“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning”.[1]
Werner Heisenberg
With regard to themes and issues of fundamental importance – not only for those who study and do scientific research (in all the scientific-disciplinary fields involved) – about which there is much debate, wrongly presenting them as completely original and innovative, I share some parts extracted from a scientific article from 2021, published in early 2022. I could go back much further: these are theses, an approach, an epistemology, studies and research rooted in almost thirty years of multi/inter/transdisciplinary study and research.
Because, as I have always said, one cannot be an ‘expert on everything’. One always needs in-depth and rigorous study, experience, comparisons and projects with many colleagues from various disciplinary areas, and one must do a lot, a lot of research always ready to accept error and the ‘constitutive emergence’ (1995) of all that is Social and Vital.
[1] Heisenberg W., Physics and Philosophy: the Revolution in Modern Science, Prometheus Books, Buffalo N.Y., 1958
[…]
Rethinking Thought.
Thought: it’s something we haven’t thought about enough, perhaps: thought, thinking, thinking about thought, thoughts on thinking, the search for thought, and then thinking about Nature… notwithstanding the attempts, destined to fail, to reproduce, emulate, simulate thought in all of its complex and indeterminate dimensions, which have always been essential, of vital importance; dimensions nonetheless often deliberately ignored, underestimated, devalued, considered useless, of so little relevance to the civilization of “no-error” automation, which prefers to rely on sophisticated mechanical, artificial and complicated systems, which, if not downright “infallible”, can at least be easily maintained, updated and modified, proffering complete carte blanche to technology à technological “solutionism”*).
And, in doing so, they are following the hegemonic paradigm of contemporary society, founded on precise “logics” functional to the system, constructed on what I have in the past called the “grand illusions of the hypertechnological and hyperconnected civilization” (Dominici, 1996, 2014, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d): the illusions of rationality, control, measurability, predictability, and elimination of error; (the aspiration is to “manage” and/or predetermine all mechanisms, including social ones).
A series of illusions, reinforced systematically by the license delegated to technique/technology, reintroducing reductionist and deterministic approaches, analyses and explanations, exclusively based on technical knowledge and skills: that is, those which are guaranteed to best support precisely these very illusions. At this point, considering the accelerations and the exponential expansion of the interdependencies/interconnections/interactions/conditioning that form the local and global neural network of phenomena and processes, we have, paradoxically, returned to the dominion of a neo-positivistic vision/conception of reality.
Above all, what I have so often warned against, apart from the constant simulation(s), is the progressive marginalization of “the Human”, considered “bearer” and potential creator/producer/executor of error (ibidem), of errors, which cannot be “reset” by the system(s); error, which, rather than being perceived as a “source of knowledge and learning” has always been considered an element to be removed and eliminated, even from educational and formative processes. A disastrous prospect, as I have been saying for over twenty years.
Of the five grand illusions in which the hypertechnological civilization is indulging, it is this last illusion – the elimination of error – that is both the most deceptive and misleading, and therefore the most dangerous; the illusion of succeeding in eliminating error (and thus unpredictability) from our organizations and from our lives means eliminating what truly makes us “human beings,” – indeed, what makes us “free human beings”.
A Human is the only “possessor” of the possibility of making mistakes, of committing “errors”, even consciously and deliberately; a Human “factor” and “complex variable” featuring such continual, systemic and emergent unpredictability, which, apart from all else, implicates/involves/requires – necessarily – taking on responsibility (ibidem).
It is precisely these elements – according to the aforementioned paradigm – that must be eliminated/removed in order to allow the construction of social systems that are perfectly functional, efficient, predictable, manageable and pre-determinable, even regarding social behavior, both individual and collective. Societies that have been designed and imagined (?) as perfect “machines” (thus neither intelligent nor capable of adapting to life’s perpetual disruptions and black swans) rather than as the “organisms” and hypercomplex systems that they actually are. Which is to say, the “new Nature” of complex human ecosystems.
If we picture the global ecosystem as an immense tissue of neural networks, the goals and functions of artificial intelligence and automation processes, designed and assembled by human beings, are to gradually substitute our human and relational networks and mechanisms. The ambiguity and the ambivalence, the multidimensionality and the unpredictability of human beings, the extreme variability and diversity of all living things, are wildly incompatible with the axioms of this civilization of automation and algorithms (Domingos, 2015).
These very algorithms that allow no ambivalence or ambiguity.
I have spoken, in the past, of a “new epistemological fracture” (1996), regarding the profound impact of artificial intelligence on the architecture of knowledge, praxis and life experiences, similar in significance to the groundbreaking introduction of chaos theory and its implications.
The “nature” we are now confronting is the intrinsically problematic, hypercomplex nature of our social systems, which is no longer attributable solely to the (albeit very significant) categories of risk, uncertainty, vulnerability, liquidity and so forth.
In the meantime, however, we humans keep endeavoring to control and cage the immense complexity of the human and the social, of the vitality of spirit and the “non-observable”, within models and mathematical formulas, in infinite sequences of data and numbers, in molecules, synapses, hormones, chemical reactions. In doing so, we also try to visualize what cannot be visualized; the very idea that something can escape our “sight” or our control terrifies us.
And it is precisely this attitude which prevents us from being prepared, which dooms us to an eternal apprehension of black swans (Taleb, 2007) (a metaphor that goes back to very ancient times – and a classical example of post-rationalization), little aware that emergency is a connotative element of complex systems.
