Talk:Systems theory
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Systems theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A Complex system is like a Tennis Match
editI checked Wikibooks and Simple WP. Something essential is still missing.
Gregory Bateson complained that people often didn't understand him (see Intro to Steps to an Ecology of Mind) and it isn't surprising; explaining right-brain thinking with left-brain language is difficult ("Language commonly stresses only one side of any interaction"). Bateson and others tried but couldn't produce a brief description of systems that makes it clear. Cross-disciplinary discriptions tend to go back and forth betweeen various ideas and fields and they can be hard to follow. But, as Bateson said, this reminds me of a story--(because stories can better describe systems theory).
It's like trying to describe a fast-paced tennis match--
You can't watch just one player and follow the game.
You can't be very precise about where each player is standing because they're constantly moving.
You watch the fast-moving ball and the players relationship to it.
A Complex system is like the two tennis players and the ball moving. ...more on this later.
Lawrence Bale describes, in Gregory Bateson: Cybernetics and the social behavioral sciences by Lawrence S. Bale, Ph.D.: First Published in: Cybernetics & Human Knowing: A Journal of Second Order Cybernetics & Cyber-Semiotics, Vol. 3 no. 1 (1995), pp. 27–45,
how classical science reduces a subject to two variables to study it with greater precision. This requirement makes it impossible for science to study a complex system with many variables.
Science broke things down into pieces to study them and forgot to put the pieces back together again.Margaret9mary (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for mentioning cybernetics! I was thinking a link should be included somewhere in the article. ~2025-42193-93 (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Adding an example of application
editDear editors of the systems theory page. I propose adding a new subsection to the "Examples of applications" section. Please see below the suggested text:
In sustainability science
editSystems theory is the foundation of the transdisciplinary typology of the four most basic types of change in social, ecological, and social-ecological systems. From a systems science perspective, change can differ based on whether it is (a) internally or (b) externally driven, and (c) non-structural or (d) structural. [1] Internally-driven non-structural change refers to any variation within the range permitted by the structure of a system because of regular internal functioning. Externally-driven non-structural change is any variation within the range permitted by the structure of a system, as a reaction to the system’s environment. Internally-driven structural change refers to any modification of a system’s structure because of regular internal functioning or as a proactive effort to adjust to change in the system’s environment. Finally, Externally-driven structural change is any modification of a system’s structure by its environment.
References
- ↑ Sotnik, G.; Fischer, P.; Ibáñez, I.; Cousins, S. (2021). "A transdisciplinary typology of change identifies new categories of adaptations and forms of co‑adaptation in coupled human and natural systems". Sustainability Science. 16: 1609–1623. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00979-y.
Use of the term "machine logic" in the lead
editThe lead section currently ends with this sentence:
- "The field is related to systems thinking, machine logic, and systems engineering."
The term machine logic is unclear, but I suspect it is covered by cybernetics, which is discussed later in the article (unlike systems thinking).
Proposed change: Remove the reference to machine logic from the lead, or clarify it with a more standard term. Ivarru (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Saying there are efforts to strengthen ethics and then citing a Nazi is kind of wild
editI feel like the citation just does not explain anything, since it is unclear what "ethics" means in this case, as well as the fact it is in a sentence saying this happened after the cold war, when the citation is of something published in the 60s buy a guy who dies before the cold war ended. ~2026-12531-56 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I agree. It looks like the citation I presume you're referring to was added on 2016 April 11 by 2601:182:c300:3a72:85ee:26f1:7b5b:3905 (talk · contribs) with no edit description beyond the name of the section being modified: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Systems_theory&diff=714663917&oldid=713990464
- Solomon Ucko (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- P.S. And the containing sentence was added as "Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a renewed interest in systems theory with efforts to strengthen an ethical view." on 2007 May 9 by Kenneth M Burke (talk · contribs) with edit description "→Overview: may still require copyediting/banathy reference remains in question": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Systems_theory&diff=129420275&oldid=129410218
- Solomon Ucko (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

