Talk:Systems theory/Archive 3

A Question - April 2007

In the Sociology section there is a reference to Raven (1995) and it is not listed in the Reference section. I am wondering if the document cited is : Raven, J. (1995). The New Wealth of Nations: A New Enquiry into the Nature and Origins of the Wealth of Nations and the Societal Learning Arrangements Needed for a Sustainable Society. Unionville, New York: Royal Fireworks Press; Sudbury, Suffolk: Bloomfield Books. (Chapters 1 [which summarises the whole book], 4 [“Some Observations on Money”], and 17 [Summary of Parts I to III and overview of Part IV: The Way Forward] are available at www.npsnet.com/cdd/nwn.htm ). Monica Figueroa (mofigueroaca@gmail.com)

I don't know, I will look into the reference. I anticipate noting other sociologists that I am more familliar with and I believe were more influential/foundational for the area of sociology/systems theory. Sorry for the slow response.--Kenneth M Burke 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have found several literatures from Raven, John, who is an educator. My guess is that the reference is for the book that you have noted, but it seems that he had written some articles during the same year. I will keep investigating. If you find any additional information, do let me know.--Kenneth M Burke 01:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Content deleted from page that requires further research - May 2007

General Systems Theory as an objective of systemics - 4 may 2007

Many early systems theorists aimed at finding a general systems theory that could explain all systems in all fields of science. The term goes back to Bertalanffy's book titled General System Theory. von Bertalanffy's objective was to bring together under one heading the organismic science that he had observed in his work as a biologist. His desire was to use the word "system" to describe those principles which are common to systems in general. In GST, he writes: "...there exist models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of their component elements, and the relationships or "forces" between them. It seems legitimate to ask for a theory, not of systems of a more or less special kind, but of universal principles applying to systems in general." (GST p.32)

"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 M Burke 02:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that every sentence of the first paragraph is either incorrect or misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.42.5 (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I seemed to agree with you on the current situation. But then I looked back in the articles history. I found that this deleted content (see the next text) made more sence five months ago. - Mdd 11:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

General Systems Theory as an objective of systemics - 1 january 2007

Many early systems theorists aimed at finding a general systems theory that could explain all systems in all fields of science. The term goes back to Bertalanffy's book titled General System Theory. von Bertalanffy's objective was to bring together under one heading the organismic science that he had observed in his work as a biologist. His desire was to use the word "system" to describe those principles which are common to systems in general. In GST, he writes: "...there exist models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of their component elements, and the relationships or "forces" between them. It seems legitimate to ask for a theory, not of systems of a more or less special kind, but of universal principles applying to systems in general." (GST p.32)

However, the translation of the German into the English general system theory has "wroth a certain amount of Havoc" writes Errvin 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."

Notes:

However as a first presentation of General Systems Theory, this text was also not very clear - Mdd 11:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I will clarify my clarification. I have already begun to collect sources that will be useful from top to bottom, from sociology to living systems. It seems that the biggest problem with the passage about GST as a general theory of systematics is that it seems to infer that the theory attempted a reductionism. That is evidently not true and should be clarified. --Kenneth M Burke 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I decided combining general systems as an objective of systemics with a coherent section including types of systems and systems inquiry would be most appropriate. I will need to collect some sources to accomplish it and want to add some better sources to the introduction and overview. May take a little time. If anyone has insights, do feel free to dialogue. --Kenneth M Burke 15:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind, I think I'll keep those sections separate (but still not quite sure how to explain systemics. I also still have to check sources by Lazlo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenneth M Burke (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Regarding photo of Margaret Mead

From what I understand Mead is not regarded as one of the founders of Systems Theory. Her one claim to fame is that she was temporarily married to Gregory Bateson, who did contribute. Shouldn't we find a better photograph? John D. Croft 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Mead was important in the systems theory movement, and stayed that in a way. She was present at of the earlierer Macy conferences around 1950 and was later president of the systems society ISSS in 1972. Like lots of things it's a bit difficult to determine in what way she as important - Mdd 00:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

She was also president of the SGSR for a time. I used the photo mainly because it seemed more appropriate than Bertalanffy toking on a cigarette right on the front page.--Kenneth M Burke 15:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In about 1987 the SGSR or Society for General Systems Research became the ISSS or International Society for Systems Science... So formally the ISSS in 1972 was still called the SGSR. We were talking about the same thing.

But back to John D. Croft's question. Margaret Mead can be seen as one of the promotors of General Systems Theory... but a founder of systems theory? I don't recall an important article or book from Mead here selve about Systems theory. Maybe John can tell us with part (or sentences) of the article he found confusing. - Mdd 19:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Mead, if I am not mistaken, was indeed key to the founding and expansion of GST. In fact, she was co-founder and President of the Society for General Systems Research (now ISSS) right after Von Bertalanffy. -- Albert F. Case, Jr. 72.187.109.150 - 19:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Still confused - Jun 2005 nearing its second anniversary

Since the following comment is archived, I thought it apropos to resurrect it for its second anniversary.

After reading this article I now know what System Theory focusses on and what is it applied to. However, I'm still at a loss when it comes to understanding what System Theory is."

This is a common problem when authors lose sight of their target audience, namely the intelligent layman in search of enlightenment.

Friends, please help me out with some concrete examples of specific problems where system theory has been used effectively. Even better, show me how system theory is applied to a sample problem, or, if that is too complicated, what about illuminating the matter with some helpful anologies.

Thanks a lot! -- Philopedia 02:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most of this comment is still valid. The only change I would make is that, after two years of "improvement", reading this article no longer identifies the focus of Systems Theory...