Black Swans and other inadequate paradigms
Our very lives are emergency, infinite, non-linear sequences of dynamic processes involving both emergency and the emergent, which are manifested in every possible imaginable and non-imaginable, unpredictable manner.
I will go further: our lives are an “infinite sequence of black swans” (Dominici 1995-2020) of various shades and hues, featuring a primordial ambivalence and apparently irresoluble contradictions. Speaking of which, I have the impression that quite often, in many different instances of social and organizational praxes, those who insist on this concept/metaphor of “black swans”, when faced with situations/dynamics that have escaped their control, are simply attempting to utilize/construct post-rationalizations in order to reassure themselves and those around them that, despite a few unexpected episodes, everything else is totally under control and neatly foreseeable.
In this way, once again the “illusion of control” – of becoming the master of chance and of one’s own destiny – continues to maintain its hegemony, not only in terms of a social and organizational “collective unconscious”, but very tangibly, despite the evidence of its complete inconsistency and inadequacy. Because, as said above, all social and human life is characterized by these endless, non-linear series of black swans, whose constitutive elements are unpredictability, complexity and systemic dynamism. The complexity of living things, not to mention that of social groups, is never completely intelligible or comprehensible; it is never reducible/ascribable to mathematical formulas or to more or less infinite strings of data. It is obvious that this characteristic has profound implications with respect to the feasibility of representing, visualizing, modeling or even communicating this same complexity. In fact, any analysis, praxis, representation, model or communication of a complex system inevitably becomes integral and fundamental part of this system, both in terms of observation and of perception (individual and collective), hence cannot reduce – or simplify – the very complexity of which it is part. And our awareness of this is still quite feeble.
Speaking of “simplification”, this has become a buzz word used to perpetuate the digitalization of life, an effort which does not result in “clarifying” complexity or guiding society to a harmonious cohabitation — it should be kept in mind that the opposite of complexity is not simplification, but reductionism – on the contrary, these dynamics and processes often lead to an obsessive search for simplification at all costs, even when it is actually dangerous to simplify, for example in education (Dewey, 1916, 1929, 1933; Dominici, 2005-2021, Nussbaum, 2010; Robinson, 2015), communication and democracy.
Our attempt to inhabit the hypercomplexity of this global civilization – an ecosystem of ecosystems (1996) – must take into account its intrinsically structural fragility and vulnerability, correlated with those factors that have always made it seem (seem, not be!) perfectly functional, efficient, hyper-modern, rational, super-accelerated, suitable for a “civilization without error or anomalies” – perfectly (apparently) controllable and predictable in every aspect and dimension, or if not, with the ambition of becoming so in the shortest time possible.
The dominating themes are “know-how”, automatisms, facts and figures, and the exaltation of velocity. In the meantime, we continue to neglect thinking about the social and cultural construction of the Person or the citizen, we continue to avoid “caring about and taking care of ourselves, of others, of our community and of society”, in other words, we continue to not to think of the long-term period; one could say that we continue not to think at all, whilst standing on the brink of a quantum leap into a “new nature” that indubitably calls for a radically new system of thought.
The observable and non-observable*: complex vs. complicated systems
The ongoing paradigm shift and profound anthropological transformation (1996) – only in part “technological” – not only (re)define, but actually create new dimensions, openings, epistemological implications that require new thinking and new thought, as well as different approaches and methods (and their integration), other than new instruments for collection and analysis. In all fields of research and action, and with subtle variations, throughout the diverse disciplines and sectors, no longer are universal laws and rules on nature being sought, through reductionist and deterministic approaches; but it has been acknowledged, on the basis of studies, theories and fundamental scientific discoveries (not only among what are called the “hard sciences”) that the analysis and explanation/interpretation of a phenomenon, of a process, of a system’s complexity, can no longer come down to/be reduced to empirical observation and to the knowledge of simple properties (evident and measurable in quantitative terms), characterizing the components/parts making up the system that is being observed.
Awareness of the ever more strategic and relevant role of the observer, as both a conditioning and conditioned element, has spread more and more widely, awareness that an empirical “scientific” observation can no longer be considered “neutral”, “external” or totally “objective” with respect to the system referred to and to the object-system being observed; awareness that an observer is inevitably a participant in what he/she is observing, affecting and at the same time being affected, changing and being changed.
Awareness and acknowledgement that we cannot observe isolated “objects”, even objects isolated from their context under “ideal conditions”, but rather “systems”, “relations”, dynamics”, characterized by levels of interconnection and interdependency that call urgently for a systemic and multi/inter/trans-disciplinary approach to complexity. Since this awareness has taken hold, therefore, the objective has no longer been (will no longer be) that of identifying and recognizing analogies and common structural elements within more or less complex phenomena, but of bringing to light the fact that phenomena and dynamics that are apparently similar or identical display non-linear, irregular and unpredictable behaviors and reactions.
Order, balance, simplicity, linearity, causality, dichotomies, dialectical relations – just to name a few – are accompanied, if not substituted, by newer “key” concepts, such as complexity, chaos, non-linearity, disorder, entropy, irregularity, dynamicity, variety, etc. – which open and reveal extraordinarily intriguing scenarios and trajectories, fascinating but at the same time difficult to interpret; above all, which open and reveal new pathways for study and research, to which we cannot shirk from accompanying corresponding new epistemologies and, it goes without saying, epistemological transformations.
