larry@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV (07/18/88)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 16:55 EDT
From: larry@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV
Subject: Philosophy: Critique of Systems Theory
To: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu
X-ST-Vmsmail-To: ST%"AIList@ai.ai.mit.edu"
--
Using Gilbert Cockton's references to works critical of systems theory, over
the last month I've spent a few afternoons in the CalTech and UCLA libraries
tracing down those and other criticisms. The works I was able to get and
study are at the end of this message. I also examined a number of introduc-
tory texts on psychology and sociology from the last 15 years or so.
General Systems Theory was founded by biologist Ludwig von Bertallanfy in
the late '40s. It drew heavily on biology, borrowed from many areas, and
promised a grand unified theory of all the sciences. The ideas gained
momentum till in the early '70s in the "humanics" or "soft sciences" it had
reached fad proportions. Bertallanfy was made an honorary psychoanalyst,
for instance, and a volume appeared containing articles by various prominent
analysts discussing the effects of GST on their field. After that peak,
interest died down. Indexes in social-sciences textbooks carried fewer
references to smaller discussions. The GST journal became thinner and went
from annual to biannual; the latest issue was in 1985. Interest still
exists, however, and in various bibliographies of English publications for
1987 I found at total of seven new books.
What seems to have happened is that the more optimistic promises of GST
failed and lost it the support of most of its followers. Its more success-
ful ideas were pre-empted by several fields. These include control theory
in engineering, taxonomy of organizations in management, and the origins of
psychosis in social psychology.
For me the main benefit of GST has been a personally satisfactory resolution
of the reduction paradox, which follows.
Because of the limits of human intelligence, we simplify and view the
universe as various levels of abstraction, each level fairly independent of
the levels "above" and "below" it. This gives rises to arguments, however,
about whether, for instance, physics or psychology is "truer." The simple
answer is that both are only approximations of an ultimately unknowable
reality and, since both views are too useful give up, their incompatibility
is inevitable and we just have to live with it. This is what many physi-
cists have done with the conflict between quantum and wave views of energy.
The GST view is that each higher level of organization is built on a
previous one via systems, which are new kinds of units made from binding
together more elementary units. New kinds of systems exhibit synergy:
attributes and abilities not observed in any of their constituent elements.
But where do these attributes/abilities come from? I found no answer in the
writings on system theory that I read, so I had to make my own answer.
I finally settled on what interaction effects. Two atoms bound together
chemically affect each other's electron shrouds, forming a new shroud around
them both. This gives the resulting molecule a color, solubility, conduc-
tivity, and so on that neither solitary atom has.
Similarly, two people can cross a wall neither can alone by one standing on
the other's shoulders to reach the top, then pulling the bottom partner up.
A "living" machine can repair and reproduce itself. And consciousness can
arise from elements that don't have it -- memories, processors, sensors, and
effectors -- though no amount of study of individual elements will find life
or consciousness. They are the result of interaction effects.
_System Analysis in Public Policy: a Critique_, I. Hoos, 1972
_Central Problems in Social Theory_, Anthony Giddens, 1979
_System Theory, System Practice_, P. B. Checkland, 1981
_On Systems Analysis_, David Berlinski, 1976
_The Rise of Systems Theory_, R. Lilienfeld, 1978
The last two are reviewed in _Futures_, 10/2, p. 159 and 11/2, p. 165.
They also contain criticisms of system theory which, they complain,
Berlinski and Lilienfeld overlooked.vu0112@bingvaxu.UUCP (07/24/88)
From: bingvaxu!vu0112@cs.buffalo.edu To: comp-ai-digest@rutgers.edu Path: bingvaxu!vu0112 Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: Re: Philosophy: Critique of Systems Theory Date: Tue, 19 Jul 88 01:40 EDT References: <19880718040738.0.NICK@HOWARD-JOHNSONS.LCS.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: Cliff Joslyn <vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> Organization: SUNY Binghamton, NY Lines: 79 In a previous article, larry@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes: >Using Gilbert Cockton's references to works critical of systems theory, over >the last month I've spent a few afternoons in the CalTech and UCLA libraries >tracing down those and other criticisms. I'm very sorry to have missed the original discussion. Gilbert: could you re-mail to me? >General Systems Theory was founded by biologist Ludwig von Bertallanfy in >the late '40s. It drew heavily on biology, borrowed from many areas, and >promised a grand unified theory of all the sciences. The newer term is "Systems Science." For example, I study in a Systems Science department (one of a very few in the country), and the International Society for General Systems Research is changing its name to the Int. Soc. for the Systems Sciences. >The ideas gained >momentum till in the early '70s in the "humanics" or "soft sciences" it had >reached fad proportions. Sad but true. >What seems to have happened is that the more optimistic promises of GST >failed and lost it the support of most of its followers. Its more success- >ful ideas were pre-empted by several fields. These include control theory >in engineering, taxonomy of organizations in management, and the origins of >psychosis in social psychology. It should not be lost sight of that "Systems Science" and "Cybernetics" are different views of the same field. They showed the same course of development, especially in Norbert Weiner's career. With the rise of Chaos theory, fractals, connectionism, family therapy, global politics, and so many other things, GST/Cybernetics is implicitly achieving the kinds of results they always claimed. The body of GST work stands as a testament to the vision of those who could see the future of science, even though they couldn't claim a corner for themselves. >For me the main benefit of GST has been a personally satisfactory resolution >of the reduction paradox, which follows. > [ excellent description omitted ] It is a very difficult task to defend the discipline, which I do, because it is not clear that it is a discipline in the traditional sense. While it has a body of knowledge and a variety of specific claims about the world, and especially about dialectical philosopy, it is inherently interdisciplinary. George Klir, one of my teachers, describes it as a "second dimension" of science, studying the similarities of systems across systems types. This in itself is addressing the problem of reduction by talking about systems at different scales. >This is what many physi- >cists have done with the conflict between quantum and wave views of energy. I refere you to an article I am currently reading, by another of my professors, Howard Pattee, "The Complementarity Principle in Biological and Social Structures," in _JOurnal of Social and Bio. Structures_, vol. 1, 1978. >New kinds of systems exhibit synergy: >attributes and abilities not observed in any of their constituent elements. >But where do these attributes/abilities come from? Some Systems Scientists claim emergent phenomena in the traditional sense. Others say that that concept is not necessary, but rather "emergent" phenomena is just a problem of observing at multiple scales. The physical unity of a rock is a physical property of the electrical "synergy" of its constituent atoms. Same for a hurricane, an organism, an economy, or a society, only with different constituents. In dynamical systems it is common for there to be a complex interplay between global and local effects and phenomena. -- O----------------------------------------------------------------------> | Cliff Joslyn, Cybernetician at Large | Systems Science, SUNY Binghamton, vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .