complexity

The scientific explanation is usually defined as finding the cause. For some reasons, this has been a subject of doubt, however, it seems that, both in common sense as well as in philosophical approach, the mainstream still support the very Idea of explanation something as introducing its cause. But cause searching and cause finding are not so easy tasks. This Article is for corroborating the idea according to which the essential tension in scientific research is derived from the practical difficulty of distinguishing a complex netting of causes, not from the theoretical disfunction of causality. Multiplicity, variety, interaction, and dynamism of causes and factors intervening in a causal process constitute oftentimes a perplexing netting in which it is difficult, sometimes practically impossible, to distinguish, dissociate, evaluate, and calculate vectors effective on final resultant and explain or predict the output or the effect the process in question has. Not paying enough attention to it leads mistakenly to doubt about causality itself. The problem is pragmatic, not paradigmatic.

In this article we have tried to investigate argues of proponents of intelligent design (ID) about an intelligent agent in the creation of the universe. These scientists and philosophers who insist that intelligent design theory is a scientific theory that can be an alternative to evolutionary theory. But evolutionists, claims that intelligent design isn’t a scientific theory, it is raised from religious beliefs.
As this paper has indicated the main challenges between evolutionists and ID proponents, thus we, at first, explain the teleological argument as the root of the theory of intelligent design, and in the second place, a summary of the claims of evolutionists and supporters of intelligent design about the formation of beings are considered. Scientific and empirical arguments of both evolutionists and intelligent design supporters and controversy raised by the parties has considered and ultimately, the mere discussion of ID proponents about scientific arguments of ID, have been questioned.

Different fields of science (including physics, biology, psychology and philosophy (have had various scientific endeavors to describe the nature of consciousness. They all agree on the point that: “consciousness is a complex issue”.
Neurological and cognitive science is the dominant paradigm in consciousness studies. This article, after presenting a review of the status of consciousness in the realm of related sciences, is going to open a new window to this topic -“complexity and chaos theory”. For this purpose, with the help of the concepts such as “Control of chaos” and “The Emergence” an attempt has been made to give a primary explanation about the problem of consciousness.
According to this approach, an infinitesimal force may be able to take control of complex and chaotic system in the brain through the influence of very small energies. This may be the main origin of consciousness problem. As a result, consciousness can be extremely complex form of manifestation of the “Emergence” through neural interaction networks in the brain.

The present paper، through the linguistic analysis of Mulla Sadra''s philosophical views، has shown that a single linguistic model can be applied to the analysis of all his philosophical views. To this end، based on two linguistic theories regarding the semantic structure of derivation، it is illustrated that Mulla Sadra’s philosophical views conform to the linguistic model of semantic simplicity of derivation when he expresses his philosophical system، and it conforms to the linguistic model of semantic complexity of derivation when he defends his theories based on dominant majority views. We have applied the linguistic model proposed in this study to some Mulla Sadra’s philosophical views، namely، answering the problem of the contingency of existence، the subject of motion، and the unity of intelligent and intelligible (ittihad al-aqil wa al-ma''qoul). It is also argued that if we presume the linguistic model of semantic simplicity of derivation، we need no reason to approve the philosophical theories of Mulla Sadra. But، to object his philosophical theories، we should presume the linguistic model of semantic complexity of derivation.

Systems thought is trying to build a global knowledge, and thus, makes closer the separated disciplines to each other, and thereby overcome on the complexity of different issues of the scientific disciplines. The increasing complexity of society led to sociologists show a considerable attention to systemic approach. The result was the formation of the three wave of theory of social systems. The conception of systems and the idea of the theory of systems are mixed with the efforts of modern society to monitor and control on its own. This means that the theory of systems as a social construction is formed and developed in association with social conditions and existing paradigms. More reflection on the reasons the entrance of systemic approach to sociology, and its theoretical principles and its process of formation makes more apparent the importance of communication. Because of, the relationship of different sciences and theories together moves ahead human knowledge. It seems, the philosophy of complexity is influenced the social theories, because of “Social emergence”, “complexity”, and “dynamics” are the most important issues that are considered by these theories.

The present paper is intended to examine the two criticisms raised against William Rowe's evidential argument. The common aspect between these two criticisms is that, both of them are built on the concept of "complexity". The first one is Kirk Durston’s, which refers to the complex intertwined historical combination of numerous accidents and events and attempts to prove that ignorance of the good related to some evils is due to the complexity of historical events and it does not mean that such evils are exorbitant as it is stated by William Rowe. The second criticism that, proposed by Daniel Howard Schneider, emphasizes, by expounding the concept of complex good, on the point that the mysteriousness of some good prevents their full recognition by the human cognitive faculty and consequently, would seems as if some of the evils in the world have no good end.