International Conference on Simplicities and Complexities 22-24 May 2019 Bonn, Germany Call for Papers + Essay Competition - Deadline: 15 January 2019 https://www.lhc-epistemologie.uni-wuppertal.de/complexities <https://www.lhc-epistemologie.uni-wuppertal.de/complexities> https://easychair.org/cfp/simplecomplex1 <https://easychair.org/cfp/simplecomplex1> “Simplicities and Complexities" will take place from 22 to 24 May 2019 at the University of Bonn, Germany. It aims to bring together scientists and scholars from a spectrum of disciplines such as physics, biology, ecology, chemistry, and computational science, as well as from philosophy, sociology, and history of science. This conference is organized by the interdisciplinary, DFG- and FWF-funded research unit "Epistemology of the LHC <https://www.lhc-epistemologie.uni-wuppertal.de/home.html>". Call for Papers https://easychair.org/cfp/simplecomplex1 <https://easychair.org/cfp/simplecomplex1> The organizing committee invites abstract submissions on the theme of the conference. Short abstracts (200-300 words) should be submitted to EasyChair by 15 January 2019. We aim to communicate our decision by 28 February. Submissions are welcome from the broad spectrum of scientific fields. In addition to being considered for giving a contributing talk, all submissions will also be considered for our essay competition. Essay competition All submitted abstracts will also automatically be considered for the ‘Simplicities & Complexities Essay Competition’. (If you do not want your abstract to be considered for this competition, please indicate this through EasyChair at the time of application.) From the list of applicants selected to give contributing talks, a shortlist of the six best submissions will be determined. These six finalists enter the final round of the Essay Competition. They will be contacted by February 15th, and asked to submit a 3000-5000-word essay before April 15th. One winner will be chosen and announced in the first week of May. This winner will receive the following prizes: Instead of a regular contributing talk, the winner will present their essay during a longer, public ‘Award Lecture’ (at some point during the conference) Travel reimbursement (up to 300€) + hotel room Please note that once shortlisted you are guaranteed to speak at the Conference (either as a regular contributing speaker, or, in case of the winner, as the Award-winning Public Speaker). Description Philosophers and scientists alike have often assumed simplicity to be an epistemic ideal. Some examples of theories taken as successful realizations of this ideal include General Relativity and Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. These theories influenced early and mid-20th century philosophers' understanding of the criteria successful scientific theories and practices had to meet, even when facing complex phenomena. However, this influence did not mean that the notion of simplicity was clear-cut. A suitable and encompassing definition of simplicity has yet to be developed. Some unanswered questions include: In what sense can and do physicists consider a theory, such as the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, as being sufficiently simple? How do ideals of simplicity differ when applied to disciplines other than physics? Biological concepts, for example, do not tend to refer to laws, whereas concepts from the social sciences frequently resort to notions of order and structure that are different from those of natural sciences. Are there, accordingly, simplicities (in plural) rather than a unified logic-inspired notion? Finally, are there cases where simplicity is simply a bad epistemic ideal, and not merely for the reason that it is often unreachable? Throughout the 20th century the sciences have approached more and more complex phenomena, in tune with the increased social relevance of scientific knowledge. The perceived need to address complexity head-on has led to a broader reaction against simplification and reductionism within the sciences. However, if simplicity, in its various outfits, has proven an unreliable guide, what should it be replaced with? Looking at the various strategies of addressing complexity in the sciences and the disciplines reflecting upon them, it appears that the notion is at least as variegated as simplicity. To be sure, there exist measures of complexity as well as mathematical, empirical, or discursive strategies to deal with it, but they vary strongly from one discipline to another. The aim of the conference is to analyze, differentiate, and connect the various notions and practices of simplicity and complexity, in physics as well as in other sciences, guided by the following questions: Which kinds and levels of simplicity can be distinguished (e.g. formal or ontological, structural or practical)? Which roles do they play and which purposes do they serve? Does simplicity, in a suitable reformulation, remain a valid ideal - and if so, in which fields and problem contexts? Or, instead, where has it been abandoned or replaced by a plurality of interconnected approaches and alternative perspectives? What about complexity? How is the complexity of an object of investigation addressed (represented, mirrored, negated, etc.) by the adopted theoretical and empirical approaches in different fields? Addressing complex problems, especially those relevant to society, requires institutional settings beyond the traditional research laboratory. How does the complexity of such settings relate to the complexity of epistemic strategies and of the problems themselves? In what sense can we trust the other players in a complex epistemic network? How should we conceive of the relation between simplicity and complexity? Are there alternatives to seeing complexity in opposition to simplicity? Does physics, in virtue of its history, maintain its special position in the contemporary debates on simplicity and complexity? What do reflections on the epistemic cultures of ecology, cultural anthropology, economics, etc. have to offer in terms of how simplicities and complexities can be balanced? We invite contributors from a spectrum of disciplines, scientists and scholars reflecting on their respective and neighboring research fields, as well as historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science investigating the epistemologies, practices, and discourses of fellow epistemic communities. The conference will thrive on intense discussion surpassing disciplinary boundaries. Invited Speakers Physics: Robert Harlander, RWTH Aachen (Germany) Stephen Blundell, University of Oxford (UK) Beate Heinemann, DESY Freiburg (Germany) Philosophy: Michael Stöltzner, University of South Carolina (US) Marta Bertolaso, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome (Italy) Richard Dawid, Stockholms Universitet (Sweden) Johannes Lenhard, Universität Bielefeld (Germany) STS: Talia Dan-Cohen, Washington University in St. Louis (US) Stefan Böschen, RWTH Aachen (Germany) Other Sciences: Volker Grimm, Helmholtz Centre for Enviromental Research (Germany) Thomas Vogt, University of South Carolina (US) Other speakers will be announced soon Organization This workshop is organized by the DFG and FWF-funded research unit "Epistemology of the LHC <https://www.lhc-epistemologie.uni-wuppertal.de/home.html>". Cristin Chall (University of Bonn) Dennis Lehmkuhl (University of Bonn) Niels Martens (RWTH Aachen) Martina Merz (University of Klagenfurt) Miguel Ángel Carretero Sahuquillo (University of Wuppertal) Gregor Schiemann (University of Wuppertal) Michael Stöltzner (University of South Carolina) Contact For further information, please contact lhc.epistemology@uni-wuppertal.de <mailto:lhc.epistemology@uni-wuppertal.de>