Please trim this down and focus it on whatever it is that constitutes Systems Theory. 214.4.238.61 18:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry that I did not recognize you as a separate user. Welcome under strange circumstances.--Kenneth M Burke 02:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Could 214.4.238.61 be more specific in what he or she means by Please trim this down and focus. If he or she has specific idea's about improving the article then we can talk about it. Thank you. - Mdd 02:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing the point

The page as presented say a month ago, was written by significant educators within the system movement. Since that time nearly all the subtle properties of systems have been removed and or misinterpreted. This article does not reflect the systems movement as it actually exists. (It is not up to wiki editors to decide not to use the founders picture just because he is smoking a cigarette. ) You are free to write as you will but don't complain when your work is ignored. 66.190.40.64 05:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(IP Location 66.190.40.64 : United States - Wisconsin - Madison - Charter Communications).

Maybe You can be more specific about these misinterpreteds. Then we can do something about it. - Mdd 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Starting with sentence one:

Systems theory in its broadest sense is the interdisciplinary study of human life and social organization in terms of systems.

First of all systems theory is transdisciplinary, in the broadest sense it transcends all study. Secondly, while human life is important to systemists, systems theory is about the Universe, including but not restricted to human life. Thirdly, while social organization is an important aspect of systems theory, organization is not all of systems theory.

And sentence two:

Where talk about "systems" has become commonplace, the term in relation to the science known as systems theory is ironically somewhat misleading since the area involves heterodox approaches to what one may think of with the catchphrase "system."

I have no idea of what this sentence says/means, and wonder what the significance is justifying writing it as sentence two. Do you hace a source for the observation?

66.190.41.50 03:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The systems theory page was in sorry condition. Much work has gone into improving it. Thank you for your feedback, your comments will be considered.--Kenneth M Burke 14:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To address the issues you brought up

1. that systems theory is transdisciplinary and involves the study of many different types of systems is discussed later in the article, specifically in "types of systems."
2. Many authors note the contemporary reference to systems and that it has become a commonplace catchphrase. Some basic texts include Debora Hammond (cited in the references for the page). The book by Gerald Weinberg (cited in further reading) is another example. I mistakedly disregarded this book when I first began working on the page thinking it was another, but it is a good introductory text. General Sytems Theory: Ideas and Applications by Lars Skyttner (2001) is also a good introductory text.

If you are looking for a specific quote, I am sure that I could find a citation that notes the commonplase usage of the term "system," without a particular theoretical basis.

If you think that the introduction is misleading, a revision can be discussed. Do you have any suggestions? Again, thank you for your feedback. Are you new to Wikipedia? --Kenneth M Burke 14:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some hyperlinks in the text to get a better understanding of what we are talking about. I first have to look up some of the words before I can respons further. As not-native English speaker I don't know the meaning of comonplace, catchphrase and heterodox... - Mdd 17:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

After some looking up, it doesn't become any clearer. So I have to agree with the critic, that meaning of the second sentence is unclear. - Mdd 18:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Debora Hammond (2003: 11-12) specifically notes that systems theory:

"... became associated with the highly rationalized technological and institutional systems of the late twentieth century,"

from which the concept of a system ultimately led to criticism that downplayed the:

"... considerable diversity in the perspectives and ideological orientations of different approaches to understanding systems."

The major focus of her book is to understand the systems theory movement from its origins and define what is unique about the systems movement (i.e. how it is heterodox) in contrast to thinking of systems theory as some mechanistic, technocratic, bureaucratic and monolithic area of study that one might traditionally think of (i.e., what may be viewed as an orthodoxy) in using the term "system." She notes:

1. ...Robert Lilienfeld's The rise of Systems Theory: An Ideological Analysis (1978) as well as
2. ... the countercultures of the 1960s and their disillusionment with "the system" - here, one might think of the commonplace idea of being frustrated with the system - as examples of perspectives critical of systems thought due to contemporary perceptions of the word system.

In fact, I believe Fritjof Capra specifically notes that the word is misunderstood due to catchphrases. I'm sorry I do not have his book with me to cite it.

While there is clearly a diversity of thought in systems theory, such perceptions might be misleading when seeking to understand sytems theory from Ludwig von Bertalanffy's introduction of a general theory of systems. While the author is less interested in softening the use of the word system, Gerard Weinberg (1975) appeared to have written his text for many of the same reasons, given the percieved failures of the general systems movement and his belief that at the time there was a lack of quality introductory texts. It seemed to me that addressing perceptions of the word system was justified, particularly given recent interest in systems theory and simply due to the fact that our world today is undergoing dramatic changes in technology. Systems theory is a science, but nobody should be scared away in misunderstanding the idea of a systems theory.

