The Skeleton of Science
The Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory was founded in 1956, and the opening paper in their very first yearbook was penned by none other but Kenneth Boulding; General Systems Theory - The Skeleton of Science1, who incidentally also happened to be that society’s first president2.
And it’s a complex, but important topic, because not only does it explicitly tie in with One Health, Sustainable Development, the Circular Economy, and the Ecosystem Approach, but it also directly relates to Information Theory, Resilience Theory, and Cybernetics.
One might even say it’s a Holistic Approach.
First off - this isn’t a trivial subject. I cover this because it really is important. Very much so, in fact. In order to fully comprehend what’s taking place around you, the comprehension of this topic is a necessary evil, I fear. So please do stick with it - and please ask questions in the comments if confused.
And let me get a few links out of the way now. I first covered General Systems Theory a few months back -
And it really is an important topic, especially as just about everyone that matters is a fully signed up believer, though typically through its somewhat more palatable marketing term, Spaceship Earth, incidentally also introduced by the very same Kenneth Boulding via his enormeously influential 1966 paper, The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth3. Yes, the same Boulding who penned our current paper. No, that’s certainly no coincidence.
Further, the Club of Rome’s very own Donella Meadows’ ‘Leverage Points’ paper is contextual here -
Finally, as for the ‘Ecosystem Approach’, the ‘Circular Economy’, ‘Planetary Health’ and ‘One Health’; these are all concepts, fitting under the umbrella of General Systems Theory, along with the Sustainable Development Goals in general -
-
But let’s get on with the show, and to put it quite simply - General Systems Theory is a structural framework for the understanding of scientific disciplines, and their relationships. It’s a core set of principles, which serve as a foundation upon which more specialised branches of science can be built, thus enabling a hierarchical structure of scientific knowledge to be created.
It can thus be used to understand microscopics in a much larger organism, like individual cells in a human being. Or it can focus on the macroscopic, like humans, organising in social structures, ie societies.
And we can apply the same principles to ecology in general, where we find that an ecological organisation consists of five levels; organism, population, community, ecosystem and biosphere. And we’ve seen the two latter terms referred to repeatedly. And that is certainly no coincidence - especially in this context.
But back to the paper. Boulding begins by introducing the concept of the skeleton of science, which he describes as the fundamental principles that are common to all scientific disciplines. He emphasizes that these principles are not specific to any particular field of study but instead represent universal laws or patterns that govern natural phenomena, examples of which include the laws of thermodynamics, the principles of evolution, and the concept of equilibrium.
And he concedes that you cannot include all information within this system in a ‘general theory of practically everything’, as you ‘pay for generality by sacrificing content’. Consequently, we must find the ‘optimal degree of generality’, which in more contemporary times is an interesting inclusion.
It furthermore continues that knowledge is a ‘function of human organisms, and of social organisation’, which ‘grows by the receipt of meaningful information’. However, an - alleged - ‘crisis of science today arises because of the increasing difficulty of such proftable talk among scientists as a whole‘. Oh no! A problem!
What he in short says is that science is undergoing a quiet crisis, because science and humanities have ‘gone their separate ways’, and thus, it ‘is one of the main objectives of General Systems Theory to develop these generalized ears, and by developing a framework of general theory to enable one specialist to catch relevant communications from others.‘
Problem leads to solution, and that solution is General Systems Theory. But how should this work? Fortunately, he has that answer at hand -
‘Something which might be called an "interdisciplinary movement" has been abroad for some time. The first signs of this are usually the development of hybrid disciplines‘, citing early examples thereof through ‘physical chemistry’, ‘social psychology’. ‘bio-physics’, and ‘social anthropology’, with more hybrid disciplines with more obscure parents including ‘Cybernetics‘, ‘Information Theory’, ‘Organisation Theory‘ and ‘Management Science‘.
Boulding continues, summarising exactly what the point to all of this is next -
‘It is clear that there is & good deal of interdisciplinary excitement abroad. If this excitement is to be productive, however, it must operate within a certain framework of coherence. It is all too easy for the interdisciplinary to degenerate into the undisciplined. If the interdisciplinary movement, therefore, is not to lose that sense of form and structure which is the "discipline" involved in the varioue separate disciplines, it should develop & structure of its own.
This I conceive to be the great task of general systems theory.‘
In other words, the search for the a General Systems Theory demands a structure; an organised hierarchy within the scientific disciplines themselves… and thus the title of the paper itself - ‘General Systems Theory - the Skeleton of Science’.
The conceptually more trivial examples arrive first through human populations aggregates of individuals conforming to the definition of a system, added and subtracted to through birth and death, along with associated age composition - all of which can be described fairly simply. And these basic principles carry across to not only other species, but also capital theory in economics, social ecology, and even some fields of statistics.
Boulding then accelerates complexity, but first defines the scope of what might comprise the observed ‘system’ -
‘Another phenomenon of almost universal significance for all disciplines is that of the interaction of an "individual" of some kind with its environment. Every discipline studies some kind of "individua!" — electron, atom, molecule, crystal, virus, cell, plant, animal, man, family, tribe, state, church, firm, corporation, university, and so on.’
Which essentially states that said ‘system’ is entirely arbitrary -
’Each of these individuals exhibits "behavior," action, or change, and this behavior is considered to be related in some way to the environment of the individual-that is, with other individuals with which it comes into contact or into some relationship.’
… but what is considered static is that each ‘system’ interacts with it's environment -
’Each individual is thought of as consisting of a structure or complex of individuals of the order immediately below it- atoms are an arrangement of protons and electrons, molecules of atoms, cells of mole-cules, plants, animals and men of cells, social organizations of men.’
… and each ‘system’ comprise an arrangement of ‘systems’ of the below hierarchical order (sub-systems) -
’The "behavior" of each individual is "explained" by the structure and arrangement of the lower individuals of which it is composed, or by certain principles of equilibrium or homeostasis according to which certain "states" of the individual are "preferred." Behavior is described in terms of the restoration of these preferred states when they are disturbed by changes in the environment.‘
… and finally, the description of each level in said hierarchy - each ‘system’ so to speak - is a described arrangement of ‘sub-systems’, including a ‘normal’ or ‘default’ state, along with some internal drive to return to said pre-programmed ‘default’ state when a disturbance is met in the environment.
He carries on, explaining growth theory through the subdivision of sub-systems, and next loops in information theory, used to carry information and thus serve to communicate between the various systems and sub-systems of the parent systems, before going to outline a second possible approach -
‘A second possible approach to general systems theory is through the arrangement of theoretical systems and constructs in a hierarchy of complexity, roughly corresponding to the complexity of the "individuals" of the various empirical fields. This approach is more systematic than the first, leading towards a “system of systems."‘, which each level described briefly as such -
The static structure, or the framework. This describes the ‘geography and anatomy of the universe, the patterns of electrons around & nucleus, the pattern of atoms in a molecular formula, the arrangement of atoms in & crystal, the anatomy of the gene, the cell, the plant, the animal, the mapping of the earth, the solar system, the astronomical universe.‘
The simple dynamic system, or the clockwork, with ‘predetermined, necessary motions‘. These tend to uphold some state of equilibrium, or else, would have self-destructed already.
The control mechanism, or cybernetic system, also referred to as the thermostat. This upholds not a single equilibrium, but any given one, and can thus be used for sakes of control.
The ‘open system’, or self-maintaining structure, which for some purposes can be referred to as the cell. Closely connected is the ‘property of self-maintenance of structure in the midst of a throughput of material becomes of dominant importance‘, which then in turn is ‘Closely connected with the property of self-maintenance is the property of self-reproduction‘.
Combine these two properties, and we have the beginning of ‘life’.The genetic-societal level comes next, typified by the plant, which subdivides labour among cells, and thus, comprise a number of differentiated sub-systems.
Building on the ‘plant level’ above, the ‘animal level’ comes next, adding mobility, and with further specialisation of cells for purposes of information reception (eyes, ears), but also a central organisation, processing said information through the development of the brain.
The ‘human level’ builds on the animal level above, adding self-consciousness, capacity for speech, language, and symbolism.
One step up from man comes the social organisation, which typically is tied together through channels of communication, with commonly agreed upon and understood messages, values, and historical records.
The final level is the trancendental system, reserved for the as-yet unknowns.
Boulding continues, outlining the second level of the ‘clockwork’ -
‘The level of the "clockwork" is the level of "classical" natural science, especially physics and astronomy, and is probably the most completely developed level in the present state of knowledge‘
… carries on, outling cybernetics, and our lack of understanding thereof -
‘Beyond the second level adequate theoretical models get scarcer. The last few years have seen great developments at the third and fourth levels. The theory of control mechanisms ("thermostats") has established itself as the new discipline or cybernetics, and the theory of self-maintaining systems or "open systems" likewise has made rapid strides. We could hardly maintain however that much more than a beginning had been made in these fields. We know very little about the cybernetics of genes and genetic systems, for instance, and still less about the control mechanisms involved in the mental and social world.‘
In a more contemporary context, two quotes stand out -
‘Beyond the fourth level it may be doubted whether we have as yet even the rudiments of theoretical systems.‘
‘It is almost inconceivable that we should make a machine that would make a poem‘
The former, because it meshes with theoretical biology, and the latter because… well, ChatGPT (and others), no?
And yes, theoretical biology really is a thing4, a General Systems Theory thing, in fact. It seeks to describe a grouping of - say - humans into a large pseudo-organism, and then… pretend said organism is real. Well, theoretically, at least.
In general, we are dealing with a hierarchical pattern of systems, where each level builds upon the levels below. And that’s where the next paper of interest enter the frame. Inter- and Transdisciplinary University: A systems approach to education and innovation5 from 1970, by Erich Jantsch.
