Talk:Systems theory

Suggest merge of Systems science with Systems theory

The introductory sentence in Systems science is:

Systems science is an interdisciplinary field of science that studies the nature of complex systems in nature, society, and science.

And the introductory sentence here in Systems theory is:

Systems theory is an interdisciplinary field that studies the nature of complex systems in nature, society, and science.

If these subjects are in fact the same we only need one article (and we have lots of material for it). If they are different we need to better distinguish them. To encourage a decision I propose a merger. --71.174.163.159 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Systems science ... could be a redirect to Systems theory... then that is a simple operation where the redirect just goes to Systems theory. - skip sievert (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the merge proposal. You can't propose to merge two articles based on the first sentence. The systems science article is clearly about the field of science, while systems theory is about the specific theory and theories developed in this field. The difference is obvious:

• There is a field of systems science, see Systems science#The field of systems science
• There are a collection of systems theories, see List of types of systems theory

If you think the article doesn't explain this difference enough, then the solution here is to add some more of this explaination.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As a start I have changed the lead sentence here to:

Systems theory is interdisciplinary theory about the nature of complex systems in nature, society, and science. More specifically, it is a framework by which one can investigate and/or describe any group of objects that work in concert to produce some result.

This should explain the difference. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

An other reason to remove the merge proposal is, that both subjects are more then notable to justify separate articles. Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying every thing is fine the way it is. I think there is still a need for mayor improvement, especially in the systems theory, systems science and system thinking articles. I think eventually all three need some mayor rewriting. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm obviously no expert here. But if systems theory is the collection of theories regarding systems science, you really need a reference back to systems science in the first sentence or two of this article. I'll leave it to you guys. --71.174.163.159 (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you did made an important point, that the both introductions are/were too alike, which could be confusing. The terms "systems theory" and "systems thinking" are also sometimes used as synonym of "systems science". I guess you could say "systems science" and "systems theory" are related like natural science and physics.

Now I added your suggestion to the to-do list, although I am not so sure it should be mentions in the first sentence? Or mentioning it in the first sentence will completely explain. Maybe it would be nice to have a separate section explaining the difference...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably anywhere in the lead would be good as to breaking down the finer points, with the other article connectors doing that with brief intros to them creatively introducing the different basic concepts in a sentence. skip sievert (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have an idea how to proceed, just go ahead. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather you did Mdd, if you feel like it. I am over whelmed with the articles I am partially contributing to now, though I have this one on my watch list because of interest. The leads in all these mentioned are one big paragraph. The leads could be 2 or 3 paragraphs... with a little expanded info in them... like an explanatory thing and article link with more info from the article body included in summary form. I do not think it is a huge big deal since the article links in the See also section contain the links to the article pages in discussion, but expanding and making the distinctions would probably improve the article over all. With the improvements you made Mdd, the basic difference is now shown, so mostly the issue is pretty resolved I think. A bigger more interesting lead... another paragraph or two seems like a good idea for future reference though skip sievert (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm impressed by the above discussion -- looking forward to seeing these improvements. I just wanted to comment that after reading this article I'm still not very clear on what systems theory really is. The article seems rather heavy on historical details and ontological circumscription, and rather light on explaining the central concept itself. Is it possible to add even a few sentences and maybe a simple example at the beginning to explain more what systems theory is? How does this new perspective change the way systems are described? What exactly is the system of description? etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombleyboo (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste registration

This edit has text copy/paste the systems psychology article. -- Mdd (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggested reversal of redirection from System theory to Systems theory

System theory is in my opinion the gramatically more correct expression, even if Systems theory might be more wiedely used.

As a support for this opinion here a quote from a recent book by Aloisius Louie, former student of eminent system scientist Robert Rosen: (Aloisius Louie, 2009, "Beyond Life Itself" p. 85/86)

4.3 “Systems [sic] Theory” Consider the terms ‘theory of systems’ and ‘system theory’ in the previous paragraph; in particular, note the singular form system in the latter: not “systems theory”. This last usage is a solecism that became accepted when it had been repeated often enough, a very example of ‘accumulated wrongs become right’. Recall that von Bertalanffy’s masterwork is called General System Theory. (In some of his later writings, the term “systems theory” did occasionally appear. I have in my collection some copies of his original typescripts, in which he had written “system theory”, but in the published versions they mysteriously mutated to “systems theory” — evidence of the handiwork of an over-zealous copy editor, perhaps...) Just think of ‘set theory’, ‘group theory’, ‘number theory’, ‘category theory’, etc. Of course one studies more than one object in each subject! Indeed, one would say in the possessive ‘theory of sets’, ‘theory of groups’, ‘theory of numbers’, ‘theory of categories’, ...; one says ‘theory of systems’ for that matter. But the point is that when the noun of a mathematical object (or indeed any noun) is used as adjective, one does not use the plural form.

(end of quote)

thus systems theory should redirect to system theory and not vice versa.

Since I dont know how to edit the article(s) to that effect, and I dont want to mess anything up, I ask any of the experts to please do that. thank you.

62.203.159.119 (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Lehre

I think the word Lehre is fairly fuzzy, and perhaps deliberately so, in German, but I believe that the dogmatic or doctrinal aspect is usually present somewhere in the term, however distateful thinking Germans may find this. Dogma has an unpleasant set of associations, largely arising from its use in connection with religious belief. Doctrine is not much better. Lehre has overtones of intellectual authority, which the average German university student in my experience seems to find not unattractive. Pamour ([[User talk:Pamour|talk]]) 12:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Science is not a theory

The science of systems is far greater than the theory of systems. This argument about combining science with theory existed from the beginning and still is here. The article is a great improvement from the beginning,but a lot of work needs to be done about how it began. It is incorrect to assign the term "inter..." to all systems when "trans... is more accurate. Check your own definitions. Also it is incorrect to assume that simple systems are not part of systems theory.75.118.148.8 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)