It might be useful at this point to consider the difference between two terms which are often – and erroneously – used as synonyms. We need to understand that complex systems – since I am speaking about human and social systems, the term used to describe these (and all living systems) is generally “complex adaptive systems”–are by no means equivalent to “complicated systems”: the latter term refers to the world of objects, things and machines: complicated systems are mechanical and artificial, and can be described using mathematical formulas and quantitative measurements.
These systems are “observable” in all their parts and dimension, their actions are predictable and can be modified or corrected; furthermore, it is possible to break down their parts in order to understand their behavior and functions. The totality of a complicated system, in fact, is equal to its number of parts, whereas, on the contrary, in a complex system, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Complicated systems, of course, cannot create themselves, but are created by living (human) beings, while complexity, instead, is an essential characteristic of all living beings, in other words of biological, human, social and relational systems, characterized by non-linear dynamics and by numerous intersecting levels of interconnection, interdependency, feedback, self-generation and self-organization, giving rise to emergent properties, processes, dynamics, characteristics, events and actions (Weaver, 1948; Heisenberg, 1958, 1959, 1976, 1999, 2002; Simon, 1962; Feynman, 1963; Hayek von, 1964; Neumann von, 1966; Emery, 1969; Anderson, 1972; Bateson, 1972, 1979; Morin, 1973-2004; Holland, 1975; Capra, 1975, 1996; Le Moigne, 1977; Haken, 1977; Mandelbrot, 1977; Prigogine-Stengers, 1979, 1984; Maturana-Varela, 1980, 1985; Heisenberg et al., 1980; Prigogine, 1980; Foerster von, 1981; Kauffman, 1971, 1993; Luhmann, 1984, 1990; Gell-Mann, 1994, 1995; Krugman, 1996; Prigogine, 1996; Laszlo, 1996; Bar-Yam, 1997; Diamond, 1997, 2005; Mathews et al.,1999; Barabási, 2002; Israel, 2005; Dominici, 2005-2021; Nicolis-Nicolis, 2007; Montuori, 2014; Gentili, 2018; Turner-Baker, 2019).
Each part (arranged in a hierarchy of interconnected sub-systems) and each process is capable of conditioning and changing the behavior and the (non-linear and non-deterministic) evolution of the entire system. These complex adaptive systems, which are “open” systems, subject, that is, to external stimulation and influences from the surrounding environment/ecosystems, follow an irreversible arrow of time, and are thus described as “dissipative” systems.
It is an oxymoron, therefore, to speak about “managing”, “governing”, “programming” or “controlling” complex systems, and endeavoring to predict their evolution, simplify their dynamics or reduce their complexity is equally futile. In particular, complex systems, especially social and human systems, may not share the same space-time: consequently their interactions can take place even at extremely significant distances in time and space. As an afterthought, it may well be, that in describing the properties and peculiarities of complex systems, a more accurate definition of “Nature” itself can be inferred.
Thus, “reality” and “what is real” unveil themselves to be increasingly more complex and unpredictable than the scientific paradigms that have observed and investigated them up to this moment. In the emblematic words of the renowned mathematician and physicist of the late 1800s, Henri Poincaré, “If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. But, even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secret for us, we could still only know the initial situation approximately. If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with the same approximation, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by laws. But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon.” (Poincaré, 1908:68).
Order and disorder, order and chaos (Lorenz, 1963; Gleick, 1987; Stewart, 1989; Taleb, 2012), linearity and non-linearity, predictability and unpredictability, equilibrium and dynamicity/entropy, not only mix and blend, but they also coexist. In other words, complexity and chaos have been recognized (albeit rather belatedly) as integral dimensions of the Vital, the Human and the Social (Weber, 1922a, 1922b; Mead, 1932; Parsons, 1951; Watzlawick et al., 1967; Morin, 1977-2004; Habermas, 1981; Weick, 1993; Todorov, 1995); a complexity whose dynamics of transformation and non-linear, complex evolution never cease.
The relationships, even the dialectical rapports, between norms/regularity and chance/exception are completely overturned, with profound implications, not only for disciplinary fields but also, and above all, for common sense knowledge, for scientific knowledge, for people’s lives, for social systems, for democracies”.
[…] TO BE CONTINUED
Research Article
“The Digital Mockingbird: Anthropological Transformation and the “New Nature”, in World Futures.The Journal of New Paradigm, Routhledge, Feb. 2022.
#research #transdisciplinarity #education #AI #FutureofEducation #ComplexSystems #EducationForAll #PeerReviewed
https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2022.2028539
References
Andersen, H. C., (1843),The Nightingale, Andrews McMeel Publishing, 1992
Anderson, P., More is Different, Science, 04 Aug 1972, Vol 177, Issue 4047, pp. 393-396.
Arendt H. (1958), The Human Condition, It.trans., Vita activa. La condizione umana, Milano: Bompiani 1964.
Ashby W.R., An Introduction to Cybernetics, London: Chapman & Hall 1956.
Bachelard G., (1934), Le Nouvel Esprit scientifique, It.trans., Il nuovo spirito scientifico, Laterza, Bari, 1978 (nuova ed.)
