Silver Moon said:States that Lord Zardoz's theory about "emergent property" is in reality a reference to the "Law of Unintended Consequences", first defined by Adam Smith in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations, which was in and of itself an expansion of a 1692 theory by John Locke.
Posts to assert that although Smith and before him Locke clearly understood the concept of unintended consequences and its importance to economics and public policy, that the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' as such was named by Merton in 1936 and not before. Locke described the particular unintended consequences of a particular law restricting interest rates: this did not constitute a 'theory'.
Adds that Merton actually used the phrase "Unanticipated Consequences", not "Unintended Consequences". Explains the real meaning of 'anticipate', complains about the people who use it as though it meant 'expect', and decries the decline of standards in modern education. Then notices that Merton was born in 1911, so his misuse of "Unanticipated" can't be attributed to anything recent, and inserts an unattributed variation on a quip by a famous wit. "Education isn't what it used to be--and what's more, it never was."
Goes on to point out that the term 'emergent property' has been misused in place of the more appropriate 'unintended consequence', 'interaction', or 'bug'. Posts a formal definition of an emergent property, and gives examples drawn from the Kinetic Theory of Gases (pressure), Public Choice Theory (consensus), statistics (standard deviation), Population Genetics (evolution rate), and demography (life expectancy).
Regards,
Agback