Linkage Propositions between Fifty Principal Systems Concepts

  • L. Raphael Troncale
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 5)

Abstract

Ackoff states that “the concepts and terms commonly used to talk about systems have not themselves been organized into a system [1].” Margaret Mead can be heard meeting after meeting criticizing the field she helped popularize for not applying the “systems approach” to itself. The comparatively slow development of a paradigm in general systems theory [compare with fields described in (2) and especially (3)] is characterized by endless redefining of the same few terms followed by the rediscovery, and often rewording of the most common of these terms in each new discipline as it “popularizes” the systems level for itself. The result has been confusion in terminology, a highly fractured and “fuzzy” paradigm, and a set of introductory texts [4, 5, 6, 7] none of which can be expected to cover more than a part of the whole set of concepts available. The fragmentation of concepts between disciplines and approaches has stifled the widespread awareness of the consistent set of linkages that potentially exist among the concepts.

Keywords

System Concept Association Class Linkage Model General System Theory Correspondence Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. L. Ackoff, “Towards a System of Systems Concepts,” Management Science, 17, No. 11, July 1971, pp. 661–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1970.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. R. Platt, “Strong Inference,” Science, 146, pp. 347–353, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. M. Weinberg, An Introduction to General Systems Thinking, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. J. Klir, An Approach to General Systems Theory, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. von Bertalanffy, General Systems Theory, George Braziller, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. W. Churchman, The Systems Approach, Delacorte Press, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. G. Miller, “Living Systems,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, 48, No. 2, pp. 63–276, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. B. Wood, Communication Theory In the Cause of Man, Vol. II, No. 6-A, F. B. Wood, San Jose, California, p. 25, 1973.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. S. Iberall, Toward A General Science of Viable Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. J. Klir (ed.), Trends in General Systems Theory, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Buckley (ed.), Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist, Aldine, Chicago, 1968.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Lazlo, Introduction to Systems Philosophy, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Lazlo, The Systems View of the World, Brazeller, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Earlier attempts and methodologies are partially described in the following government reports for HEW Contract No. 300–75–0224. Staff, Institute for Advanced Systems Studies, Models for Training Environmental Education Teachers Utilizing the General Systems Paradigm; (a) Revised First Interim Report, 172 pp; (b) Second Interim Report, 162 pp; (c) Preliminary Final Report, Vols. I, II, III, and Appendices.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. D. Rogers and G. Lendaris, “Systems Science Buzz Words: A Glossary,” personal communication, June 20, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Systems Seminar 230, Societal Systems and Systems Tools Handbook: A Preliminary Report, Cybernetic Systems Program, San Jose State University, 1975.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. R. Troncale, Comparative Systems Analysis, (in progress) on a PDP-10 machine language program (CCAM).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Berlinski, On Systems Analysis: An Essay Concerning the Limitations of Some Mathematical Methods in the Social, Political and Biological Sciences, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. R. Troncale and A. G. Wilson, “Process-Orientation of Natural Systems versus Goal-Orientation of Man-Made Systems.” A five-paper symposium within the Annual Meeting of S.G.S.R. held in conjunction with the AAAS, Denver, Colorado, February, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Koestler and J. R. Symthies (eds.), Beyond Reductionism, The Alpbach Symposium, Hutchinson of London, 438 pp., 1968.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. J. Kelley, “Entropy of Knowledge,” Philosophy of Science, 36, September 1977, pp. 178–196, esp. pp. 187–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    F. Zwicky, Discovery, Invention, Research, Macmillan, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    F. Zwicky, and A. G. Wilson, New Methods of Thought and Procedure, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    L. R. Troncale, “A Macro-Uncertainty Principle and the Conduct of Metasciences-like Evolution and Systems Theory,” (In preparation).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    F. J. Varela, “A Calculus for Self-Reference,” International Journal of General Systems, 2, No. 1, pp. 5–24, 1975. For autopoietic extensions of the calculus and transforms between hierarchical trees and nets, see the Published Proceedings of the entire annual SGSR meeting for 1977 mentioned in Ref. 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    K. F. Schaffner, “Correspondence Rules,” Philosophy of Science, 36, September 1969, p. 280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    P. Frank, Modern Science and Its Philosophy, Collier Books, New York, 1961.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    C. G. Hempel, “The Theoreticians Dilemma,” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, edited by G. Feigl and G. Maxwell, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1962.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    E. Nagel, The Structure of Science, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1961.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    K. F. Schaffner, “The Watson-Crick Model and Reductionism,” British Journal of Philosophical Science, 20, pp. 325–348, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    K. F. Schaffner, “Approaches to Reduction,” Philosophy of Science, 34, June 1967, pp. 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    L. R. Troncale, Natures Enduring Patterns: A Guide for Man (in progress). Also a series of 12 papers, one on each of the twelve focal systems packets and each with linkage propositions is planned for completion on sabbatical next year.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    L. R. Troncale, P. Harmon, and D. Sutton, Systems Concepts Applied to the Conventional Disciplines (In progress).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    A. G. Wilson, personal communication. Also discussed in [20].Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    L. Darden and N. Maull, “Interfield Theories,” Philosophy of Science, 44, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    D. Meadows, D. Meadows, J. Randers, and W. Behrens, The Limits to Growth, Signet Books, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    M. Mesarovic, and E. Pestel, Mankind at the Turning Point, Dutton Publishing Co., New York, 1974.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    H. T. Odum, and E. Odum, Energy Basis for Man and Nature, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    F. Emery, Systems Thinking, Penguin Books, Ltd., Harmonds-worth, Middlesex, England, 1969.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    E. P. Odum, “The Emergence of Ecology as a New Integrative Discipline,” Science, 195, 4284, March 1977, pp. 1289–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Raphael Troncale
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Advanced Systems StudiesCalifornia State Polytechnic UniversityPomonaUSA

Personalised recommendations