Talk:Systems theory (general)/Archive 1

---

"I come not with my own strengths but bring with me the gifts, talents and strengths of my family, tribe and ancestors."

Maori proverb

---

"There is no way a sophisticated method can substitute for clear thinking." Andreas Goppold

"We cannot understand the whole bit by bit" Bela H Banathy

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

Looks like this article is coming along Thomas, good work - keep it up! --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:59, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, can't say that I disagree with you. I was supposed to do this ten years ago. The big difference today is that there can be no me in it. There is just what happened. What is new is this compendium which Marcus says we never had before. I'm letting the organizaion happen by itself, but I know that after it settles down, I will read about it in Banathy's books. written ten twenty years before. One of the criticisms systems theory faces is that there is no theory. Well, true it is scattered all over the place, but the theory is there. So, writing in uncharted waters, I am wondering what it would take to write the theory...

"Everything is biased"

It is required that all information be included, let's not define all, so in that spirit, what is the alternative/other/ viewpoint? I didn't think there was an alternative/other viewpoint...So what is the alternative/other viewpoint? Thomas Mandel 00:07, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Criticism's of systems theory

My advisor wrote this in response to the objections from Lynn's Education and Research Network.

a) “working together” means everyone thinking the same. b)requires that individuals give up their individual beliefs for those of the community c) systems theory is diametrically opposed to Christianity. d) systems theory is the foundation upon which Hitler built his dictatorship e) just as it is the foundation upon which Marxism and fascism are also both built? f) Systems theory is a man-made concept, defiant of God and God’s will. g) systems theory under girds communism, fascism and national socialism, all despotic governance structures enslaving people and defying the word of God."

---

Well Tom, what does one say.

Firstly, it is difficult to argue with biased rationality and total conviction....it leaves no room for discussion. To tell a BELIEVER that all belief constructs arise from Mankind by virtue of Man being there and being able to perceive and make sense of those perceptions is like trying to walk on water when you have no experience of this skill. But to be honest, all of us are BELIEVERS to some extent. We develop our worldviews when we are in a developmental period, and when we form into groups that give us our mutual support, we formulate paradigms that direct our modes of practice. I have met many a writer constrained by the boundaries of their own paradigm, unable to apprehend alternative views. This of course stands against the notion of Piaget's notion of operative intelligence, where there is a need for the individual to entertain a form of cognitive projection from which different perspectives can be apprehended and coordinated.

The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no basis for the criticism of systems theory if it comes from someone with such a bounded cognitive condition. It is purely a local construction that when taken out of its paradigmatic box fails to leave a trail of substance. If they were to try to argue against systems thinking, then it would have to be on the basis of its (soft) constructivist nature, that a system is defined by a viewer who has a basic orientation and set of experiences, and these guide the practice of the defining the system. The theory of the system stands firm as a set of principles that derive from the axiomatic notion of holism. Having said this, the theory of the system holds little without the accompanying theory of cybernetics. They two float together in a self supporting couple. The theory of one needs the theory of the other to be practically useful.

One of the most interesting theoretical formulations to have developed over the last 3000 years comes from China through Taoist thinking (influenced as it is by Confucianism), which also strictly conforms to the notion of holism. It too is a system/cybernetics formulation of theory that is fundamentally more systemic than science.

However, in describing the notions of systems, one must always be careful. Some people might for instance define a system in terms of its parts each of which have purposes. They may then set up the notion of purposes in terms of goals. However, this relatively hard approach would often be anathema to the soft systems person, who believes in the appreciative system, and argues that it is difficult in a complex world to define the boundaries on any part, or to associate purposes with them. Even if this cannot be done, there is still the possibility of using systems constructs through the notion of holism to enable cybernetics processes to be explored. Indeed, perhaps it is possible to claim that systems provides a structure for cybernetics content....This is in fact the formulation that my own work takes, adopting principles of third cybernetics.

