Chaotic Silent Sands

Introduction

Chaos is a new way of understanding the social order. Rather than a perverse paradox, this assertion is based on the various developments of chaos theory in the natural sciences and mathematics (Barnsley 1988; Crutchfield et al, 1986 Dewdney 1985, Gleick 1987, Mandelbrot 1983; Mullin, 1993 ). Over the past two decades, chaos theory has been applied in many fields of theoretical and applied science (Baier and Klein, 1991, Cohen and Stewart, 1994; Davies and Gribbin 1992, Gleick 1987, Hao 1990; Holden 1986, Moon 1987; Mullin, 1993; Rasband 1990; Ruelle 1989), including some social sciences (Brown, 1994; Chen; Dendrinos and Sonis 1990; Gell-Mann 47-48; Goodwin, 1990; Hao 573-632 ; Holton and May, Kiel and Elliott 1996; Lewin 44-62; Nicolis 1991). Applications will however, have used chaos theory as a mathematical tool integrated in the conceptual framework rather than a conventional alternative conceptual framework that could illuminate even the social order from which chaos theory has arisen. To serve conceptually chaos theory must be understood conceptually.

In this article, I do not produce mathematical models or computer simulations and I do not offer rich new data. I also certainly do not use the chaos as a metaphor. This is not a literary exercise designed to decorate the social sciences with another image, such that the machine body, the deductive system, or adversarial (Morgan, 1986).

It might seem appropriate to chaos group with these metaphors heuristics. These metaphors have been used in the social sciences to approach and explore phenomena that were thought to be otherwise intractable to scientific scrutiny. However, the success of many research efforts in mathematics, physics, life and social sciences in identifying different types of chaotic dynamics suggests that chaos should be grouped with metaphors, but with the known types of order such that linear deterministic, stochastic and random.

This group stresses that I use chaos as a theory, not as a model (Harvey and Reed 309). My use of chaos theory and is therefore non-semantic (Richards 98). This group does not deny that much of existing research has considered the chaos as the result of changes in the parameters of deterministic systems. Chaos is widely regarded as deterministic chaos. It also claims the discovery of chaotic dynamics of social science data (Kiel and Elliot) when the social situations of data production can not be reduced to linear deterministic principles or equations. This assertion seems to flow from the possibility that chaos is an order type that is not strictly dependent deterministic systems of its existence. Indeed, as a type of order, chaos can be the first clear, non-reductionist link between certain specific conditions in the physical and digital systems, such as phase transitions, and a pervasive quality of spontaneous social reality. Rather than a fad or a metaphor of place, chaos can be one small window into a new and better way to understand human life including determinism, stochasticity and random.

Grouping chaos with the known types of policy frameworks chaos as an understandable form of order rather than as a metaphor for some incomprehensible condition. In addition to being aligned more useful, this group also raises a deeper question of philosophy and foundations of social science. This question defines the horizon of my inquiry here: What properties must the universe (social) have to present the four types of order?

Considering the chaos as an order type that allows me to use the results of experiments designed to pave the conceptual chaos that the social order ..