Talk:Systems theory

General

With some of the discussion concerning the organization of this page, I have taken some initiative to try and better format it. It still needs some work and revisions. My concern is that the page in general is simply a fragmented collection of random facts and details and does present a coherent article on systems theory. Mostly, I have reservations over the lengthy quotes (mirrored to reservations over simply deleting them). It is an area of great interest to me, I hope that I can be of some help. If there are objections to my recent revisiions, please feel free to dialogue with me. --Kenneth M Burke 15:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Complexity and interdependance

The sentence "Systems theory focuses on complexity and interdependance which increasingly are the features of the modern world, and thus systems theory has a strong philosophical dimension. In recent times complex systems has increasingly been used as a synonym." gives the impression that complexity and interdependence is something specific to our times, which is of course utter nonsense. Whether or not people are confused with todays society has nothing to do with the complexity and interdependance of systems theory. I'm gonna modify that sentence. ---Fuqnbastard 15:56, 30 Jan 2004 (GMT)

Rename this page to systems theory

I would like to rename this page to systems theory, as I think that "systemics" is not the most commonly used term for this field in English (systemics is a more Continental European term). The page also needs a considerable rewrite, as much of it is disconnected and poorly rewritten. It needs a good history (e.g. Ashby, Bertalanffy) and a description of the different flavors of systems theory in different sciences. I will attempt to flesh my areas which are more in engineering, biology, mathematics and physics. Perhaps somebody can join me on the more management and social science side. ---Lexor 12:02, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

(deleted bizarre rantings by "quantum systemics" nutball "Father Jerome")

In the preface to the second edition of General System Theory, Bertalanffy points out that there are three domains, theory, philosophy and techology. During our work with the primer group at ISSS, Bela Banathy generalized the three into four integratable areas, the science of systems the philosophy of systems system methodology and systems action, This way we can integrate science and phoilosophy into the knowledge and integrate methodology and action into doing and then int34egrate the two, knowlwge and action into something like being. This would be the place to use systemics. It is a mistake to assume the systems is all about "theory" or that systems is all "science" I quote Francois page 354 of his encyclop0edia It would seemingly be advisable to replace expressions like "systems research" General Systems Theory, General theory of systems or systems sciences by the word "systemics, in this way many ambiguities, sterile controversies and in some cases inflated claims could probably be laid to rest. Tommy Mandel

Parts removed

Removed the last half of "Cybernetics is a closely related field, sometimes considered as a part of systems theory." One could just as easily say it the other way around. ---John Abbe 14:59, 27 Feb 2005 (Sri Lanka time)

Agreed, I like your new wording. --Lexor|Talk 12:11, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Still confused

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)

Bump. After reading the article, I realise I'd really like an example. -- Ec5618 10:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been under the impression that workplace optimizations, such as time_and_motion_study, were proto-system theory. Eoseth 01:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

The Systems theory article comments, " In recent times complex systems has increasingly been used as a synonym". It is a smaller article, containing useful background and broadly covering the same subject matter, but not as extensive a treatment as Complex systems.

Article merge proposed. Comments? FT2 20:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I would propose merging the Cybernetics plus Systems Theory nodes into a Cybernetics and Systems Theory (CST) node.

The merger of complex systems as suggested might be good idea (I have not visited that node extensively). On the other hand a system is quite different from a theory so the complex systems node may be incompatible. --MatthewKarlsen 16:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has taken place under:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Complex_system#Proposed_Merge

Mdd 18:12, 23 december 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge. Complex systems is a huge field and deserves its own article. --Fenice 16:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I questioned the merger of cybernetics and systems theory with systems theory also. Recently, Michaelbusch questioned the relevance and location of line 6 altogether. Where the line existed previous to my addition of a "see also," I think that is why I felt the need to add a "see also" in the first place. Not to mention, line 6 is misleading if not simply an inaccurate statement concerning the relationship between systems theory and cybernetics. If given a merger, I think maybe the Cybernetics and Systems Theory page should be left to explore interdisciplinary work - thought, chin scratch, hm . . . question mark. I dunno. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenneth M Burke (talk • contribs) 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC). --Kenneth M Burke 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The role of Nicolai Hartmann in the Systems Movement

Recent changes by Dr. Gabriel Gojon have highlighted the role of Nicolai Hartmann in the Systems Movement in this article and in the article about Nicolai Hartmann. The following statments have been made:

• 1. In the article heading: Modern systems theory was founded by Nicolai Hartmann
• 2. In the TIMELINE: "1945-52 General Systems Theory (proposed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy by mathematizing Nicolai Hartmann 's Ontology)"
• 3. In het History: "In von Bertalanffy's foundational text on General Systems Theory --which he literally translated from the mathematization of Nicolai Hartmann's Ontology as stated by himself in his seminal work-- traced the history of the systems concept back to the 1600s philosophy of G.W.v.Leibniz.
• 4. In the article about Hartmann: He (Hartman) is the true creator of General Systems Theory as recognized by Bertalanffy.

I think that all these four statements are highly questionable and should be removed. -- Mdd 14:18, 3 january 2006 (UTC)

I agree mostly, Gojon overemphasizes Hartmann (who I have never heard of in the context of Systems theory). The only statement I would leave in the text is that Bertalanffy mentions Hartmann in his General Systems Theory. I have not checked if this is true but I think it could be and at least Gojon gives a reference. We trust others who give references. --Fenice 14:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree we should trust... but I at first was wondering if N. Hartmann is even worth mentioning. In the book "General Systems Theory" (1968) Bertalanffy mentions Hartmann only twince in chapter 3: Some System Concepts:

• On p.72: "... All these facts may be observed in a variety of systems. Nicolai Hartmann even demands centralization for every 'dynamic structure'. He therefore recognized only a few kinds of structures..."
• On p.85: "Speaking philosophically, general systems theory, in its developed form, would replace what is known as "theory of categories" (N. Hartmann, 1942) by an exact system of logicomathematical laws.

In the introduction of this book Bertalanffy tells about "On the History of Systems Theory" (p.10-17) and about "Trends in Systems Theory" (p.17-28) and here Hartmann is not mentioned. Since this book is Bertalanffy's seminal work statement 3 is formely false. -- Mdd 15:00, 3 january 2006 (UTC)

"Speaking philosophically, general systems theory, in its developed form, would replace what is known as "theory of categories" (N. Hartmann, 1942) by an exact system of logicomathematical laws." Should suffice to prove:

1.- That Bertalanffy knew of Hartmann's work. Now considering that Hartmann's 4 volume Ontology (not the comparatively small "New Ways of Ontology") was published many years before Bertalanffy's Magnus Opus we must conclude that he read it. Thus, if he himself considers Hartmann's "Theory of Categories" to be a relatively undeveloped General Systems Theory (something that must be taken with a lot of caution since Hartmann's 4 volume Ontology is actually much more complete in its scope than Bertalanffy's book even if he tries 2 times to minimize its important as in the quote from page 72) then we must conclude that Bertalanffy's took Hartmann's Theory of Categories and transformed it into "his" General Systems Theory (or at least developed it from it). For those of us who know Hartmann's Ontology in full it is obvious that his entire General Systems Theory is just a mathematization of some of Hartmann's Ontology (Hartmann even stated the modern concept of "emergence", in this case as a "categorial novum".

2.- Given number one the fact that Bertalanffy does not mention Hartmann in "On the History of Systems Theory" (p.10-17) and about "Trends in Systems Theory" (p.17-28) does support at least the possibility that Bertalanffy wanted to minimize as much as possible his "borrowing" of Nicolai Hartmann's ideas (but still mentioning him enough to not be accused of plagiarism).

3.- Later on in his work he NEVER mentioned Hartmann again (as far as I know) which given one and two above is highly suspicious, especially since he developed a lot of time to "exposing" the philosophical implications of General System's Theory. It seems that he wanted to be considered the sole inventor (discoverer?) of the field (Leibniz was no threat since he anticipated so much!).

