3 ms·

I must admit my BS detectors are set off when anyone claims that their own little field of expertise is going to have a major impact on brain dynamics and quant

• GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  The author is seriously overselling their claim, which is regretably common in the 'complex networks' field.
  • ala_la 11y ago
    Which claim is she overselling? It reads like a fairly conservative and well argued call for the continued involvement of theoretical physicists and mathematicians in the already very successful field of complex networks- and this is from one of the best researchers in the field. She is not claiming network science will take over and be at the heart of everything, but rather that network science has already had great success in widely different areas of science and as domain specialists become increasingly involved, it is important not to lose the focus on the theoretical underpinnings which can be shared across domains.
• archgoon 11y ago
  Why? If the field is looking at a fundamental problem, then it's basically true. Linear Algebra, for example, could claim legitimately having had major impact in brain dynamics, quantum technologies, and quantum gravity almost trivially given the sheer ubiquity of linear transformations. Likewise, the sheer ubiquity of networks (essentially, that just means graphs that change with time) in all sorts of problem domains makes understanding them, and improving the theoretical tools to model them, a win for all of them. It's really not that controversial of a statement. It's like hashtables, once you know about them, they're a fundamental data structure you use everywhere.