Talk:Systems theory/Archive 1

Rename this page to systems theory - Oct 2003

I would like to rename this page to systems theory, as I think that "systemics" is not the most commonly used term for this field in English (systemics is a more Continental European term). The page also needs a considerable rewrite, as much of it is disconnected and poorly rewritten. It needs a good history (e.g. Ashby, Bertalanffy) and a description of the different flavors of systems theory in different sciences. I will attempt to flesh my areas which are more in engineering, biology, mathematics and physics. Perhaps somebody can join me on the more management and social science side. ---Lexor 12:02, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In the preface to the second edition of General System Theory, Bertalanffy points out that there are three domains, theory, philosophy and techology. During our work with the primer group at ISSS, Bela Banathy generalized the three into four integratable areas, the science of systems the philosophy of systems system methodology and systems action, This way we can integrate science and phoilosophy into the knowledge and integrate methodology and action into doing and then int34egrate the two, knowlwge and action into something like being. This would be the place to use systemics. It is a mistake to assume the systems is all about "theory" or that systems is all "science" I quote Francois page 354 of his encyclop0edia It would seemingly be advisable to replace expressions like "systems research" General Systems Theory, General theory of systems or systems sciences by the word "systemics, in this way many ambiguities, sterile controversies and in some cases inflated claims could probably be laid to rest. Tommy Mandel

Complexity and interdependance - Jan 2004

The sentence "Systems theory focuses on complexity and interdependance which increasingly are the features of the modern world, and thus systems theory has a strong philosophical dimension. In recent times complex systems has increasingly been used as a synonym." gives the impression that complexity and interdependence is something specific to our times, which is of course utter nonsense. Whether or not people are confused with todays society has nothing to do with the complexity and interdependance of systems theory. I'm gonna modify that sentence. ---Fuqnbastard 15:56, 30 Jan 2004 (GMT)

Parts removed - Feb 2005

Removed the last half of "Cybernetics is a closely related field, sometimes considered as a part of systems theory." One could just as easily say it the other way around. ---John Abbe 14:59, 27 Feb 2005 (Sri Lanka time)

Agreed, I like your new wording. --Lexor|Talk 12:11, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Still confused - Jun 2005

After reading this article I now know what System Theory focusses on and what is it applied to. However, I'm still at a loss when it comes to understanding what System Theory is.

This is a common problem when authors lose sight of their target audience, namely the intelligent layman in search of enlightenment.

Friends, please help me out with some concrete examples of specific problems where system theory has been used effectively. Even better, show me how system theory is applied to a sample problem, or, if that is too complicated, what about illuminating the matter with some helpful anologies.

Thanks a lot! --Philopedia 02:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bump. After reading the article, I realise I'd really like an example. -- Ec5618 10:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been under the impression that workplace optimizations, such as time_and_motion_study, were proto-system theory. Eoseth 01:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge - Oct 2005

The Systems theory article comments, " In recent times complex systems has increasingly been used as a synonym". It is a smaller article, containing useful background and broadly covering the same subject matter, but not as extensive a treatment as Complex systems.

Article merge proposed. Comments? FT2 20:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I would propose merging the Cybernetics plus Systems Theory nodes into a Cybernetics and Systems Theory (CST) node.

The merger of complex systems as suggested might be good idea (I have not visited that node extensively). On the other hand a system is quite different from a theory so the complex systems node may be incompatible. --MatthewKarlsen 16:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has taken place under:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Complex_system#Proposed_Merge

Mdd 18:12, 23 december 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge. Complex systems is a huge field and deserves its own article. --Fenice 16:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I questioned the merger of cybernetics and systems theory with systems theory also. Recently, Michaelbusch questioned the relevance and location of line 6 altogether. Where the line existed previous to my addition of a "see also," I think that is why I felt the need to add a "see also" in the first place. Not to mention, line 6 is misleading if not simply an inaccurate statement concerning the relationship between systems theory and cybernetics. If given a merger, I think maybe the Cybernetics and Systems Theory page should be left to explore interdisciplinary work - thought, chin scratch, hm . . . question mark. I dunno. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenneth M Burke (talk • contribs) 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC). --Kenneth M Burke 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The role of Nicolai Hartmann in the Systems Movement - Jan 2006

Recent changes by Dr. Gabriel Gojon have highlighted the role of Nicolai Hartmann in the Systems Movement in this article and in the article about Nicolai Hartmann. The following statments have been made:

• 1. In the article heading: Modern systems theory was founded by Nicolai Hartmann
• 2. In the TIMELINE: "1945-52 General Systems Theory (proposed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy by mathematizing Nicolai Hartmann 's Ontology)"
• 3. In het History: "In von Bertalanffy's foundational text on General Systems Theory --which he literally translated from the mathematization of Nicolai Hartmann's Ontology as stated by himself in his seminal work-- traced the history of the systems concept back to the 1600s philosophy of G.W.v.Leibniz.
• 4. In the article about Hartmann: He (Hartman) is the true creator of General Systems Theory as recognized by Bertalanffy.

I think that all these four statements are highly questionable and should be removed. -- Mdd 14:18, 3 january 2006 (UTC)

I agree mostly, Gojon overemphasizes Hartmann (who I have never heard of in the context of Systems theory). The only statement I would leave in the text is that Bertalanffy mentions Hartmann in his General Systems Theory. I have not checked if this is true but I think it could be and at least Gojon gives a reference. We trust others who give references. --Fenice 14:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree we should trust... but I at first was wondering if N. Hartmann is even worth mentioning. In the book "General Systems Theory" (1968) Bertalanffy mentions Hartmann only twince in chapter 3: Some System Concepts:

• On p.72: "... All these facts may be observed in a variety of systems. Nicolai Hartmann even demands centralization for every 'dynamic structure'. He therefore recognized only a few kinds of structures..."
• On p.85: "Speaking philosophically, general systems theory, in its developed form, would replace what is known as "theory of categories" (N. Hartmann, 1942) by an exact system of logicomathematical laws.

In the introduction of this book Bertalanffy tells about "On the History of Systems Theory" (p.10-17) and about "Trends in Systems Theory" (p.17-28) and here Hartmann is not mentioned. Since this book is Bertalanffy's seminal work statement 3 is formely false. -- Mdd 15:00, 3 january 2006 (UTC)

"Speaking philosophically, general systems theory, in its developed form, would replace what is known as "theory of categories" (N. Hartmann, 1942) by an exact system of logicomathematical laws." Should suffice to prove:

1.- That Bertalanffy knew of Hartmann's work. Now considering that Hartmann's 4 volume Ontology (not the comparatively small "New Ways of Ontology") was published many years before Bertalanffy's Magnus Opus we must conclude that he read it. Thus, if he himself considers Hartmann's "Theory of Categories" to be a relatively undeveloped General Systems Theory (something that must be taken with a lot of caution since Hartmann's 4 volume Ontology is actually much more complete in its scope than Bertalanffy's book even if he tries 2 times to minimize its important as in the quote from page 72) then we must conclude that Bertalanffy's took Hartmann's Theory of Categories and transformed it into "his" General Systems Theory (or at least developed it from it). For those of us who know Hartmann's Ontology in full it is obvious that his entire General Systems Theory is just a mathematization of some of Hartmann's Ontology (Hartmann even stated the modern concept of "emergence", in this case as a "categorial novum".

2.- Given number one the fact that Bertalanffy does not mention Hartmann in "On the History of Systems Theory" (p.10-17) and about "Trends in Systems Theory" (p.17-28) does support at least the possibility that Bertalanffy wanted to minimize as much as possible his "borrowing" of Nicolai Hartmann's ideas (but still mentioning him enough to not be accused of plagiarism).

3.- Later on in his work he NEVER mentioned Hartmann again (as far as I know) which given one and two above is highly suspicious, especially since he developed a lot of time to "exposing" the philosophical implications of General System's Theory. It seems that he wanted to be considered the sole inventor (discoverer?) of the field (Leibniz was no threat since he anticipated so much!).

But I invite all here to read Hartmann's full Ontology. I am sure you will be convinced just how much General System's Theory is really Hartmann's Theory of Categories. You will be both amazed and angered at the lack of recognition afforded to Hartmann. - Dr. Gabriel Gojon 06:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion seems to highlight a general defficiency of the article. If one takes Leibniz as a rough starting point for the formalisation of general systems (GST), then immediately it becomes apparent that there is a large gap of about 300 years before Bertalanffy's tretise appears - out of the blue. This gap is not comfortable. Although Bertalanffy is clearly very important for GST, paying attention only to his work detracts from an historical explanation of the central ideas and theorems of GST. Hartmann's work provides an important reference point needed to establish greater historico-philosophical continuity. I suggest that the article gives an explicit statement, and developmental analysis of the algorithms, and ways of developing algorithms that are unique to GST. Sholto Maud 04:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

