Talk:Systems theory (general)/Archive 1

From Citizendium
Revision as of 16:03, 1 July 2007 by imported>Thomas Mandel (→‎notes)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

notes

Note 1: Language is crucial to systems theory. In keeping with Korzybski's g-s and the Whorf Principle of Linguistic Relativity, it is imperative that the intro/definition be precisely worded. Leaving out a single word can make the difference between the new and the old. One bad word can turn the entire enterprise into nonsense. Furthermore, because ontological considerations are different, a new language is being sought. Until that is found, if ever, we are using old words to say something new.

There has to be a point where the knowledge of the subject takes precedence over editorial desires.

note 2) While I don't see it as a controversy of the confrontational kind, systems theory has a built-in controversy with classical science. Much ado is made of the diferent perspectives involved, (a) that of looking at an object and (b)that of looking at what the object is doing. So there is a lot of high-level talk about the shortcomings of the old science going on in the literature of systemics. I am not aware of any classical scientists refuting this observation however. So it has not become a controversy of the ordinary kind yet. Systems theory does not replace classical science, it is a complementary of classical science.

If there is controversy, used to be that cybernetics and systems each argued that the other came after, in the end, cybernetics is a special case of the more general systems theory. Today, the controversy is between complexity science and systems theory. IMO, Complexity wants to be top dog, and they act as if they invented something new e.g., the new science of complexity, but what they did is computerize/mathematize complex systems. They don't invalidate system theory principles, they regard them as "old hat" while, later, they refer back to them as their core principles. In my very personal opinion IMVPO

note 3) This quote is from the systems biology article. Does this suggest that systems theory is "dated"? Or does it suggest that the authors did not find it necessary (in this or any other part of the article) to acknowledge prior research?

"When trying to understand biological systems, systems biologists need not treat the components or elements of a system (or subsystem) exclusively as discrete or concrete objects or entities (e.g., molecules, organelles, cells, etc.), but may also treat them as abstracted concepts of organizational collections or activity patterns of those objects or entities, admitting of study by mathematical, computational and statistical tools. Those include such concepts as circuits, networks and modules, more about which will follow below. Such concepts have a way of appearing less abstract or hypothetical as biologists more fully define them in terms of structure and coordinated dynamical interactions; predict systems behavior from them using quantitative models; and relate them functionally in the larger systems embedding them."

The above is clearly systems theory. It is not consistant with the premise that systems theory is outdated/not used, it is consistant with the premise that systems theory is relatively unknown/ignored.

Note 4) I received two reprints from John Warfield who has written on how to do systems work of high quality. Here we have one of the inside stories concerning the politics within the systems movement. They are people like everyone else, and they have faults like everyone else. In this case Warfield has done a tremendous quantity of systems research but he feels that his work has been neglected. This seems to be a common theme among systemists - neglect of the work of others.


Note 5) On the other hande, Warfield writes, "It is a daunting task to discuss the design of a systems sciences program when the word "systems" and the word "science" have both been diminished in scope or scale by common yusage. This task is made still more dificult when, as in applications of systems science, the information that is required to resolve difficult situations is so often in the hands of people who are not accustomed to scientific language, whether debased or not."

I think that Warfield hits the nail straight on the head. I for one, when I read decades ago about this system or that system, did not imagine a special meaning. My personal research into organismic systems went on for 22 years before I discovered system has a special meaning, the same meaning I was researching, and that literally tens of thousands have worked with it. The point is that when I came across the word "system" in my early research I didn't find any need to look further into the meaning of that word and in no way did I think that there was anything special about it. While system theory is common among systemists, as is system philosophy, system science, system thinking and systemics, the general public, and this includes Phd's from all disciplines, does not make that special connection either. This does not mean that the principles of system thoery have been likewise ignored, systems biology is a good example of parallel research apparently without any knowledge of system philosophy. Thus it is all the more important that the definition be explicite about the integrative aspect of a system. Systems thinking does not mean that all science should be put into the same framework as a bus system or sewer system or organizational system.

note 6 The reason for this note is one sentence written by Warfield as a note 17 on page 538 journal article ----

"The fundamental idea is that the systems science must be a neutral science that is applicable across the board, but which will usualy have to be supplemented by experts from the specific sciences or from other areas where relevant experience is found."

It appears that systems science and CitiZendium have something in common. Creating a neutral science is not difficult when general terms constitute the language. Enabling experts from specific sciences is more problematic. Systems science is not just science 2.0. In some crucial (ontological) respects it is a completly new and different way of doing science. However, in our case, we have a perfect supplemental specific application of systems science to be found in the article systems biology.