When one tries to decry the notion of the whole because people do not work together, there are clear reasons why this is the case, and the enlightened critic would try to read some of the voluminous theory (for instance my own) about why this does not occur. One of the principle causes is systemic pathology. Pathologies are endemic in systems, and they occur through many causes. One is that people do not understand other people. In the area of knowledge management for instance, there is the idea that all knowledge is locally created, and that people only understand others from their own experiences that has given them their tacit knowledge. For those who are really interested in being critical of systems theory, they should try moving beyond superficial and elementary reading, and dipping into deeper pools of knowledge. Of the criticisms below, I have not seen one that really holds any water. This is perhaps because they isolated statements are taken out of context, or simply that the writers are so constrained by their own paradigms that they are unable to take the time to read deeply into systems theory.

This is not to say that systems theory is correct and other paradigms are not. We each chose our modes of expression and languages. However, to decry one because of ignorance is not to be forgiven. (Prof) Maurice Yolles

Now, my question is where do go to find the counterview? Is it productive and useful if we asked those who know nothing about systems theory? Or do we go to those who have taken the time to learn enough about the subject to make an intelligent criticism?

Suggest following lead-in pgraph for general reader

System theory is a transdisciplinary and multi-perspective scientific field of inquiry concerned with the study of the interrelationships of the constituent elements of organized patterns (systems) of all types — material and immaterial, static and dynamic. Such systems consist of sets of elements that interact with one another, statically or dynamically, forming patterns making up a distinguishable ‘whole’, with attributes not found in the parts, and therefore characteristic of the system-as-a-whole. To paraphrase Erich Jantsch, a system becomes observable and definable only through the interrelationships of its constituent elements. Examples of systems include:

• Mechanical: timepieces; automobiles, bridges;
• Human plus mechanical: flying a jet plane; playing a piano
• Biological: cells; organ systems (digestive); organisms;
• Ecological: forests; biosphere'
• Social: organized societies; clubs;
• Ideological: isms; philosophies;
• Procedural: measuring; grading; governmental;
• Hypothetical/theoretical/scientific: Copernican; Newtonian; Darwinian;
• Networks: World Wide Web.
  

Note that all such organized patterned wholes become observable as such only through the interrelationships among their constituent elements.

Ervin Laszlo contrasts the systems approach with the classical science approach referred to as reductionism, (reducing to a minimum), as a shifting of emphasis from parts to the organization of parts; from the "component to the dynamic" as he puts it. See text box to right. Systemists emphasize that it is through the mutually interactive relationships of the system's constituent elements that new properties of the whole arise, a process called 'emergence'. The late Bela H. Banathy regarded 'emergence' to be the "value" of systems theory; as this new whole has properties which are not found in the constituent elements. "We cannot understand the whole bit by bit" he explained.[1]This article describes the origins, scope, concepts, perspectives and contributions of system theory.

--Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 20:18, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Tony, let me say something. I don't know if I am saying it adequately but let me try. It is not the complexification of knowledge that systems theory is about, it is a completely different reality that we see. When we look at the reality in a systemic way, we are looking at different things. A systemic view is not a sophisticated version of the scientific view, it is looking at and seeing a different view. Thomas Mandel 01:26, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Just to make the point clear, One of the fundamental ideas in systems theory is what Banathy tells us ""We cannot understand the whole bit by bit" Because systems theory is different, it is imperative that this difference be understood from the beginning. For it is in the betginning that the direction is chosen.

Need help with systems biology section leadin

Tony, I need your help. In the systems biology section, I copied a leadin from the systemsbiology website, I requested permission to reprint it but did not receive a reply. I have it hidden in the edit copy. Can you come up with a leadin for the systems biology section? What they write sounds good, except for the subsystem is a childsystem stuff. Let me know what you think?Thomas Mandel 23:54, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

Well here it is --Summary found at systems biology institute website --"In summary, systems are comprised of parts which interact. The interaction of these parts gives rise to new properties and functions which are key to the system. We call these new properties and functions "emergent properties". Because emergent properties are the result of interactions between the parts, they can not be attributed to any single parts of the system. This makes systems irreducible. A system is unlikely to be fully understood by taking it apart and studying each part on its own. (We cannot understand an author's message by studying individual words; we cannot appreciate a forest by looking at individual trees.) To understand systems, and to be able to fully understand a system's emergent properties, systems need be studied as a whole. This recognition that complex systems, especially life, are truly understood from knowledge of the interactions of their component parts is fundamental to systems biology and all the research at the Institute for Systems Biology."

