There's a lot here Tom, maybe I haven't got the right thread, apologies
to everyone if I take up space, I have often found myself either at a
tangent or out of phase with themes due to coming into class late.
However, you picked up on what must be an important thread that didn't
get a great deal of response, I think it began with Alfonso López
Borgoñoz, on organising knowledge about a model or system; then Juan Luis
Chulilla brought in 'postmodernism', and Nikolai S. Rozov introduces the
'Black Plague'. Now, is this what is known in science as 'anti-science'?
This was aired three years ago in Nature, beginning with a review of the
book The Future of Science by Gerald Holton. I have made a note of this
and is given below.
NATURE 367, 522. 10 Feb 1994. John Ziman reviews the book, The Future of
Science, by Gerald Holton.
This is for the most part a history of science and its detractors
and critics, in particular, Oswald Spengler, who considered the thought
processes and methodology of science as an internal cancer of our
culture. Eighty years on from Spengler, Holton senses there is a gradual
undermining of 'science', or how it is perceived by the majority. As
Ziman says,
'In Holton's view, the most malignant of the many manifestations
of anti-science is "the type of pseudo-scientific nonsense that manages
to pass itself off as an 'alternative science', and does so in the
service of political ambition". On the one hand, the high level of
general scientific illiteracy in the United States and other advanced
countries is a potential source of erroneous policy and eventual social
instability. On the other, there are reassuring factors, such as the
popular enchantment with high technology, and the absence of generalised
conflict between organised science and conventional sectarian religion.
General recognition of these factors is the basis for numerous campaigns
to improve public understanding of science.
Holton goes deeper. He sees anti-science as a movement that would
delegitimise science as the progressive core of modern culture.'
Ziman points to areas where science does draw criticism, inhumane
technology, environmental devastation and technocratic authoritarianism,
along with attitudes such as subjectivity and faith overriding what can
be demonstrated and repeated. He then concludes with the following,
'In effect, Holton unconciously adopts a Spenglerian thema of
cyclical movement between two cultural poles. A more evolutionary
analysis would open our imagination to the likely emergence of quite
unprecedented social and psychological formations, as novel in their own
divers ways as science itself - and perhaps as beneficial. Such a 'post
modern' conclusion need not breed complacency. On the contrary, it
heartens us to press on along new paths without anguish over our
inability merely to stand firm or turn back. But this is only one opinion
stimulated by this extraordinarily thoughtful, penetrating and wise tract
for everyone concerned about the future of science.'
The editor of NATURE was far from complacent.
NATURE 368, 185. 17 March, 1994. Defending science against anti-scince.
There is a need for concerted action against the forces of anti-science;
simply ignoring the critics will not suffice to counter the phenomenon.
In this article John Maddox refers to John Ziman's review of Gerald
Holton's book. The criticism of the book appears to be Holton does not
emphasise the dangers of anti-science. Maddox then exposes astrologists
as liars, peddlers of untruth and deceit. He then continues,
'Holton makes that point, and also notes that the scientific
profession is docile in the face of what is really a torrent of attack.
But is it not disgraceful that there should be such general and benign
tolerance of astrology (and other mumbo-jumbo such as faith healing,
water divining and spiritualism), apparently on the grounds that they are
the harmless pursuits of people who are not scientists? Would other
professionals, lawyers or accountants say, be as tolerant of public
belief that undermined the integrity of their work - and, potentially,
their livelihood?'
There were replies to this over the weeks following, of which the one
below is an example.
368,788. 28 April, 1994. Gary Zajac. Comments on the article of
scientific method. (368, 185).
'The recent column by John Maddox "Defending science against
anti-science" seems to reduce science to a proselytizing political
ideology. Science, as a way-of-knowing, is not furthered by witch
-hunting, rooting out of 'non-believers' and paranoia about other
ways-of-knowing that challenge the received wisdom of the scientific
establishment. It is wrong-headed to ask whether science should tolerate
non-science. Simply put, there is no place for Torquemada in science.
Science, at its best, relies on a free and curious spirit of inquiry,
open methods, a readiness to admit and correct error and a sincere
aversion to dogmatism. It questions everything (including its own
processes), and avoids the Scylla and Charybdis of arrogance and
partisanship, the sure death of the open mind. Science will make more
progress by continuing its noble work, confident in its own abilities,
rather than by defensive posturing against any perceived threats to its
turf or its achievements.'
I'm with Maddox, and I sense that postmodernism, Black Plague and
anti-science are all and the same thing, when done for political
ambition, or a motive which is specifically designed, organised and
orchestrated to undermine reason and sense. There are many who may peddle
untruth unknowingly or naively, they will go away, they are not a
problem. When the motive is ambition, profit, or corporate gain the
peddlers live twice, if the devil has all the best tunes then he has the
writers having an engaging poetic charm that appeals more than reason.
On models, Maddox has this to say in Nature,
365,485. 7 Oct 1993. 'Abstract Models in search of problems. Most models
come into being as aids in the solution of real problems, but there is no
reason why the process should not be inverted by the creation of models
for which there are no problems - yet.'
Consider a scenario - an abstract model is applied to World Systems and
as part of a sub-system there is a matrix that can be used for predicting
let us say the last day of capitalist world economy. Right now anyone can
have a crack at it, and they will get it wrong, no one will believe them
because all they have is an argument, at best based on a hunch or an
extrapolation of data. With a model, if it is the right one, the
prediction is no longer an argument, it is a discovery, it is not an
invention by a person. This is what makes peddlers of deceit slip away
into the crowd as if they never existed, this is their sole aversion.