In fact, in defining systems theory, Bertalanffy introduces his book with a comparable discussion of prevalent thinkers that used systems concepts. I suggested that renaming the page General Systems Theory might be considered; particularly since if that is not what the page is about, then systems theory can refer to just about any theory or concept that makes uses of the word system. I can continue in explanation if you like. Nonetheless, certainly anyone is welcome to make changes. In the end, I hope there is at least consensus that the page has undergone significant improvement. --Kenneth M Burke 21:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that anyone can use the words system theory as he pleases, but the word has a particular meaning to those who teach and practice it. So if you want to write an article that reflects what is happening, you must refer to the actual sources. As it is now written, it appears to be your opinion, which is not even close to what we think of it. For example you have buried the critical difference between systems theory and classical science deep inside the article. Can you tell me what that difference is? The previous article was reviewed and corrected by several key people within the systems movement. But all their work was for naught. 66.190.41.50 05:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To conclude, I am very knowledgeable of the difference between classical science and how the advances in science influenced systems theory. The general implications are noted in the article and it was a topic that I was going to address in the section that I was yet unsure how to approach, the general systematics section (which previously appeared to simply cut and paste the section of a website onto the Wikipedia page). I am not going to summarize centuries of debate in response to justify my work. Works are cited, I would be happy to add specific quotes and page numbers if you like. You seem forthright that the page was better before my work. You are evidently welcome to make changes. Again, thank you for your feedback. With your critique and my defense below, I leave the page for others to work on now. --Kenneth M Burke 17:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I seem to agree with the critic here from a different perspective. This article has been severly been rewritten by Kenneth M Burke. In my opinion this article is hereby transformed from a rather loose organized encylopedic article into a sort of contemporary essay... building on rather contemparary authors and contemparary opinions. I see those kinds of articles in more philosophical encyclopedias. It is however not the style or way I prefer it. If I had some more time I would explain myselve more, but unfortunatly I'm not around for the next two weeks. - Mdd 13:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay . . . However users might "prefer" an article, the article before was fragmented, poorly written and nearly embarassing. I have integrated everything that was previously in the article into a more coherent perspective on systems theory. I used a good majority of the sources that the article already used and have added additional sources. Everything is cited, though I note that I still have to check the Lazlo source.

I do thank you for your opinion on what you percieve to be my opinion, at least shared opinion among generalists. Ah yes, I also apologize that I did not address your English language questions and approached more the first commentator's questioins directly. However, curious myself and always interested in languages, I did find an English-Dutch dictionary online. [1] I hope that you will find it useful for your work on Wikipedia.

At least the article is significantly cleaned up and has been given some direction. In the discussion for the page, I openly noted the general direction that I anticipated taking the page and offered plenty of time to discuss the subject. Nobody replied but appeared to be more focused on arguing over logos and trivia. I did not mean to intrude on anyone's previous work, but their work has not been lost and is still represented on the page. I will eventually get around to checking the Lazlo source when I find the right edition, but will leave the page alone for others to change if they choose to do so. --Kenneth M Burke 14:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the online dictionary. It gives an explanation of comonplace:

• ...obvious and dull; "trivial conversation"; "commonplace prose". More... in Nederlands:onbenullig, plat, triviaal, vulgair, afgezaagd, alledaags, banaal, gewoontjes, nietszeggend...

... and now I'm rather in shock. Of all the things in the past 50 years said about systems theory by thousends of people... Is this the thing to be said about systems theory in the second sentence. I should think that this is a thing scientists say nowadays, who find themselve so unique and orginal that they can only look down on their predecessor....

... Or there is something else going on: In real life nowadays there is little common understanding about what system theory is about... That people use this word in all different directions. If that's the case... this article should just accept that as a status quo and do something about it. This article for expamle should list the different meanings that systems theory has in practice. If you take one look at the Dutch Wikipedia situation nl:systeemtheorie you can see that this is where I started explaining: with a system theory (disambiguation) article - Mdd 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Respectable enough idea, best of luck to you then. Rather, beste van geluk - if the phrase translates well enough. --Kenneth M Burke 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference

I asked you to point out the sentence which describes the difference between classical science and systems theory, It used to be in the opening paragraph. In its place we find this

"Where talk about "systems" has become commonplace, the term in relation to the science known as systems theory is ironically somewhat misleading since the area involves heterodox approaches to what one may think of with the catchphrase "system."

I have no idea what this means. Do we need an encyclopedia to read wikipedia? If the article were true to its subject we would be able to read about what you are saying.

I have no interest in working in wikipedia for the reasons stated above. AS I said before I had a group of educators who collectively corrected the article. All that is gone. In its place is something that we do not understand. This seems to be a trait of Wikipedia, but I didn't realize it was also a trait of honest workers too. If you are interested is the actual story read http://projects.isss.org/Main/Primer 66.190.41.50 03:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and certainly you are welcome to express your views. However, you may want to rethink your approach, especially in an online environment. --Kenneth M Burke 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to hear what I have to say or do you want me to say what you want to hear? I tried it your way, and you deleted almost everything I did. This is alright if you had made a better article, but the article that has resulted is misleading, misinformed, and apt to be mistaken by readers. It bears no resemblance to the systems theory we practice in the field. Again, the article was previously written in part by leading authorities in the field, the glossary, which you deleted, was submitted by the son of Ervin Laszlo. The first paragraph, which was deleted, was written by the president of the International Systems Institute, The photo, which was deleted, was submitted by the Coordinator of the Primer project at ISSS. I had a committment from the president of the World Organization of Systems and Cybernetics. You mention Deborah Hammond as a influential figure but she just got her Phd. I'm sorry, I know you are trying to do a good job and you are honest, but the article is not about systems theory anymore. 66.190.41.50 04:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I can clearify a view points here

1. The contributions made to this article in the past are not gone, but stored in the history of this article.
2. That glossary is not deleted but moved to a new article Terms used in systems theory. I think the systems theory article should have a part with a summary of that article and its intentions.
3. What your telling me about the different authors is new to me... and I feel rather honoured that these proffesionals made their contributions.
4. The photo your talking about is I presume the Image:Gestaltsystem.jpg which was deleted but is back at WikiCommons
5. The article in it's present form isn't the final version. Anyone is allowed to develope it further, or to put things back from the history.
6. I agree with the critic that the current introduction isn't perfect... and I think it was better one year ago.
7. All the articles in the Wikipedia about the theory and practice of systems are far from perfect. This is why a Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems has started to work in this field together. Lot's has to be done, but we also need to learn to work together to improve the situation.

I do think that the critic 66.190.41.50 made some strong points with we should try to transform into action -- Mdd 17:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you mentioned Fritjof Capra. Here is an excerpt from his turning point book.

The dramatic change in concepts and ideas that happened in physics during the first three decades of this century has been widely discussed by physicists and philosophers for more than fifty years...The intellectual crisis of quantum physicists in the 1920's is mirrored today by a similar but much broader cultural crisis. The major problems of our time...are all different facets of one single crisis, which is essentially a crisis of perception...Like the crisis in quantum physics, it derives from the fact that most of us. and especially our large social institutions, subscribe to the concepts of an outdated world view...At the same time researchers...are developing a new vision of reality...emerging from modern physics can be characterized by words like organic,holistic, and ecological. It might also be called a systems view, in the sense of general systems theory. The universe is no longer seen as a machine, made up of a multitude of objects, but has to be pictured as one indivisible dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interrelated and can be understood only as patterns of a cosmic process". What we are seeing today is a shift of paradigms not only within science but also in the larger social arena...The social paradigm now receding had dominated our culture for several hundred years, during which it shaped our modern Western society and has significantly influenced the rest of the world...This paradigm consists of...the view of the world as a mechanical system, the view of the body as a machine...the view of life as a competitive struggle...the belief of unlimited of unlimited progress achieved through economic and technological growth and the belief that the female is subsumed under the male...During recent decades all these assumptions have been severely limited and in need of radical revision. Indeed, such a revision is mow taking place...In science, the language of systems theory. and especially the theory of living systems, seems to provide the most appropriate formulation of the new ecological paradigm... - F. Capra

The above is pretty close to how we think and act. Unfortunately, the term "system" which was chosen by Bertalanffy to express his idea of organicism, has become multi-ordinal, it can have many different meanings. Systems theory, however, uses the word in a very different way than is usually ascribed to say, admintstrative system or transportation system. This usage of systematics is not how we use the word system theory. Bertalanffy defined the word a "elements in standing relationship interacting as a whole." Thus the difference between systems theory and other theories is this emphasis on the interaction, the relationship among the elements. Classical science, the science taught in our schools is focused on the object. Systems theory is focused on what objects do and the laws that are followed during this interaction... 66.190.41.50 03:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to read that you have a similair view on systems theory as F. Capra, but I'm interested to know what you want to do with this in the Wikipedia? You've ask a question about the difference between classical science and systems theory and when now answer was given, you started answering this question for yourselve. This talk page is not about exchanging ideas about systems theory, but about questioning the article and making suggestions and improving the article itselve. This discussion brought up some interesting point, which could be transformed into action... and that is where this discussion should focus on. - Mdd 02:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Specific to Kenneth M Burke. One of the things above is the question of the nobility of Deborah Hammond. You seem to use here opinion as an important source in the article... although I never heard of here and the Wikipedia has no article on here. An article on here could show her work and background and nobility. If this article remains missing... I for example have no problem anymore to erase all thoughts of here from this article. (like I did before some 2.5 years ago, with the mentioning of the role of Nickolai Hartmann in this article). If you do create such an article about Hammond, than you can write some partx about here vision on systems theory... with she shared with the couple you mentioned... whereby you can further for example put the first two sentences of the current systems theory article... because I strongly think they don't belong in this article here. - Mdd 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Important points of my defense made over the last weeks (today is May 25, 2007) has been archived to March 2007- I stand with the point that I have done much to improve the quality of the article. The page had been nothing but confusion since its inception and nobody was doing much about it. The page is still not perfect, but I have chosen to step aside with the critiques. You are evidently welcome to contribute to, and change the article as you like. Enough of this banter on the talk page about what I need to do to in order to make others happy. If you don't like it, change it! I have done honest work and refuse to get into a trap with people that seem to be criticizing for the sake of criticism. Again, no offense intended and maybe sometime in the future we will be able to work more cooperatively. Until then, I leave the page to other users. --Kenneth M Burke 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so much interested in offense and defence, but in improving the article... because it's far from perfect yet. It would be a pitty if you just leave it like this, because there is still much to do, to learn and to achive. - Mdd 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on a page for Hammond as you suggested (really, she is only cited on the page three times). However, I still step aside from the systems theory page to allow users to correct any issues they may have with the page. --Kenneth M Burke 01:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a good plan to write an article on Hammond and maybe on more contemporary systems scientists you know. This further improves the enviroment of systems theory and hereby the systems theory article itselve. I like to get back to on your efforts on the systems theory article in two weeks, if I have some more time. -- Mdd 11:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More confusion - May 2007

Revert back to the last edit by fixaller, include the representative graphic, and EXPAND on that. The article at that stage was reviewed and corrected by many authorities from within the field. Improvement beyond that state is not to reinvent the article, and in the process failing to grasp the essential uniqueness of systems theory, but to elaborate on the skeleton provided. At least what is written will be correct. Granted, systems theory is different and very difficult to grasp, but it is necessary that this difference be appreciated and the difficulty overcome. 69.47.35.93 02:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to do what you like. Part of working on Wikipedia is understanding that your work might be altered by other users. Also, I must say that I think it is quite odd that you boast of going out of your way to have an outside review of the page while criticizing Wikipedia. Quite rude, I think. But, do as you like. I might make only a final suggestion that you at least make sure that contributions are more than just content cut and pasted from websites. --Kenneth M Burke 03:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that reverting the article is an acceptable option. - Mdd 03:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(... The Following was intended for 69.47.35.93 and the somewhat out of nowhere, challenging comments:

You came out of nowhere saying the page would not be respected because of a photo. The article is not perfect, but I believe that it has been significantly improved. I have chosen to step aside, and evidently do not own the page. Either there are individuals genuinely interested in improving the article, or they are just here to throw their weight around on the discussion board. How easy it is to sit back and criticize. You are certainly more than welcome to provide any contributions that you might have in order to constructively problem-solve issues with the article. No disrespect intended, no harm done as I am done. --Kenneth M Burke 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)... )

I was also under the impresion that we had to do with a new editor and that was why I made these lay out corrections. But now I've the feeling we are talking to fixaller in both discussion items. Or is it that Fixaller (or what other usernames he used) is giving an answer for 214.4.238.61 - Mdd 03:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 69.47.35.93 had responded for the other user 214.4.238.61. --Kenneth M Burke 03:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I think we should give 214.4.238.61 the time to respond. For that reason I made this a new talk item -- Mdd 03:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay.--Kenneth M Burke 03:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Transdisciplinary

From [2]

As in the case of disciplinarity, transdisciplinary research is not antagonistic but complementary to multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity research. Transdisciplinarity is nevertheless radically distinct from multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity because of its goal, the understanding of the present world, which cannot be accomplished in the framework of disciplinary research. The goal of multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity always remains within the framework of disciplinary research. If transdisciplinarity is often confused with interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity (and by the same token, we note that interdisciplinarity is often confused with multidisciplinarity) this is explained in large part by the fact that all three overflow disciplinary boundaries. This confusion is very harmful to the extent that it functions to hide the different goals of these three new approaches.

"Although we recognize the radically distinct character of transdisciplinarity in relation to disciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, and interdisciplinarity, it would be extremely dangerous to absolutize this distinction, in which case transdisciplinarity would be emptied of all its contents and its efficacy in action reduced to nothing."

Dear Tom et al.,

The reflections and distinctions offered by Matthew and Gordon are in line with my understanding of the issue.

In my own framing, I seek to distinguish between multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary approaches. The systems sciences comprise a transdisciplinary area of formal inquiry aimed toward general theory development, testing, and validation. Although they do not constitute a discipline, specific branches, such as cybernetics, can be thought of as disciplinary sub-areas of the general system theory/practice field. As Boulding pointed out, general system theory (and systems science in general) "aims to provide a framework or structure on which to hang the flesh and blood of particular disciplines and particular subject matters in an orderly and coherent corpus of knowledge" [Boulding, K.E. (1956). General systems theory -- the skeleton of science. Management Science, Vol. 2, p. 10].

Multidisciplinary research and practice is the analysis of a problem from a variety of discrete disciplinary perspectives, each deriving from a particular epistemological solution space of its own. Schoonen (2005) points out that "the contributions drawn from different disciplines are largely complementary not integrative" [Schoonen, Martin (2005). Multidisciplinary Working Groups. Stony Brook University, State University of New York. URL: ttp://www.research.sunysb.edu/research/workgroups.html, p.1], much as Matthew emphasized in his reply. Interdisciplinary research is more integral in its approach. The results focus on a single hybridized epistemological outcome. Such approaches generally tend to involve more than one researcher; it has been noted that "interdisciplinary study may indeed be 'messy'" [Seipel, Michael (2005). Interdisciplinarity: An Introduction. Working paper. Truman State University]. This is largely due to the fact that it requires more than the additive summation of methods from several disciplines (as in multidisciplinary approaches), but rather an integral synthesis of approaches. Among the three basic kinds of inquiry that involve more than one discipline, the most integrative is transdisciplinary in approach. It is "concerned with the unity of intellectual frameworks beyond disciplinary perspectives" [Stember, Marilyn (1998). Advancing the Social Sciences Through the Interdisciplinary Enterprise, in Newell, William H., editor. Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the Literature. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, as quoted by Seipel, op. cit., 2005]. Schoonen (op. cit., 2005, p.1) defines transdisciplinary research as the

"[d]evelopment and application of a shared, integrative conceptual framework based on discipline-specific theories, concepts, and methods. ... In transdisciplinary research, investigators develop a shared conceptual framework that integrates and transcends their respective disciplinary perspectives."

Interestingly enough, transdisciplinary inquiry does not always involve more than one researcher (whereas interdisciplinary research usually does, as noted earlier).

'Hope this helps.

Cheers, ~ Alex&er Laszlo

--

tom mandel

63.215.29.202 05:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

From A to Z

A. Systems Theory is a "transdisciplinary" field of inquiry. It does not seek to integrate disclipines, rather it seeks to transcend them with common principles,(see definition below)All system theory websites acknowledge this fact.

B. In its broadest sense it is the study of the Universe, including physical systems. Open systems is the study of living systems. It is a serious error to assume systems theory is just a complex kind of organization theory as if that would explain everything systems theory is about. Technically, systems theory is not a theory but a different way of looking at the Universe and all within it.

C. Systems theory as an accepted science is usually attributed to the formation of the society for general systems studies. Macy Conference may be relevant but it was not the spark that lit the fire. The relativistic notions undrelying the philosophy of systemics, go back very far in our history.

D. Modern scientific advances refuted classical mechanistic assumptions, beginning with Planck's black body radiation experiments, and in particular those assumptions that objects can be studied in isolation. Perhaps the most sigtnificant difference between conventional science ans systems thinking is the realization that there are properties of the whole which cannot be found in the parts alone. The wetness of water cannot be found in the constituent gases.

E. The correct spelling is Laszlo

F. The article says;

" It is in this way that systems theorists attempted to provide alternatives and an evolved ideation from orthodox theories "

what is "an evolved ideation from orthodox theories."? I never heard the word "system theorist" before, and I never heard the word "alternative" in the sense above, I don't know what ideation means, and I am not sure what orthodox theories are either. Alternative and evolved do not fit together here. Systems theory is metatheory, that is, it applies to theory in general. It considers observations that were not observed before in orthodox theory. Because the basis f system theory is a new way of looking, it can be argued that it did not evolve from a lower science. Remember almost all science is specific, systems theory is general.

G. The article says

" Bela H. Banathy, who argued - along with the founders of the systems society - that “the benefit of humankind” is the purpose of science, has made significant and far-reaching contributions to the area of systems theory."

Actually it was the founders who sought to create a science for the benefit of mankind, and Bela, a life long teacher of systemics, maintained that systems science should be for the benefit of humankind. And Bela did not argue, but was stating a fact.

H. The article reads

" emphasizing that understanding results from knowing concepts both in part and as a whole."

Bela states it better, that the whole has properties which are not found in the parts. This point is probably our number one insight, yet it was removed and replaced with "...knowing concepts both in parts and as a whole. "

 The idea is that there are properties of the whole which cannot be found in the parts. Try and figure out what these words mean by studying the black ink or white paper. 

I. The article reads,

"The theorists sought holistic methods by developing systems concepts that could be integrated with different areas."

should be "The theorists developed system models using holistic methodology to integrate different areas. Almost every sentence does not say anything useful, but rather is a movie critic kind of writing.

J. The article reads;

"The contradiction of reductionism in conventional theory (which has as its subject a single part) is simply an example of changing assumptions. The emphasis with systems theory shifts from parts to the organization of parts, equally recognizing interactions of the parts are not "static" and constant but "dynamic” processes."

whereas our edits read, "A shift in emphasis from the object to the dynamic." Less is more.

K The article reads,

"Conventional closed systems were questioned with the development of open systems perspectives. "

|} We have BOTH closed and open systems. We do not think of one competing with the other, Most of our concepts are complementary, meaning that both sides are equally considered as the case may be.

L The article reads

,"The shift was from absolute and universal authoritative principles and knowledge to relative and general conceptual and perceptual knowledge (Bailey 1994: 3-8), still in the tradition of theorists that sought to provide means in organizing human life. "

Very confusing writing. Banathy writes about a dozen of these shifts. Again, organizing life is a special case of the more general system theory.

M The article reads:

"Meaning, the history of ideas that preceded where rethought not lost."

hmmmmm this needs a lot of work. Do you mean to say "old ideas were used in the new science"

N. Fritjof Capra is not a system theorist per se. I wish he was. On the other hand, I guess it is the "theorist" part that I don't grasp. Theory is only a part of systems theory, so it would be hard to find a systemist who studies only theory.

O. Is Richard Swanson G,A, Swanson? There are tens of thousands systemists, I guess I don't know them all,

P. Debora Hammond has just begun her career, her book is her dissertation.

Q. The article reads,

" Mechanistic assumptions were particularly critiqued, especially the industrial-age mechanistic metaphor of the mind from interpretations of Newtonian mechanics by Enlightenment philosophers and later psychologists that laid the foundations of modern organizational theory and management by the late 19th century (Bailey 1994; Flood 1997; Checkland 1999; La(s)zlo 1972). Newton evidently did not become obsolete with the work of Max Plank in quantum physics and the general advances in scientific thought, but questions arose over foundational assumptions that historically influenced the general organization of social, political and cultural life."

does not give me any uiseful information whatsoever. What are the mechanistic assumptions? The mechanistic metaphor? What did the Enlightenment philosophers really say? What are the foundations of modern organizational theory? How can a person (Newton) become obsolete? What worl of Planck? What general advance in scientific thought? And what foundational assumptions? None of these questions are answered.

R. The article reads

,"The research project that resulted influenced major applied and theoretical areas from sociology to organizational theory. The systems view was based on several fundamental ideas. First, all phenomena can be viewed as a web of relationships among elements, or a system. Second, all systems, whether electrical, biological, or social, have common patterns, behaviors, and properties that can be understood and used to develop greater insight into the behavior of complex phenomena and to move closer toward a unity of science. System philosophy, methodology and application are complementary to this science "

fails to mention that the web of relationships forms a whole which has properties not to be found in any analysis of the parts. Common properties? Common behavoirs? common patterns of what?

S. Is Klin Klir?

T. The article reads,

"The interaction between systems and their environments are categorized in terms of absolutely closed systems, relatively closed, and open systems. "

An interaction of a system and its environment by definition is an open system.

U. The article reads

," The case of an absolutely closed system is a rare, special case."

Special case is not being used properly. All instances are special cases. All atomic and molecular systems are closed systems.

V. Things like cultural systems, international system, economic system, belong is "system" article not systems theory article.

W,X,Y & Z I just now realize that there is an attempt to ignore the writings of the primary authors, and replace it with the writings of the editor. That would work if they both said the same thing. This article does not capture the essence of systems theory as it is known among those who practice it. Systems theory is not organzational theory, it is interactional theory. Objects organize, dynamics interact.