You might try to make the first and last sentence consistent. Thomas Mandel 13:10, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Comments

Hello Thomas. I came across your comprehensive article on Systems Theory and Systems Biology, I haven't had time to read it more carefully (there is a lot of information there, so do keep up the good work) but I think a mention of what electrical and control engineers and applied mathematicians know as a mathematical systems theory is conspicuously missing. This is an established field and goes under the AMS classification of 93--xx (systems theory; control), see http://www.ams.org/msc. Systems thinking has from early on been a central concept in modern control engineering and researchers in the field have contributed a great deal to the development of various rigorous mathematical concepts and tools for systems analysis and synthesis (for example, stability analysis) and now starting to be applied to fields like systems biology and complex networks.

I'm also puzzled why so much space is devoted to the opinion of Lynn from the LEARN website and why she should be given status as a sort of authority on the subject. In particular, her arguments seem to be leaning towards pseudoscience and begs the question of whether her opinion is suitable for inclusion in the article. Hendra I. Nurdin 21:47, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

I was asked to present opposing thoughts and her thoughts are as opposing as it can get. Because the article is under construction, I temporaily included all her commentsThomas Mandel 00:34, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

After further reading

Oops ... Okay, after more careful reading this "system theory" is related to but not quite the same as the systems theory I was thinking of (as it is understood in (control) engineering, see, for example, [1]). May I suggest changing the name of this article to "Systems theory (philosophy)", to distinguish it to the systems theory of engineering? Thanks. Hendra I. Nurdin 00:29, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

I do not understand why you don't first of all include your mathematical systems theory into the article, I don't know everything, and if you feel that mathematical systems theory is different and separate rename your article to mathematical systems theory? You are not suggesting that we rename our article so that you can use "systems theory" yourself? Thomas Mandel 21:08, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

I would like to propose that you consult someone with at least some familiarity with General Systems Theory to see what sort of adequate resolution might be found. Perhaps Anthony Sebastian. I think it might be useful to make systems theory a disambiguation page.

Philosophers know nothing about General Systems Theory, as far as I know, and this article doesn't particularly sound like philosophy to me. --Larry Sanger 21:31, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Anthony Sebastian is not an expert in systems theory, AND systems theory is not just a philosophy, your people put that tag on it. I am sorry that some are not aware of our field, but isn't that what a encyclopedia is supposed to do? Control theory is related to Cybernetics, a certain kind of system. Note that her links refer to Wiener, the founder of cybernetics. Neither cybernetics nor control theory is more general than systems theory. Just because some people choose to refer to systems theory does not mean that their particular theory IS all of systems theory. From the article -- "Fritjof Capra summarizes in his book: The Turning Point; "Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static “snapshots.” It is a set of general principles—distilled over the course of the twentieth century, spanning fields as diverse as the physical and social sciences, engineering, and management. ...During the last thirty years, these tools have been applied to understand a wide range of corporate, urban, regional, economic, political, ecological, and even psychological systems. And systems thinking is a sensibility—for the subtle interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique character."

In the end it is what the field is doing that matters, and this field is populated by many many more than just control engineers. The term systems theory has been used for fifty years as a general designation and it is not correct for any particular aspect of systems to claim the name as its own. If that were so, then why not management systems too? Or any of the vast number of disciplines that use systems theory? Why not use the correct wording "control systems" they did it right on their pages "systems theory - control" Thomas Mandel 00:14, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

You might want to follow your o0wn instructions copied here - "The title (i.e., the word or phrase in the title) is used in multiple ways, and the sense discussed in the article is not the most common sense. For example, there is a line of cosmetics called "Philosophy"; the article about that might live at Philosophy (cosmetics). The article about deep thought continues to live at Philosophy--no parentheses needed. "

so that her article would be systems theory (control)

Thomas Mandel 00:28, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Many people doing Hendra's kind of systems theory would disagree that they use your kind of systems theory. I think the phrase "systems theory" is ambiguous and that neither Hendra's kind of systems theory nor your kind can "claim" the title Systems theory. So, I agree with the proposal at Talk:System theory that we call one article Systems theory (engineering) and the other one Systems theory (interdisciplinary field) or Systems theory (cybernetics) or General systems theory or whatever you prefer. -- Jitse Niesen 07:14, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Of course you have a source which supports your opinion, may I see it please? (transdisciplinary, not interdisciplinary)Thomas Mandel 09:09, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Tom, these editors know your position: you don't want anything but your article to live on systems theory. This doesn't appear to be acceptable to the editors. If you don't have any positive proposal, let them decide on what the next step is. --Larry Sanger 09:30, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Systems theory is not systems engineering. Systems theory is a term that has been used in the systems community for fifty years as a general umbrella term. Systems engineering is a special case or application of systems theory, that is, a certain kind of system. Bertalanffy defined systems engineering as "Scientific planning, design,evaluation and construction of man-machine systems. My reference is from the International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics. ISBN 3-598-11357-9. Pg 359 The two editors did not cite any sources and only provided their opinions which I had assumed was not allowed. We were on the verge of creating a student research project here. I think, however, it would be better if we did it on our own Wiki. I would like to thank you however, I have been invited to write an article for the journal World Futures, which would not have happened if it wasn't for you.Thomas Mandel 17:33, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

No one was claiming that systems theory is systems engineering (see a related post of mine in the Section "Research paper" below). Even the engineering sense of "systems theory" is not the same as systems engineering. You keep touting this Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics as a reference yet it is 1) only one reference, 2) written by a proponent for Systems Theory 3) it is only an encyclopedia. I have given references to Systems Theory as it is understood in the engineering and applied mathematics world in my postings, for instance see one of my postings above and here. Hendra I. Nurdin 17:48, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

In reply to Thomas' question, the opinion that systems theory in the engineering sense is not systems theory in the von Bertalanffy sense can be found in a book review by Brian Ingalls in IEEE Control Systems Magazine, April 2006, pp. 95ff. "Within the control community, systems theory is typically thought of as the foundation for control analysis. Indeed, it is common practice to intertwine systems and control in a work on systems theory. An alternative approach is embodied in the general systems theory of von Bertalanffy and others, who define the field in much more general terms. The approach taken by Hinrichsen and Pritchard in Mathematical Systems Theory I is, as decreed above, that systems theory is a branch of mathematics." (references deleted, my emphasis).

I believe Thomas Mandel when he says that Systems theory (transdisciplinary field) is a better title then Systems theory (interdisciplinary field). -- Jitse Niesen 21:03, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

See research paper

It may be helpful if you read the research paper published in the journal Systems Research and Behavoiral Science titled "Re-evaluating Systems Engineering as a Framework for Tackling Systems Issues by Stephen C. Cook and Timothy L.J. Ferris. Syst. Res. Vol. 24. No. 2 169-181 (2007). They write from the University of South Australia. "As modern systems engineering practice concerns broader contextual issues than just the technological product systems, system engineers are comng to adopt a wider , more abstract position with respect to the nature of the system, and arriving at a view more consistent with the view held by other system thinking practitioners. In the newer understanding of systems engineering the systems of interest encompass the entire set of elements leading to the capability to make an impact in the world, that is: the end product system, the enabling system, the process system and the impact of of these systems in their environments of operation; a set of factors known collectively in Australian Defence circles as Fundamental Inputs to Capability Thomas Mandel

This is talking about Systems Engineering, which is a different beast from the engineering Systems Theory and your General Systems Theory (though the latter would claim Systems Engineering to be a sub-discipline). Please don't forget to sign your name Tom so that people can quickly identify who wrote what. Hendra I. Nurdin 17:17, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Acknowledge prior research

From http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/CYBSWHAT.html

What are Cybernetics and Systems Science? Cybernetics and Systems Science (also: "(General) Systems Theory" or "Systems Research") constitute a somewhat fuzzily defined academic domain, that touches virtually all traditional disciplines, from mathematics, technology and biology to philosophy and the social sciences. It is more specifically related to the recently developing "sciences of complexity", including AI, neural networks, dynamical systems, chaos, and complex adaptive systems. Its history dates back to the 1940's and 1950's when thinkers such as Wiener, von Bertalanffy, Ashby and von Foerster founded the domain through a series of interdisciplinary meetings. Systems theory or systems science argues that however complex or diverse the world that we experience, we will always find different types of organization in it, and such organization can be described by concepts and principles which are independent from the specific domain at which we are looking. Hence, if we would uncover those general laws, we would be able to analyse and solve problems in any domain, pertaining to any type of system. The systems approach distinguishes itself from the more traditional analytic approach by emphasizing the interactions and connectedness of the different components of a system. Although the systems approach in principle considers all types of systems, it in practices focuses on the more complex, adaptive, self-regulating systems which we might call "cybernetic".

Many of the concepts used by system scientists come from the closely related approach of cybernetics: information, control, feedback, communication... Cybernetics, deriving from the Greek word for steersman (kybernetes), was first introduced by the mathematician Wiener, as the science of communication and control in the animal and the machine (to which we now might add: in society and in individual human beings). It grew out of Shannon's information theory, which was designed to optimize the transmission of information through communication channels, and the feedback concept used in engineering control systems. In its present incarnation of "second-order cybernetics", its emphasis is on how observers construct models of the systems with which they interact (see constructivism).

In fact, cybernetics and systems theory study essentially the same problem, that of organization independent of the substrate in which it is embodied. Insofar as it is meaningful to make a distinction between the two approaches, we might say that systems theory has focused more on the structure of systems and their models, whereas cybernetics has focused more on how systems function, that is to say how they control their actions, how they communicate with other systems or with their own components, ... Since structure and function of a system cannot be understood in separation, it is clear that cybernetics and systems theory should be viewed as two facets of a single approach.

This insight has had as a result that the two domains have in practice almost merged: many, if not most, of the central associations, journals and conferences in the field include both terms, "systems" and "cybernetics", in their title. In spite of this lack of strict subdivisions, though, the domain is rather fragmented, with many different approaches, similar in some respects, different in others, existing side-by-side. Many of these "schools", such as autopoietic systems, anticipatory systems, living systems, viable systems or soft systems, are associated with a particular theorist or thinker, respectively Maturana, Rosen, Miller, Beer and Checkland. As a result, the cybernetics and systems domain lacks clear foundations. Yet, we, in the Principia Cybernetica Project, believe that the commonalities are much larger than the differences, and therefore it is worth attempting to integrate the different approaches in a common conceptual framework.

Some excellent, easy to read, introductory books on cybernetics and systems can be downloaded freely from our Principia Cybernetica library. Together with our dictionary, and bibliography of basic books and papers, this should be sufficient for an introductory course in the domain. The following links to other websites provide further introductory material and references.

Outside links:

Alan Scrivener's Curriculum for Cybernetics and Systems Theory Felix Geyer's excellent review paper on cybernetics and its applications to social systems General Systems Theory and Earth Science: an introduction to systems thinking Paul Pangaro's definition of Cybernetics in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Computers an introduction to systems thinking, (especially systems dynamics) by Gene Bellinger general information on cybernetics from the ASC the ISSS project developing a primer on systems science Educational Cybernetics: a course by Gary Boyd at Concordia University description of an introductory course on Cybernetics and Systems Theory another course description on Systems Theory a digest of systems theory, consisting of excerpts from basic books and papers Systems Science Archives (mostly French) of the European Systems Union Chris Lucas' introduction to 'Cybernetics and Stochastic Systems' Revision as of 01:27, 18 September 2007 Thomas Mandel

It is unfortunate that you are not familar with systems theory, but isn't that what an encyclopedia is for? But of course it is understandable because systems theory is a very difficult subject to understand simply because the mode of inquiry is focused on the interaction between entities rather than the "mainstream" perspective on parts. However this is no excuse for professionals to ignore it. As far as small pockets of proponents, if you would have read the entire article you may have noticed the listing of a dozen or so societies and even a federation of societies and as many journals dedicated to systems research. It is not a valid argument to assume that only a minority of scientists are familar with systems thoery, ALL of science began as a minority, and it can be argued that none of them, save mathematics, are practiced by a majority of scientists. Your arguments might work in Wikipedia but here? I know it is difficult to convince a blind person that there is such a thing as color, but this does not mean whatsoever that there is no such thing as color. Systems theory is about how things work together, and maybe in a world dominated by the Darwinian paradigm, such a notion is universally rejected, but the fact of the matter is that the Universe does in fact work together. Take a look at the systems biology article and also systemsbiology.org website. Then tell me about mainstream. Notice that they have only reference to Bertalanffy. So did this person rediscover the whole ball of wax?Thomas Mandel 22:59, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

ps Web Scholar Results 1 - 10 of about 134,000,000 for systems theory. (0.08 seconds) Thomas Mandel 23:15, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

I am familiar with a "systems theory" which advocates systems thinking and synthesis, not just analysis (frankly, I don't know where this claim that mainstream science merely has "perspective on parts" is coming from), but admittedly not with your grand unified version. A grand unified anything should already raise a red flag for most professionals. No one is blind to anything, I did some reading and it seems to me that the supporters of systems theory themselves admit that systems theory lacks a clear foundation (as stated in the first article from Principia Cybernetica you posted above) and it lies at the "fringe" of science. For the latter, see for example G. A. Swanson's 1998 ISSS incoming presidential speech. P.S. your response is verging on being inflammatory, which is against CZ policy. Hendra I. Nurdin 23:55, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

"Reductionism: “…imagine a materialistic philosophy that claims that all complex entities (including proteins, cells, organisms, ecosystems) can be completely explained by the properties of their component parts. Such an epistemological position is called reductionism, and it is the basis for most of physics and chemistry, and much of biology….. In the reductionist epistemology of science, chemistry and biology are not ultimately independent disciplines, because they will eventually have all their explanations “reduced” to the terms of physics. The reductionist epistemology and methodology is strictly analytical.”

"Holism: ”Let us imagine, though, another (ontologically) materialistic philosophy. Here, complex wholes are inherently greater than the sum of their parts in the sense that the properties of each part are dependent upon the context of the part within the whole in which they operate. Thus, when we try to explain how the whole system behaves, we have to talk about the context of the whole and cannot get away talking only about the parts. This philosophical stance is variously called wholism, holism, or organicism.”

Thomas Mandel 08:51, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

21st Century science

from http://www.systemsbiology.org/Intro_to_ISB_and_Systems_Biology/Systems_Biology_--_the_21st_Century_Science

Traditional biology — the kind most of us studied in high school and college, and that many generations of scientists before us have pursued — has focused on identifying individual genes, proteins and cells, and studying their specific functions. But that kind of biology can yield relatively limited insights about the human body.

As an analogy, if you wanted to study an automobile, and focused on identifying the engine, seat belts, and tail lights, and studied their specific functions, you would have no real understanding of how an automobile operates. More important, you would have no understanding of how to effectively service the vehicle when something malfunctions. So too, a traditional approach to studying biology and human health has left us with a limited understanding of how the human body operates, and how we can best predict, prevent, or remedy potential health problems. Biologists, geneticists, and doctors have had limited success in curing complex diseases such as cancer, HIV, and diabetes because traditional biology generally looks at only a few aspects of an organism at a time.

As scientists have developed the tools and technologies which allow them to delve deeper into the foundations of biological activity — genes and proteins — they have learned that these components almost never work alone. They interact with each other and with other molecules in highly structured but incredibly complex ways, similar to the complex interactions among the countless computers on the Internet. Systems biology seeks to understand these complex interactions, as these are the keys to understanding life.

The individual function and collective interaction of genes, proteins and other components in an organism are often characterized together as an interaction network. Indeed, understanding this interplay of an organism´s genome and environmental influences from outside the organism (nature and nurture) is crucial to developing a — systems — understanding of an organism that will ultimately transform our understanding of human health and disease.

Systems biology is still in its infancy; we are at the turning point in our understanding of what the future holds for biology and human medicine. The Institute for Systems Biology is pioneering this rich new opportunity. "

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Thomas Mandel 09:01, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Shall we delete this page, too?