I have read over your post several times and will comment on the points
which I take to be two matters, accuracy in definitions and a description
of what is my idea of a system. Before doing this I'll say something
about my perception of where the systems engineer or technician fits into
the picture with reference to your paragraph,
>"Systems science" and "systems management" sounds more like what they
>would teach me at the local MBA high-powered, cost-driver-
>parlance-driven seminar -
If only it had been that way for me. . . The execs in an organisation
are chosen from those who have little to no comprehension of systems, it
has to be that way, they have to believe in the immaculate concept of the
organisation, the product, or whatever the organisation is doing. Way
down, under the floorboards, you will find the systems engineers. They
are given another belief, the organisation is a hair's breadth away from
total collapse, the product is rubbish, nothing works the way it is
supposed to, it never did and it probably never will, it works is fail
mode and whatever is done only brings the system to a point where it was
thought to be before tinkering about with it.
You have me about right, it is learned hopelessness, I KNOW nothing
works, if only I knew of something which did. . .
It gets worse, when you start work as a systems technician you think you
know everything, then, when you might be useful, years and years later,
you realise you really know nothing.
As for systems definitions, this all depends on the problem that needs a
solution. What problem? Have you read A World in Crisis?, R. J. Johnston
and P.J. Taylor, plenty of problems there. The last chapter written by
Taylor is about the World-Systems project, and here the problem is the
capitalist world economy. Alright, this is ten years old, and what was a
problem then is a PROBLEM now. Taylor emphasises method, or this stands
out when I read and re-read it, as time goes by, I look in hope for the
day when there might be solutions to the problem.
On descriptions of 'system' each one is only going to be as good as how
much you can squeeze out of it. The ultimate system is the universe,
where the capitalist world economy is a subsystem. This is at the apex of
many levels of subsystems. How can I describe a 'system'? First, there
are two kinds, those which are perceived as being infinite and those
which are finite. Second, a system is anything where there is more than
one object and where one object moves about the other.
For most practical purposes, systems are finite, they have a starting
point and a point where they end. This might appear to be trivial; if it
is abstract then you need to have some kind of maths having a formula
that generates the beginning and the end, without minus values or
approximations. The notion of the exponent will not do.
Next, there needs to be some description of the start and finish. This
description is classical thermodynamics, yes, it uses approximations but
it has not been replaced in 150 years. The assumptions are all abstract.
After that comes what makes the system go from start to finish, what is
the mechanism, here again the method has to be abstract. The mechanism is
the process, it shows how one object moves about another, or how many
objects move about in a defined space. The process has to be able to
operate in both directions and might exhibit an equilibrium state, or
homeostasis.
Using the classical approach a closed system is abstract, it can only be
so, the only closed system is the universe. When a closed system is
described it is a universe in its own right. Because of this it is
necessary to describe the limits. In some instances the end points are
imaginary, that is, to describe what is real is to create two or more
parts of something which do not exist.
Two systems are a multiple system. If they interact then one will affect
the other, and if one learns from the interaction then it is an evolving
'intelligent' system.
So there it is. Now knock this into touch, as they say in the game where
you can carry the ball. All of this is meaningless unless there is a
consensus of agreement or disagreement. It is also meaningless if it does
not advance the solution of the problem.
On feedback the classical text is Cybernetics, by Norbert Wiener.
Incidentally, Wiener completed a work in 1954 and remained unpublished
until 1993. Against Megabuck Science. Invention: The care and feeding of
ideas.
There are many texts that deal with complex systems, 'The Collapse of
Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World'. By Jack Cohen and Ian
Stewart. Also see works by John Casti of the Santa Fe Institute. See also
New Scientist, 4th October, No 2102, p32 Decline and Fall -
Computer models are revealing the forces that brought about the growth
and collapse of long-gone civilisations. This work is being carried out
by the Santa Fe Institute.
As for examples using the constraints the field of application is
narrowed down. For instance, if 'capitalist world economy' is infinite
then it becomes impossible to take the analysis any further. If it is
seen as a process which began at some point in time and will end at a
latter time then it's possible to go further. Right away a variable is
time. After that one or more variables are needed. Money looks as if it
might be a variable. If time is a variable then the system is going to be
time sensitive. Thus, it becomes necessary to look for a time dependent
variable. This will show that a subsystem which was working at some time
will not work at some other time. Also, since the system of capitalist
world economy is a complex system it evolves, if it does so in the same
way as biological systems then it will become less complex as time goes
on. Or at least the number of sub-systems will decrease.
Suppose the notion of 'politics' was considered as a variable, how will
this stand up to the constraints? Phrases are used such as 'political
system', 'political process', 'shift in political balance', and so on.
Since there is a scale of notions of left and right then might this be
worth looking at? Unfortunately no, the change along the scale is not a
process, going from right to left is not of this kind of system. There
are political processes but whatever they are has nothing to do with the
system or can be considered a subsystem.
Taking the vehicle as a system then I'd say the closed system is the
vehicle itself, of which there are sub-systems, engine, braking system,
power transmission, body shell and so on. When it is on the highway it
becomes part of another system, that might be called a transportation
system. In the hierarchy of systems on the same level as the vehicle is
highway planning, and below that construction, below that maintenance,
and so on.
Any abstract model is only as good as the dimensions that outline it. For
instance, my appreciation of football is a purely abstract model. A group
of people attempt to put a ball into a net, producing lists of 'scores'.
>From that I can apply techniques. However, as P. J. Taylor says, the
'methodology' is wrong. That is, I do not have any idea of the closed
system, never mind it as on open one. Lists of scores are just a
subsystem at the lower level of the hierarchy, and a systems engineer
employed to increase the score for a given team will never do it by
analysis of past data.
I am sure method brings discoveries. Technique brings inventions.
So, there it is just now. By the way, has anyone heard of Oswald
Spengler?
All the best for Christmas,
William Kirk.