Barabási A.L. (2002), Linked. How Everything is Connected to Everything Else and What it Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life, It.trans., Link. La scienza delle reti, Torino: Einaudi, 2004.
Bar-Yam Y., Dynamics of Complex Systems, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts 1997.
Bateson G. (1972), Steps to an ecology of mind, It.trans., Verso un’ecologia della mente, Milano: Adelphi 1976.
Bateson G. (1979), Mind and Nature. A necessary Unity, New York: Dutton, it.trans. Mente e natura. Un’unità necessaria, Milano: Adelphi 1984.
Bauman Z. (1998). Globalization. The Human Consequences. It.trans. Dentro la globalizzazione. Le conseguenze sulle persone. Roma – Bari: Laterza 1999
Bauman Z. (1999). In Search of Politics, It.trans., La solitudine del cittadino globale. Milano, Feltrinelli, 2000.
Beck U. (1986), Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem weg in eine andere Moderne, It.Trans., La società del rischio.Verso una seconda modernità, Carocci, Roma 2000.
Beck U. (1999), Was ist Globalisierung ? Irrtümer des Globalismus. Antworten auf Globalisierung, It.trans., Che cos’è la globalizzazione, Carocci, Roma 1999.
Beck U. (2007), Weltrisikogesellschaft. Auf der Suche nach der verlorenen Sicherheit,
It.Trans., Conditio Humana.Il rischio nell’età globale, Laterza, Roma-Bari 2008.
Benkler Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, It.Trans., La ricchezza della Rete. La produzione sociale trasforma il mercato e aumenta le libertà, Milano: Università Bocconi Ed. 2007.
Bertalanffy von L. (1968), General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, It.trans., Teoria generale dei sistemi, Milano: Isedi 1975.
Bellamy R., Citizenship. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008.
Blastland M.(2019), The Hidden Half. How the World Conceals its Secrets, It.Trans., La metà nascosta. Le forze invisibili che influenzano ogni cosa, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino 2021.
Bocchi G. – Ceruti M. (1985), La sfida della complessità, Milano: Bruno Mondadori 2007.
Boden M.A. (2018), Artificial Intelligence. A Very Short Introduction, It.Trans., L’Intelligenza Artificiale, Bologna: Il Mulino, 2019.
Bostrom N.(2014), Superintelligence. Paths, Dangers, Strategies, It.Trans., Superintelligenza. Tendenze, pericoli, strategie, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino 2018.
Byung-Chul H. (2012). Transparenzgesellschaft, It. trans., La società della trasparenza, nottetempo, Roma 2014).
Byung-Chul H. (2013). Im Schwarm. Ansichten des Digitalen, it.trans., Nello sciame. Visioni del digitale, nottetempo, Roma 2015.
Calvino I., “The Spiral”, in Cosmicomics, English translation by W. Weaver, Harcourt Brace, 1968.
Canguilhem G. (1966), Le normal et le pathologique, It.trans., Il normale e il patologico, Torino: Einaudi 1998.
Capra F. – Luisi P.L. (2014), The Systems View of Life, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Capra F. (1975), The Tao of Physics, It.trans., Il Tao della fisica, Milano: Adelphi 1982.
Capra F. (1996), The Web of Life, It.trans., La rete della vita. Una nuova visione della natura e della scienza, Milano: Rizzoli 2001.
Cassirer E. (1923-1929), Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, It.Trans., Filosofia delle forme simboliche, III voll., Firenze: La Nuova Italia 1961-1966.
Castells M. (1996-1998), The Information Age, Economy, Society and Culture (voll.III), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Castells M. (2009). Communication Power, It.Trans., Comunicazione e potere, Milano: EGEA-Università Bocconi Ed. 2009.
Coleman J.S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory, trad.it., Fondamenti di teoria sociale, Bologna: Il Mulino 2005.
Dahl R.A. (1998). On Democracy, It.Trans., Sulla democrazia, Roma-Bari: Laterza 2000.
Dewey J. (1929), La ricerca della certezza, Firenze: La Nuova Italia 1968.
Dewey J. (1933), Come pensiamo, Firenze: La Nuova Italia 2006.
Dewey J. (1916), Democracy and Education. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, It.trans., Democrazia e educazione. Un’introduzione alla filosofia dell’educazione, Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1992.
Diamond J. (2005), Collapse.How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, It.trans., Collasso. Come le società scelgono di morire o vivere, Torino: Einaudi 2005
Diamond J.(1997), Guns, Germs, and Steel. The Fates of Human Societies, It.trans., Armi, acciaio e malattie. Breve storia del mondo negli ultimi tredicimila anni, Torino: Einaudi 1998.
Domingos P. (2015), The Master Algorithm. How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World, It.trans., L’Algoritmo definitivo. La macchina che impara da sola e il futuro del nostro mondo, Torino: Bollati Boringhieri 2016.
Dominici P. (1995-1996). Per un’etica dei new-media. Elementi per una discussione critica, Firenze: Firenze Libri Ed.1998.
Dominici P.(2003-2005). La comunicazione nella società ipercomplessa. Condividere la conoscenza per governare il mutamento, Roma: FrancoAngeli 2011
Dominici P. (2008), Sfera pubblica e società della conoscenza in AA.VV, Oltre l’individualismo. Comunicazione, nuovi diritti e capitale sociale, Milano: Franco Angeli 2008.
