Search results

Three problematic issues followed by paradigm changes over the recent history of human intellectual endeavour are identified as 1. mysticism/superstition to – conventional science (of physics), 2. predominant use of qualitative/quantitative properties for analysis and design to – structural or systemic properties, and 3. current speculative/fragmented, multiple approaches to the “systemic view” to – a firmer knowledge-based approach reflecting the empirical and universal nature of this view. This paper aims to consider the problematic issues, to conclude that conventional science is inadequate to cope with the 2nd paradigm change and to introduce a “new science of systems” which can integrate conventional science and alleviate the 3rd problematic issue by suggesting three principles implemented by linguistic modelling as operational model.

The highly successful methodology of conventional science is followed with systemic content by suggesting three general principles of systems, namely, principle of existence (pervasiveness of structural description), principle of complexity (aggregates for emergence of outcomes) and principle of change (change by purpose or chance), and linguistic modelling of static and dynamic scenarios based on natural language as operational model. This language is processed to “elementary constituents”, of which complex structures can be constructed. These constituents are converted into reasoning schemes consisting of “ordered pairs” and “predicate logic statements” in static and dynamic states.

Stories of problematic scenarios are converted into the universal scheme of “management/producers” – “products” – “users/consumers” by constructing linguistic networks of products and semantic diagrams of organizations/user/consumers for investigating the emergence of outcomes in analysis and for designing prototypes. Problematic issues of individual objects in a scenario are resolved by methods of conventional science, which is thus integrated with systems science to form the “scientific enterprise”.

Once the new approach is debated, further developments in the mathematics of ordered pairs, predicate logic and uncertainties are needed. The linguistic basis is to be further investigated. Connection with AI and “logical atomism of Bertrand Russell” is to be explored.

Further applications to large-scale scenarios by practitioners using the “universal scheme” and development of software are needed.

The approach is rooted in accepted branches of knowledge, is highly teachable and should lead to be used by professionals and others once debated and accepted.

The current field of systems thinking consists of a variety of views, methods and a number of organisations involved with these views which suggests a state of confusion and fragmentation of the field which fundamentally is supposed to be a uniform view of structures or systems. This can be interpreted as a “crisis situation”. A resolution of the crisis in the form of a “new science of systems” is proposed. Assuming this new science becomes part of the field of systems thinking, a debate of the elements of the field is suggested with a view to consider its current state and future developments. “Crisis - resolution - debate” is the central theme of the paper.

The field of current systems thinking is described in terms of views, methods and organisations and is seen as the “problematic issue”. A “new science of systems” strongly rooted in natural language as its primary symbolism and consisting of three general principles of systems and linguistic modelling is outlined to be considered as the resolution of the crisis. A set of criteria is discussed for use of judging the quality of models and element of the field of systems thinking including the “new science of systems”. To demonstrate a preliminary use of these criteria, the same example is worked out using both, the “soft systems methodology” and “linguistic modelling” for comparison.

The universal view of parts of the world as structures or systems is inconsistent with the multiple methods basically pursuing the same purpose: modelling aspects of systems which prevail in current systems thinking. To try to resolve this anomaly an equally universally applicable approach, the “new science of systems” is proposed which can also serve as an aid to problem solving, in particular to an integrated systems and product design. This approach is to be part of the suggested debate of the field of systems thinking. In general, there is no alternative to the structural view.

The “new science of systems”, if found acceptable, can offer research opportunities in new applications of accepted branches of knowledge like logic, linguistics, mathematics of ordered pairs, uncertainties and in the philosophy of science. New teaching schemes can be developed at classroom level combined with engineering as creator of novelties with linguistics as the symbolism to supplement mathematics. Further considerations can be given to current methodologies of systems thinking as part of a debate with a view of future developments in exploring pioneering ideas. New software is needed for working out the dynamics of scenarios.

The debate, if it takes place, should result in new developments in the field of systems thinking such as concepts accepted as fundamental in the discipline of systems. Applications of the “new science of systems” to larger scale scenarios and organisations guided by the universal scheme in Figure 1 and linguistic modelling with software are needed for development of schemes for problem solving schemes “utilising” or “producing” products.

The “new science of systems” is rooted in accepted branches of knowledge; it is highly teachable at school and university levels and should lead to use by professionals and in everyday life activities once found acceptable. The use of the scheme in Figure 1 should help in clarifying confusing scenarios and to aid problem solving.

The suggestion of a debate is an original idea. The “new science of systems” consists of three general principles of systems implemented by linguistic modelling of static and dynamic states. Mathematics of uncertainty and topics from conventional science at the object level supplement the “new science” which together form the “scientific enterprise”. The notions of cognitive value and informative content of models are introduced for evaluating their cognitive worth.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how ordered pairs representing related objects in static state are used to create hierarchical structures yielding rapidly increasing choices of complex objects to be selected by objects in their environment and how “purposive systems” evolve for the production of such structures.

Basic notions transcending discipline boundaries and natural language formalised into one‐ and two‐place sentences are suggested as related constituents of complexity and hierarchy, the “systemic view”. This leads into sets of ordered pairs and sequences of qualified predicate logic statements forming dynamics of systems.

Hierarchies in general can be expressed as ordered pairs. An analytical method for showing how ordered pairs are organised into progressively more complex structures of objects and “products” with increased chances of being selected by environmental objects in evolution or design. Correspondingly, groups of purposive systems operating according to algorithms are needed for the production of products or their evolution is left to chance.

The approach uses natural language as the primary model transformed into a formal language for reasoning about outcomes of scenarios with inanimate and animate components with predominantly qualitative properties, emotions and will. The desirability of such an approach, although it matches the generality of the systemic view, needs to be debated.

Once past the test of acceptability and software development, the approach can be used as part of “design methodology” for the design of “systems and products” in the context of human activity and technical scenarios.

The formal language exhibits properties, relations and interactions or impressions of objects of great diversity and variety. It exhibits the effects of these constituents on the production of outcomes based on semantic and mathematical relationships; it is widely applicable and may facilitate the appreciation of how “related objects evolve”.

After the postwar years, the realisation that parts of the world, real, imaginary or abstract, can be seen as “related properties or objects”, the systemic view, has resulted in an immense production of, by and large, speculative intellectual output. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how following the methodology of conventional science, the systemic view can be turned into systems science.

Basic notions which transcend discipline boundaries are put forward. Natural language is used as the primary model for description of human activity and other scenarios leading to its processing into homogeneous language of one‐ and two‐place declarative sentences, the minimal elements which still reflect the systemic view. These sentences are called “ordered pairs” in static state and “dynamic sentences” in dynamic state. Complex models are developed: as sets of ordered pairs from which meaningful objects and “products” can be deduced (static linguistic modelling) leading to hierarchical structures; and as sequences of predicate logic statements which propagate changes of states towards final states (dynamic linguistic modelling).

Static and dynamic linguistic modelling is used together when products are expressed as sets and in design of products and systems. Linguistic networks, semantic diagrams and an information theory which is an integral part of the dynamics of change, are introduced.

The limitations of application of a formal method to scenarios with human components with “will” need to be debated.

Once software is developed, a comprehensive method for analysis and design of scenarios is available.

Homogeneous language exhibiting the structure and semantics of products and systems based on recognition of empirical and linguistic invariants and carrying uncertainty and mathematics, is put forward.