**7. An epistemological shift: intermediate and complex systems**

#### **7.1 A necessary intermediate formation**

At the time of Gestalt, since no suitable epistemological framework was available, the Gestalt concepts were easy to observe (descriptive validity) but difficult to use in practice (predictive validity). One of the missing links, not mentioned by these authors, is that of sub-systems. The authors concerned, focusing mainly on demonstrating the globality of the conduct studied, took little interest in its determinants.

<sup>3</sup> Which corresponds to austral summer.

*Perspective Chapter: A Perspective on Cognitive Decision-Making in Dynamic Systems… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108981*

They simply stated descriptive "laws," emphasizing the characteristics of the entities to be processed.

At a very early stage, two psychologists [17] demonstrated, from a completely different perspective, the existence of intermediate structures or formations, of different types, between the information present at the input of the processing system and the behaviors or conclusions observed at the output.

These authors point out the intervention of the intermediate systems that operate between these two poles and play a structuring role in processing the message. A fundamental transformation concerns the sensorial inputs, which, from the outset, are assigned a meaning which gives them a cognitive status. For visual perception, for instance, the metaphor of the camera and of the objectivity of the perception proves to be more a post hoc reconstruction than a reality.

#### **7.2 An epistemological breakthrough**

Since then, the progress made by research in other disciplines (in particular, meteorology, nonlinear bonds, astrophysics, and thermodynamics) encourages researchers to postulate that these intermediate systems (which are in actual fact subsystems) determine the characteristics and evolution of the entire system.

The discovery of the underlying dynamics had such an impact that it shook the foundations of epistemological concepts, which had been considered as reliable guides for several decades. It is, particularly, well expressed in the famous assertion of the flap of a butterfly's wing by Lorenz in 1972 which, after a period of cognitive disarray clearly reflected by the term "theory of chaos," led to a new way of building science [18]. The scientific study of these new situations is no longer compatible with the intangible framework of earlier epistemological conceptions (Descartes, Newton, Laplace). In contrast, the notions of system, sub-system, ambient environment, and internal forces will form novel tools, adapted to the study of the underlying dynamics.

#### **7.3 Epistemological theorization**

In 1968, as said before [4], a book was published that emphasized the usefulness of the notion of system as an epistemological framework relevant to numerous scientific disciplines (including psychology). A more recent contribution [19] provides a recent update on how the theory of complex systems is (or could be) used in the social sciences.

The initial contribution brings arguments to use a unifying theory of complex systems. Beyond the specificities of each discipline, a common background looms4 .

#### **7.4 Some important methodological features**

Very briefly outlined, the selected situations share well-known structural and functional properties.


<sup>4</sup> Note the singular used in the title of the first edition of the book: *General System Theory*.


The temporal dimension, unlike the previous paradigms, the paradigm of complex systems places significant emphasis on the temporal dimension. The initial states of the system, which are essential to determine their subsequent evolution, must be known. It is also useful to specify the mental or cognitive patterns of the decisionmakers and, if possible, to know the type of paradigm to which they are initially referring (which is generally not taken into account).
