<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Science on Misha Velthuis</title>
    <link>https://mishavelthuis.nl/tags/science/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Science on Misha Velthuis</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 12:00:00 +0200</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://mishavelthuis.nl/tags/science/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Science-plaining reality to the humanities: the case against emergence</title>
      <link>https://mishavelthuis.nl/posts/emergence/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 12:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
      <guid>https://mishavelthuis.nl/posts/emergence/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Yesterday, in an after-class discussion with a student, I found myself questioning the value of the concept of emergence, and the way it is embraced not just by complexity theorists but by the sciences at large. Today I found some time to think through the argument a bit more and then boom, this blog post EMERGED.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, I feel that the idea of emergence, and much of complexity theory in general, is just a form of &amp;ldquo;science-plaining&amp;rdquo;, where science invents its own jargon to &amp;ldquo;explain&amp;rdquo; to the humanities (and people at large) what they have known for centuries, while maintaining the untenable position that it &amp;ldquo;objectively describes the world&amp;rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
