Fritjof Capra: Criteria of Systems Thinking

Posted by Michael Royston on 25 July 2008 | 0 Comments

Tags: Philosophy, Science

This following was written on a piece of paper given to me by Fritjof Capra, when he was at IMI in 1986. (The additions in italics are mine.)

Criteria of Systems Thinking, by Fritjof Capra, Ph.D.

Systems thinking in the natural sciences includes the following five criteria. The first two refer to our view of nature (its complexity), the other three to our epistemology ( our uncertainty).

So because of our understanding of the complexity of nature, we are experiencing:-

(1) Shift from the parts to the whole.
In the old paradigm, it was believed that in any complex system the dynamics of the whole can be understood from the properties of the parts. In the new paradigm, the relationship between the parts and the whole is reversed. The properties of the parts can be understood only from the dynamics of the whole. Ultimately, there are no parts at all. What we call a part is merely a pattern in an inseparable web of relationships.

(2) Shift from structure to process.
In the old paradigm, it was thought that there are fundamental structures, and then there are forces and mechanisms through which these interact, thus giving rise to processes. In the new paradigm, every structure is seen as the manifestation of an underlying process. the entire web of relationships is intrinsically dynamic.

And because of our realisation of the uncertainty intrinsic in science:-

(3) Shift from objective science to “epistemic” science.
In the old paradigm, scientific descriptions were believed to be objective, i.e., independent of the human observer and the process of knowledge. In the new paradigm, it is believed that epistemology - the understanding of the process of knowledge - has to be included explicitly in the description of natural pheneomena. At this point, there is no consensus about what is the proper epistemology, but there is an emerging consensus that epistemology will have to be an integral part of every scientific theory.

(4) Shift from building to network as metaphor of knowledge.
The metaphor of knowledge as a building - fundamental laws, basic building blocks, etc. - has been used in Western science and philosophy for thousands of years. During paradigm shifts it was felt that the foundations of knowledge were crumbling. In the new paradigm, this metaphor is being replaced by that of a network. As we perceive reality as a network of relationships, our descriptions, too, form an interconnected network representing observed phenomena. In such a network there won’t be hierarchies nor foundations.

(5) Shift from truth to approximate descriptions.
The Cartesian paradigm was based on the belief in the certainty of scientific knowledge. In the new paradigm, it is recognised that all scientific concepts and theories are limited and approximate. Scientists do not deal with truth (in the sense of a precise correspondence between the description and the described phenomena); they deal with limited and approximate descriptions of reality.

Michael Royston