We respect the languange of our luminaries and realize the significance of properly framed metaphors and models. We do not see any value in using complicated language to describe a complex subject.

Can anyone do better than this paragraph by Senge below? This is how good writng reads. It is not an improvement to muddle the language, miss the point, mislead the reader and fail to impart critical information. The article as it reads now is extremely harmful in that it reduces a science to nonsense

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. Peter Senge "The Fifth Discipline" [3]

Tom, I see that you have done much to offer review and points of consideration for the article. Many of the issues are topics that were on my mind for correction, and points which I specifically noted on the talk page that I would make aims to correct. The work on the page has been much in progress. My apologies, that, with the talking the talk on the talk page without walking the walk to actually contribute to the page, with the confusion over user IPs, and the mixing of commenator's names to comments, I am not entirely focused to working on the page. Your commentary is evidenlty helpful if I would ever choose to return to work on the page. It is unfortunate that previous talk for the page has not more effectively brought users together to improve the article. The page is still there for other users to change, including yourself. Thank you for your time. --Kenneth M Burke 15:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that it had to come to this. I am banned from editing at wikipedia for unknown/unstated reasons and my request for appeal has been ignored. I have no desire to work where to do the good thing is doing the wrong thing. We might have made a good team Ken, you demonstrated how a good Wikipedian ought to act, but I have enemies and they are in control. I wish you the best and good luck

tom mandel aka tommysun

Oh, I am very sorry to hear that. I might have been more willing to touch base with your comments had not there been so much confusion, debate and banter on the talk page. Maybe possibilities will come again at another time. You can always contact me if you like. Take care. --Kenneth M Burke 15:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To do

I had put much work into the systems theory page. There was much dissent by a few, select individuals. I defended my work, stepped aside and the page was evidently open for users to make their own changes. In feeling responsible for the page in its present state, I anticipate fixing some of the major issues that I have been cognizant all along, including the following:

1. Improving the introduction with general copy editing and correcting some issues discussed by users therein.
2. Better citing my sources and clarifying specific themes discussed accordingly.
3. Breaking up the "Overview" section into an "Overview" and "History" to simplify, clarify and improve readability.
4. Probably, sections will be rearranged.

These steps will correct the major issues discussed, issues I was aware of all along. I do not anticipate getting into the nitpicking details and believe the four basic steps will satisfy my responsibility to the systems theory page, other users, and Wikipedia in general. The changes will be made in the near future without excessive page saves. If you would like to constructively discuss them, feel free to dialogue with me. --Kenneth M Burke 02:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The near future might turn out to be in the next two or three weeks. --Kenneth M Burke 01:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling.

The recent changes in the past half a year have improved the article on certain points, and made it worse on other points. Action has to be taken to correct the weak point. Determining these weak points could be a first step. These missing points are in my opinion:

1. About the structure of the article
   1. More hierarchy in the structure of the article: For example Cultural system, international system, economic system together under systems.
   2. A clearer better difference between forms of systems theory and related fields
2. Chapters about mayor items are missing in the article:
   1. First about the term systems theory: Where did it come from? What different meanings does it have? in which different disciplines? Which different definitions exits? Which different viewpoints on systems theory are there?
   2. Second about the history of systems theory: This subject got lost in the introduction, the overview, and a completely irrelevant General systems theory, software and computing?.
   3. Third about systems scientists: a lot of them are mentioned but little is written about the commons and differences between this group(s).
   4. Forth about systems thinking, the systems approach, and about the systems vocabulary
   5. Fifth about organizations for systems science, on the university, educational programs, specific research institutes, systems societies... etc.
   6. And what about systems theory in the literature: mayor books, mayor articles, mayor journals.
3. The use of pictures in the article is now very minimalistic.
4. The article itself needs to express more the different opinions and meanings on systems theory, the paradigm-changes in this field, the constant conflicts, the lack of common sense, the systems termological jungle...
5. The article needs a more open structure:
   1. This article isn't the final representation
   2. Other people must be able to contribute to this article, with there own (different) visions.
   3. This needs clear and 'open' chapters where others can contribute.
   4. Each chapter at the beginning has to make clear it's intention. And these kinds of introduction sentences are missing also.
6. Find some appropriate article examples (within the Wikipedia) to learn about more about the appropriate structure and content.
   1. One of such an example is the article electrical engineering

I hope these ideas can contribute to the rewriting of this article into an acceptable Wikipedia style. - Mdd 19:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a start. You bring up a lot of valid points. I'd guess the world will forever be caught in having to find solutions to the problems that result from the solutions to their problems. I will fulfill my responsibilities to the page. --Kenneth M Burke 23:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I said it before and I can say it again: You made this a good article build from a personal perspective, but not from an 'open' encyclopedic perspective. Things have to change back again to a state which you found rather poor, but it did have the necessary open character needed for Wikipedia. - Mdd 23:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to cut out what you feel is too much. I am not good at cutting, I think everything is important and commentators have expressed concern over loosing other users previous work. I put much effort into ensuring previous content was carefully considered, and incorporated a good majority of their previous work. Others suggested that sections like "The international system" and "Economic system" were inappropriate. You are welcome to delete them. As before, I even suggested that the page could be reverted. To fulfill my responsibilities to the page, I will strengthen my sources with page numbers and maybe add a few more when I have the chance. Hope you had a nice Wikipedia break, take care. Bye, --Kenneth M Burke 23:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In the near future I want to get more to the point with this discussion. I realize we have had difficulties in the past months with anonymous contributions and the (as I call them) Tom Mandel sandbox contributions, with I believed all came from the one person. I will not accept both of them anymore. Fortunate for me Tom Mandel is stuck on the Citizendium right now, since his systems theory article right there is not accepted as article. I also found out that Tom Mandel wasn't quiet correct, when he told he was banned from Wikipedia. He is banned from editing science and science-related articles. Under his username(s) he can still edited non-science articles and can participate in all the talkpages, even this one. If however he continues to interrupt this talkpage, I'll see that more administrative actions will be taken here. I hope this clarifies some of my recent actions and intentions here. - Mdd 14:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody

Hi everybody! Guess who this is? Happened to pass through and I am really impressed with this article,(excepting stuff like cultural system etc which is actually a different definiton of systematic systems, nothing to do with systems theory as it is known in our field) Good job Ken! For your information, I was banned from science related articles because I made a statement that the phythagorean theorem a*+ b*=C* is not provable in its general form(One of 75 proofs did prove this general statement) and because I tried too hard to include Hubble's rejection of expansion in the big bang et al articles and because I tried too hard to include the scientific results of experiments in crop circles. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tommysun/Evidence) There were no (scientific)violations cited to support a ban, nor was there any discussion. So that is how WIkipedia operates? My request (emails) for appeal was ignored. So that is how Wikipedia operates? Interesting because the editor I had a run in with is employed by a cosmology institute which I assume supports the conventional theory, yet he is alowed to edit the big bang alternative plasma cosmology article...(on company time?) So that is how Wikipedia operates? Hey, if everyone over there doesn't abide by the rules why should I? Besides does it matter who wrote a citicism or does it matter what the criticism says? I'm tempted to tell you where to find my article at CZ but maybe not. Oh, Mead and the Macy conferences had to do with cybernetics, not systems theory. Ken if you want to write me, send me email tom(at)isss.org I think you did a wonderful job so far. Tommy Mandel 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I kinda got tackled while working on it (maybe for things like cultural system, though I think its inclusion or something like it could be easily justified through numerous sources - what is true knowledge to an American businessman is not necessarily true knowledge to a Buddhist monk). I appreciate your past and present comments. I will email ya at ISSS. --Kenneth M Burke 16:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A To-Do list

I gathered the ideas about improving this article in a To-Do list. This brings some hierarchie in this discussion. We can talk about all of these items how the realize them. They are also in a way interrelated so maybe we also define a chronological order. - Mdd 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

@Kenneth M Burke: In the past two months you have been able to change the article about 70 times. Maybe you think that this is admirable and wonderfull... I think that shouldn't be allowed. I would advise you first to discust anymore more changes you want to make to this article, preferable in relation with the to do list. - Mdd 15:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for any inconvenience, that is a sure fault of my editing (a link to previous versions of the page can be provided for reference). I always openly discussed my plans for revisions. I will work on citing the sources in the near future and then be done. --Kenneth M Burke 16:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The citation of sources seems to be one of the least of the problems with this article, but I made it an to-do item. Considering your respons I understand your not interested in debating the to-do items together. - Mdd 22:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

wow. so is it a bag with everything in it?

is it a mystical oneness with the whole universe? Interesting task. perhaps in its transdisciplinariness it transcends the most encyclopedaic treatment? everybody seems to want to jump into the pool. there is no water left! -- Wikiskimmer 07:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Systems theory to me is kinda like the universe to Tolstoy. When he was young he described the universe as a grand Russian ballroom where everything danced in harmony. In the disenchantment of his old age, he described it as a grungy old sack with junk in it. I took a little artistic license in including things like the international system. I think that will change. The top sections do well to satisfy an encyclopedic treatment I think. The to do list might help the rest. --Kenneth M Burke 11:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Systems theory reference

The first part of the explanation of the Systems Theory were it says "systems theory as a technical and general academic area of study predominantly refers to the science of systems that resulted from Bertalanffy's General System Theory (GST), among others" the source reference would be:

• Mark Davidson, UNCOMMON SENSE – The life and thought of Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Father of General Systems Theory, J. P. Tarcher, 247p, 1983.

For a short but good review of this book, please refer to the author of the review is Peter Engel, source: Sciences; Mar/Apr84, Vol. 24 Issue 2, p60, 1/3p - Bdiner 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about where this sentence should be in Davidson's book? - Mdd 08:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Much of the existing content on the page before my work did not have citations. All of my contributions to the page are generally very well cited. There are citations that I still need to add page numbers for. And I have not been able to find the latest edition of Laszlo's book in a library. Sorry that I have not yet had the opportunity to correct them, I have been busy. --Kenneth M Burke 16:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The double focuss of systems theory

In the new opening sentence I stated:

Systems theory is an interdisciplinary field of science, which studies complex systems in nature, society and science, and studies the whole and processes in nature, society or science as a system.

I still think this is correct, and should not be reformed as just happened. - Mdd 21:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarifications for Laypeople Needed

I checked the WP articles on systems theory and cybernetics expecting to use them as references for Gregory Bateson's double bind theory. Neither article is anywhere near clear enough. A simple explanation for laypeople in the first few paragraphs would be a great improvement. I understand that it's hard to describe. The best I've found is Lawrence S. Bale; Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social/Behavioral Sciences which gives the best analysis of the difference between the classical scientific paradigm and systems theory/cybernetics. There is no conflict between them. Classical science broke reality down into parts and studied it with a maximum of two variables. But then it forgot to put the parts back together. Ecosystems are a good example--they have multiple variables and can't be fully understood through studies in the laboratory. Systems theory is...the rest of the story. --Margaret9mary (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)