Dominici P. (2009). La società dell’irresponsabilità, Milano: FrancoAngeli 2010.
Dominici P. (2014). Dentro la società interconnessa. Prospettive etiche per un nuovo ecosistema della comunicazione, Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Dominici P. (2014). La modernità complessa tra istanze di emancipazione e derive dell’individualismo, in «Studi di Sociologia», n°3/2014, Milano: Vita & Pensiero.
Dominici P. (2015a). Communication and Social Production of Knowledge. A new contract for the Society of Individuals, in «Comunicazioni Sociali», n°1/2015, Milano: Vita & Pensiero.
Dominici P. (2016b). La filosofia come “dispositivo” di risposta alla società asimmetrica e ipercomplessa, in Candioto L., Gambetti F. (Eds.), Il diritto alla filosofia. Quale filosofia nel terzo millennio?, Bologna: Diogene Multimedia.
Dominici P. (2016c). L’utopia Post-Umanista e la ricerca di un Nuovo Umanesimo per la Società Ipercomplessa, in «Comunicazioni Sociali», n°3/2016, Milano: Vita & Pensiero.
Dominici P., Il grande equivoco. Ripensare l’educazione (#digitale) per la Società Ipercomplessa [The Great Mistake. Rethinking Education for the Hypercomplex Society], in “Fuori dal Prisma”, Il Sole 24 Ore, Milano 2016.
Dominici P. The Hypercomplex Society and the Development of a New Global Public Sphere: Elements for a Critical Analysis, in, RAZÓN Y PALABRA, Vol. 21, No.2_97, Abril-junio 2017 – ISSN: 1605-4806, pp.380-405
Dominici P., For an Inclusive Innovation. Healing the fracture between the human and the technological, in, European Journal of Future Research, Springer, 2017.
Dominici P., Oltre la libertà …di “essere sudditi”, in F.Varanini (a cura di), Corpi, menti, macchine per pensare, Casa della Cultura, Anno 2, numero 4, Milano 2017.
Dominici P., The hypertechnological civilization and the urgency of a systemic approach to complexity. A New Humanism for the Hypercomplex Society in, Floriano Neto, A.B., Caceres Nieto, E. (Eds.), Governing Turbolence. Risk and Opportunities in the Complexity Age, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge 2017.
Dominici P., L’ipercomplessità, l’educazione e la condizione dei saperi nella Società Interconnessa/iperconnessa, in «Il Nodo. Per una pedagogia della Persona», Anno XXI, n°47, Falco Editore, Cosenza 2017, pp.81-104.
Dominici P., Hyper-technological society? There’s no need for technicians, but for “hybrid figures” (1995), in «Morning Future», 2018, https://www.morningfuture.com/en/article/2018/02/16/job-managers-of-complexity-piero-dominici/230/
Dominici P., A.A.A. cercansi manager della complessità [Complexity Manager], in «Business People», 2019a.
Dominici P., The Struggle for a Society of Responsibility and Transparency: the core question of Education and Culture, in, E.Carloni & D.Paoletti, Preventing Corruption through Administrative Measures, European Union Programme Hercule III (2014-2020), European Commission, ANAC, Morlacchi Ed., Perugia 2019b
Dominici P., La complessità della complessità e l’errore degli errori, in Enciclopedia Italiana “Treccani”, Treccani, Anno 2019c. http://www.treccani.it/magazine/lingua_italiana/speciali/digitale/5_Dominici.html
Dominici P., Dentro la Società Interconnessa. La cultura della complessità per abitare i confini e le tensioni della civiltà ipertecnologica, Milano: FrancoAngeli 2019d.
Dominici P. Controversies on hypercomplexity and on education in the hypertechnological era, in, A.Fabris & G.Scarafile, Eds, Controversies in the Contemporary World, Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2019e.
Dominici P., Comunicação é cidadania [Communication is Citizenship] in C. Kraus Luvizotto & I. Ferin Cunha (Eds.) Comunicação, Cidadania e Movimentos Sociais: Vivências, pp. 12-22, Ria Editorial, Aveiro, 2020.
Dominici P., “Educating for the Future in the Age of Obsolescence”, in CADMUS, Volume 4 – Issue 3, November 2020, pp.93-109.
Dominici P., Comunicação é complexidade [Communication is Complexity] in C. Kraus Luvizotto & I. Ferin Cunha (Eds.) Comunicação, Cidadania e Movimentos Sociais: Perspectivas contemporâneas da participação cidadã, 1a edição, Ria Editorial, Aveiro, 2020.
Dominici P., The complexity of communication. The communication of complexity, in, «MATRIZes», V.14 – n.2 may-aug. 2020, São Paulo, Brasil, pp.15-19.
Dominici P., Tutto sotto controllo. La (iper)complessità tra realtà e rappresentazione, in, “Media Studies”, Anno 2021, 4 settembre https://www.mstudies.it/2021/09/03/la-ipercomplessita-tra-realta-e-rappresentazione/.
Dominici P., The weak link of democracy and the challenges of educating towards global citizenship, in Torres C.A., Gaudelli W. and Bosio E. Eds., Values, Knowledge and Curriculum in Global Citizenship Education, Springer, UNESCO, 2022.