With Dr. Gabriel Gojons comment the four statements become even more questionable and speculative...!? This is far to little to back up the 'heavy' claims made in these four statements. Now I consulted some other sources and learnt, that:

• N. Hartmann developed, what is now called, a theory of categories, which has (some or more) similarity with General Systems Theory.
• Charles Francois mentions N. Hartmann in his Systemics and Cybernetics in a Historical Perspective (1999) as one of many precursors of the systemics and cybernetics (moderne alternative for systems theory) and that N. Hartmann inspired several systems thinkers as Bertalanffy, J.G. Miller, Mesarovic and Gigch.
• Bertalanffy gave Hartmann more credits in his Das biologische Weltbild (1949) in chapter VI.5 where he mentions (in my own words) that N. Hartmann allready in 1912 predicts the nececarity of a good systems theory.

Now I agree that Hartmann should be mentioned as one of the precursors of the systems theory in a suitable place. I see no reasons to promote Hartmann to the true creator of the systems theory. Statement 1 and 2 should be removed, and statement 3 and 4 should be rewritten. --Mdd 14:08, 9 january 2006 (UTC)

Relation to Dynamical Systems Theory - Feb 2006

I've never been clear on how general systems theory relates to dynamical systems theory, a relatively well developed area of contemporary mathematics. For example, chaos, mentioned in this article, is formally defined in dynamical systems theory. Explicit discussion of the relation between systems theory and dynamical systems theory would be helpful. Jyoshimi 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag on Systemics -- or merge? - Sept 2006

I tagged Systemics because it's a stub that doesn't define it's title, because it doesn't explain how systemics is different from Systems theory. The Systems theory article claims Systemics is a synonym -- then why not merge? (See "Rename" above.) The difference is not clear to me after going to the first couple external links for Systemics. And copyediting needed, but content first. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Systemics" is shorter and more elegant that "Systems theory". "Theory" can be attached to virtually everything. In many areas "theory" is not necessary: "Cybernetics", "Mathematics",...

English, as every language, evolves, so "Systemics" may become the new "Systems theory" of the 21st century, with an enlarged view, now as wide as those of "Cybernetics", "Mathematics". Wikipedia shall reflects real uses of words, but can, and surely will increasingly influence them. - Vince Dumain

Ah, thx for resp'ing. I had just come back here to clarify my post, which i think would also resp to you. My concern was not with having articles for synonyms -- Systems science is a good one. The problem is kind of the opposite: that the Systemics article sounds like it's *contrasting* systemics with systems theory, but doesn't make clear how. I can guess/infer, based on what i find in Systemics and Systems Theory, that it's about systemics being a broader application of the theory. But a newbie to the topic (like me) shouldn't have to do that in a good encyclopedia. An article needs to clearly define it's topic and how it relates to similar articles/topics, regardless of what the relationship is. Hope that helps, "alyosha" (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It was said in the discussion The term 'Systems Theory' has been the general indication for the interdisciplinairy field of study of systems since the 1950's. The term should for this reason be preserved as part of the history of science. In my opinion in the 1990's it happened that scientists started to use other terms to indicate the interdisciplinairy field of study as the term 'complex systems' and other terms. I think that it is important to keep dividing this development instead of wanting to make it to 'one single thing', with it has never been. - Mdd 17.09 15 November 2005 (CEST)

I think your opinion is right, and I am at a loss what to do about it. Bertalanffy wanted specifically to use "system" as a general terms for organismic properites. But the literature went from system to complex system to complexity to every kind of complexity that has been found. Wonderful, but the lessons of the systems idea were left behind as well, while complexologists strive to find their UR principle. In my opinion the lack of the simple introduction to systems thinking/theory/science/philosophy/application has crippled the movement into obscurity.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy at least was the founder of the scientific field of general systems theory, and the society he helped start still exists today. In the preface to the 2nd edition of GST, Bertalanffy introduces the three domains of systemics, the philosophy, the theory, and the technology of systems. Later, Bela H. Banathy modified these domains to the philosophy, the science, the methodology and the application of systemics. This fourfold model can be integrated, philosophy and science making up the knowledge aspect of systemics, with the methodology and application making up the action of systemics.

Systems theory really is just one aspect of systemics, included of course is systems philosophy, and much of the work of systems involve action which requires planning and doing it. Charles Francois favored the use of systemics as a more general term.

Tommy Mandel 04:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New additions to article - Sept 2006

Greetings; I have placed additional information into the article. I included Banathy's summary of systems theory. It should be noted that these questions have been worked out by Banathy at least. Systems theory is contrasted by Bertalanffy with systems philosophy and systems technology (Preface GST 2nd ed.) and the late Bela H Banathy, president of numerous system societies, instructor at a graduate systems school, author of several books on systems and systems education in particular, has worked these out into the four integratable domains listed in the article, systems philosophy, systems science, systems methodology and systems application. Tommy Mandel 06:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Help me

Dialectic, please help me fix the table, don't just revert everything back. Those changes were made by one of the most highly respected professors of systems theory, please don't chase him away.

"Glossary of Key Terms used by systemists" formatting - Nov 2006

How about some help getting the "Glossary of Key Terms used by systemists" formatted consistently with comparable articles? --Dialectic 17:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, can you show me an article doing it the right way and I will fix this one accordingly. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't even think about that.

Fixaller 02:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture - Dec 2006

I do not understand the picture. The caption reads 'This graphic, illustrating a central aspect of systems theory, may be perceived as a whole or as a group of parts'. Surely this is true of almost any graphic (e.g. I can see this sentence as either a bunch of squiggles or a transcription of speech). I fail to see how a stylized white S on a black circle with a ring around it is a particularly forceful or apt illustration of the idea. Perhaps a better graphic can be found or there does not need to any graphic at all. I think a photographic mosaic would convey the idea rather well. Michaelbusch 06:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have put a photographic mosaic in place of the previous graphic. It illustrates the idea. Michaelbusch 05:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we are confusing the systems concept here. The systems concept is not that wholes are made of parts or that you can perceive it both ways, but that the whole has properties that are not found in any of the parts. That is, it has properties that arise from the interaction of the parts.

Consider the example of an orchestra: It has the emergent property of a beautiful sound, but the sound is nowhere to be found in any of the parts. The sound emerges from the interaction of the parts. In the photographic mosaic there is no interaction of parts. They are static. The photographic mosaic image of the bird does not arise from the interaction of the dots but rather from interaction of the light from the dots with the faculties of the observer, followed by the mind of the observer making associations. If you had never seen a bird before, it might just look like a unusual but unrecognized pattern.

For another example, consider people who see the Virgin Mary in a tree trunk (or even a sandwich I heard recently). There is no actual image there there--it is perceived by the mind abstracting certain data and ignoring others. Dougwalton 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

Process theory - Dec 2006

Process theory is a comprehensive theory of physical and psychological processes that can serve to integrate biological, social, and psychodynamic psychiatry. Biological priority and psychological supremacy: a new integrative paradigm derived from process theory[1], [2]

Bios, a process approach to living system theory. In honour of James and Jessie Miller[3]

I don't want to change the article myself as I was associate of Sabelli, but I think that this information may belong somewhere in this article, probably in the living systems section. Lakinekaki 01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Laszlo - Jan 2007

Systems science is a science, its not a sand pile to catch the drifting floss of new age flotsom. Laszlo looks like a new age writer, not a scientist. Here's some comments that the editor of the book for 'The Whispering Pond' had to say about that book (according to the Amazon listing for this book).

• The enthusiastic blurbs accompanying the galley of Laszlo's (The Inner Limits of Mankind) new book carry some high-profile signatures from the New Age crowd

• Laszlo postulates a fifth universal field to unify the accepted four universal fields in physics: gravitation, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Laszlo speculates that a fifth field, which he calls the psi field, would explain diverse anomalies from the conundrums of quantum physics and sudden leaps in complexity during biological evolution to human consciousness and even ESP.

And here's what one of the reviewers had to say about The Creative Cosmos

• This was Laszlo's attempt to do what no one has done before him -- and, alas, he doesn't come anywhere near to pulling it off. The academic grounding that Laszlo tries here to create makes for too many contorted kinds of arguments. The author points to all the right issues, and he goes at them in ways that might, under another pen, have produced some startling breakthoughs in thought. But Laszlo is not the one to take this on. For those who still hjunger for a grand synthesis of all things -- human and cosmic - I suggest turning instead to someone like Ken Wilber, or -- if you have a few months of non-stop reading time -- to the colletced works of Alice A. Bailey.

NOTE Ken Wilber and Alice Bailey are new age writers.

