Dynamic Robustness and Design in Nature and Artifact

3Citations
Citations of this article
4Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

A goal of this volume is to build on the pathbreaking work by experts such as Bill Wimsatt and Andy Pickering in order to develop a more robust account of robustness. However, the idea may be so multifaceted that no single account will do. I shall canvass a few basic ideas of robustness, popular and technical, and then address such questions as: What is the relation of robustness to fragility or brittleness? Can a system be completely robust? Are decentralized, distributed systems potentially more robust than centralized ones? Which network topologies are more robust than others? What, if anything, do power laws have to do with robustness and with Wimsatt’s “generative entrenchment”? Is there an interesting connection between robustness and design? Robustness and innovation? Robustness and scientific revolutions? Robustness, heuristics, experimental design, and novel prediction? Robustness and realism? My central claim, supported by a diverse body of literature, is that robustness is deeply related to fragility. Rather than vanquishing fragility, complex robustness shifts its location. More than that, complex robustness can actually generate fragility where none existed before.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nickles, T. (2012). Dynamic Robustness and Design in Nature and Artifact. In Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science (Vol. 292, pp. 329–360). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2759-5_14

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free