ABSTRACT
In dierent contexts there are dierent criteria for what qualies as sound knowledge. To a large extent, science still makes use of a traditional understanding of knowledge that derives from Enlightenment thinking. is approach relies on objective experimentation, logical deduction and reductive thinking. Despite the usefulness of this approach, it cannot be used with success when dealing with complex systems. Complexity theory realizes this, but much of the work done in complexity reverts to the traditional reductive criteria. It is argued here that an acknowledgement of the complexity of the issues we deal with implies an acknowledgement of the limits of the knowledge we can have about them. A complex system can be given several dierent descriptions that are not reducible to each other, but are not arbitrary either. Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities should not be made to t traditional scientic criteria, they should be used to reect on these criteria critically. In this paper, following Morin, a distinction is made between “restricted complexity” and “general complexity”. It is shown that restricted complexity does not escape the old rationality. e introduction of a more radical understanding of complexity leads to a critical position that does not allow “scientic” knowledge to trump all other forms of knowledge. ere is an inescapable normative dimension to all things complex. is implies that the claims we make about complex things are always provisional and limited. Such claims should thus be made with a certain humility.
