Talk:Systems theory/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A Question  - April 2007 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: General Systems Theory as an objective of systemics - 4 may 2007 

message: 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 http://projects.isss.org/Main/PerspectivesOnGeneralSystemTheory
in the preface of von Bertalanffy's book Perspectives on General System Theory..
von Bertalanffy, Ludwig, (1974) Perspectives on General System Thoery Edited by Edgar Taschdjian. George Braziller, New York
:"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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  General Systems Theory as an objective of systemics - 1 january 2007 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Still confused - Jun 2005 nearing its second anniversary 

message: From 
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)
thread_title: Transdisciplinary

message: 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:
# Improving the introduction with general copy editing and correcting some issues discussed by users therein.
# Better citing my sources and clarifying specific themes discussed accordingly.
# Breaking up the "Overview" section into an "Overview" and "History" to simplify, clarify and improve readability.
# 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)
replies: text: The near future might turn out to be in the next two or three weeks. --Kenneth M Burke 01:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To do

message: 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:
#About the structure of the article
##More hierarchy in the structure of the article: For example Cultural system, international system, economic system together under systems. 
##A clearer better difference between forms of systems theory and related fields
#Chapters about mayor items are missing in the article:
##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?
##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?. 
##Third about systems scientists: a lot of them are mentioned but little is written about the commons and differences between this group(s).
##Forth about systems thinking, the systems approach, and about the systems vocabulary
##Fifth about organizations for systems science, on the university, educational programs, specific research institutes, systems societies... etc.
##And what about systems theory in the literature: mayor books, mayor articles, mayor journals.
#The use of pictures in the article is now very minimalistic.
#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...
#The article needs a more open structure:
##This article isn't the final representation 
##Other people must be able to contribute to this article, with there own (different) visions.
##This needs clear and 'open' chapters where others can contribute.
##Each chapter at the beginning has to make clear it's intention. And these kinds of introduction sentences are missing also.
#Find some appropriate article examples (within the Wikipedia) to learn about more about the appropriate structure and content. 
##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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  This article or section needs [[copy editing]] for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A To-Do list 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  wow.  so is it a bag with everything in it? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The double focuss of systems theory 

message: 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)
thread_title:  '''Clarifications for Laypeople Needed'''