But I invite all here to read Hartmann's full Ontology. I am sure you will be convinced just how much General System's Theory is really Hartmann's Theory of Categories. You will be both amazed and angered at the lack of recognition afforded to Hartmann. - Dr. Gabriel Gojon 06:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion seems to highlight a general defficiency of the article. If one takes Leibniz as a rough starting point for the formalisation of general systems (GST), then immediately it becomes apparent that there is a large gap of about 300 years before Bertalanffy's tretise appears - out of the blue. This gap is not comfortable. Although Bertalanffy is clearly very important for GST, paying attention only to his work detracts from an historical explanation of the central ideas and theorems of GST. Hartmann's work provides an important reference point needed to establish greater historico-philosophical continuity. I suggest that the article gives an explicit statement, and developmental analysis of the algorithms, and ways of developing algorithms that are unique to GST. Sholto Maud 04:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

With Dr. Gabriel Gojons comment the four statements become even more questionable and speculative...!? This is far to little to back up the 'heavy' claims made in these four statements. Now I consulted some other sources and learnt, that:

• N. Hartmann developed, what is now called, a theory of categories, which has (some or more) similarity with General Systems Theory.
• Charles Francois mentions N. Hartmann in his Systemics and Cybernetics in a Historical Perspective (1999) as one of many precursors of the systemics and cybernetics (moderne alternative for systems theory) and that N. Hartmann inspired several systems thinkers as Bertalanffy, J.G. Miller, Mesarovic and Gigch.
• Bertalanffy gave Hartmann more credits in his Das biologische Weltbild (1949) in chapter VI.5 where he mentions (in my own words) that N. Hartmann allready in 1912 predicts the nececarity of a good systems theory.

Now I agree that Hartmann should be mentioned as one of the precursors of the systems theory in a suitable place. I see no reasons to promote Hartmann to the true creator of the systems theory. Statement 1 and 2 should be removed, and statement 3 and 4 should be rewritten. --Mdd 14:08, 9 january 2006 (UTC)

Relation to Dynamical Systems Theory

I've never been clear on how general systems theory relates to dynamical systems theory, a relatively well developed area of contemporary mathematics. For example, chaos, mentioned in this article, is formally defined in dynamical systems theory. Explicit discussion of the relation between systems theory and dynamical systems theory would be helpful. Jyoshimi 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag on Systemics -- or merge?

I tagged Systemics because it's a stub that doesn't define it's title, because it doesn't explain how systemics is different from Systems theory. The Systems theory article claims Systemics is a synonym -- then why not merge? (See "Rename" above.) The difference is not clear to me after going to the first couple external links for Systemics. And copyediting needed, but content first. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Systemics" is shorter and more elegant that "Systems theory". "Theory" can be attached to virtually everything. In many areas "theory" is not necessary: "Cybernetics", "Mathematics",... English, as every language, evolves, so "Systemics" may become the new "Systems theory" of the 21st century, with an enlarged view, now as wide as those of "Cybernetics", "Mathematics". Wikipedia shall reflects real uses of words, but can, and surely will increasingly influence them.

Vince Dumain

Ah, thx for resp'ing. I had just come back here to clarify my post, which i think would also resp to you. My concern was not with having articles for synonyms -- Systems science is a good one. The problem is kind of the opposite: that the Systemics article sounds like it's *contrasting* systemics with systems theory, but doesn't make clear how. I can guess/infer, based on what i find in Systemics and Systems Theory, that it's about systemics being a broader application of the theory. But a newbie to the topic (like me) shouldn't have to do that in a good encyclopedia. An article needs to clearly define it's topic and how it relates to similar articles/topics, regardless of what the relationship is. Hope that helps, "alyosha" (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ludwig von Bertalanffy at least was the founder of the scientific field of general systems theory, and the society he helped start still exists today. In the preface to the 2nd edition of GST, Bertalanffy introduces the three domains of systemics, the philosophy, the theory, and the technology of systems. Later, Bela Banathy modified these domains to the philosophy, the science, the methodology and the application of systemics. This fourfold model can be integrated, philosophy and science making up the knowledge aspect of systemics, with the methodology and application making up the action of systemics. Enlightened Doing.

Systems theory really is just one aspect of systemics, included of course is systems philosophy, and much of the work of systems involve action which requires planning and doing it. Charles Francois favored the use of systemics as a more general term.