If Laszlo is a notable writer in this field, these reviews of these books are NOT showing that. He looks like a joke.-Psychohistorian 13:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Who did the reviewing? Googled him and this came up first. Is it necessary to go further?

Dr. Ervin Laszlo: Biography & ResourcesErvin Laszlo is the author or editor of sixty-nine books translated into as many as nineteen languages, and has over four hundred articles and research ... www.wie.org/bios/ervin-laszlo.asp - 12k - Cached - Similar pages and http://www.clubofbudapest.org/About%20the%20Club/cv-laszlo.htm His appointments in the past years included research grants at the Universities of Yale and Princeton, professorships for philosophy, systems sciences, and future sciences at the Universities of Houston, Portland State, Indiana, Northwestern University and the State Univer-sity of New York. Furthermore, his career included guest professorships at various universities in Europe and the Far East. In addition, Laszlo worked as program director for the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). On August 08, 1999, he ws awarded an honorary doctorate by the Canadian "International Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics".

Laszlo serves not only as President of the Club of Budapest and head of the General Evolution Research Group, which he founded. The former President of the International Society for Systems Sciences, Advisor of the UNESCO Director General, Ambassador of the International Delphic Council, member of the International Academy of Science, the World Academy of Arts and Science and the International Academy of Philosophy, also held and holds positions as a board member or extraordinary member of numerous international associations, including, at one time, the Club of Rome.

Prof. Dr. Dr. Ervin Laszlo, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, was one of the first representatives in the area of systems philosophy and general theory of evolution. He published nearly 70 books translated into as many as 18 languages. In the course of his long academic career as a professor for philosophy, systems philosophy and future sciences, he worked in teach-ing and research at a variety of reputable universities in the US, Europe, and the Far East.

Laszlo publishes a quarterly scientific journal ("WORLD FUTURES: The Journal of General Evolution) and a corresponding book series. He also edited a four-volume encyclopedia. Over 300 articles were published in newspapers and magazines worldwide, including the US, Europe, Japan, and China.

His titles and distinctions include a Ph.D. in "Lettres et Sciences Humaines" from the Sorbonne in Paris, an "Artist Diploma" from the Franz Liszt Academy in Budapest, an honorary medal from the Kyung Hee University in Seoul, the title of honorary doctor in economic sciences of the Turku School of Economics and Business in Finland, as well as the title of honorary doctor in the area of human sciences of the Saybrook Institute in San Francisco.

Fixaller 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but it *might* be that this is just a self-created vanity page with dubious credentials. I say this because I've seen other people claim credentials on web pages for organizations that they created and, upon looking further, discovered that those credentials didn't mean a whole lot or, even, were lies (or clever distortions of truths). It's made me more than a bit cynical about taking at face value claims of authority from organizations which were created by the person the claims were about.

I guess what I'm getting at is do you have any independent sources for these claims?-Psychohistorian 03:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but sometimes it is good to be skeptical of our skepticism as well. He is the author/editor of 70 books. That's a lot of publishers. 400 papers, that's a lot of editors. The International Society for the Systems sciences selected his as their president in 1996. The dozen or so universities he has taught at, I doubt if it was because he couldn't hold a job. Surely he is qualified to be listed as a source for further reading. PS, Einstein said "Great spirits are always attacked by lessor minds"

I also can't find "systems philosophy" listed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.-Psychohistorian 04:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In the preface to the second edition of General Systems Theory, von Bertalanffy introduces the three domains of systems Inquiry - philosophy, science and technology. Bertalanffy's idea for GST was to investigate, find, and develop general principles of systems in all fields of science which then can be utilized by other fields of science. These general principles form the core of systems philosophy. How these principles play out in particular situations would then be the science of systemics. I don't think that systems philosophy is to be taken as philosophy per se,Fixaller 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll happily risk being called a "lesser mind" rather than have people think me a great one and be proven wrong. I don't know if he was the author/editor of 70 books, etc. etc. All I know is that a web page set up by an organization which he founded states he was. That's not high praise.

