We are gathered to study in a field called "complex systems", whose definition is pretty vague. What is common in this field is we are dealing with systems that are complex, including biological, social, and physical systems, unlike those simple systems classic physics has investigated (now we say those systems are simple, but no intention to undervalue the achievement).
As a typical behavior of a scientific field, researchers are looking for a general theory of complex systems if ever exists. If not, then try to find the simplification that could explain as much behavior of systems as possible. Generalization is hard even within a conventional field because different dynamics happen at different spatial or time scales.
For a generalization to be a general theory, it needs to be able to explain behaviors of different systems well to a certain extent. In addition, the other important aspect of a general theory, which some people may forget, is perhaps that a general theory should not contradict with a limited theory that works only at a specific scale.
Experts in each field understand such limited theories very well while they may not know well about other systems. In contrast, there seems to be some trend that researchers who claim to be more interdisciplinary or come from another field try to look for a general theory applicable to multiple systems, but careless about what the limited theories at different scales tell. Needless to say, researchers on both sides should work together to provide information they have to reach a better understanding of systems.
When such people from different fields discuss a common system, some people are pretty good at understanding what the other kinds of researchers say, by listening carefully and paying attention to interests in other fields. Those people may even notice hidden beliefs they had. There are also other people who are careless about understanding the interests in other fields and insist on looking at their own interests only. This attitude will look disrespectful of the research efforts made in the field. More importantly, failing to understand the interests in a field could lead to overlooking important mechanisms necessary to gain a full picture of a system.
I think what causes this challenge in understanding interests in a field and figuring out the important mechanisms is the difference in beliefs between fields. Here, by beliefs I mean widely supported premises in a particular field. There are analogous concepts among fields. However, there is a chance that a belief in a field is not trivial or maybe even wrong for an analogous concept in another field. This type of study may be self-satisfactory, but it does not function to push science forward.
It is hard to understand the beliefs others have. Also, it may be almost equally hard to notice the beliefs you have. I am starting to realize the existence of such a difference between fields, groups of people, and individuals. I will see where this observation goes and what it brings to me.