Tom, you have gone ahead and deleted the article you were working on. Unless you want me to restore it, I don't see what the point is of this talk page. In fact, unless you can give me a coherent answer why we have it, I'm inclined to delete it. The purpose of talk pages is to improve articles. There is no article left here to talk about.

No one, of course, is attempting to diminish the efforts of systems theory. My only reason for insisting that you not work on this article in the main namespace has nothing to do with systems theory per se. It is that it is obviously contrary to CZ:Neutrality Policy, and you so far have not rendered it very much less obviously biased in favor of systems theory. --Larry Sanger 09:57, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Larry, I have no problem with you, your points were correct and well taken. I also have no problem with keeping the article out of main namespace until it is acceptable to you, it's just that I have not even attempted to neutralize it, I still am in the collection phase and have been researching complexity theory which is not easy. I have kept my own personal view out of it which was an enlightening experience for me.

My problem is with those editors who have never heard of systems theory and thus conclude that it is not mainstream, is fringe science, a minority view, and so on without doing the requisite research themselves. That is not how science is supposed to be done. "Wherefore thou does not know thou does not speak" Google reports 134,000,000 listings for systems theory. Over and over I had to fight this battle with some of your people. I mean, the whole point of an encyclopedia is to educate, what kind of sense is it to believe that "I don't know about it so it must not be important enough for me to learn about it." And now someone wants me to change the name because she wants to use it her way and she too never heard of systems theory outside her engineering perspective. Then she has her friend support her and suddenly we are at Wikipedia again...The fact of the matter is that I did include systems engineering in the article, based on a research paper published in a journal. She has provided no sources for her conclusions whatsoever, and on top of it she demeans my sources. This is exactly what they do at Wikipedia. Systems theory as nomenclature has been used by the systems community for fifty years. We also have systems thinking, systems approach, systems methodology and others, each meaning the same thing but with different purposes. For example "systems thinking" is an internalization of systems philosophy. The article has been reviewed by many systems people, one of which is the president of a system Group in France. I have received many letters of praise, one stating that we don't have a compendium such as this. What we have is tens of thousands technical papers written by Phd's suitable for publication in a journal. I am the chair of the Primer group and it is my purpose to write for the general public. The problem I believe is that the general public is not aware of systemic principles because they are known by many different names. Complexity science is merely complex systems theory utilizing mathematics such as differential equations. Almost all of new science is in some way a kind of systems theory. Nothing weird about that, systems theory is about how things work together, and what is new about that is when things work together novel things emerge, usually with properties that the parts didn't have. Table salt is made of two poisons working together.

So, Yes you can restore the article if you want to, but I will not negotiate on the title. I didn't make the title up, it has been in use by our community of scholars for a very long time. And it is that which we ought to be reporting on, not the opinions of certain editors no matter who they are.

Thomas Mandel Chair, the Primer Group, International Society for the System Sciences. Thomas Mandel 17:11, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

You seem to be ignoring everything the editors have written and cannot see beyond your point of view. From the talkpages of Wikipedia, I noticed this was exactly the same behavior you displayed there and which resulted in you being blocked from editing certain pages. I will rest my case now, I do not wish to get further involved in long winded arguments, that would be counterproductive. Citizendium aims to be a reliable collaborative encyclopedia, which is why I raised my concerns about your article and the subject of systems theory. Frankly, the more I read about the grand unified systems theory, the more "fringe" it looks (and some of its proponents freely admit this nature of the theory). This should come as no surprise since systems theory's ultimate aim is to be a "Theory of Everything". I will soon setup a disambiguation page and write an engineering "systems theory" article as planned. This is the well founded and modest systems theory which is currently being adapted, extended and then applied by various control engineers and applied mathematicians to the life sciences (systems biology) -- no grand unified theory is required. It is unfortunate that you have not shown us any willingness to reason and cooperate. Hendra I. Nurdin 17:55, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

I am not a lemming, here or anywhere else. At Wikipedia, an employee of a cosmology Institute refused to allow me to insert into the plasma cosmology page the fact that Hubble did not believe in expansion up to his dying day. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html I am proud of being banned for that. And in the Crop Circle article, they removed ALL scientific testing results and then wrote that there is no scientific evidence. I am proud of being banned for resisting that. So, you are a Wikipedia supporter. Why do you suppose Larry Sangler, one of the original cofounders of Wikipedia, started this one? As far as a theory of everything, did you even read the article?

