<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Overview of Complexity Science</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2009/04/16/overview-of-complexity-science/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2009/04/16/overview-of-complexity-science/</link>
	<description>learning, networks, knowledge, technology, community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat,  4 Feb 2012 22:56:23 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kees Pieters</title>
		<link>http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2009/04/16/overview-of-complexity-science/comment-page-1/#comment-44936</link>
		<dc:creator>Kees Pieters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:39:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/?p=3922#comment-44936</guid>
		<description>You may want to include Edgar Morin in the graph! H is taking a more radical view on complexity (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Complexity-Advances-Systems-Theory-Sciences/dp/1572738014/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1269125428&amp;sr=8-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;On Complexity&lt;/a&gt; in which he states ---which I believe--- that complexity basically means that we are working with limited knowledge. This stance takes a more epistemological stance of complexity, and is probably going to be a very interesting field of enquiry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You may want to include Edgar Morin in the graph! H is taking a more radical view on complexity (see <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Complexity-Advances-Systems-Theory-Sciences/dp/1572738014/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1269125428&amp;sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">On Complexity</a> in which he states &#8212;which I believe&#8212; that complexity basically means that we are working with limited knowledge. This stance takes a more epistemological stance of complexity, and is probably going to be a very interesting field of enquiry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Complexity and chaos theory &#171; Edmusings</title>
		<link>http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2009/04/16/overview-of-complexity-science/comment-page-1/#comment-34305</link>
		<dc:creator>Complexity and chaos theory &#171; Edmusings</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:44:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/?p=3922#comment-34305</guid>
		<description>[...] this way, it becomes overwhelming. However, I think current thinkers, such as Stephen Downes and George Siemens, are starting to examine new ways of learning, which I consider draws somewhat on complexity [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] this way, it becomes overwhelming. However, I think current thinkers, such as Stephen Downes and George Siemens, are starting to examine new ways of learning, which I consider draws somewhat on complexity [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Allan</title>
		<link>http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2009/04/16/overview-of-complexity-science/comment-page-1/#comment-11362</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Allan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/?p=3922#comment-11362</guid>
		<description>Kia ora George!

Nice one! I agree with you about the relative position of network theory and more so with chaos theory. Nevertheless, as you pointed out, the map is a splendid overview of the players.

There have been several who have made inroads to complexity over the decades, but like any &#039;science&#039; that is moved into the limelight and with all the accompanying new terms invented by those who expound about it, there will always be claims that the study is new. Just take cybernetics, as an example - how far back can we go with that?

Catchya later
from Middle-earth</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kia ora George!</p>
<p>Nice one! I agree with you about the relative position of network theory and more so with chaos theory. Nevertheless, as you pointed out, the map is a splendid overview of the players.</p>
<p>There have been several who have made inroads to complexity over the decades, but like any &#8216;science&#8217; that is moved into the limelight and with all the accompanying new terms invented by those who expound about it, there will always be claims that the study is new. Just take cybernetics, as an example &#8211; how far back can we go with that?</p>
<p>Catchya later<br />
from Middle-earth</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