Dominici P., (2022). Beyond Black Swans. Managing Complexity: A Contradiction in Terms?. In: Perko, I., Espejo, R., Lepskiy, V., Novikov, D.A. (eds), WOSC 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 495. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08195-8_12
Dreyfus H.L. (1972), What Computers Can’t Do. The Limits of Artificial Intelligence, The MIT Press.Cambridge, Massachusetts, It.Trans., Che cosa non possono fare i computer, Armando, Roma 1988.
Elias N. (1987). Die Gesellschaft der Individuen, IT.Trans., La società degli individui, Bologna: Il Mulino 1990.
Emery F.E. (a cura di) (1969), Systems Thinking, It.trans., La teoria dei sistemi. Presupposti, caratteristiche e sviluppi del pensiero sistemico, Milano: FrancoAngeli 2001.
Ferrarotti F., La perfezione del nulla. Promesse e problemi della rivoluzione digitale, Roma-Bari: Laterza 1997
Feynman R. (1963), Six easy pieces, It.trans., Sei pezzi facili, Adelphi, Milano 2000.
Feynman, R., The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, Basic Books, 2000.
Feyerabend, P.K. (1975), Against Method, It. trans., Contro il metodo, Feltrinelli, Milano 1979.
Floridi L. (2010), Information. A very short introduction, It. trans., La rivoluzione dell’informazione, Codice Edizioni, Torino 2012.
Foerster von H. (1981), Observing Systems, It.trans., Sistemi che osservano, Roma: Astrolabio 1987.
Foucault M., Technologies of the Self. A Seminar with Michel Foucault (1988); It. Trans., Tecnologie del Sé. Un seminario con Michel Foucault, Bollati Boringhieri, Turin 1992
Gallino L., L’incerta alleanza. Modelli di relazioni tra scienze umane e scienze naturali, Torino: Einaudi 1992.
Gallino L., Globalizzazione e disuguaglianze, Laterza, Roma-Bari 2000.
Gell-Mann M. (1994), The Quark and the Jaguar. Adventures in the Simple and the Complex, It.trans., Il quark e il giaguaro. Avventura nel semplice e nel complesso, Torino: Bollati Boringhieri 1996-2017.
Gell-Mann M. (1995), Complexity, New York: Wiley.
Gentili P. L. 2018, Untangling Complex Systems: A Grand Challenge for Science, Boca Raton (FL, USA): CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Gleick, J. Chaos: Making a New Science, N.Y., Viking Press, 1987.
Granovetter M. (1973), The Strength of Weak Ties, in «American Journal of Sociology», 78, pp.1360-80.
Habermas J. (1981a). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Bd.I Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, It.Trans., Teoria dell’agire comunicativo, voll.I, Razionalità nell’azione e razionalizzazione sociale, vol.II, Critica della ragione funzionalistica Bologna: Il Mulino 1986.
Haken H. (1977), Synergetics: An Introduction. Non equilibrium Phase-transitions and Self-organization in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, Heidelberg: Springer (new ed. 1983).
Hammersley M. (2013), The Myth of Research-Based Policy and Practice, It.trans., Il mito dell’evidence-based, Raffaello Cortina, Milano 2016.
Hayek von F.A. (1964), The Theory of Complex Phenomena, in Bunge M., The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy. Essay in Honor of K.R.Popper, New York: Free Press.
Heisenberg W., Physics and Philosophy: the Revolution in Modern Science, Prometheus Books, Buffalo N.Y., 1958
Heisenberg W. (1959, 9*ed.), Wandlungen in den Grundlagen der Naturwissenschaft, It.Trans., Mutamenti nelle basi della scienza, Torino: Bollati Boringhieri 1978
Hess C., Ostrom E. (2007) Understanding Knowledge As a Commons, It.trans., La conoscenza come bene comune. Dalla teoria alla pratica, Milano: Bruno Mondadori, 2009.
Himanen P. (2001) The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age, It.Trans., L’etica hacker e lo spirito dell’età dell’informazione, Milano: Feltrinelli, 2001.
Holland J.H. (1975), Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, University of Michigan Press, Michican: Ann Arbor.
Israel, G., The Science of Complexity. Epistemological Problems and Perspectives, in «Science in Context», 18, Anno 2005, pp.1-31.
Jonas H. (1979), Das Prinzip Verantwortung, Insel Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, It.trans., Il principio responsabilità. Un’etica per la civiltà tecnologica, Torino: Einaudi,1990.
Kauffman S. A. (1971), Gene Regulation Networks. A Theory for Their Global Structure and Behaviours, in «Current Topics in Developmental Biology», 6, pp.145-182.
Kauffman S. A., Origins of Order: Self-Organization and the Nature of History, Oxford Univ. Press, NY 1993
Kiel L. D., Managing chaos and complexity in government. San Francisco: JoseyBass, 1994.
Krugman P. (1996), The Self-organizing Economy, Oxford: Blaclwell, it.trans., Economia e auto-organizzazione, Milano: Giuffrè 2000.
Kuhlmann M., What is Real?, Sci Am.2013 Aug;209(2):40.7) (PubMed).
Kuhn T. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolution, It.trans. La struttura delle rivoluzioni scientifiche, Torino: Einaudi 1969
Lakatos I. – Musgrave A. (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, It.trans., Critica e crescita della conoscenza, Milano: Feltrinelli 1976.
