Talk:Systems science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Isotopes[edit]

An isotope needs to have each change and you need to make it so teens and little kids can read it and understand it too. Not just adults read this stuff you know. -- 71.66.230.250 19:16, 4 June 2007

I don't understand, what you want to say here, and what this has to do with this article? Maybe you can explain this? Thank you - Mdd 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Focus on systems thinking[edit]

I expanded this article end of March 2008 with a large focuss on systems thinking. I do think there are still large things missing in the article about other systems sciences for example dynamical systems theory and all its mathematical foundations. and others liek: Chaos theory, Complex systems, Control theory, Cybernetics, Sociotechnical systems theory, Systems biology, Systems ecology, Systems psychology etc. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC).

POV[edit]

I removed the following text, which seems rather a personal point of few. See WP:NPOV -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

However, the Systems Science Institute arranges courses whose subject is the basis of systems theory. The basis refers to atomism, and accordingly reductionism. A holistic approach is is sensible when it concerns children. Children are holistic. Disneyland begins from the buttons of the jacket of the doorman as concerns the children. The original idea from general systems originated from Ludvig von Bertalanffy. There is a strange disposition to forget where from the new disciplines began. Maybe, it could be wise to analyze phenomena across the archaic division of sciences because a person is not able to perceive the scientific division in every day surroundings. The division is conceptual. A possible proposition is to begin to research different, dynamic system organizations. How do the organization of a system emerge? Why do they develop as the do? What kind of organizations exist? The organization is comprehended widely. Two points near each other in a paper is an organization. The mind is an organization, and a dynamic one. However, there are two dangers. An organization is a scientific observation where there is none. There in no scientific observation when there is an organization. As an entity, systems approach, and general systems approach are ways to find solutions to the figure—ground problem but getting too involved may lead to dogmatism which means remaining in the square one. No possibilities remain derivation new fertile hypotheses, and concepts. For those who want to devote to the system analysis, Yearbook of General Systems serves a good start.

lack of needed information[edit]

It is interesting that a brief review of this article reveals that the definition of a "system" does not appear, and there is unduly emphasis of the "whole" as if that is what systems is about. Neither of these is true, the relationship is what makes systems thinking different and the emphasis is on the interaction among parts. However there is no relationship science one may refer to, and only a few have knowledge of the interactional parameters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.146.169 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Worksection removed[edit]

Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed the worksection of this article for now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

== I realize this is probably not the exact tag to describe the exact form the multiple violations on this page exhibits, and I can't figure out how to get the tag to point to this: Michael C. Jackson (2000), Systems Approaches to Management, as found in Google Books, here: http://books.google.com/books?id=kjsVh8UyqwAC&dq=Systems+Approaches+to+Management&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=usDQSpGkM8G7lAeUheyoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Anyway, the only reason I'm not deleting stuff en masse is that other editors may have put legit material in here. Bacrito (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just delete the stuff that is copied from there (I can't find which parts you mean, be more specific) and let the rest be. Narayanese (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Article section(s) removed[edit]

Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed one or more section of this article for now.

I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste registration[edit]

Cleanup[edit]

Do not remove the tag for cleanup. I have stated the reason that we do not list people with out establishing significance. Our articles are purposed to denote information. The table format more clearly states the information that you have written.174.3.111.148 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I allready explained on you talkpage:
I restored some of the changes you made to the Systems science explaining myself in the editsummary. I don't think my lay out style is absolutely for the best. There are simply different ways of looking at lay out. I do think consistency is important. And this lay out I have implemented in over 1000+ article in the field of systems science. The general introduction of the systems science article has been taken off-line recently (by me) to check for copy-vio's and will be restored in a week or two and things will be different anyway. -- Mdd (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Please respond first before referting any moves. As I explained in the editsummary, see here:
keep it simple. Adding a table here is not my idea of improving online reading. I think this lay out is much better te read)
Now you have asked on my talkpage which articles I edited in the similar way: My userpage here gives a list the articles I started, but in total I edited 6500+ article. -- Mdd (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Two more things. I kept some of your (new) ideas in place with the two edits I made here after your work:
  • With the first edit, here, I explained to keep it simple. You were right that the first listing is just random, so I removed it. The second listing is not random because those are the five founders of the SGSR. There is no need to create such an explicit listing there.
  • With the second edit, see here I also stated to keep it simple: First of all I removed the {{main|List of systems engineering at universities}} link, which had no business there. And second there is the introduction of a table of which I don't agree of consistency reasons.
-- Mdd (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad we've come to the compromise of you taking out the list of scientists. I disagree with your view that because you've edited 6500+ that those are articles do not have tables. The issue is not readability, but information conveyance. I have seen many articles that have tables, so I think saying that because you feel that it doesn't look good is not a reason to not use tables. Also, the articles that you edit, looking good to yout eyes, does not mean that this article should look good, in your eyes.174.3.111.148 (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You are missing boths point I just made:
  1. First of all I allready explained: With the first edit, here, I explained to keep it simple... The second listing is not random because those are the five founders of the SGSR. There is no need to create such an explicit (bullet-)listing there.
  2. Second: There is a consistency in the 2000+ articles in the field of systems science, that in general no tables are used for definition. I like to keep this consistency.
-- Mdd (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. If there were only 5 founders, then why did you use the word "like"?174.3.111.148 (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
In any case, I've agreed with your change. Please, I want to work together on your other systems articles, because we could probably put more information in those articles. It's important to have a pair of fresh eyes, because changes may seem foreign, but this is an encyclopedia, and someone who has no knowledge on the topic should easily understand what they are reading. That's why the table is better than prose.174.3.111.148 (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your respons. This article your are looking at right now is only a fraction of the original, see here, which I took off line three weeks ago due to possible copyvio problems. So there is more going on...!?
Maybe or probably you are right I shouldn't have used the word "like". There indeed have been just five founders, who came up with the idea together some 55 years ago. On the other thing I simply don't agree that the table is the far best and only good solution. This is a question independent from this article. And beside this:
  • The way you currently designed the first table is a waste of space, and doesn't work with the illustration
  • And the second table: Those two systems methodologies absolutely shouldn't be in the same table because it suggests these are connected, which they are not.
Distracting as this all is (for me), I will leave it with this due to other concerns. I will get back on this in a week or so, and will make this an issue. -- Mdd (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe you should undo the removal of the potentially copyvio content. There have been no copyviolating objections. Well, the presentation (note: NOT aethetics) of the article is not independent of the article.
To your bullets, I'll take a look at the article. If there are any problems, I'll change them appropriately and report.174.3.111.148 (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I've looked at the illustration issue, and nowhere does the caption or picture cohesionwise link to the text of the article.174.3.111.148 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a quite similar discussion now Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Series article - table or prose?. and here -- Mdd (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Paradigms? / lay out[edit]

I don't understand it says "There are several types of Systems Methodologies ..." but only 2 are listed. It says, "There are several types of Systems Methodologies, that is, disciplines for analysis of systems. For example:" and then lists the types, but why are these types so important?174.3.111.148 (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to answer all you questions in a week or so. Please please, leave the lay-out as it is... because this is a standard I have implemented in over 1000+ systems science article. Again, please don't change the lay out. You can change the content you want... But the lay out is a more or less some personal choices. I made the lay-out choices three years ago when I developed the featured nl:Wetenschap article (featured article on science on the Dutch Wikipedia) and ever since I have consistently implemented this lay out. -- Mdd (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
This standard may be not acceptable on English Wikipedia, weather it is acceptable or not on Dutch Wikipedia. The lay out is not a personal choice. I have said that the bolding used in the way you use it is a violation of MOS. Please see WP:OWN.174.3.111.148 (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken twice:
  1. bolding paragraph subtitles is no violation of MOS
  2. This is no matter of WP:OWN but of three years of Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems improvement trying to wikify this field
-- Mdd (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S. There is a similar discussion here. There is a clear message: ...it would be best to discuss this and get consensus for the change...... before you start changing things. -- Mdd (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That talk page applies to that article, not this article.174.3.102.6 (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

@ point 2: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#When_not_to_use_emphasis says: "Avoid various kinds of overemphasis, which distracts from the writing". Also read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Other_uses for when bolding is appropriate.174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the bold subheadings extremely helpful [as hinting a tabular structure, of course :) ]. I think the cited MOS refers primarily to in-line bolding - if not the MOS itself needs a pushback from the more structured thinkers in the community. Shannock9 (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"all kinds of" deprecated[edit]

I've found this phrase to be a reliable signal of loose thinking - or at least loose expression. I've cleaned up the first instance, but I'm not sure what the other two (in System Engineering) actually mean. What is the relationship between Systems Engineering and "all kinds of Sciences"? Influence? Partial inclusion? Shannock9 (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Absence of inline references[edit]

There were three "inline refs" for the article. One of these was a disguised internal link to a wikipedia list article, the other was a broken link with no way of deducing what was the intended target. I've reformated one to show it is an internal link only and deleted the other leaving only one inline ref for the whole article. IMO the article should have inline references. LookingGlass (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Even the last reference was just source info of the image, which I removed as well. I will try to add some inline references, but for now added a re-improve tag. -- Mdd (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy[edit]

1. If I right understood the system approach in science includes either the reduction (or top-dawn approach) and the holism (or bottom-up approach) (or, in math terms, the differentiation and integration processes)? 2. Is there system approach in philosophy? (sorry for grammar) 178.66.247.155 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

0. This page is for discussion about improving the article, not general discussion regard the subject, maybe get help here- /r/complexsystems/
1. its more to do with how each element interacts and communicates. This allows for more complex systems than top down or bottom up.
2. yes, especially in the cybernetics branch (btw cybernetics <> elctronic body enhancement)Jonpatterns (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge "discussion"[edit]

There is no discussion on this page regarding the merge tag, and there is no discussion on the Systems theory article regarding the merge more recent than 2009. The tag here was only updated by a bot and I am unclear why the system keeps it current automatically rather than deleting it automatically. The "merge discussion" on the Systems theory page barely menationed the merge proposal. Instead it focussed, in detail, on the overall quality of the article. So, as no reasoning or support has been put forward I've removed the tags from both pages. Judging the merge proposition from the discussion on the Systems theory's talk page it seems to me that a merge would be the worst possible way forward for these two articles. Not only has no robust rational FOR a merge been put forward but the arguments that have been show the considerable and fundamental disagreement about what the terms mean vs. what in some "ideal world" they perhaps should mean. There ARE different meanings for the terms and irrespective of how this comes to be addressed in my opion there should be an article that focuses on the theory as proposed originally by von Bertalanffy and developed from that. That should in my view be the Systems Theory article. Currently the merge proposal seems the result of that group of Wiki authors enamoured of an "ideal" taxonomy and ontology of "knowledge" and who lobby for setting out this rather than the actual and messy truth of the history of "ideas". LookingGlass (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)