Here's what New Morning had to say;
Philosophers understand systems in ways similar to scientists. However, whereas scientists tend to use systemic analyses, philosophers question the significance of such analyses. As well, philosophers inquire into the *concept* of systems. That is, philosophers tend to care less about this or that system and more about the generic being of a system. What are systems, uberhaupt?-- This is a philosopher's question. In the above description of systems from Jackson's post there is an implicit understanding of the nature and function of systems. A philosopher would concern himself with what is left implicit in Jackson's understanding of system and ask if there were any *presuppositions* about the nature and function of systems. These presuppositions might obscure a larger understanding of systems. A philosopher might wonder if *all* systems operate in relation to external boundaries, or if only a certain species of systems do, such as autopoietic systems, or dynamical systems which constantly receive inputs of energy or matter in order to maintain themselves. Might then the scientists too specific understanding of systems obscure his research of systems that do not function by drawing a boundary from an environment, such as self-referential systems or the system of all systems?
But it is indeed the case that the dominant, and also current, scientific understanding of systems is one where systems are defined against external boundaries. Apart from grand theories of the universe that define the whole of the world systemically, or the curious and quirky Gaia hypothesis, it seems the case that we live in a world defined by systems that operate due to their capacity to distinguish themselves from their environments through the use of boundaries, such as plant and animal cells, brains, languages, the economy, etc.
I think ecosystem science is moving toward the direction of examining implicit assumptions of systems study. But we haven't found it not too necessary because evidence can convince a lot of people in science. I think ecosystem scientists feel less of a need to examine them because we can test the functions of a system without knowing what are all the implicit assumptions or the general principles governing all other systems. And, unlike philosophers, scientists are interested in the contents of a system than the system itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Philosophers are also interested in the contents of a system, very much so. This shouldn't sound confusing, I hope. Content is essential to understanding systemic operations. However, philosophers will engage actual experimentation, but will examine what repercussions experiments have, or the significance of particular experiments for conclusions drawn about the nature of systems under examination. Philosophers interested in systems might also explore the validity of the inferences scientists may make about systems in general based on the conclusions of experiments.
ReplyDeletePhilosophically minded scientists have always pushed science forward, creating new and powerful theories and research agendas. But so, too, have scientists who care little for philosophy done the same. The relationships between science and philosophy are one of mutual feedback and influence.
Nb: I'm not suggesting that scientists merely operate blindly with respect to implicit presuppositions. Rather, scientists are aware of their presuppositions and make informed research decisions based on them. They do not, generally, spend time questioning the pressupositions underlying their research because to do so would be an unscientific pursuit.
I would add, specifically addressing Jackson's post, that though ecosystem science is moving toward the direction of examining implicit assumptions in the study of systems, this is probably achieved not only scientifically (by gathering data based on experiments), but also philosophically, or theoretically (by gathering a range of data and determining how to *interpret* it in line with theoretical understandings of systems, system operations, etc.).
Pardon the error in my comment to Jackson's post. The fourth sentence ought to read: "However, philosophers will NOT engage actual experimentation..."
ReplyDelete