Within the fields of university education, four levels are identified; the empirical level (physical+psychological sciences), the pragmatic level (physical technology, social ecology), and with the life sciences straddling the two. Above, we have the normative level (relating to social systems designs), and finally, we find our purposive level (our collective values). And each level has an associated ‘language’, with these four being those of logic, cybernetics, planning, and anthropology.
The next chart identifies the three levels of transdisciplinary university structure. These consist of the discipline-oriented departments, the function-oriented departments, and the systems design labs. The paper is kind enough to give examples what these entail, though it’s not terribly important at this stage -
I know this all sounds pretty weird, and all represent somewhat of a blurring of traditional fields, which was obviously the intent all along. But to given an example - the systems design level is where the General Systems Theorist Ervin Laszlo has made his holistic mark6.
But the paper further includes a great description of transdisciplinarity in general, including all the terms and phrases we repeatedly encounter in similar material, courtesy of the ‘science’ organisations, and the United Nations. We have -
Disciplinarity, which specialises in one topic only.
Multi-disciplinarity, where you have several topics at the same hierarchical level, but these do not cooperate.
Pluri-disciplinarity, where said topics do cooperate, but without coordination.
Cross-disciplinarity, where a specific multi-disciplinary topic is polarised.
Inter-disciplinarity, which includes a higher-level concept, coordinating the topics below.
Trans-disciplinarity, featuring a multi-level coordination of the entire education system.
… and yes. Trans-disciplinarity. That’s where the Holistic Approach comes to life7.
The hierarchy above can further be used to quickly explain a few other topics in brief. And while at it, let me include a brief outline of GST as well -
Information Theory
Relates to the communication, storage and retrieval, and protocols of communication relating to the various cells in the hierarchy present above.Resilience Theory
This relates to shock absorption, given a time of crisis. It’s the ability for a given system to self-repair when in a state of shock.Cybernetics
Probably the most commonly referred to of the four; this relates to the exploitation of feedback loops in the system, ultimately for sakes of control.General Systems Theory
This, essentially, is the modelling language, describing the entire hierarchy from top of the organisation, to the smallest individual cell.
And why do I include GST here again? Because it’s important. See, whether the Soviet Union genuinely collapsed or not is somewhat besides the point. Because already in 1959 the next step towards the eventual process of integrating the West and the East took place. Specifically, via C.P. Snow's Rede Lecture; The Two Cultures8, which will be the topic of the next post.
-
A quick, final comment on the ‘optimal degree of generality‘… where is that, exactly? Because in more contemporary times, they run surveillance on quite literally everything.
More on that later.
We have no chance if we do not know the source of our reality
Managing in Complexity (and chaos) - Dave Snowden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h7jhjAWXJ0
Estuarine Mapping through the Lens of Complexity Theory.
you dont try and change the outcomes. You change the map and then change the energy gradients. So the things you want are more likely to happen because they consume less energy.
Ecological and Environmental Management
In ecological terms, changing the "map" could mean altering the physical landscape or the configuration of habitats to influence ecological processes and energy flows. For example, in river restoration, rather than trying to directly control species distributions, the physical structure of the river and its floodplain might be restored. This changes the energy gradients (e.g., water flow, sediment transport) and thus the landscape "map," making it more favorable for desired ecological outcomes, such as increased biodiversity or the return of specific species.
Organizational and Behavioral Change
In organizational contexts, changing the "map" could refer to altering the structure or culture of an organization to make certain outcomes more likely. For example, by redesigning workflows or communication channels, an organization can create a "landscape" where collaboration and innovation are the paths of least resistance, i.e., they require less "energy" from participants.
Technology and Information Systems
In technology design, especially in user experience (UX) and software architecture, changing the "map" might involve designing interfaces and systems in such a way that users naturally gravitate towards desired behaviors or outcomes because those paths are made more intuitive or require less effort. For instance, a well-designed app might guide users towards secure practices without needing extensive prompts or warnings, simply by making those practices the easiest options to follow.
Energy Landscapes in Physics and Chemistry
The concept also closely aligns with the idea of energy landscapes in physics and chemistry, where the configuration of a system determines the energy required for different states or transformations. By altering the "map" of the energy landscape, certain transitions can be made more favorable, guiding the system towards desired states with minimal external energy input.
Implementing Change by Altering Energy Gradients
The underlying principle in all these examples is that by intelligently redesigning the structure within which decisions are made or processes occur, you can influence outcomes in a more subtle, sustainable, and often more effective manner than by direct intervention. This approach requires a deep understanding of the system's dynamics, the ability to envision different "maps" or configurations, and the creativity to implement changes that alter the energy gradients in favor of desired outcomes.
This strategy emphasizes the importance of design, foresight, and systems thinking in achieving goals across various fields, highlighting how indirect approaches can sometimes be more powerful than direct actions.