I just found your comments Greg. I am planning on deleting the old article soon, and then reorganize this talk page according to tradition. Meanwhile, I have removed complexity for now and instead will deal with complex systems. I haven't done much with methodology because I am still trying to gather together significant areas. In one sense all of systemics is methodology, for example the change in thinking. I am working from several sources and I still haven't got the general framework correct yet,Thomas Mandel 11:13, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Methodology

The article has little to say (directly, at least) about methodology. It seems that the article ought to say something about how research in systems theory is done. Greg Woodhouse 22:34, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

hard vs. soft systems and controversy

The article states without justification that "soft" systems are not amenable to the same level of mathematical analysis as "hard" systems. This claim is not uncontroversial. Mathematical approaches such as neural networks or genetic algorithms are actually quite precise. What is more significant, though, is that these techniques do not easily (if at all) reduce to Zadeh's fuzzy systems, and there is little consensus that this is a useful theoretical approach. Other ostensibly "soft" models liike PDEs are reducible to "hard" models in a very precise way. Think, for example, of the relationship between thermodynamics and classical statistical mechanics. Greg Woodhouse 22:43, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

No one is saying that hard system approaches are not precise, but they failed to live up to expectations when these techniques were applied to social systems, family system theory for example. The bottom line is that we have to report what they did/do and not what it appears like to you and me. Thomas Mandel

operations research

Can you elaborate a bit on how OR fits into the framework of systems theory? The article lists it as a modern development, but doesn't elaborate further. Greg Woodhouse 22:47, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

computers and complexity

You might want to be a little more nuanced here. It is true that the growth of computer technology has played an important role in the styudy of complex systems, but one of the most iconic figures in the history of dynamical systems and chaos is Poincaré. Much of the theory goes back to the 19th century. The relationship between heat and triginometric series goes back to Joseph Fourier, In addition, the study of complexity theory in computer science (as is the case with computabilty) was initially concerned with computation in the abstract, not the complexity of algorithms executed on digital computers. Greg Woodhouse 23:33, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

I will delete complexity science for now. Thomas Mandel 11:19, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Here's some feedback from the field --

Very interesting Thom:

I suggest that you keep up the work! It's quite good and contains a lot that I never knew.

Peace, -- Mark

Between you and me, I am surprised as much as you are, thanks to the guys here at CZ, I had to rise to a new level Thomas Mandel 14:32, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

It appears that there are two major applicabilities; one would within the systems theory domain, how systems theorists apply their research and the other would be in the field, or how systems theory is used by other than system theorists. This begs the question "Who is systems theory for?" The answer is found in the purpose of systems theory.Thomas Mandel 00:53, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't know where your "this" starts and ends. I am trying to map it out as they have done it. Areas of applicability is what we call "Applications" I think what I was trying to do is form a historical sequence. Thomas Mandel 15:58, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

I moved this reply from the article page to here. Thomas Mandel 15:58, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Oops! Sorry about that.
None of this is history of systems theory. What you are doing in providing a long list of areas of research where some sort of phenomenon (e.g., feedback in queuing systems where customers are not lost to the system but able to reenter) is present that is of interest to systems theorists. Perhaps you can call it "areas of applicability" or something along those lines. Greg Woodhouse 15:39, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
Very astute of you to catch that Greg. Thomas Mandel

Holding

Bela H. Banathy has contributed extensively to the knowledge base of systems theory, human activity in particular. Bela Banathy's last book, Guided Evolution of Society: A System View presented a cultural evolution of models and ideas exploring "The Journey from Evolutionary Consciousness to Conscious Evolution." He talks about how biological evolution evolved into a cultural evolution, giving examples of how, when prehistoric man developed a language, his tool making evolved as well. [3]

Systems theory refers to a body of thought and way of thinking held among a small minority of thinkers across various disciplines. Systems theory primarily traces itself to a work by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System Theory, in which he sought to bring under one philosophical heading his thoughts about organismic structures. Bertalanffy argued [fill in core argument]. Adherents of system theory have gone on to apply Bertalanffy's thought to [fill in details].


However, the translation of the German into the English general system theory has "wroth a certain amount of Havoc" writes Ervin Laszlo[] in the preface of von Bertalanffy's book Perspectives on General System Theory.. []

"The original concept of general system theory was Allgemeine Systemtheorie (or Lehre). Now "Theorie" (or Lehre) just as Wissenschaft (translated Scholarship), has a much broader meaning in German than the closest English words "theory" and "science." A Wissenschaft is any organized body of knowledge, including the Geisteswissenschaften (Scholarship of Arts), which would not be considered true sciences in English usage. And Theorie applies to any systematically presented set of concepts, whether they are empirical, axiomatic, or philosophical. (Lehre comes into the same category, but cannot be properly translated. "Teaching," the closest equivalent, sounds dogmatic and off the mark. However, doctrine can be a translation for it as well.