Tommy Mandel 04:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It was said in the discussion The term 'Systems Theory' has been the general indication for the interdisciplinairy field of study of systems since the 1950's. The term should for this reason be preserved as part of the history of science. In my opinion in the 1990's it happened that scientists started to use other terms to indicate the interdisciplinairy field of study as the term 'complex systems' and other terms. I think that it is important to keep dividing this development instead of wanting to make it to 'one single thing', with it has never been. - Mdd 17.09 15 November 2005 (CEST)

I think your opinion is right, and I am at a loss what to do about it. Bertalanffy wanted specifically to use "system" as a general terms for organismic properites. But the literature went from system to complex system to complexity to every kind of complexity that has been found. Wonderful, but the lessons of the systems idea were left behind as well, while complexologists strive to find their UR principle. In my opinion the lack of the simple introduction to systems thinking/theory/science/philosophy/application has crippled the movement into obscurity.

new additions to article

Greetings; I have placed additional information into the article. I included Banathy's summary of systems theory. It should be noted that these questions have been worked out by Banathy at least. Systems theory is contrasted by Bertalanffy with systems philosophy and systems technology (Preface GST 2nd ed.) and the late Bela H Banathy, president of numerous system societies, instructor at a graduate systems school, author of several books on systems and systems education in particular, has worked these out into the four integratable domains listed in the article, systems philosophy, systems science, systems methodology and systems application. Tommy Mandel 06:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

help me

Dialectic, please help me fix the table, don't just revert everything back. Those changes were made by one of the most highly respected professors of systems theory, please don't chase him away.

"Glossary of Key Terms used by systemists" formatting

How about some help getting the "Glossary of Key Terms used by systemists" formatted consistently with comparable articles? --Dialectic 17:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, can you show me an article doing it the right way and I will fix this one accordingly. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't even think about that.

Fixaller 02:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I do not understand the picture. The caption reads 'This graphic, illustrating a central aspect of systems theory, may be perceived as a whole or as a group of parts'. Surely this is true of almost any graphic (e.g. I can see this sentence as either a bunch of squiggles or a transcription of speech). I fail to see how a stylized white S on a black circle with a ring around it is a particularly forceful or apt illustration of the idea. Perhaps a better graphic can be found or there does not need to any graphic at all. I think a photographic mosaic would convey the idea rather well. Michaelbusch 06:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Process theory

Process theory is a comprehensive theory of physical and psychological processes that can serve to integrate biological, social, and psychodynamic psychiatry. Biological priority and psychological supremacy: a new integrative paradigm derived from process theory[1], [2]

Bios, a process approach to living system theory. In honour of James and Jessie Miller[3]

I don't want to change the article myself as I was associate of Sabelli, but I think that this information may belong somewhere in this article, probably in the living systems section. Lakinekaki 01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Laszlo

Systems science is a science, its not a sand pile to catch the drifting floss of new age flotsom. Laszlo looks like a new age writer, not a scientist. Here's some comments that the editor of the book for 'The Whispering Pond' had to say about that book (according to the Amazon listing for this book).

• The enthusiastic blurbs accompanying the galley of Laszlo's (The Inner Limits of Mankind) new book carry some high-profile signatures from the New Age crowd

• Laszlo postulates a fifth universal field to unify the accepted four universal fields in physics: gravitation, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Laszlo speculates that a fifth field, which he calls the psi field, would explain diverse anomalies from the conundrums of quantum physics and sudden leaps in complexity during biological evolution to human consciousness and even ESP.

And here's what one of the reviewers had to say about The Creative Cosmos

• This was Laszlo's attempt to do what no one has done before him -- and, alas, he doesn't come anywhere near to pulling it off. The academic grounding that Laszlo tries here to create makes for too many contorted kinds of arguments. The author points to all the right issues, and he goes at them in ways that might, under another pen, have produced some startling breakthoughs in thought. But Laszlo is not the one to take this on. For those who still hjunger for a grand synthesis of all things -- human and cosmic - I suggest turning instead to someone like Ken Wilber, or -- if you have a few months of non-stop reading time -- to the colletced works of Alice A. Bailey.

NOTE Ken Wilber and Alice Bailey are new age writers.

If Laszlo is a notable writer in this field, these reviews of these books are NOT showing that. He looks like a joke.-Psychohistorian 13:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Who did the reviewing? Googled him and this came up first. Is it necessary to go further?

Dr. Ervin Laszlo: Biography & ResourcesErvin Laszlo is the author or editor of sixty-nine books translated into as many as nineteen languages, and has over four hundred articles and research ... www.wie.org/bios/ervin-laszlo.asp - 12k - Cached - Similar pages and http://www.clubofbudapest.org/About%20the%20Club/cv-laszlo.htm His appointments in the past years included research grants at the Universities of Yale and Princeton, professorships for philosophy, systems sciences, and future sciences at the Universities of Houston, Portland State, Indiana, Northwestern University and the State Univer-sity of New York. Furthermore, his career included guest professorships at various universities in Europe and the Far East. In addition, Laszlo worked as program director for the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). On August 08, 1999, he ws awarded an honorary doctorate by the Canadian "International Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics".

Laszlo serves not only as President of the Club of Budapest and head of the General Evolution Research Group, which he founded. The former President of the International Society for Systems Sciences, Advisor of the UNESCO Director General, Ambassador of the International Delphic Council, member of the International Academy of Science, the World Academy of Arts and Science and the International Academy of Philosophy, also held and holds positions as a board member or extraordinary member of numerous international associations, including, at one time, the Club of Rome.

Prof. Dr. Dr. Ervin Laszlo, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, was one of the first representatives in the area of systems philosophy and general theory of evolution. He published nearly 70 books translated into as many as 18 languages. In the course of his long academic career as a professor for philosophy, systems philosophy and future sciences, he worked in teach-ing and research at a variety of reputable universities in the US, Europe, and the Far East.

Laszlo publishes a quarterly scientific journal ("WORLD FUTURES: The Journal of General Evolution) and a corresponding book series. He also edited a four-volume encyclopedia. Over 300 articles were published in newspapers and magazines worldwide, including the US, Europe, Japan, and China.

His titles and distinctions include a Ph.D. in "Lettres et Sciences Humaines" from the Sorbonne in Paris, an "Artist Diploma" from the Franz Liszt Academy in Budapest, an honorary medal from the Kyung Hee University in Seoul, the title of honorary doctor in economic sciences of the Turku School of Economics and Business in Finland, as well as the title of honorary doctor in the area of human sciences of the Saybrook Institute in San Francisco.

Fixaller 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but it *might* be that this is just a self-created vanity page with dubious credentials. I say this because I've seen other people claim credentials on web pages for organizations that they created and, upon looking further, discovered that those credentials didn't mean a whole lot or, even, were lies (or clever distortions of truths). It's made me more than a bit cynical about taking at face value claims of authority from organizations which were created by the person the claims were about.

I guess what I'm getting at is do you have any independent sources for these claims?-Psychohistorian 03:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but sometimes it is good to be skeptical of our skepticism as well. He is the author/editor of 70 books. That's a lot of publishers. 400 papers, that's a lot of editors. The International Society for the Systems sciences selected his as their president in 1996. The dozen or so universities he has taught at, I doubt if it was because he couldn't hold a job. Surely he is qualified to be listed as a source for further reading. PS, Einstein said "Great spirits are always attacked by lessor minds"

I also can't find "systems philosophy" listed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.-Psychohistorian 04:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In the preface to the second edition of General Systems Theory, von Bertalanffy introduces the three domains of systems Inquiry - philosophy, science and technology. Bertalanffy's idea for GST was to investigate, find, and develop general principles of systems in all fields of science which then can be utilized by other fields of science. These general principles form the core of systems philosophy. How these principles play out in particular situations would then be the science of systemics. I don't think that systems philosophy is to be taken as philosophy per se,Fixaller 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll happily risk being called a "lesser mind" rather than have people think me a great one and be proven wrong. I don't know if he was the author/editor of 70 books, etc. etc. All I know is that a web page set up by an organization which he founded states he was. That's not high praise.

