You are on page 1of 27

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,!

Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page .

Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations Theory


Robert M. Cutler, Institute o$ &uropean and Russian Studies, Carleton )ni/ersity, Canada (eer-re/iewed and publis ed in Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, 0 ttp%11www.eolss.net2. .. Introduction +. Complexity Science% Its &pistemological and #ntological Signi$icance +... Issues o$ t e 'e/el o$ 3nalysis 4ocus on &mergence +.+. Issues o$ t e Scope o$ 3nalysis 4ocus on Stability and C ange +.5. Issues o$ t e Scale o$ 3nalysis 4ocus on Sel$-organi6ation 5. 7ow Complexity Science #/ert rows 'a8atos9s Met odology o$ Researc 5... T e Meaning o$ a :(roblems i$t: under Complexity Science 5.+. 3n &xample o$ t e Crucial *ature o$ a :(roblems i$t: ;. T e 'ogical 4oundation o$ :Complex <usti$icationism: =. Conclusion% 3 4urt er 3genda $or Complexity Science in International Studies >ibliograp y 3ppendix . (rograms

Summary
T is article demonstrates ow 'a8atos built is systems o$ ?usti$icationism and $alsi$icationism upon t e $oundation o$ Curry@s $ormalist mat ematics. Its $undamental result establis es t e logical status o$ complexity science as distinct $rom and superseding t ose existing systems o$ proo$ and re$utation commonly ac8nowledged in social science met odology in particular and scienti$ic epistemology in general. It establis es t at t is result, concerning t e logico-mat ematical status o$ complexity-based scienti$ic reasoning, is not restricted eit er to t e $ield o$ international relations t eory in particular
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page +

or to t e social sciences in general. T e article begins by setting out signi$icance o$ complexity science $or international relations t eory by explaining its epistemological and ontological signi$icance $or t e le/el o$ analysis, scope o$ analysis, and scale o$ analysis. It t en explains ow t ese points demolis 'a8atos9s met odology o$ researc programs as an epistemology $or scienti$ic progress. In particular, it dissects is construct o$ t e problems i$t! $or de/elopments not only wit in a single researc program but also $or s i$ts $rom one researc program to anot er. 4or t is purpose, it presents a detailed example o$ t eoretical de/elopment drawn $rom applied international relations t eory. T e example analy6es t e succession o$ Aestern t eories o$ t e domestic politics o$ So/iet $oreign-policy ma8ing during t e $irst al$ o$ t e Cold Aar. T e article analy6es t e epistemology o$ scienti$ic progress in erent in complexity science, as illustrated in t at example. It describes t is as complex ?usti$icationism,! sets it wit in a complex scienti$ic-realist! ontology, and sets out, in complexity-science terms, se/eral 8ey issues wit w ic international relations t eory as begun to grapple at t e beginning o$ t e twenty-$irst century. It argues ow complexity science pro/ides a basis $or understanding t e interrelatedness o$ t ese issues and treating t em compre ensi/ely. It underlines t at t e epistemological undergirding o$ t at argument is /alid across $ields, disciplines and uni/erses o$ inBuiry.

lossary
!utopoiesis" T e capacity o$ a complex system autonomously to establis and pursue goals t at it as itsel$ generated. Classical implicati#e lattice" 3 mat ematical ob?ect representing a type o$ $ully ordered set a/ing certain properties. Complex system" 3 system a/ing multiple interacting components, o$ w ic t e o/erall be a/ior cannot be in$erred simply $rom t e be a/ior o$ components. Complexity science" T e study o$ complex systems. $pistemogony" 3 set o$ logics about ypot esis-generation, "dis-con$irmation, and ow to generate t e conseBuences "dis-con$irmation, t at, toget er wit t e rules structuring t eir mutual relations ips, produces a class o$ epistemologies. %alsi&icationism" T e doctrine t at scienti$ic 8nowledge consists o$ t eories t at a/e not been $alsi$ied, re?ected, or replaced by ot er t eories. 3n insistence on $alsi$ication "trut - c aracteri6es dogmatic $alsi$icationismC an insistence on re?ection "admissibilityT is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page 5

c aracteri6es naD/e $alsi$icationismC and an insistence on replacement "a better t eory must be ready to and- c aracteri6es sop isticated $alsi$icationism. %araday's criterion" T e epistemological premise t at a t eoretical entity represents a real entity only i$ it can be s own to a/e e$$ects by itsel$ and not merely w ile c anging, or acting in concert wit ot er entities. %irst-order cybernetics" T e cybernetics o$ systems t at are obser/ed, distinguis ed $rom t ose o$ systems t at obser/e. Implicati#e semilattice" 3 mat ematical ob?ect representing a type o$ partially ordered set a/ing certain properties. (usti&icationism" T e doctrine t at scienti$ic 8nowledge consists o$ pro/en or ig ly probable propositions. 3n insistence on pro/ability c aracteri6es ?usti$icationismC an insistence on ig probability c aracteri6es neo-?usti$icationism. Macrotheory" 3n articulated preconception concerning a middle-range! t eory t at, by including criteria o$ rele/ance t at are sub?ect to contest, permits not only t e t eory@s results but also its met ods to be /eri$ied, and t at also pro/ides t e possibility o$ t ose results leading to new middle-range synt eses. Mesole#el" 3 le/el o$ obser/ation and analysis situated between t e macrole/el and microle/el, and mediating t eir relations. )eirce's *aw" 3 $orm o$ t e denial o$ t e 'aw o$ &xcluded Middle $irst stated by C.S. (eirce. )roblemshi&t" 'a8atos@s original term, describing ow empirical $indings in$luence a researc program@s epistemology and ontology, discarded early on, w en e began to concentrate on de/elopments wit in indi/idual researc programs, ne/er directly addressing ow one researc program supersedes anot er. Scienti&ic realism" 3n epistemogony according to w ic t e world is independent o$ our 8nowledge-gat ering acti/ities and science is t e best way to explore it. Second-order cybernetics" T e cybernetics o$ systems t at obser/e, distinguis ed $rom t ose o$ systems t at are obser/ed.

T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page ;

Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations Theory


Robert M. Cutler 0rmcEalum.mit.edu2

+. Introduction
Complexity science is t e study o$ complex systems. 3 complex system is a system a/ing multiple interacting components, o$ w ic t e o/erall be a/ior cannot be in$erred simply $rom t e be a/ior o$ components. Complexity science spans scales $rom particle $ields to in$ormation mec anics "p ysical analysis o$ t e dynamics o$ in$ormation transmission- and adapti/e systems "learning and consciousness, including neural systems-, to uman society, ecosystems and extraterrestrial space. T ese p enomena all s are t e Bualities o$ a sel$-organi6ing networ8. 4rom t eir study, new met odologies and concepts o$ t e nature o$ reality a/e emerged. In international relations, t e emergence o$ an interconnected global ci/ili6ation mani$ests t is sort o$ complexity. In 8nowledgecreation, so do t e cross-$ertili6ation and merging o$ academic speciali6ations into e/er newer and more numerous interdisciplinary sub$ields. T e next section below sets out import o$ complexity science in general and $or international relations t eory in particular. T e epistemological and ontological signi$icance is explained $or t e le/el o$ analysis, scope o$ analysis, and scale o$ analysis. T en it is explained ow t ese points demolis 'a8atos9s met odology o$ researc programs as an epistemology $or scienti$ic progress. In particular, it dissects t e construct o$ t e problems i$t! $or de/elopments not only wit in a single researc program but also $or s i$ts $rom one researc program to anot er. 4or t is a detailed case study is also gi/en, drawn $rom applied international relations t eory. T e epistemology o$ scienti$ic progress in erent in complexity science is t en analy6ed, and it is described as complex ?usti$icationism! wit in a complex scienti$ic-realist! ontology. T e conclusion sets out in complexity-science terms, a $ew non-ex austi/e issues wit w ic international relations t eory as recently begun to attempt to deal. It indicates ow complexity science captures t eir interrelatedness and pro/ides t e $oundation $or t eir compre ensi/e treatment.

,. Complexity Science" Its $pistemological and -ntological Signi&icance


Complexity! is neit er complicatedness, o/erdetermination, nor a multiplication o$ explanatory /ariables. It is not merely a new implement to be added to an existing
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page =

t eoretical tool-8it. Complexity science is a $undamentally new way o$ loo8ing at p ysical, biological, and social p enomena. It is a cross-disciplinary $ield wit its own approac to 8nowledge-creation t at includes a set o$ met odological approac es to problemati6ation. 3s suc , it o$$ers distinct and inno/ati/e perspecti/es on t e e/olution o$ international systems and on t e be a/iors o$ actors in t em. Certain insig ts are /alid uni/ersally across all complex p enomena. T ese insig ts are epistemological and ontological. T ey concern t e le/el o$ analysis, t e scale o$ analysis, and t e scope o$ analysis.

,.+. Issues o& the *e#el o& !nalysis %ocus on $mergence


Issues o$ t e le/el o$ analysis draw attention principally to t e category o$ emergence. &mergence is t e e/olution o$ new "Bualitati/e- p enomena t roug a system9s interaction wit t e en/ironment. #ntological issues concerning t e le/el o$ analysis include t e dependence o$ t e w ole on parts, t e interdependence o$ parts, and speciali6ation o$ parts. Since studying parts in isolation does not wor8, a good place to start is to loo8 at ow c anges in one part may a$$ect t e ot ers and t e be a/ior o$ t e w ole. T e increased political-science interest in counter$actuals in t e .FF,s, a$ter t e end o$ t e Cold Aar, re$lects ow una/oidable t is aspect o$ complexity as become a$ter t e top-down international ierarc y o$ t at era collapsed. T e reconstruction o$ t e international system $rom t e bottom up a$ter t e Cold Aar t us presents issues concerning t e le/el o$ analysis o$ w ic complexity science o$$ers distincti/e treatment. T e multiplication and incorporation o$ new issue areas in international politics and security mani$est not ing less t an an emergent Buality o$ 8nowledge t at re$lects t e complexity o$ t e real world. T is includes t e w ole growt o$ Buestions about deterritoriali6ed aspects o$ international politics. Speci$ically, it adds problems o$ boundary-de$inition in issue-area space to t ose t at are e/ident in geopolitical space. Concerning t e latter, t e recon$iguration o$ international regions in t e early twenty-$irst century and t eir increased relati/e autonomy o$ great power con$lict, in comparison wit t e Cold Aar system, are exemplary. 3lt oug distinctions among superpowers, great powers, and regional powers a/e not disappeared, middlerange and lower-le/el p enomena a/e become t e predominant moti/e $orces in an international system t at sel$-organi6es $rom bottom up. &pistemological issues concerning t e le/el o$ analysis $orce t e analyst to recogni6e t at describing t e be a/ior o$ a system in response to its en/ironment is neit er straig t$orward nor uncomplicated. Since t e amount o$ in$ormation a/ailable and necessary $or suc description grows exponentially wit t e complexity o$ t e
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page G

en/ironment, psyc ological be a/iorismHindeed any strict p enomenology at allHis ill$ounded. T at is because, in suc an in$ormation-ric en/ironment, t e use o$ in$erence to obtain description and analysis $rom small amounts o$ in$ormation becomes problematic. T e signi$icance o$ ow we t in8 "or $ail to t in8- about thinking is t us en anced.

,.,. Issues o& the Scope o& !nalysis %ocus on Stability and Change
3lso t ere are issues o$ t e scope o$ t e analysis. T ese draw attention principally to t e dual category o$ stability-and-c ange. T is category subsumes adaptation, pattern $ormation, and e/olution. 3s suc , it $orces t e Buestion o$ learning, including organi6ational learning. It also balances issues o$ emergence "suc as transnational networ8s about nonterritorial issues- wit eBually important territorial aspects o$ world politics "suc as t e sel$-organi6ation o$ regional international systems and t e relations among t em-. #ntological issues concerning t e scope o$ analysis raise still deeper Buestions about t e relations ip between t e w ole and t e parts. 3 complexity-based $ocus on stability and c ange establis es t at multiple stable states exist "i.e., not ?ust *as eBuilibria!- as well as meta-stable states. I$ and w en a single component o$ a system controls its collecti/e be a/ior, t en t e collecti/e be a/ior cannot be more complex t an t e indi/idual be a/ior. T e superpower nuclear bipolarity o$ t e Cold Aar is an example s owing ow a dominant component o$ a system can restrain its collecti/e be a/ior. In suc an instance, t ere is no emergent complexity, and t e Buestion o$ stability and c ange ardly arises. Iet new complex systems may be $ormed $rom t e recombination o$ parts or aspects o$ ot er complex systems. Indeed, suc composites permit rapid e/olution. &pistemological issues concerning t e scope o$ analysis under complexity, li8e t ose concerning t e le/el o$ analysis, raise Buestions about t e use o$ in$erence to obtain t e description $rom a seemingly smaller amount o$ in$ormation. T e use o$ in$erence in suc a situation leads to t e concept o$ algorit mic complexity.! T is in turn raises suc issues as t e relations ip between descriptions and systems, t e connection between t eory and simulations, and about t e conceptual status o$ models used in simulations.

,... Issues o& the Scale o& !nalysis %ocus on Sel&-organi/ation


Issues o$ t e scale o$ analysis draw attention to t e category o$ sel$-organi6ation. &pistemological issues about t e scale o$ analysis arise $rom t e $act t at under complexity, $ine scales in$luence large-scale be a/ior. To understand complex systems
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page J

t ere$ore reBuires multi-scale descriptions. Iet t e degree o$ complexity t at is apparent, also depends on t e scale at w ic t e system is described. #ntological Buestions about t e scale o$ analysis arise $rom t e $act t at t e apparent complexity o$ a system depends on t e scale at w ic t e system is described. 4or example, a reBuirement o$ complexity on a large scale is to establis correlations on a small scale% t ese reduce t e o/erall "t oug not necessarily e/eryw ere local- smaller-scale complexity. 3 complexity-t eory concept t at we may call mesole/el! structuration cuts t roug t e structure-/s.-agent! 8not. T e trans$ormation and succession o$ international orders, $or example, is triggered by properties emergent $rom "re-structuration on t e mesole/el. Sel$-organi6ing international regions, mani$esting as emergent multilateral networ8s, are t e categorical p enomenon c aracteri6ing t e postKCold Aar transition. T ese include not only continental regional international subsystems "e.g., &urope and Sout east 3sia-, but also littoral regional international subsystems "e.g., (aci$ic Rim, >altic, and Caspian-. Sel$-organi6ation at t e mesole/el is an emergent Buality o$ t e complex system. T e new territorial aspects o$ contemporary world politics t ereby lead to t e concept o$ sel$organi6ed criticality. T at in turn in/ites consideration o$ t e global political system and its components as complex adapti/e systems. 4rom t is it would $ollow t at t ose systems are capable o$ learning and o$ pro-acti/e be a/ior t at s apes t eir own en/ironment. T e c aracter o$ t e postKCold Aar transition is as t e problemati6ation o$ nontraditional issue areas o$ international public policy in security terms "e.g., en/ironmental security, uman security-. T e tas8 o$ policy analysis in a sel$-organi6ing complex system is to identi$y crucial intermediate points w ere cogniti/e and organi6ational inter/ention will instantiate large-scale restructuring o$ t e system itsel$. It $ollows $rom t e ontological components o$ complexity science, t at t e de$inition o$ a researc problem as no a priori re$erent in t e world at large t at is independent o$ t e researc er9s re$lection. T e application o$ complexity science to international relations t eory t ere$ore opens $undamental Buestions. Since t e traditional analytical distinctions t at once structured t e le/els o$ analysis! problem are no longer /alid, t e standard solution to t at problem is no longer reliable. 4or example, t e emergence and incipient consolidation o$ regional international systems, as a distincti/e c aracteristic o$ t e global postKCold Aar transition illustrates t at t e t ree standard le/els o$ analysisHt e indi/idual, t e state, and t e internationalHare no longer collecti/ely ex austi/e. T e new situation reBuires not only new t eoretical categories but also new categories o$ t eory and new concepts o$ 8nowledge creation.

T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page L

.. 0ow Complexity Science -#erthrows *a1atos2s Methodology o& Research )rograms


Complexity science recogni6es t at t e world as a di$$erent nature t an ereto$ore supposed. It t us c allenges t e criteria according to w ic t eories are to be ?udged and t e met ods by w ic 8nowledge is to be cumulated. In particular, t e models o$ reasoning t at are reBuired to deal wit a complex world must go beyond t e well-8nown 'a8atosian $ormulae o$ t e $i/e types o$ ?usti$icationism and $alsi$icationism. Complexity science opens a new way to create 8nowledge about t e world, because it is $ounded upon t e interdependence between t at 8nowledge and t is world. It does not reBuire eit er t e adoption o$ relati/ism or t e introduction o$ anarc y into t e mar8et o$ ideas. It merely establis es t at we a/e reac ed a stage in t eory-construction w ere 'a8atos9s well-8nown and widely adopted model o$ scienti$ic progress, called t e met odology o$ scienti$ic researc programs,! no longer adeBuately describes t e creation o$ scienti$ic 8nowledge.

..+. The Meaning o& a 3)roblemshi&t4 under Complexity Science


To assist in suc a clari$ication, it is use$ul to introduction t e notion o$ epistemogony.! <ust as a cosmogony may generate a class o$ t eories o$ cosmology, or 7esiod9s Theogony generated t e class o$ t eologies t at are collecti/ely called classical Mree8 myt ology, so an epistemogony may be said to generate a class o$ epistemologies "e.g., (opper, Ku n, 'a8atos-. 4or example, scienti$ic realism is an epistemogony. T e comparati/e examination o$ (opper, Ku n, and 'a8atos re/eals t at an epistemogony as t ree components% a logic o$ ypot esis generation, a logic o$ ypot esis testing "i.e., a logic o$ t e process o$ con$irmation-, and a logic o$ generating conseBuences $rom "dis-con$irmation. In any epistemogony, eac o$ t ese may be eit er inducti/e or deducti/e. )nder scienti$ic realism, at least two o$ t e t ree must be deducti/e. Table . summari6es t e distinctions ere immediately enumerated. It also adds ontological and epistemological distinctions t at are $ully explicated below and in Table +. #n t is basis it is possible to distinguis systematically among Ku n, (opper, and 'a8atos. .. (opper is completely syllogistic% e is deducti/ist regarding t e logic o$ ypot esis generation and treats t e logic o$ t e process o$ con$irmation, also in deducti/ist manner, as inseparable $rom t e logic o$ generating conseBuences $rom "dis-con$irmation. +. Ku n9s c allenge to (opper asserts t e logic o$ ypot esis generation to be inducti/e% t us t e role o$ t e critical experiment.! 7owe/er, Ku n remains deducti/ist as regards t e logic o$ ypot esis testing. 'i8e (opper, e did not explicitly distinguis between t e
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page F

epistemological status o$ t e con$irmation process itsel$ versus t e process o$ generating t e conseBuences o$ "dis-con$irmation. T is ne/ert eless t reatened to o/ert row (opper9s model o$ t e progressi/e cumulation o$ 8nowledge. 5. 'a8atos9s attempt to sa/e (opper consisted, $irst, in maintaining, against Ku n and wit (opper, t at t e logic o$ ypot esis generation remained deducti/e, not inducti/eC and, second, in splitting t e ypot esis-testing logic into a logic o$ con$irmation and a logic o$ t e generation o$ t e conseBuences o$ "dis-con$irmation. To con$ound Ku n, 'a8atos admitted t at t e logic o$ t e con$irmation process mig t be inducti/e. To conser/e (opper9s premise o$ t e progressi/e cumulation o$ 8nowledge, owe/er, e maintained t at t e conseBuences o$ discon$irmation were deducti/ely, not inducti/ely establis ed. 'a8atos9s /e icle $or t is re/ision was is splitting t e researc program into a positi/e euristic! and a negati/e euristic! "o$ w ic t e latter e subseBuently relabelled t e ard core,! dropping t e ad?ecti/e $rom t e $ormer-, and is ad?oining to t e latter o$ a protecti/e belt! proper to t e gi/en researc program. >y t is arti$ice e was able to suggest t at an ot erwise apparently anarc ic succession o$ Ku nian paradigms in $act represented t e de/elopment o$ t eory wit in a single researc program .

Logic of:

)-))$R

K506

*!K!T-S

C-M)*$7IT8 SCI$6C$ Neducti/e Neducti/e

7ypot esis generation 7ypot esis testing "same as (rocess o$ con$irmationMenerating conseBuences o$ "dis-con$irmation

Neducti/e Neducti/e

Inducti/e Neducti/e

Neducti/e Inducti/e

Neducti/e

Neducti/e

Neducti/e

Inducti/e

Table +. )opper, Kuhn, *a1atos, and Complexity Science 9istinguished as to Their *ogics.

Table . summari6es and explicates t ese di$$erences. Table + distinguis es t em t roug t e use o$ 4eyerabend9s enumeration o$ types o$ scienti$ic realism, w ic e de/eloped $rom an inspection o$ t e istory o$ modern p ysical science, and wit out direct re$erence to (opper, Ku n, or 'a8atos.

T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page .,

Logic of:

Type o& Scienti&ic Realism :%eyerabend's taxonomy; %irst type" (ositi/e 8nowledge is p ilosop ically assumed to be possible. T eories are non$alsi$iable on t eir own terms.

-ntological and epistemological premises Ontological and epistemological premises are not distinguished. 3 t eory is true not ?ust because it $its t e $acts but because it ".- leads to no/el predictions and "+- does not $ail w en applied to similar topics. It remains true w et er one begins wit premises and passes to obser/ations, or /ice /ersa. Ontological premise: Scienti$ic t eories introduce new entities wit new properties and new causal e$$ects. 7owe/er% Epistemological premise !"araday#s criter$ ion!%: 3 t eoretical entity represents a real entity only i$ it can be s own to a/e e$$ects by itsel$ and not merely w ile c anging, or acting in concert wit ot er entities.

Popper

Kuhn

Second type" T e purpose o$ t eory is to delimit reality.

Lakatos

Third type" Researc programs succeed one anot er t roug empirical $alsi$ication. 7owe/er, two mutually incommensurate euristics may coexist. (roblems i$ts are de$initional. <Mach-Maxwell< type" Complexity-generated processes o$ emergence produce problems i$ts t at appear to moti/ate t e re/ision o$ a researc program9s euristic. 7owe/er, t e euristic cannot be considered isolated $rom t e ard core% problems i$ts modi$y t e ard core.

&enies ontology. Epistemological premise s%: Two-layer model o$ 8nowledge% T eoretical issues are not ontological but in/ol/e t e c oice among systems o$ correlations o$ sense impressions. Ontological premise: T eoretical entities do not represent any real entities unless t e p enomena $ollow t e ypot eses in e/ery detail. Epistemological premise drops "araday#s criterion%: T e interpretation o$ an obser/ation language is determined by t e t eories w ic are used to explain w at we obser/e, and suc an interpretation c anges as soon as t ose t eories c ange.

Complexity Science

Table ,. )opper, Kuhn, *a1atos, and Complexity Science 9istinguished as to Their %irst )remises.

.. T e $irst type o$ scienti$ic realism does not di$$erentiate in practice between ontology and epistemology. 3ccording to it, a t eory is /eri$ied not simply by $itting t e $actsC it must lead to no/el predictions and not $ail w en applied to topics similar to t ose w ere success was ac ie/ed. T is accords wit (opper9s conceptions.
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page ..

+. T e second type o$ scienti$ic realism posits ontologically t at scienti$ic t eories introduce new entities wit new properties and new causal e$$ects but ad?oins to it t e epistemological reBuirement, w ic 4eyerabend calls 4araday9s criterion,! t at a t eoretical entity represents a real entity only i$ it can be s own to a/e e$$ects by itsel$ and not merely w ile c anging, or acting in concert wit ot er entities. 4araday9s criterion re/eals t at t is second type o$ scienti$ic realism is constrained by t e epistemic limitations o$ $ield t eory. 5. T e t ird type o$ scienti$ic realism denies t at t eories are ontological at all. It maintains t at t e c oice among systems is only a c oice among correlations o$ sense impressions. It amounts merely to asserting t at one depicted image o$ suc correlations is pre$erable to anot er. Indeed, its corresponding p ilosop ical doctrine o$ t e reality o$ t e external world asserts not ing ot er t an suc a pre$erence. T is notion accords wit 'a8atos9s conceptions and is so strongly in$ormed by positi/ist in/estigations t at 4eyerabend called it t e positi/istic /ersion! o$ scienti$ic realism. ;. 3s Tables . and + indicate, t ere is a $ourt type o$ scienti$ic realism t at 4eyerabend mentions. 4or it e gi/es t e examples o$ Mac and Maxwell. 7e does not compre ensi/ely de/elop it. This fourth type of scientific realism is the type of scientific realism proper to comple'ity science. Its ontological premise is t at t eoretical entities do not represent real entities unless t e p enomena $ollow t e ypot eses in e/ery detail. Its epistemological premise is t at t e interpretation o$ an obser/ation language is determined by t e t eories used to explain obser/ations, and t at interpretation c anges as soon as t ose t eories c ange. T is is understandable in lig t o$ 4eyerabend9s analysis o$ t e /arieties o$ ?usti$icationism. It s eds lig t on t e recent de/elopment o$ rationalist! international relations t eory. A at 4eyerabend calls t e probabilistic approac to ?usti$icationismH t e same as 'a8atosian neo-?usti$icationismHtypi$ies statistics-oriented be a/ioralism. T is as lately lost muc o$ its intellectual egemony, i$ not legitimacy. T is crisis o$ social-science be a/ioralism in international relations t eory explains t e positi/ists9 panic8ed searc o$ t e extra-disciplinary literature on nationalism $or conceptual tools a$ter t e end o$ t e Cold Aar. T is searc culminated in t e marriage between neorealism and neoliberalism under t e tent o$ rational c oice t eory. T is marriage represents not ing ot er t an t e $urt er depsyc ologi6ation o$ t e conceptual apparatus. It is a c oice in $a/or o$ w at 4eyerabend calls t e transcendental-idealist solution to ?usti$icationism. Its s ortcomings notably include its reduction o$ t e national interest to mat emati6ed sel$-preser/ation.! T e early post-So/iet exploration o$ nationalism by social scientists, as a basis $or international relations t eory reBuiring t e systematic and rigorous reintroduction o$ t e multidimensional analysis o$ t e national interest,
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page .+

mani$ested t e solution t at 4eyerabend counterposes to probabilism as well as to transcendental-idealism, and w ic e calls con/entionalism. T e nature o$ con/entionalism describes so well t e intrinsic met od o$ complexity science t at it is wort an extended citation. It will be seen t at t is completes t e description o$ t e $ourt type o$ scienti$ic realism sc emati6ed in Table .. Con/entionalism says t at a t eory is ?usti$ied because it brings some order into t e 8nown $acts and pro/ides concepts and ordering principles $or t ings as yet to be disco/ered. T e order is ne/er complete, $or t ere are always recalcitrant p enomena. T is does not in/alidate t e c osen sc eme but c allenges its de$enders to rebuild t e p enomena until t ey $it into it. T e sc eme is c osen eit er because it easily accounts $or some empirical regularities "empirically moti/ated con/entionalism-, or because it $ollows $rom certain t eoretical postulates "t e Ninglerian /ersion, an exegesis o$ Mac -. #nce t e sc eme is accepted and incorporated into scienti$ic practice, it Buite automatically trans$orms t e $acts and t us remo/es any criticism on t e basis o$ experience.! T is Mac 1Maxwell type o$ scienti$ic realism also $ills an important lacuna in 'a8atos. Speci$ically, it answers t e Buestion as to ow problems i$ts! moti/ate t e e/olution $rom one researc program to anot er. 3ccording to 'a8atos, t e replacement o$ one researc program is in $act a special 8ind o$ problems i$t. 7owe/er, e used t e idea o$ a problems i$t to $ocus on typologi6ing t e /arieties o$ progress and degeneration wit in indi/idual researc programs. 3ccording to im, a problems i$t occurs w en ad hoc auxiliary ypot eses and ot er de/ices in a researc program9s protecti/e belt are integrated into a new and more robust euristic w ic does not explicitly c allenge t e assumptions in t e researc program9s ard core. 7e neglected to pursue t e Buestion ow suc a problems i$t may in $act be an intermediate term leading directly to a c allenge to t e ard core itsel$. In $act, suc an interpretation is more central to understanding scienti$ic progress. Indeed, in 'a8atos@s original $ormulation, a researc program9s ard core remains irre$utable on its own terms. (rogress $rom one t eory to anot er wit in a single researc program can come about only t roug consistent /iolations o$ t e antecedent t eory9s own logical and t eoretical postulates. 7owe/er, t e way towards t is can be opened only by a modi$ication o$ t e researc program9s euristic!% crac8ing t e ard core, as it were. ( problemshift represents such a crack in the hard core. It see8s to protect t e researc program@s euristic progressi/ely,! by generating auxiliary ypot eses in its protecti/e belt. 3t t e same time it pro/ides correcti/e lenses t roug w ic to $ocus more clearly on t ose t ings being obser/ed. 'a8atos s8irts t e issue o$ exactly ow t is may lead to t e implosion o$ a ard core under t e pressure o$ supernumerary auxiliary ypot eses.!
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page .5

T is process is adapti/e and its conseBuences are trans/aluati/e. 3n example is gi/en below. 4rom t e trans$ormati/e destruction o$ a ard core, t ere emerges a new researc program wit a new ard core, w ic is nonet eless born o$ t e problems i$ted euristic! o$ t e old researc program. T e notion o$ a problems i$t t ereby re/eals a researc program, li8ewise, to be only a )estalt. T is $ourt type o$ scienti$ic realism describes scienti$ic progress during t e Cold Aar in t e analysis o$ t e domestic mec anism o$ So/iet $oreign policy $ormation. Table 5 s ows t e dynamic o$ t is e/olution at wor8, and ow 'a8atos $ailed to be able to account $or it. Ae may consider t e e/olution o$ Aestern t eories o$ So/iet $oreign policy ma8ing during t e Cold Aar to be a case study o$ t e succession o$ researc programs. T is researc Buestion is precisely a complexity-related issue, because it was exactly t e increasing complexity o$ So/iet organi6ations and cognitions, wit w ic western So/ietologists ad t e greatest di$$iculty coping. 3ltoget er $i/e t eories o$ So/iet $oreign policy ma8ing may be distinguis ed, re/ealing two cycles in t e problems i$t-moti/ated succession o$ researc programs /ia t e modi$ication o$ ard core. 7owe/er, $or reasons o$ space limitation and t e scope o$ t is article, I restrict t is demonstration to only one cycle t e e/olution o$ suc t eories. T is corresponds to t e de/elopment o$ western So/ietology $rom roug ly .F;= to .FJ,. Table 5 summari6es t at cycle, w ic is explicated in t e $ollowing section.

..,. !n $xample o& the Crucial 6ature o& a 3)roblemshi&t4


T e traditional point o$ departure $or t e study o$ So/iet $oreign policy $ormation was t e totalitarian t eory. 3ccording to t is, no organi6ationally-based explanation o$ t e mec anisms o$ So/iet $oreign policy ma8ing was necessary, $or a single set o$ immutable rulesHan operational code!Hprescribed So/iet $oreign policy be a/ior. Implicit in t at t eory was t e assumption t at t is be a/ior was ig ly deterministic, w olly unreacti/e to external stimuli, $ully resistant to c ange, and t ere$ore incapable o$ learning. 3lso implicit in t is t eory, $or w ic Stalin9s regime was t e e/idence, was t e assumption t at t e system did not allow any competing interests. )se$ul as t e totalitarian t eory was $or understanding t e Stalin era, it did not begin to capture t e e/ol/ing complexity o$ t e post-Stalin system. To begin wit , t e succession to Stalin did not con$orm to t e totalitarian t eory. 3ccording to t is, political con$lict s ould occur only during succession crises, and a new dictator s ould promptly consolidate power and maintain it unc allenged. T is postulate became implausible a$ter .F==, w en K rus c e/ and >ulganin establis ed t emsel/es a duum/irate. T e study o$ t e Stalin succession and t e resistance o$ t e Stalinists to K rus c e/ e/en a$ter is
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page .;

.F=G de-Stalini6ation speec led So/ietologists to w at was e/entually called t e con$lict-sc ool! t eory o$ So/iet politics. 'i8e t e totalitarian t eory, t is included a domestic-political explanation o$ So/iet $oreign policy. T e con$lict-sc ool approac led to t e elaboration o$ a new macrot eory. ( macrotheory is neither a research program nor a theory. A at distinguis es a macrot eory $rom a researc program is its capacity to generate new synt eses at t e le/el o$ middle-range t eory. 7ere we are able to get a andle on t e $unction o$ a euristic inside a researc program, and ow and w y it e/ol/es. The difference bet*een a heuristic and a macrotheory is that a macrotheory can provide continuity across research programs. 'a8atos9s distinctions among empirically and t eoretically progressi/e and degenerati/e researc programs do not ta8e account o$ t e crucial need to be able to account $or t e e/olution o$ t e euristic. It cannot account $or ow new researc programs generate t emsel/es $rom existing researc programs. 3ccording to 'a8atos, t is seems a rat er idiosyncratic and sociological process. To be sure, t ere are important elements o$ t at. >ut it is not entirely a random process. 3 complexity-based approac to 8nowledge creation $ills t is lacuna. ( macrotheory bridging t*o research programs is the vehicle by *hich changes in the heuristic+ brought about by the ,progressive- incorporation of au'iliary hypotheses from the protective belt+ are transmitted to the old research program#s hard core+ cracking it. "In a non-'a8atosian epistemology t at does not $alsely insulate t e negati/e euristic! and positi/e euristic! $rom one anot er, t e concept o$ a macrot eory may not be reBuired or may ta8e a di$$erent $orm.3ccording to t e totalitarian t eory, no organi6ation played any important role in So/iet $oreign policy ma8ing, because t e will o$ t e totalitarian dictator was determinant. T e con$lict-sc ool t eory, by contrast, recogni6ed t e signi$icance o$ one organi6ation% t e (olitburo. 7owe/er, it $ocused upon t e (olitburo only as a $orum $or con$lict among its members and not as an organi6ation per se. Iet w ereas t e totalitarian experience considered t e constant struggle $or political supremacy to c aracteri6e So/iet politics only during succession struggles, proponents o$ t e con$lict-sc ool approac considered it as a domestic political process rele/ant to $oreign policy ma8ing, but one t at did not ex ibit any be a/ioral regularities. 7owe/er, once t e con$lict-sc ool t eory admitted t e permanence o$ intra-elite con$licts as a matter o$ principle, it became ine/itable t at some analysts would begin to loo8 $or regular patterns o$ elite con$licts. In particular, t ey loo8ed $or institutional bases o$ suc con$licts. 3nalysis t ereby s i$ted $rom t e struggle o/er personal power to t at o/er policy substance. Ri/alries among institutions became t e $odder $or analysis. T e institutional-group t eory arose as So/ietologists adopted t e analytical distinction between con$lict resolution wit in t e elite on t e one and, and, on t e ot er and,
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page .=

interest aggregation and articulation t roug out t e broader political and social system. T e latter e/ol/ed $rom t e con$lict-sc ool t eory and typically distinguis ed between So/iet interest groups t at ad domestic organi6ational goals leading t em to bene$it $rom international tensions, and t ose a/ing suc goals leading t em to bene$it $rom t e relaxation o$ international tensions. T ese groups e de$ined occupationally.
T-T!*IT!RI!6 R$S$!RC0 )R- R!M HARD COR .hat Is the Source of Soviet /onduct0% T e nature o$ totalitarianism. )-STT-T!*IT!RI!6 R$S$!RC0 )R- R!M O7ard Core o$ (osttotalitarian Researc (rogram, Re/ised by Modi$ied 7euristicP =>ridge to Successor to )ost-totalitarian Research )rogram?

Marxist-'eninist doc- Marxist-'eninist doctrine trine "institutional$ "institutionali1ed as the i1ed as totalitarian$ post$Stalin system%. ism%. $lite-Con&lict Macrotheory

Totalitarian Macrotheory !H OR" !O!AL#!AR#A$

CO$%L#C!&SCHOOL #$S!#!+!#O$AL& -$e. Posttotalitarian '$oninstitutionali(e) ,RO+P '#nstitutionali(e) !heory/ Conflict* Conflict* ( single set of govern$ ing beliefs consonant wit Marxist-'eninist doctrine "and So/iet national interests- is t e basis $or resol/ing $oreign policy issues in t e long run, but leaders may manipulate t em in t e s ort run. 'ong-run policy c ange is possible due to domestic $actors but minimal reacti/ity to external stimuli ma8es it e$$ecti/ely impermeable to outside in$luence. (olicy di$$erences among leaders re$lect regular institutional interests t at are more enduring t an succession struggles. In speci$ic instances, general policy predispositions are con$lated wit particular policy pre$erences. (olicy is somew at /oluntaristic and reacti/e to external stimuli. Indeed, certain segments o$ t e bureaucracy may respond to outside in$luence. OModi$ied 7euristic wit in t e (osttotalitarian Researc (rogram, re/ised to integrate t e :3uxiliary 7ypo-t eses: o$ t e InstitutionalMroup T eoryP

H +R#S!#C .hat Is the &omestic 2ech$ anism through .hich Soviet "or$ eign 3olicy Is 2ade0%

( single set of governing be$ liefs ":operational code:determines So/iet $oreign policy be a/ior.

A+0#L#AR" H"PO!H S S

(olicy is ig ly deterministic and resistant to 4o* &eterministic c ange, and and Immutable Is totally unreacSoviet "oreign 3ol$ ti/e to external icy0 4o* Reactive to stimuli. E'ternal Stimuli0%

O:3uxiliary 7ypot eses: SubseBuently Menerated to (rotect Modi$ied 7euristicP

Table .. Research )rograms and Theories :+@ABCca1 +@DE; o& So#iet %oreign )olicy Ma1ing, with Macrotheories $xplicated.

T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page .G

4or example, t e military was assumed to pre$er tension because t is increased its budget, w ereas lig t industry was assumed to pre$er t e absence o$ tension because it wanted part o$ t at budget. T is t eory analy6ed So/iet policy ma8ing to see ow t ose institutions $ormed coalitions domestically to pursue $oreign policy goals t at t ey ad in common to satis$y domestic constituencies. 3ccording to t e institutional-group t eory, con$lict occurred in So/iet $oreign policy ma8ing not only among leaders and t e institutions t ey ran but also among t ose institutions independently o$ leaders ip con$lict. T is de/elopment was related to c anging conceptuali6ations o$ t e So/iet political process generally. It addressed broad policy predispositions rat er t an particular decisions. Indeed, w en t e general interest-group tec niBue was applied to t e analysis o$ $oreign policy ma8ing, it was limited by t e implication, in $act made explicit by t e institutional-pluralism approac , t at institutions were unitary and monolit ic, wit unambiguous interests. T e s i$t $rom t e con$lict-sc ool t eory to t e institutional-group t eory was moti/ated by t e accumulation o$ auxiliary ypot eses in t e totalitarian researc program9s protecti/e belt. 'i8e t e mo/e $rom t e totalitarian to t e con$lict-sc ool t eory, t is entailed an explicit modi$ication o$ t e totalitarian researc program9s euristic. Suc a modi$ication is t e dynamic c aracteristic o$ a problems i$t.! )nder t e problems i$t t at moti/ated t e re/ision o$ t e totalitarian t eory into t e con$lict-sc ool t eory, it was still possible to conser/e t e researc program9s ard core apparently unc anged. 3s is e/ident $rom Table ., owe/er, t e ard core was in $act modi$ied. 3s explained abo/e, t e mo/e $rom t e con$lict-sc ool to t e institutional-group t eory also mani$ests a problems i$t. It entailed a $urt er modi$ication o$ t e totalitarian researc program9s ard core, to t e point w ere t e appearance o$ a new researc program became undeniable. T e bases o$ t e posttotalitarian researc program were clari$ied by a subseBuent problems i$t not depicted in Table 5, moti/ated by a $urt er e/olution o$ t e researc program9s euristic and con$irming de$initi/ely t e down$all o$ t e totalitarian researc program. T e euristic! o$ any macrot eory as8s Buestions about t e domestic mec anism t at $ormulates So/iet $oreign policy, and speci$ically about t e cogniti/e and organi6ational constraints go/erning t e production o$ suc policy. 'et us ta8e t ese one at a time. 3s to cogniti/e constraints, t e Buestions are w et er general predispositions and policyspeci$ic attitudes are con$lated wit eac ot er or separated wit in a cogniti/e $ramewor8C and w et er t ere exists one compre ensi/e operational code,! or two or more competing operational codes, or none at all. T e next de/elopment in So/iet $oreign policy ma8ing analysis was a $ield1ground s i$t t at $ocused not on t e institutions as arboring indi/iduals a/ing ideas but on t e ideas t emsel/es, and w ic treated t e
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page .J

indi/iduals merely as t eir carriers. It assumed t at organi6ations were not monolit ic but could be $ragmented, and t at t e )SSR could learn international be a/ior /oluntaristically. 7owe/er, since political science as a discipline ad not internali6ed enoug cogniti/e psyc ology and organi6ational science at t at time, t e step was ne/er ta8en to integrate t is de/elopment into a $ully $ledged t eory. Since t e concepts o$ complex systems did not exist at t at time, moreo/er, t e step t at would t en a/e $ollowedHto a t ird researc programHwas li8ewise ne/er made.

A. The *ogical %oundation o& 3Complex (usti&icationism4


T e reason w y 'a8atos9s met odology o$ researc programs is in/alid, is not t at e generated it $rom a case study o$ t e istory o$ mat ematical t oug t, speci$ically t e growt o$ 8nowledge regarding &uler9s wor8 on poly edra. *or is it because a consensus as $ormed among mat ematicians t at t is limited $ield is itsel$ atypical among mat ematical topics $rom a growt -o$-8nowledge standpoint, suc t at 'a8atos9s met odology o$ scienti$ic researc programs! is atypical o$ ow most mat ematical 8nowledge is generated. In 'a8atos9s construction o$ sop isticated met odological $alsi$icationism! "by w ic e contri/ed to sa/e (opper $rom Ku n-, auxiliary ypot eses and ot er elements are generated in t e protecti/e belt! surrounding t e researc program9s "negati/eeuristic,! w ic in turn insulates its ard core.! >ut t is met odology! is intrinsically incomplete, because t e capacity $or modi$ication o$ a researc program9s protecti/e belt in 'a8atos turns out to be eBui/alent to t e ad?oining o$ (eirce9s 'aw to t e negation system called simple re$utability.! 3ccording to simple re$utability, a system is $alsi$ied i$ any one o$ its elementary propositions is $alsi$ied. "Simple re$utability is eBui/alent to w at 'a8atos called dogmatic $alsi$icationism.! In logico-mat ematical contexts, it is also called minimal negation.! See 3ppendix ..- (eirce9s 'aw in e$$ect posits t at i$ 3 intersects > H imagine two circles in a Qenn diagram H t en t e intersection o$ 3 wit t at part o$ > lying outside 3, is not t e null-set but rat er t e arc o$ t e circle 3 t at is inside t e circle >. In t is logic, applying (eirce9s 'aw, t e law o$ excluded middle does not old, and t e intersection o$ 3 wit >, excluding t e arc 39s boundary in >, is called t e pseudocomplement o$ t e part o$ 3 lying outside >. T e pseudocomplement is t e interior o$ t e complement. I$ (eirce9s 'aw is w at ma8es possible t e sop isticated met odological $alsi$icationism! o$ 'a8atos, t en t e sel$-increase o$ t e euristic9s content in t is generati/e manner may be represented as t e ac ie/ement o$ widt by t e
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page .L

arc o$ circle 3 t at is contained inside circle >. 7owe/er, 'a8atos does not examine ow suc additional propositions "w ic do not appear $rom out o$ not ing- $ind t eir way into t e protecti/e belt. T ere$ore, e $ails to see t at any increase in t e content o$ t e protecti/e belt in $act entails a modi$ication o$ t e content o$ t e euristic. T e conseBuence o$ t is blindness is is $ailure to articulate ow one researc program succeeds anot er. >y contrast, t is article o$$ers a case study in t e consecuti/e succession o$ researc programs. I now state in general terms t e dynamic o$ t at succession as obser/ed in t e particular case ere presented. Complexity science identi$ies two ways $or suc additional propositions to $ind t eir way into t e protecti/e belt. T e $irst possibility is t at an elementary proposition in t e euristic is considered multiple rat er t an singular and is split into two or more constituent elements, one o$ w ic may be ta8en outside "alienated $rom!- t e euristic into t e protecti/e belt. T e abo/e discussion o$ t eories o$ So/iet $oreign policy ma8ing illustrates ow it is impossible to generate auxiliary ypot eses wit out introducing surreptitious modi$ications into t e researc program9s euristic. T e second possibility is t at an elementary proposition in t e euristic is consideredHor $ound to beHmultiple rat er t an singular. "3 related possibility is t at two singular propositions in t e euristic may generate a t ird.- In t ese latter cases, a proposition originally t oug t to be elementary generates one or more new propositions wit in t e 'a8atosian euristic itsel$. T ese newly generated propositions are emergent in t e complexity-in$ormed sense and must be considered elementary rat er t an composite. In eit er instance, t e content o$ t e euristic is altered. Indeed, t e structure-based! sc ool o$ complexity may be situated as a subdiscipline o$ (eircean semiotics. T is representation opens t e door to a complexity-in$ormed consideration o$ t e growt o$ scienti$ic 8nowledge. I$ one soug t a 'a8atosian name $or t e proo$ met ods o$ complexity science, complex ?usti$icationism! would be appropriate. 7owe/er, it must be stressed t at t is carries a concept o$ proo$ and re$utation! t at lies outside t e compass o$ 'a8atos9s classi$ication o$ $i/e met odological systems o$ ?usti$icationism and $alsi$icationism. It indeed o/ert rows 'a8atos9s w ole ontology o$ scienti$ic 8nowledge, as well as is epistemology o$ its cumulation, in $a/or o$ a 4eyerabendian orientation. 3t t e same time, it would be necessary to emp asi6e t e need to explore $urt er w at we may call t e complex scienti$ic-realist! ontology wit in w ic t at epistemology would be situated. 3ppendix . summari6es longer wor8 t at demonstrates ow complex ?usti$icationism is situated in relation to t e $i/e met odological systems t at 'a8atos identi$ies.

T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page .F

B. Conclusion" ! %urther !genda &or Complexity Science in International Studies


It was pointed out at t e beginning o$ t is article ow complexity-in$ormed approac es to t e study o$ international relations indicate emergence, stability1c ange, and sel$organi6ation as categories $or special attention. T e ensemble and intersection o$ t ese categories suggest strongly t at bot t e international system as a w ole, as well as t e actors in it "including nonstate actors- and e/en subsets o$ t ose actors "e.g., indi/idual ministries wit in state bureaucracies-, deser/e scrutiny $rom t e standpoint o$ complex adapti/e systems and autopoietic learning. T is emp asis on autopoietic be a/iorHt e ability o$ a complex system autonomously to establis and pursue its own goalsH distinguis es second-order $rom $irst-order cybernetics. Certain types o$ agent-based modelling a/e already s own t emsel/es to be a uniBue met odological inno/ation o$ complex-science met ods in t e social sciences. 7owe/er power$ul suc a tec niBue is, it s ould not be pursued to t e exclusion o$ ot er re$lecti/e approac es. T ey are certainly not to be con$ounded wit rational c oice! despite a similarity o$ t e operational instrument, mat emati6ation. In international relations t eory, suc /olitional concepts are certainly absent "sa/e in an extremely constrained utilitarian sense- $rom t e rational-c oice sc ool o$ international relations t eory. 3nd to be sure, during t e greatest part o$ t e Cold Aar, t e t esis t at So/iet $oreign policy was capable o$ learning was a minoritarian /iew. Iet it is correct to say t at political science as a w ole did not a/e an adeBuate t eoretical apparatus $or understanding any suc learning. T is did not pre/ent some sc olars $rom building use$ul $ramewor8s, but t ere was not enoug critical mass! to allow one to spea8 o$ a sc ool or a trend, muc less a paradigm or a researc program. &/en so, not e/en psyc ology ad t e met odological and operational tools $or speci$ying suc learning until t e .FL,s. T e signi$icance o$ t e case study o$ t eory de/elopment gi/en in t e preceding section is in t e recalcitrance o$ some sectors o$ political science as a discipline, particularly in *ort 3merica at t e end o$ t e twentiet century, to consider t e possibility o$ organi6ational learning. T is is due to t e $act t at t e go/erning sociology o$ 8nowledge o$ t at time and place remained gridloc8ed in t e mec anistic $irst-order cybernetic systems t eory in erited $rom structural $unctionalism. It is more an e$$ect o$ political science t an o$ systems t eory per se. 7owe/er, systems t eory in a second-order cybernetic $ramewor8Ht e cybernetics o$ obser/ing systems as opposed to t e cybernetics o$ obser/ed systemsHis able to incorporate ric insig ts $rom complexity science.
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page +,

T e reason w y certain trends, in *ort 3merican political-science in particular, a/e militated against considering political systems o$ w ate/er order and scope to be capable o$ autopoiesis, is t e in eritance o$ t e speci$ically structural-$unctional approac to systems analysis, in turn due primarily to t e in$luence o$ Mabriel 3lmond, a student o$ Talcott (arsons. >ut w at (arsons most missed in is exegesis o$ Aeber was t e dynamic interplay o$ $actors t at is e/ident in any compre ensi/e analysis o$ any istorically de/eloped p enomenon. (arsons sacri$iced t is idiograp ic sensiti/ity to nomot etic stri/ing. 3s a result, t e sc emati6ation o$ social and political p enomena superseded t eir situation "contextuali6ation- in uman space and time. 3n implicit teleology t us in$ected interpretations based on t e sc ema% t e criticism o$ structural-$unctionalism $or a bias towards social omeostasis is well 8nown. T e goals o$ action were set by t e uni/ersalist t eoretical construct, not by t e actors9 autonomous ratiocination. A en sc ema supersedes context, t en t e analysis pro ibits t e actors $rom appearing to set t eir own goals% w ereas autopoiesis means precisely to set one9s own goals, w et er one is a person, an organi6ation, or a social system. (olitical scientists and ot er istorians o$ contemporary international a$$airs need to understand better t e origin and distinguis ing $eatures o$ complexity science, and its de/elopment in its $ull /ariety $rom t e early .FJ,s in li$e science and p ysical science. Complexity science is not solely t e realm o$ agent-based modelling. Muc Bualitati/e empirical wor8 on t e e/olution o$ norms, $or example, is compassed by t e complexityscience category o$ autopoiesis. T is a/ing been said, it is per aps appropriate to limit t is s8etc o$ a researc agenda $or complexity science in international relations t eory, to only t ree brie$ concluding obser/ations. .. T e international system as a w ole and t e actors in it are all are complex systems. +. Complexity science dissol/es t e agent-structure debate.! 5. Complexity science illuminates t e existence o$ a new type o$ di/ision o$ labor in world society, vi1., t e networ8. To conclude. Ae may spea8 o$ a complex! "or networ8ed! or distributed!- di/ision o$ labor as a t ird type now e/ident in social organi6ation, including international a$$airs, and superseding t e two classic $orms distinguis ed by Nur8 eim. 3n o/eremp asis on eit er ierarc y or subordinationHon structure or agent, or e/en on t e agent1structure duality to t e exclusion o$ ot er termsHis one-sided. T e simultaneous presence o$ structure! and sel$-structuring! is one o$ t e di$$erences between a ierarc y and a
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page +.

networ8. Complex systems are networ8s more t an t ey are ierarc ies. It is t is simultaneous presence o$ structure and sel$-structuring "w ic latter gi/es rise to autopoiesis- t at yields t e emergent and sel$-organi6ing Bualities o$ world politics t at are most c aracteristic o$ complex systems.

!c1nowledgment
T is wor8 was supported by t e Institute $or t e Study o$ Co erence and &mergence ">oston, )S3-.

>ibliography
Curry, 7.>. ".FG51.FJJ-. "oundations of 2athematical Logic, ;,L pp. *ew Ior8, *.I., )S3% No/er (ublications. OT is is t e canonical presentation $rom t e standpoint o$ t e $ormalist sc ool o$ mat ematics $ounded by 7ilbert.P Cutler, R.M. ".FF=-. >ringing t e *ational Interest >ac8 In% 'essons $or *eorealism $rom t e 4ormer So/iet 3rea. /osmos 5earbook Symposium, Qol. ., International Relations Theory at a /rossroads "ed. (. I$estos-, G.KF.. *ew Ior8, *.I., )S3% Carat6as. OT is "by permission also at )R'% 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1arF=cos. tm2- examines in detail ow t e 4regeRussell logicist! mat ematical sc ool was imported into social science epistemology and, in particular, critici6es 4riedman@s misunderstandings o$ it in is doctrine o$ positi/e economics,! $rom w ic t e political-science approac called rational c oice! ea/ily borrows.P Cutler, R.M. ".FFF-. Morbac e/ as C&# Road Kill% 7ow t e So/iet 4oreign (olicy &stablis ment 4ailed to Manage Complexity. 2anaging the /omple' "ed. M. 'issac8-. *ew Ior8, *.I., )S3% Ruorum, 5=+K5J,. OT is "by permission also at )R'% 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1c FFml. tm2-clari$ies t e bases o$ t e posttotalitarian researc program and its results, carrying t e explanation o$ Table 5, abo/e, t roug t e next cycle o$ t eoretical de/elopment.P 4eyerabend, (.K. ".FL.-. 3hilosophical 3apers, /ol. ., Realism+ Rationalism+ and Scientific 2ethod, 5=5 pp. Cambridge, )K% Cambridge )ni/ersity (ress. OT is includes se/eral $undamental papers on t e nature and types o$ scienti$ic realism.P Meyer, 4. ".FF=-. T e C allenge o$ Sociocybernetics. 6ybernetes ,A, =K5+. OT is compre ensi/ely re/iews t e in$luence o$ cybernetics on social science t eory
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page ++

across a range o$ disciplines, use$ully distinguis ing between $irst-order and second-order cybernetics.P Ku n, T.S. ".FG+1.FFG-. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , +,L pp. C icago, Ill., )S3% )ni/ersity o$ C icago (ress. 'a8atos, I. ".FJ,-. 4alsi$ication and t e Met odology o$ Scienti$ic Researc (rograms. /riticism and the )ro*th of 6no*ledge "ed. I. 'a8atos and 3. Musgra/e-, F.K .FG. Cambridge, )K% Cambridge )ni/ersity (ress. OT is is t e locus classicus $or t e exposition o$ sop isticated ?usti$icationism! as a met odology o$ researc programs.P (opper, K.R. ".F=F1.FF+-. The Logic of Scientific &iscovery, ;JF pp. 'ondon, )K% Routledge. OT is is t e pre-eminent statement o$ w at 'a8atos calls naD/e $alsi$icationism.!P Qon >orc8e, 3. ".FL,-. Ner >eitrag der /ersc iedenen 3nsSt6e 6ur Sow?etunion4orsc ung, Rele/an6, System-IdentitSt und die $e lende Ma8rot eorie. 7eue .ege der So*8etunion$"orschung: 9eitr:ge 1ur 2ethoden$ und Theoriediscussion "ed. 3. /on >orc8e and M. Simon-, .;;K.==. >aden->aden, *omos. OT is discusses t e nature o$ a macrot eory.!P Aar$ield, <.*. ".FFF-. Twenty 'aws o$ Complexity% Science 3pplicable in #rgani6ations. Systems Research and 9ehavioral Science +F, 5K;,. OT is situates t e structure-based! sc ool o$ complexity as a subdiscipline o$ (eircean semiotics.P

!ppendix +
T is 3ppendix sets out ow t e $i/e met odologies identi$ied by 'a8atos are related and ow t e epistemology t at in$orms complexity t eory di$$ers $rom t em. 'a8atos@s typology includes t ree systems o$ $alsi$icationism and two systems o$ ?usti$icationism. 7e based t em, wit out saying so, on t e $i/e systems o$ negation! set out among t e $undamentals o$ mat ematical logic according to t e $ormalist sc ool o$ mat ematics, as presented by Curry, w o denotes t em as /arious types o$ re$utability and absurdity. T ere can be little doubt t at 'a8atos, w ose original training was as a p ilosop er o$ mat ematics, was $amiliar wit t ese. 7e represented t ese systems o$ negation as epistemologies $or scienti$ic researc t at e inducti/ely constructed $rom is istorical re/iew o$ t e e/olution o$ scienti$ic met od, and e ga/e t em di$$erent, more expressi/e names. "See Table ;.T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page +5

*eit er $ormalist mat ematics nor 'a8atos soug t eit er to systemati6e t ese relations or to establis a compre ensi/e and ex austi/e systematic account o$ suc relations. T ere$ore, no part o$ t e systemati6ation in Table ; is to be $ound in 'a8atos@s wor8. It is, in $act, a complete systemati6ation. Moreo/er, t e $ull and ex austi/e range o$ all relations ips, including idempotent ones, is internally consistent. T ese relations ips are establis ed on t e basis o$ 'a8atos9s discussion o$ t e di$$erent met ods, including is adaptation o$ mat ematical logic as set out in t e basic wor8s o$ t e $ormalist mat ematical sc ool. 7owe/er, only t e relations ips most salient to t is article a/e been indicated, and only $or t e purpose o$ explicating brie$ly t e corresponding assertions in t e body o$ t e article itsel$.

9enotation o& logical system o& negation and its characteri/ation in &ormalist mathematics 'M "Minimal negation'N "Strict negation'& O)nspeci$ied or /ariableP 'K "Classical negation'< "Intuitionalist negation-

Type o& re&utability or absurdity :Curry; Simple re$utability Complete re$utability Classical re$utability Complete absurdity Simple absurdity

Type o& Gusti&icationism or &alsi&icationism :*a1atos; Nogmatic $alsi$icationism *aD/e $alsi$icationism Sop isticated $alsi$icationism <usti$icationism *eo-?usti$icationism

Table A. Systems o& 6egation in %ormalist Mathematics and Their Concordance with *a1atos2s Methodologies.

4ormalist mat ematics ad de$ined a limited set o$ relations ips among some o$ t ese systems o$ negation. 4igure . s ows t ese systems as rectangles labelled wit t e names t at 'a8atos ga/e to t e met odologies associated wit t ose systems o$ negation. "4or t e latter, see Table ;.- T e relations ips establis ed by $ormalist mat ematics are depicted in 4igure . as clear exagons and arrows a/ing clear triangular arrow eads, between t e systems o$ negation depicted as rectangles. 'a8atos did not augment t e number o$ systems o$ negation e $ound in $ormalist mat ematics, but t roug is study o$ empirical scienti$ic met od e implicitly added new de$initions o$ relations ips among t em. 4igure . includes a condensed and grap ical exegesis o$ is wor8, presented ere $or t e $irst time. T e relations ips added by 'a8atos are s own in 4igure . as crossatc ed exagons and arrows a/ing solid triangular arrow eads. 7owe/er, 'a8atos
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page +;

$ailed to consider t e conseBuences o$ is implicit classi$ication o$ relations ips among t ese epistemologies.

%igure +. Complex (usti&icationism and Its *ogico-Mathematical Relations to -ther Systems o& 6egation.

T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page +=

4ormalist mat ematics ad employed two de/ices to de$ine only limited relations among only some systems o$ negation% t e 'aw o$ &xcluded Middle "'&M in 4igure .- and t e multiplication o$ elementary propositions "&(s in 4igure .-. 'a8atos de$ined relations ips, not deri/ed $rom $ormalist logic, between naD/e $alsi$icationism and ?usti$icationism, between neo-?usti$icationism and ?usti$icationism, and between sop isticated $alsi$icationism and dogmatic $alsi$icationism. To moti/ate t e last o$ t ese new relations ips, e introduced t e use o$ (eirce9s 'aw "(' in 4igure .-. (eirce9s 'aw is a $orm o$ denial o$ t e law o$ excluded middle. It asserts t at in a Qenn diagram wit intersecting circles 3 and >, t e intersection o$ 3 wit t at part o$ > lying outside 3, is t e arc o$ circle 3 t at is inside circle >. Subtracting t e arc o$ 3 identi$ied under (eirce9s 'aw $rom 3-intersection-> "t e complement o$ only-3 in >- t en produces w at is called t e pseudocomplement o$ 3. T e pseudocomplement o$ a lattice is analogously t e interior o$ its complement. T is is important $or w at $ollows below. In 4igure ., t e order o$ t e met odologies, $rom naD/e $alsi$icationism at t e bottom to neo-?usti$icationism near t e top, as been establis ed according to t e lesser or greater amount o$ t eoretical content t at t e di$$erent met ods generate. T us naD/e $alsi$icationism generates t e least amount o$ t eoretical content, and neo-?usti$icationism t e most. Complex ?usti$icationism is arbitrarily placed ierarc ically abo/e neo?usti$icationism, but t e typology o$ t e 4igure . gi/es no indication in $act w et er its t eoretical content is greater t an t at o$ any o$ t e ot ers. Indeed, t is almost certainly /aries wit t e empirical case studied. &xcluding complex ?usti$icationism $or t e moment "and t e arrows ending on it-, t e $igure representing relations among t e ot er $i/e, including t e arrows between t e systems o$ negation, is a mat ematical ob?ect called a classical implicati/e lattice. Suc a lattice, as a mat ematical ob?ect, as w at is called a pseudocomplement, w ic is t e interior o$ its complement analogous to t e de$inition ?ust gi/en in connection wit (eirce@s 'aw. T e counteraxioms o$ an emergent successor researc program are t e content o$ t at pseudocomplement. T eir coalescence as a pseudocomplement and t eir consolidation as a set o$ counteraxioms, rat er t an as a series o$ ad hoc ypot eses, crac8s t e ard core! o$ an antecedent researc program despite t e attempt o$ its protecti/e belt! to absorb t e blows. A en suc a construction is placed upon t e de/elopment $rom a neo?usti$icationist met odology, t roug t e ad?oinment! o$ (eirce9s 'aw to it, t e resulting mat ematical ob?ect is w at is called an implicati/e semilattice. "3 semilattice is a representation o$ a partially ordered set.- T e $ull 4igure . is an implicati/e semilattice. 3ll t ese systems o$ negation are constructed $rom elementary propositions. Suc
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page +G

elementary propositions may be singular or multiple, and t e systems t emsel/es may be single, multiple or mixed. T ese are de$initionally distinguis ed as $ollows. 3 singular system is one in w ic all elementary propositions are reBuired to be singular. 3 multiple system is one in w ic t ere is no restriction in t e rules reBuiring an elementary statement to be singular. 3 mixed system is one in w ic t ere are no suc restrictions $or t e system as a w ole, but t ere are suc restrictions on t e applicability o$ certain rules. 3 sop isticated-$alsi$icationist researc program is a mixed system. T at is because 'a8atos@s sop isticated $alsi$icationism! allows, indeed it mandates, t e multiplication o$ ypot eses wit in t e protecti/e belt, but it restricts t e application o$ t is procedure to t e protecti/e belt. >y contrast, all elementary propositions in t e ard core are reBuired to remain singular, indeed immutable. T at is w y 'a8atos omits any discussion o$ exactly ow a researc program9s protecti/e belt c anges e/en in researc programs t at are t eoretically and empirically progressi/e. In $act, any alteration o$ t e protecti/e belt necessarily entails alteration o$ t e ard core. 'a8atos did not see t is because e split t em $rom one anot er. 7e ad $irst re$erred to t em as t e positi/e euristic! and negati/e euristic,! implicitly ac8nowledging t at toget er t ey constituted a single entity. 7e split t em as e did, because e wanted to ma8e intuitionistic mat ematical logic operational wit in a neo-(opperian epistemological $ramewor8. T at is w at sop isticated $alsi$icationism! appeared to accomplis . 7owe/er, logics in$ormed by intuitionistic sc ools o$ mat ematics do not reBuire t at elementary propositions be singular. 'a8atos@s $ailure to address ow researc programs succeed one anot er is a conseBuence o$ is absoluti6ing t e arti$icial distinction between a positi/e! and a negati/e! euristic. 3s antidote to t is $allacy, t e de/ice o$ a macrot eory! was introduced in t e abo/e case study as a medium t roug w ic c anges may be transmitted $rom one to t e ot er. T e case study gi/en ere, s ows ow t is manner o$ proceeding clari$ies t e way in w ic propositions in t e protecti/e belt are consolidated into a re/ised euristic. T e result o$ t is demonstration is to o/erturn sop isticated $alsi$icationism as a met odology o$ researc programs. A at 'a8atos t us $ailed to see in particular was t at t e application o$ (eirce@s 'aw "as $ollowing $rom generali6ation based upon empirical experimental wor8- permits t e emergence o$ a new euristic as a matter o$ scale. I$ not all elementary propositions in t e old euristic are singular, t en t eir e/olution may ta8e s ape as t e consolidation o$ a new euristic. T at is ow suc emergence occurs. A en translated into t e language o$ $ormalist mat ematics, t is $ailure is expressed by saying t at 'a8atos reBuires t e
T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2

Robert M. Cutler, Complexity Science and Knowledge-Creation in International Relations T eory,! Institutional and Infrastructural Resources, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems "#x$ord% &#'SS (ublis ers $or )*&SC#, +,,+-, page +J

exclusion o$ $ormali6able epit eoretical arguments, e/en t oug "and especially alt oug - t ese may well represent counteraxioms t at t emsel/es $orm t e basis o$ a new researc program. T is $ailure eBually explains w y 'a8atos does not systematically address t e dynamic t at dri/es mo/ement $rom one researc program to anot er. 'a8atos9s /e icle $or arri/ing at sop isticated $alsi$icationism was to ad?oin (eirce@s 'aw to dogmatic $alsi$icationism. 4or t e purpose o$ conceptuali6ation, dogmatic $alsi$icationism may be considered as creating a space o$ pro/able! scienti$ic t eories on t e basis o$ t e elementary propositions constituting its system o$ negation. I$ we turn t is analogy into a metap or, we may say t at ad?oining (eirce@s 'aw to t at basis produces new spaces containing pre/iously inconcei/able pro/able t eories. >ut 'a8atos does not as8 w at appens i$ we ad?oin (eirce@s 'aw to eit er ?usti$icationism or neo-?usti$icationism. Suc an operation is depicted by t e crossatc ed triangles in 4igure ., wit t eir arrows a/ing pronged arrow eads. T e result, in $act, is to re/eal an entirely new, sixt system o$ negation t at exactly expresses t e logic o$ a complexity-science met odology. It is depicted in 4igure . by t e o/al s ape. In t is article, t e new system o$ negation as been denoted as complex ?usti$icationism.! 3s explained abo/e, t e succession o$ researc programs in t e Aestern t eory and study o$ domestic politics o$ So/iet $oreign policy ma8ing illustrates suc a progression $rom one researc program to anot er according to t e tenets o$ complexity science. It exempli$ies ow t e abolition o$ 'a8atos@s arti$icial distinction between negati/e and positi/e euristics is ac ie/ed t roug recognition o$ t e emergence o$ a set o$ counteraxioms $orming t e basis o$ a new researc program. T e present 3ppendix as gi/en expression to suc a procedure in terms proper to mat ematical logic.

T is /ersion corrects se/eral minor errors in t e publis ed /ersion and $ormats it more legibly. 3/ailable at 0 ttp%11www.robertcutler.org1download1pd$1en,+eolx.pd$2