![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
-- Kenneth M Burke 02:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
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 [1] in the preface of von Bertalanffy's book Perspectives on General System Theory.. [2]
Notes:
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)
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)
Since the following comment is archived, I thought it apropos to resurrect it for its second anniversary.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 mandel aka tommysun
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:
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 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:
I hope these ideas can contribute to the rewriting of this article into an acceptable Wikipedia style. - Mdd 19:03, 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)
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! 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
In the new opening sentence I stated:
I still think this is correct, and should not be reformed as just happened. - Mdd 21:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
-- Kenneth M Burke 02:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
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 [1] in the preface of von Bertalanffy's book Perspectives on General System Theory.. [2]
Notes:
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)
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)
Since the following comment is archived, I thought it apropos to resurrect it for its second anniversary.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 mandel aka tommysun
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:
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 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:
I hope these ideas can contribute to the rewriting of this article into an acceptable Wikipedia style. - Mdd 19:03, 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)
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! 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
In the new opening sentence I stated:
I still think this is correct, and should not be reformed as just happened. - Mdd 21:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
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)