No No I didn't mean you, I was thinking of the reviewer claiming that Baily and Wilber did a better job at an Intregral book. You are just doing your job. Fixaller 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What I do know is that, on doing a search for Laszlo on the internet, I was flooded with references to new age sites. What I do know is that I was able to find only one reference to Laszlo on the ISSS web site (rather that's because they only had one or because my google fu is weak I don't know) and that one reference wasn't from an official page, but someone posting in a forum.-Psychohistorian 00:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be taken as a fact that he authored/edited 70 books as well as 400 articles. I am not familair with the "new age" stuff, as my research predated that movement. Laszlo is considered by all systemists as one of the founding fathers of the movement. He was around long before new age stuff came out. What does the fact that new agers like him have to do with his qualifications to talk about the field he helped found? Perhaps the best way out of this is to list only those books he wrote about systems theory, and that is done for us in the International encyclopedia of systems and cybernetics. PS I can tell you why they are interested in him if you are interested.Fixaller 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you familair with F David Peat? He is an author and on his wevbsite I found this intro

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/ideas/fieldnat.htm

"Fields in Nature 

To take a one week course with David Peat In the spring of 1998 Earl Davis arranged a three day meeting so that Basil Hiley, Ervin Laszlo, Rupert Sheldrake and David Peat could discuss together in private and without feeling under any pressures to come to conclusions."

My question is are you familair with the participants of that meeting? If Laszlo were a joke, it is highly unlikely that they would have included him.Fixaller 03:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I got it. You are looking for a reliable source. I found one. von Bertalanffy died in 1972. His wife published his last book Perspectives on General System Theory ISBN 0-8776-0797-5 under his name in 1975. She choose Ervin Laszlo to write the foreword. Fixaller 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as "new age writer" I don't know what that is. It sounds like a bad thing. Probably a lot of writers think they know the answer when they don't and write books anyway. But are all teen agers juvenile delinquents?" Laszlo is a true scientist. His speculations on the memory of the Inside field come from the experimental results of the Russian Academy of Science scientists Guariaev and Poponin regarding what they call phantom DNA. They claim to have measured the DNA EMF and more, found that the field remains after they remove the samples. The experiment was reported to have been confirmed in California, Guariaev has gone into seclusion and subsequent attempts to verify have been thwarted. Variations of the "field" Laszlo talks about have become commonplace in science by now. I'm not at all surprised that "new agers" would jump on this invisible, non-local, "hyperspace" research going on today at the frontiers of science. But even if ALL the new agers were wrong, that does not constitute any evidence that the scientists the new agers are touting are wrong. How many Beatle fans know how to play the music? Fixaller 07:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another written by Bertalanffy himself.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy on Systems Philosophy: “Laszlo’s pioneering work develops systems philosophy both in breadth and depth. As he argues convincingly, contemporary ‘analytic’ philosophy is in danger of ‘analyzing itself out of existence’ ... What we need, says Laszlo, is rather a ‘synthetic’ philosophy, that is, one which receives new inputs from the various developments in modern science and tries to follow the other way in philosophy, namely, endeavors to put together the precious pieces of specialized knowledge into a coherent picture...” “Laszlo’s work is the first comprehensitve treatise of ‘systems philosophy.’ No one who looks beyond his own specialty and narrow interests will be able to deny the legitimacy of this quest.” (Foreword to Introduction to Systems Philosophy, 1972)

Seems that Ervin Laszlo has written 84 non-fiction books as of today according to his son Alex. I have in front of me evidence consistent with the observation that Ervin Laszlo is indeed a systems Luminary. I do not have any evidence that he isn't what is said about him on his or any other website relevant to systems theory. I do not see any non-trivial connection between those who would listen to him and the integrity of his work. It is not surprising that his research would be at the frontier of science.

I propose that an acceptable "independant" source would be Charles Francois International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics, specificallly those books listed there as further readings. There are twelve books listed. I understand that the history being considered in this article is the history of systems theory. Much of Laszlo's work is with evolution and probably is the reason extreme evolutionists love to quote him. So one way of dealing with our situation is to include only the systems books, and leave the other stuff for other articles. Does this sound like consensus?

Fixaller 05:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Hope this is acceptable. Took out the evolutionary books from Laszlo's listing. Kept two systems books and The Interconnected Universe. (Mainly because Alexander Laszlo told me that it is the book to read if one wants to find out where his father, and cutting edge science, is really coming from. Well, he actually said " just have them try to read The Interconnected Universe: Conceptual Foundations of a Transdiciplinary Unified Theory (World Scientific, 1995). If they can understand the science and mathematics of that book and still consider him "new agey" then there's no hope for it.")

Thank you for being astute and catching this "unnecessary association" it is better to stick to the relevant books. I appreciate your work. I especially appreciated the way you tagged the items in question rather than just reverting them out of existence.

What is that book about "wealth" doing here? Fixaller 03:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cybernetics and Systems Theory

This was one of the first pages that I had written for Wikipedia. I think that maybe it would be appropriate to merge it with this artice, but remain unsure. It works well as a separate article that could be expanded upon for an interdisciplinary project. I believe I will probably merge the article with Systems Theory eventually but want to keep the page for itself in order to pursue future work with it. Any ideas, thoughts, questions, answers, injuries? Don't want to step on toes. --Kenneth M Burke 04:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Cybernetics is generally thought of as a subset of systems theory. That is cybernetics is a special case of systems theory. Historically, the two emerged into science at nearly the same time but somewhat independantly. Cybernetics came from the military while systems theory came from biology. Cybernetics is about certain relationships while systems theory is more generally about all relationships. My thoughts are that while it would be useful to expand the explanation of cybernetics within the systems theory article, it would be confusing if the two (titles) were blended together. I don't think anything is gained by merging them here. A similair situation exists with complex systems. The science of complexity is derived from systems theory, imagine if that were brought in too. Because systems theory is more general, it would be best I think if it were retained as is, while including significant application/applications/examples. Fixaller 04:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback, it is appreciated. I recognize the importance of the relationship between the two, but remained unsure as to how the subject would be best approached in organizing articles that provide information on the two subjects. I will continue to work with the pages. Your suggestions for directions are helpful. Thanks again.

I submitted your concerns to our group here is what came back

---

I wrote: "A small discussion has taken place at the discussions page concerning the merging of cybernetics and systems theory. How has this matter been handled historically? Are cybernetics and systems theory the same? Did they emerge independantly? Is cybernetics a subset of systems theory?"

tom

dcwalton

03/03/2007 11:58 PM     

Here are some roughly organized thoughts on it.

Historical Roots and Interrelationship "My understanding is that cybernetics and systems thoery developed more or less independently. Threads began in the late 1800s that led toward the publishing of seminal works (eg., Weiner’s Cyberntics in 1946 and von Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory in 1968). Cybernetics arose more from engineering fields and GST from biology. If anything it appears that although the two probably mutually influenced each other, cybernetics had the greater influence. "

According to Hammond’s Science of Synthesis (2003): “In association with the general evolution of systems engineering into management and organization theory … the fields of cybernetics and information theory provided essential theoretical foundations for the further development of systems theory, in conjunction with the parallel emergence of computer technologies. "

And according to Jackson in Systems Approaches to Management (2000), Bertalanffy’s promoting an embryonic form of general system theory (GST) as early as the 1920s and 1930s, although it was not until the early 1950s that his ideas became more widely known in scientific circles. ideas on systems theory began in the early 1920s but were not well known until the 1950s. Jackson claims that Bertalanffy was informed by “Bogdanov’s three volume Tektology was published in Russia between 1912 and 1927.” He also states “it is clear to Gorelik (1975) that the “conceptual part” of general system theory (GST) had first been put in place by Bogdanov.”

Later, Jackson references Checkland in this regard: “ideas from control theory and from information and communication engineering have made contributions to systems thinking no less important than those from organismic biology.”

Jackson gives a several page summary of ideas from Greek philosophy leading to the development of cybernetics. He describes the essence of cybernetic: “Simplifying considerably (since in fact the cybernetic tools represent an interrelated response to the characteristics of cybernetic systems), extreme complexity can be dealt with using the black box technique, self-regulation can be appropriately managed using negative feedback and probabilism yields to the method of variety engineering (Schoderbek, Schoderbek, and Kefalas, 1985).”

On Combining Cybernetics and Systems Theory I personally think that combining Cybernetics and Systems Theory is a big mistake. These represent two distinct streams of conversation through the years that although similar in many ways involve different groups of practitioners and different applications. Today, there are different conversations involved around the term cybernetics and systems theory. I’ll post more about this under the scope topic."

---

It is not so much that they are very similar or that they are different, the significant difference is that one is general while the other is very specific. They are like fruit and oranges. While all oranges are fruit, not all fruit is the orange. Fixaller 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the above would be a very valuable contribution to the page. We seem to all be on the same page when it comes to cybernetics and systems theory, now that consensus need only be reflected on the page itself. Your contribution would give the page a direction toward coherence and accuracy. Thank you. --Kenneth M Burke 22:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which contribution you are referring to? Fixaller 01:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The above from tom about Jackson, Hammond, etc. (suggested talk contribution, rather), thought that was from Fixaller but was mistaken.--Kenneth M Burke 17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

silent conversations

"I questioned the merger of cybernetics and systems theory with systems theory also. Recently, Michaelbusch questioned the relevance and location of line 6 altogether. Where the line existed previous to my addition of a "see also," I think that is why I felt the need to add a "see also" in the first place. Not to mention, line 6 is misleading if not simply an inaccurate statement concerning the relationship between systems theory and cybernetics. If given a merger, I maybe the Cybernetics and Systems Theory page should be left to explore interdisciplinary work - thought, chin scratch, hm . . . question mark. I dunno."

I just found this somewhere. Could we bring all the discussion to this page? This is the first time I saw the above entry. Cybernetics and Systems Theory are two distinct entities while at the same time they are about the same thing. They were independantly formulated with systems theory being the more general while cybernetics is a practical example/interpretation. We would like to discuss this with you, how do you interpret "systems theory and cybernetics" as a single whole? Fixaller 06:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I do not think that the page should be merged with the systems theory page. It was of my first contributions to Wikipedia. I could cite literature that speaks of cybernetics in general terms as "technology," the same as it has been used as analogous to systems theory. Again, apples and fruit. I understand the relationship between cybernetics and systems theory as defined by Bertalanffy:

“Systems theory is frequently identified with cybernetics and control theory. This again is incorrect. Cybernetics as the theory of control mechanisms in technology and nature and founded on the concepts of information and feedback, is but a part of a general theory of systems;” then reiterates: "the model is of wide application but should not be identified with 'systems theory' in general," and that "warning is necessary against its incautious expansion to fields for which its concepts are not made." (p. 17-23).

Really, cybernetics at its origins does involve neuroscience and technology (though, like I mentioned - that is not necessarily how it is used in literature that speaks of cybernetic systems in general technological terms). How holistic do you want to be in terms of the relationship between cybernetics and systems theory? Where Bertalanffy's work was influenced by changing assumptions of science, that would involve more than what is really necessary for a Wikipedia page I think. The Cybernetics and Systems Theory page actually leans a little too much toward original research. Nonetheless, I still do think that it is maybe feasable to start an interdisciplinary page/project from the page. Does that answer your question? --Kenneth M Burke 22:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the Cybernetics and Systems Theory page...Why not simply "Cybernetics"? And then develop that page? What do you have in mind as a interdisciplinary project? Fixaller 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, still rather new to Wikipedia and have to learn more about projects, sister pages, etc. I'm fairly knowledgeable about systems theory, but not an expert. My knowledge of cybernetics is much more limited. I'm actually surprised the Cybernetics and Systems theory page hasn't been called for deletion. It was written with concern for the topic on the Systems Theory page.

We are new too to Wikipedia. I was thinking about your project, and the thought occured to me that a good starting place would be a listing of the organizations, international societies, federations world congress having to do with systems stuff would be quite impressive. Here's a note from Robert Vallee,,

---

Cher Tom

About Wikipedia, it would be good, as you proposed, to put the « various societies and institutes and the like » in the article on systems.

For example : World Organisation of Systems and Cybernetics , WOSC (www.cybsoc.org/wosc), American Society for Cybernetics, ASC ( www.asc-cybernetics.org.), French Association for Systems Sciences, AFSCET (www.afscet.asso.fr).

The American society for Cybernetics proposes two lists of cyberneticians.

Best,Robert

---

Vallee is one of the old timers, president of one of those he listed above, Cybernetician and knows what is going down.

We too are pondering what and how systems is as a transdisiciplinary science. What is new and what is old and who decides?