(A theory of everything is in principle impossible because something can not be everything) Here's what Ervin Laszlo, author of 84 books and 350 articles wrote

"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."

Kenneth Boulding writes in the 1968 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, "The task of general systems theory is to find the most general conceptual framework in which a scientific theory or technological problem can be placed without losing the essential features of the theory or problem." [] +

Bertalanffy writes: "There appear to exist general system laws which apply to any system of a particular type, irrespective of the particular properties of the systems and the elements involved. Compared to the analytical procedure of classical science with resolution into component elements and one-way or linear causality as basic category, the investigation of organized wholes of many variables requires new categories of interaction, transaction, organization, teleology...” []The proponents of general systems theory see in it the focal point of resynthesis of knowledge." [] +

Banathy describes how systemists work with general principles -"By observing various types of systems and studying their behavior, we can recognize characteristics that are common to all systems. Once we have identified and described a set of concepts that are common to the systems, and observed and discovered among some of them certain relationships, we can construct from them General Systems Principles. Thus, a system principle emerges from an interaction/integration of related concepts. Next, we are in the position to look for relationships among principles and organize related principles into certain conceptual schemes we call Systems Models. This process of starting from observation and arriving at the construction of systems models constitutes the First Stage of developing a systems view."

Let it be known that I am proud to have not cooperated with you, and those editors who have have abstracted first, then observed according to their abstractions (Korzybski calls that "unsane". I know how to think. And I learned long ago never to compromise my principles to apease others. Thomas Mandel 19:43, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

For the record

Not related to this article, but brought up by Hendra is the fact that I was indefinitely banned without chance of appeal and without any given reason from editing science articles at Wikipedia.

Background: Big Bang theory. Is based on the assumption that the observed redshift can be related to recessional velocity by adding "C" to Hubble's equation. It is then assumed that this velocity indicates an expansion. however, this has been falsified and in order to make it work a period of inflation has been proposed. This inflation does not occur by any ordinary known physics. Again, "C" the speed of light was added to the original Hubble equation. Sandage, at a special celebration of the centennial of the birth of Edwin Hubblecentennial of the birth of Edwin Hubble, wrote: "Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).

My attempts to include this fact, in various forms were repeatedly reverted by an employee of a big bang cosmology Institute, and later was used as evidence of "aggressive editing."

In the crop circle article, I attempted to include the findings of several scientists. One test involved measuring the atomic structure of clay found inside the circle. This testing was reviewed by a world reknown mineralologist who reported that the testing was coorrect. The tests indicated that the clay within the circle had an increased atomic ordering (crystalization). This increase in order can only be accomplished by temendous heat, pressure and time. There are several other tests that were conducted, but the Wikipedia editors repeatedly removed all reference to any of the scientific testing.

When I suggested that this would be grounds for legal action in the real world I was blocked for making a legal threat. If you read the article today, it has no scientific results in it, and states that there is no scientific evidence.

Both of these cases constitute a lie, and while I did not go around looking at all controversial articles I'd bet that all of them are Wikislanted one way or the other according to editors in influence.

The ArbCom case qas against another editor, I was an involved party. Someone posted a solution that I be banned and four concurred. No reason was stated either before, during or after. My repeated requests for appeal were ignored, ArbCom cannot ban indefinately. But, as one editor put it when I complained to a list, "Wikipedian admin can do as they damn well please." They do not follow their own rules, they are not honest, and they are not knowledgable. This occured at the same time Sangler started Citizendium.

So far integrity has not been an issue at Citizendium Until now. I hope that the right thing is done.Thomas Mandel

Walking a thin line

This talk page is walking a thin line that borders on incivility, inflammatory and complaints about other users. Please limit discussion to the subject matter only from this point forward. --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:48, 18 September 2007 (CDT), Constable.