, Review of Gleick 1987. The Mathematical Intelligencer 11 :6-8.Google Scholar
Holden, A. V., (ed.) (1986), Chaos. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keefe, L., Moin, P., and Kirn, J. (1990), “Applications of Chaos Theory to Shear Turbulence”, in The Ubiquity of Chaos, S. Krasner (ed.). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 56-63.Google Scholar
Kellert, S. H. (1993), In the Wake of Chaos: Unpredictable Order in Dynamical Systems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellert, S. H., Stone, M. A., and Fine, A. (1990), “Models, Chaos and Goodness ofFit” P hilosophical Topics 18:85-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970), (1962]. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1977), “Second Thoughts on Paradigms”, in The Structllre of Scientific Theories, F. Suppe (ed.). Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 459-82.Google Scholar
Landau, L. (1944), “On the problem of turbulence”, C.R. Academy of Science, URSS. 44: 311-316.Google Scholar
Leslie, D. C. (1973), Developments in the Theory of Turbulence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lorenz, E. (1963), “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 20: 130-141.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, F. (1987), Chaotic Vibrations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Nemenyi, P. F. (1962), “The Main Concepts and Ideas of Fluid Dynamics in their Historical Development”, Archive for History of Exact Sciences 2: 52-86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newhouse, S. E., Ruelle, D., and Takens, F. (1978), “Occurrence of strange axiom A attractors near quasi-periodic flow on Tm (m=3 or more)”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 64: 35-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packard, N., Crutchfield, J., Farmer, J., and Shaw, R. (1980), “Geomelry From a Time Series”, Physical Review Letters 45: 712-716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porush, D. (1990) “Making Chaos: Two Views of a New Science”, New England Review and Bread Loaf Quarterly 12:427-442.Google Scholar
Rapp, P. E., et al. (1990), “Dynamical Characterization of Brain Electrical Activity”, in The Ubiquity of Chaos, S. Krasner (ed.). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 10-22.Google Scholar
Rouse, J. (1987), Knowledge and Power. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ruelle, D. and Takens, F. (1971), “On the nature of turbulence”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 20:167-192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruelle, D. (1991), Chance and Chaos. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffman, P. G. (1968), “Lectures on Homogeneous Turbulence”, in Topics in Nonlinear Physics, N. J. Zabusky (ed.). New York: Springer Verlag, pp. 485-614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, R. (1981), “Modeling Chaotic Systems”, in Chaos and Order in Nature, H. Haken, (ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 218-231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P. (1962), “Models of Data” in Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, E. Nagel, P. Suppes, and A. Tarski (eds.). Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 252-61.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1967), “What is a Scientific Theory?”, in Philosophy of Science Today, S. Morganbesser (ed.). New York: Basic Books, pp. 55-67.Google Scholar
Takens, F. (1981), “Detecting Strange Attractors in Turbulence”, in Lecture Notes in Mathematics, D. A. Rand and L.-S. Young (eds.). New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 366-381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Atta, C. W. (1990), “Fluid Dynamical Chaos in Vortex Wakes”, in The Ubiquity of Chaos, S. Krasner (ed.). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 64-74.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. (1972), “A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science” in Paradigms and Paradoxes, R. G. Colodny ( ed.). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press, pp. 303-66.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, G. H. and Ford, J. (1969), “Amplitude Instability and Ergodic Behavior for Conservative Nonlinear Oscillator Systems”, Physical Review 188: 416-432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, F. M. (1979), Fluid Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar