Von Neumann and Muenster’s introduction of Game Theory, Thom’s Catastrophe Theory, and Zadeh’s Fuzzy Sets Theory – all have one thing in common. They don’t explain everything, but at one stage we thought they might. Network science and complexity theory may well follow the same trajectory. Even if they don’t, I think the following is a useful counter-excitement tool.
“A pattern can be seen in the fate of these new techniques following their introduction:
1) the application of this procedure to unresolved questions in social science;
2) a sceptical reception in the established science with claims of faddism and similar reactions;
3) the formation of a following for this mathematics;
4) the claim for a new science resolving many previous problems;
5) the diffusion into popular, non-scientific culture;
6) reaction and disillusionment;
7) the adaptation of the technique to the established model. ”
[this from : Back, K.. Chaos and complexity: Necessary myths. In R. A. Eve, S. Horsfall, & M. E. Lee (Eds.), Chaos, complexity, and sociology (pp. 39-51). Sage. p. 43-44]