"Thus when von Bertalanffy spoke of Allgemeine Systemtheorie, it was consistent with his view that he was proposing a new perspective, a new way of doing science. It was not directly consistent with an interpretation often put on "general system theory," to wit, that it is a (scientific) "theory of general systems." To criticize it as such is to shoot at straw men. Von Bertalanffy opened up something much broader and of much greater significance than a single theory (which, as we now know, can always be falsified and has usually an ephemeral existence): he created a new paradigm for the development of theories."


  • 2006, John N. Warfield, AN INTRODUCTION TO SYSTEMS SCIENCE, World Scientific [5]
  • 2001, Kenneth Bausch, The Emerging Consensus in Social Systems Theory. Kluwer Academic, London. ISBN: 0-306-46539-6
  • 2004, Charles François, Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics, K G Saur, Munich
  • 1999, Charles François, Systemics and Cybernetics in a Historical Perspective
  • 1996, Ervin Laszlo. Systems View of the World. Hampton Press, New Jersy. ISBN: 0-8076-0637-5
  • 1982 Fritjof Capra, The Turning Point. Bantum Books. ISBN: 0-0053-01480-3
  • 1985, Len Troncale. The Future of General System Research. Systems Research


  • 1975, Gerald M. Weinberg An Introduction to General Systems Thinking (1975 ed., Wiley-Interscience) (2001 ed. Dorset House).
  • 1968, Ludwig von Bertalanffy General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications New York: George Braziller

Comments

Hope you'll forgive my small intrusion here. I've made some minor edits that you should feel free to revert. Made them during a read through with a view to offering a few comments. There's a lot here that is very interesting, and you have a broad canvas, and I'm very sympathetically inclined. On reading through though, there were a few things that jarred; bold text is I think overused, it shouts too loud for me. The reading list is just too long to be helpful, it didn't seem to be obviously selective nor did it appear to be comprehensive. Some parts of the text are I thought, too much influenced affected by the intrusion of the writer's opinion - I noted especially the section on Warfield as being congratulatory rather than informative. I also thought there was an apparent excess of jargon and definitions, and a corresponding underuse of simple explanatory terms. So, when you talk of Discovery for instance, is this in the natural meaning? in which case doesn't need capitalization, or is it in some internally defined special sense, in which case it seems to need explanation or should else be avoided.Gareth Leng 04:18, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Your perspective is welcome and refreshing, I changed the bold, but want to keep it in the first paragraph because those words are important. Don't know what to say about the jargon, why else is a encyclopedia for? DId I miss your point? I deleted a couple obvious opinions of mine. Discovery is used by Warfield to label a stage of his methodology but it is used in the conventional "legal" sense. Definitions are important to us because we do redefine many concepts. I like to use them because they can explain a significant concept. Did I miss anything?

Thomas Mandel 00:48, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Many thanks. Of course an article should introduce and explain key technical concepts (jargon).What I was sniping (gently I hope) at are capitalised phrases like "Total Systems Intervention"; the capitalization seems to suggest that these have a very specific meaning, and maybe they do, but if so they are not always explained. I'm not suggesting that you avoid all jargon, but perhaps it should either be explained or avoided.Gareth Leng 03:22, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Oh, I like to think of myself as the world's greatest promoter of simple explanation, (just kidding) I even have a name for it "Sympology" (not kidding)

Here my hands are tied, I can only report what is going on. But if it is of any consolation, systems theory insofar as it is a transdisciplinary science, must depend on plain language to make its point. The complexities we develop/investigate are best expressed by the metaphors and models we use, so we do not need complex words and hopefully the trend in the future will be tward simple/plain language. I do not agree with the school of thought which contends that comnplex/new ideas must have their own language/jargon. Nor is it possible, so thay say, to create a single universal language (which everyone would have to learn) We have no choice but to use plain language, that is, after we learn how to talk in that language. Thomas Mandel 16:25, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Re: Capitalization. I am capitalizing words which are capitalized in the field. Total Systems Intervention (TSI)is actually the proper name of a methodology. (It is good that the common definition is confused with the proper name at least in the sense that it can be understood by anyone.)Thomas Mandel
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Systems_theory_(general)/Archive_1&oldid=244157"