New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Has chaos theory found any useful application in the social sciences?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Herbert A. Simon, professor of psychology at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, responds:

"I have followed the development of chaos theory with some interest over the past decade or so, but without direct active involvement, so I may or may not be a reliable witness. The only serious efforts of which I am aware to apply chaos theory to social phenomena have been in economics--possibly because only in economics does one find the kinds of time-series data that would be required to test whether or not phenomena are chaotic. There have been a number of such tests for economic data--although even for economic phenomena, time series of the length and accuracy needed for testing are hard to come by, except in the case of some kinds of monetary series and series of stock prices. The verdict would seem to be that there is some indication of chaos in some of the series that have been examined. If that conclusion sounds vague, it is because the evidence looks vague to me.

"As a consequence, I would hesitate to say that chaos theory has had any major impact on the social sciences to date, although the idea that economic trends are difficult to forecast because they are chaotic remains an attractive one. There could be lots of other reasons for our inability to predict, however, all of which would have the same practical consequences.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"In psychology, where most of my own research resides, I have observed nothing of importance that relates to chaos, and I would be rather astonished if it plays any significant role in behavior extending over tens of milliseconds or longer--that is, the kind of behavior we observe and explain in most psychological experiments. But then, astonishment is what we are always seeking in good science, isn't it?"

James P. Crutchfield, research professor at the Sante Fe Institute and a research physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, adds a small plea:

"The phrase 'chaos theory' was invented, as far as I can tell, by the science press around the time of the publication of James Gleick's book Chaos. The proper descriptor, for better or for worse, is 'dynamical systems theory.' I hope I can disabuse people of using the popularized term, which I and many of my colleagues consider inappropriate.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe