**5.1 Cognition and complex systems (reminder)**

Historically, relations between cognition and complex systems have been difficult to manage. It was around the 1900s with the studies conducted by J.H. Poincaré (1854–1912) that the first evidence relating to a problem observed in astronomy was detected. It was only in the 1970s, however, probably out of despair, that the expression "chaos theory" was introduced. It was to experience a major impact in relation with the quasi-oxymoron characterising it. The project to theorise disorder is in fact the exact opposite of the deterministic conceptions on which scientific theories are built and based. In other words, chaos seemed to be a chance event.

When studying turbulences, Ruelle and Takens [3] indicate quite to the point that, beyond an apparent disorder, chaos is in fact "deterministic", but this observation introduces a new paradigm into the scientific research activity. Today the complexity of the situation and the dynamics that underlie it are no longer considered to be disruptive elements but as structuring characteristics of the situation and can be used to find the appropriate concrete action [4].

### **5.2 Roles and functions of the paradigm**

Very broadly characterised, a paradigm, sometimes defined as a "school of thought" is the combination, within a given set, of theoretical and methodological notions with concrete cases which are compatible together so that there is no rupture in the approach to build a corpus of knowledge. For the last two centuries, the objectivity required to choose the relevant action has been related to the experimental method resulting in the construction of the objective experimental paradigm (OEP) which has witnessed major successes. OEP has led to the development of physical sciences, material sciences, life and health sciences. This paradigm underlies experimental medicine, as well as the progress made in the techniques which have accelerated its development.

#### **5.3 Objective experimental paradigm and psychology**

While the formalised sciences (virtually) never raise the question of which paradigm to use since the OEP is the obvious choice, in the human and social sciences,

*Cognitive Decision-Making in Dynamic Systems: When the Objectivity (of the Processing)… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98937*

it must be chosen in a preliminary step. This is clearly the case of psychology where the OEP has been used for many years in laboratory studies (Wundt created the first experimental psychology laboratory at Leipzig in 1879. His initial training as a physiologist probably contributed to the transfer of skills and models to psychology). The central theme studied by this laboratory was in fact perception. More recently, from the 1960s, cognitive psychology has made extensive use of this OEP adding new technological tools in order to study the dynamics of the brain processes during information processing operations.

#### **5.4 Characteristics and migrations of the PEO**

The well-known OEP has become so dominant that it represents an idealised conception of research built around clearly defined options. The main ones, apart from the public nature of the investigation procedure, include the permanent concern for verification using a device conceived and/or built by the researcher. To meet these epistemological requirements, a workplace and clearly defined working conditions are necessary. The workplace is the laboratory, isolated from the influences of the outside world, to prevent unwanted influences - without really knowing what they are - from disturbing the network of relations between variables. The device used is a reconstruction simplified by means of the "scientific reductionism" of potential relations between certain (potentially causal) independent variables and (resulting) dependent variables. Validation tools, sometimes statistical, are used to check whether or not the links proposed are valid.

In view of the guarantees it offers regarding the objectivity of the conclusions and their applicability in real situations, the OEP has been adopted in numerous human and social science research studies [5], rarely in its canonical form and frequently in forms adapted to the situation being processed. The latter forms may be increasingly remote from the basic schema. From an epistemological point of view, it is interesting to consider these successive shifts. They highlight the existence of a compromise, in other words an attenuation of the generality and rigour of the method by considering the specific characteristics of each situation.

#### **5.5 Epistemological functions of the paradigm**

In addition to the intrinsic functions of the paradigm, those of information processing, Kuhn [6] adds a global, trans-situational function. This author points out that the results obtained during its applications to situations of different type but of similar architecture (organisation) are indicators of its validity (the generality requirement g is met). Due to scientific progress, all paradigms are superseded as soon as they are no longer able to provide answers to the questions raised. A new epistemological option and a new paradigm become necessary. Kuhn designated this moment of transition "a scientific revolution". The progress made in scientific knowledge is neither linear nor regular; it is built up discontinuously by a series of leaps separated by periods of stability, of irregular duration, but which shorten according to the degree of progress of science.

#### **6. Cognitive dilemmas**

#### **6.1 Opposed characteristics**

The most recent paradigmatic leap in the evolution of human sciences is that marking the transition from the objective experimental paradigm to the systemic paradigm. What are the consequences? The study of dynamic and complex situations using the OEP analysis grid is unable to determine the efficient decision which would bring the system to the required state (how to put out the forest fire, for example).

Due to the recurrence of difficulties and failures, a more in-depth epistemological analysis must be conducted. This could be explained, for example, by the fact that the characteristics of the complex and dynamic situation to be analysed (S) and those of the tool (paradigm O) used to do so, clearly appear to be contradictory in many respects. As regards the structuring units considered: dynamic subsystems (S) against variables (O); a problem *reconstructed* to be operationalised in a laboratory isolated from the outside world (O) faced with a *real* problem observed in natural environment (S); non-linear relations (S) translated by linear relations (O); dismissal of the temporal perspective (O) although the time of observation and evolution of the system is a determining factor for the decisional choice (S). This amounts to applying a tool built using properties which are rigorously opposed to the situations to which it is applied.