Laszlo E., The Systems view of the World: A Holistic Vision for Our Time, Hampton Press, 1996.
Le Moigne J.-L. (1977), La théorie du système général. Théorie de la modelisation, Paris: Presses Universitaires.
Lorenz E.N., The Essence of Chaos, Univ. of Wash Press, Seattle, 1963
Lovelock J. (1979), Gaia. A New Look at Life on Earth, It.trans., Gaia. Nuove idee sull’ecologia, Torino: Bollati Boringhieri 1981.
Luhmann N. (1984). Soziale Systeme, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1984, It.trans. Sistemi sociali. Fondamenti di una teoria generale, Bologna: Il Mulino 1990.
Luhmann N. (1990). The Autopoiesis of Social Systems, in N.Luhmann, Essays on Self-Reference, New York: Colombia University Press.
Luhmann N. (1986), Okologische Kommunikation. Kann die moderne Gesellschaft
sich auf ökologische Gefährdungen einstellen?, trad.it., Comunicazione ecologica, Può la società moderna adattarsi alle minacce ecologiche?, Milano, FrancoAngeli, 1989.
Mandelbrot B.B. Fractals: forms, chance and dimensions, San Francisco, WH Freeman 1977.
Marshall T.H. (1950), Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002.
Mathews K.M., White M. C., Long R. G., Why Study the Complexity Sciences in the Social Sciences? in Human Relations 25, April 1, 1999, (Sage Journals), pp. 439-461.
Maturana H.R., Varela F.J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition. The Realization of the Living, It.trans., Autopoiesi e cognizione. La realizzazione del vivente, Venezia: Marsilio 1985.
Maturana H.R., Varela F.J. (1985), The Tree of Knowledge, It.trans., L’albero della conoscenza, Milano: Garzanti 1987.
McCall R.; Burge J., Untangling wicked problems in. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 2016, 30, 200–210.
McLuhan M. (1964), Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, It.Trans., Gli strumenti del comunicare, Il Saggiatore, Milano 1987
Mead G.H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society, It.Trans., Mente, Sè e Società, Firenze: Barbera 1966.
Merton R.K. (1965), On the Shoulders of Giants: A Shandean Postscript, It.Trans., Sulle spalle dei giganti, Bologna: Il Mulino 1991.
Minsky M. (1989), The Society of Mind, It.Trans., La società della mente, Milano: Adelphi 2012.
Montuori A., Journeys in Complexity: Autobiographical Accounts by Leading Systems and Complexity Thinkers, Routledge, 2014.
Morin E. (1973), Le paradigme perdu: la nature humaine, It.trans., Il paradigma perduto. Che cos’è la natura umana?, Milano: Feltrinelli 1974.
Morin E. (1977-2004), La Méthode, trad. it. vol I-VI. Il Metodo, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008.
Morin E. (1990), Introduction à la pensèe complexe, It.trans., Introduzione al pensiero complesso, Milano: Sperling & Kupfer 1993.
Morin E. (1999a), Les sept savoirs nécessaires à l’éducation du futur, It.trans., I sette saperi necessari all’educazione del futuro, Milano: Raffaello Cortina 2001.
Morin E. (1999b). La tête bien faite, It.trans., La testa ben fatta. Riforma dell’insegnamento e riforma del pensiero, Milano: Raffaello Cortina 2000.
Morin E. (2015), Penser global. L’homme et son univers, It.trans., 7 lezioni sul Pensiero globale, Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore 2016.
Morin, E., Ciurana, É.-R., Motta, D.R. (2003), Educare per l’era planetaria, Armando, Roma 2004.
Mumford L. (1934). Technics and Civilization, It.Trans., Tecnica e cultura, Milano: Il Saggiatore 1961.
Mumford L. (1967). The Myth of Machine, It.Trans., Il mito della macchina, Milano: Il Saggiatore 1969.
Neumann von J. (1958), The Computer and the Brain, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Neumann von J. (1966), The Theory of Self-reproducing Automata, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Nicolis G.- Nicolis C. (2007), Foundations of Complex Systems, Singapore: World Scientific.
Norris P. (2011). Democratic Deficits: Critical Citizens Revisited, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum M.C. (2010). Not for Profit. Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, Princeton: Princeton University Press, It.Trans., Non per profitto. Perché le democrazie hanno bisogno della cultura umanistica, Bologna: Il Mulino 2011.
Panikkar, R., The Rhythm of Being: The Gifford Lectures, Orbis Book Published, New York, 1989
Parsons T. (1951), The Social System, It.Trans., Il sistema sociale, (intr. di L.Gallino), Milano: Comunità 1965.
Piaget, J. (1970), Psicologia e pedagogia, Torino: Loescher.
Poincaré Henri, “L’Équilibre d’une masse fluide animée d’un mouvement de rotation“. Acta Mathematica, vol.7, pp. 259-380, Sept 1885.
Poincaré J.H.(1908), Science et méthode, trad.it., Scienza e metodo, Einaudi, Torino 1995 (a cura di C.Bartocci).
Popper K.R. (1934), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, It.trans., Logica della scoperta scientifica. Il carattere auto correttivo della scienza, Torino: Einaudi 1970.
Popper K.R. (1994), The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality, It.trans. Il mito della cornice. Difesa della razionalità e della scienza, Il Mulino, Bologna 1995.
Prigogine I. – Stengers I. (1979), La Nouvelle Alliance. Métamorphose de la science, It.trans., La nuova alleanza. Metamorfosi della scienza, Torino: Einaudi 1981.
Prigogine I. – Stengers I. (1984), Order out of Caos, New York: Bentham Books,
Prigogine I., Stengers I., The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature, New York: New York Free Press, 1997.
Putnam R.D.(2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community, It.Trans., Capitale sociale e individualismo. Crisi e rinascita della cultura civica in America, Bologna: Il Mulino 2004.
Rainie L., Wellman B. (2012). Networked: The New Social Operating System, It.trans., Networked. Il nuovo sistema operativo sociale, Milano: Guerini 2012.
Rawls J. (1971). A Theory of Justice, It.Trans., Una teoria della giustizia, Milano: Feltrinelli 1982.
Rifkin J. (2000). The Age of Access, It.Trans., L’era dell’accesso. La rivoluzione della new economy, Milano: Mondatori, 2000.
Robinson, K. (2015), Scuola creativa. Manifesto per una nuova educazione, Erickson, Trento 2016.
Russell B. (1916), Why Men Fight: a Method of Abolishing the International Duel, HardPress Publishing 2013.
Saint-Exupery Antoine de, The Little Prince, Reynal and Hitchcock/Gallimard, Paris 1943.
Sassen S. (1998), Globalization and its Discontents, It.trans., Globalizzati e scontenti. Il destino delle minoranze nel nuovo ordine mondiale, Il Saggiatore, Milano 2002.
Simon H.A. (1997). Models of Bounded Rationality, Volume 3, Empirically Grounded Economic Reason, It.trans., Scienza economica e comportamento umano, Torino: Edizioni di Comunità, 2000.
Simon H.A.(1959), Theories of Decision-making in Economics and Behavioral Science, in “American Economic Review”, 49, pp.253-83.
Simon H.A.(1962), The Architecture of Complexity, in «Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society», 106, pp.467-82
Sloman S., Fernbach P. (2017), The Knowledge Illusion. Why We Never Think Alone, It.trans., L’illusione della conoscenza, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano 2018.
Stewart I., Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos, Blackwell Pub. Oxford 1989.
Stiglitz J.E. (2002), Globalization and Its Discontents, It.Trans., La globalizzazione
e i suoi oppositori, Einaudi, Torino 2002.
Taleb N.N. (2007), The Black Swan, It.Trans., Il cigno nero, come l’improbabile governa la nostra vita, Il Saggiatore, Milano 2007.
Taleb N.N. (2012), Antifragile, It.trans., Antifragile. Prosperare nel disordine, Milano: il Saggiatore 2013.
Tegmark M. (2017), Life 3.0. Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, It.trans., Vita 3.0. Essere umani nell’era dell’intelligenza artificiale, Raffaello Cortina Ed., Milano 2018.
Thompson J.B. (1995), The Media and Modernity. A Social Theory of the Media, It.Trans., Mezzi di comunicazione e modernità, Il Mulino, Bologna 1998
Todorov T.(1995). La vie commune. Essai d’anthropologie générale, It.trans., La vita comune.L’uomo è un essere sociale, Milano: Pratiche Ed. 1998.
Toffler A. (1980), The Third Wave, It.Trans., La Terza Ondata, Sperling & Kupfer, Milano 1987.
Tomlinson J. (1999), Globalization and Culture, It. Trans., Sentirsi a casa nel mondo. La cultura come bene globale, Feltrinelli, Milano 2001.
Touraine A. (2004), Un nouveau paradigme. Pour comprendre le monde au jourd’hui, trad.it., La globalizzazione e la fine del sociale. Per comprendere il mondo contemporaneo, Il Saggiatore, Milano 2008.
Turing A.M. (1950), Computing Machinery and Intelligence, in, Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psicology and Philosophy, 59, 1950, pp. 433-460.
Turing A.M. (a cura di Gabriele Lolli), Collected Works of A.M.Turing. Mechanical Intelligence, It.Trans., Intelligenza Meccanica, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino 1994.
Turner J.R., Baker R. M., Complexity Theory: An Overview with Potential Applications for the Social Sciences. Systems 2019 7(1) (MDPI Journals), https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/7/1/4/htm
Watzlawick P., Helmick Beavin J., Jackson D.D. (1967), Pragmatic of Human Communication. A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes, It.trans., Pragmatica della comunicazione umana. Studio dei modelli interattivi, delle patologie e dei paradossi, Roma: Astrolabio 1971.
Weaver W., (Rockefeller Foundation, New York City), “Science and Complexity“, in, American Scientist, 36: 536 (1948).
Weber M. (1922a). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre It.trans., Il metodo delle scienze storico-sociali, Torino: Einaudi, 1958.
Weber M. (1922b), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie,
It.Trans., Economia e società. Lineamenti di sociologia comprendente, Milano: Comunità, 1961 (5 voll.)
Weick K.E., The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1993, 38: 628-652.
Wiener N. (1948), Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, It.trans., La cibernetica, Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1968.
Wiener N. (1950), The Human Use of Human Beings, It.trans., Introduzione alla cibernetica. L’uso umano degli esseri umani, Torino: Bollati Boringhieri 1966.