No No I didn't mean you, I was thinking of the reviewer claiming that Baily and Wilber did a better job at an Intregral book. You are just doing your job. Fixaller 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What I do know is that, on doing a search for Laszlo on the internet, I was flooded with references to new age sites. What I do know is that I was able to find only one reference to Laszlo on the ISSS web site (rather that's because they only had one or because my google fu is weak I don't know) and that one reference wasn't from an official page, but someone posting in a forum.-Psychohistorian 00:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be taken as a fact that he authored/edited 70 books as well as 400 articles. I am not familair with the "new age" stuff, as my research predated that movement. Laszlo is considered by all systemists as one of the founding fathers of the movement. He was around long before new age stuff came out. What does the fact that new agers like him have to do with his qualifications to talk about the field he helped found? Perhaps the best way out of this is to list only those books he wrote about systems theory, and that is done for us in the International encyclopedia of systems and cybernetics. PS I can tell you why they are interested in him if you are interested.Fixaller 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you familair with F David Peat? He is an author and on his wevbsite I found this intro

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/ideas/fieldnat.htm "Fields in Nature To take a one week course with David Peat In the spring of 1998 Earl Davis arranged a three day meeting so that Basil Hiley, Ervin Laszlo, Rupert Sheldrake and David Peat could discuss together in private and without feeling under any pressures to come to conclusions."

My question is are you familair with the participants of that meeting? If Laszlo were a joke, it is highly unlikely that they would have included him.Fixaller 03:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I got it. You are looking for a reliable source. I found one. von Bertalanffy died in 1972. His wife published his last book Perspectives on General System Theory ISBN 0-8776-0797-5 under his name in 1975. She choose Ervin Laszlo to write the foreword. Fixaller 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as "new age writer" I don't know what that is. It sounds like a bad thing. Probably a lot of writers think they know the answer when they don't and write books anyway. But are all teen agers juvenile delinquents?" Laszlo is a true scientist. His speculations on the memory of the Inside field come from the experimental results of the Russian Academy of Science scientists Guariaev and Poponin regarding what they call phantom DNA. They claim to have measured the DNA EMF and more, found that the field remains after they remove the samples. The experiment was reported to have been confirmed in California, Guariaev has gone into seclusion and subsequent attempts to verify have been thwarted. Variations of the "field" Laszlo talks about have become commonplace in science by now. I'm not at all surprised that "new agers" would jump on this invisible, non-local, "hyperspace" research going on today at the frontiers of science. But even if ALL the new agers were wrong, that does not constitute any evidence that the scientists the new agers are touting are wrong. How many Beatle fans know how to play the music? Fixaller 07:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another written by Bertalanffy himself.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy on Systems Philosophy: Laszlo’s pioneering work develops systems philosophy both in breadth and depth. As he argues convincingly, contemporary ‘analytic’ philosophy is in danger of ‘analyzing itself out of existence’ ... What we need, says Laszlo, is rather a ‘synthetic’ philosophy, that is, one which receives new inputs from the various developments in modern science and tries to follow the other way in philosophy, namely, endeavors to put together the precious pieces of specialized knowledge into a coherent picture...

Laszlo’s work is the first comprehensitve treatise of ‘systems philosophy.’ No one who looks beyond his own specialty and narrow interests will be able to deny the legitimacy of this quest. (Foreword to Introduction to Systems Philosophy, 1972)

Seems that Ervin Laszlo has written 84 non-fiction books as of today according to his son Alex. I have in front of me evidence consistent with the observation that Ervin Laszlo is indeed a systems Luminary. I do not have any evidence that he isn't what is said about him on his or any other website relevant to systems theory. I do not see any non-trivial connection between those who would listen to him and the integrity of his work. It is not surprising that his research would be at the frontier of science.

I propose that an acceptable "independant" source would be Charles Francois International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics, specificallly those books listed there as further readings. There are twelve books listed. I understand that the history being considered in this article is the history of systems theory. Much of Laszlo's work is with evolution and probably is the reason extreme evolutionists love to quote him. So one way of dealing with our situation is to include only the systems books, and leave the other stuff for other articles. Does this sound like consensus?

Fixaller 05:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Hope this is acceptable. Took out the evolutionary books from Laszlo's listing. Kept two systems books and The Interconnected Universe. (Mainly because Alexander Laszlo told me that it is the book to read if one wants to find out where his father, and cutting edge science, is really coming from. Well, he actually said " just have them try to read The Interconnected Universe: Conceptual Foundations of a Transdiciplinary Unified Theory (World Scientific, 1995). If they can understand the science and mathematics of that book and still consider him "new agey" then there's no hope for it.")

Thank you for being astute and catching this "unnecessary association" it is better to stick to the relevant books. I appreciate your work. I especially appreciated the way you tagged the items in question rather than just reverting them out of existence.

What is that book about "wealth" doing here? Fixaller 03:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)