Ali,
This is a good clarification.
The question of system boundaries is a pretty general one and has been discussed on the Ontolog Forum a number of times. One was a skill of definition - "river" which you participated in.
Here is a portion of this discussion in which John Sowa responding to you and others by pointing out that there is vagueness in the world not just in our engineered models of these phenomena.
JFS>> The source of vagueness is in the subject matter, not
in the choice of language....if the subject is continuously variable, such as most
natural phenomena, predicates with sharp boundary conditions
cannot be precisely mapped to the phenomena. It is irrelevant
whether those predicates are expressed by NL words or by
symbols in some version of logic.
>
> AH If you've given a definition of River, and it is inadequate when you encounter something as the Okavango River, ought it not indicate that you only need to update your definition of river? Isn't the whole point of defining something trying to abstract the generalizable qualities / properties of the object/entity under consideration? You can still >>have a monotonic logic, you just need smart revision policies...
It's always possible to legislate a definition and to revise the definition whenever you encounter an exception. But the point of Waismann's notion of 'open texture' is that there is no stopping point. If you arbitrarily choose a stopping point, you will inevitably exclude unanticipated cases that are just
> as reasonable as the ones you do include. That is a serious problem for any legal system. Any system of laws has inevitable exceptions and borderline cases that
> require a judge and jury to decide.
.... Since we were talking about rivers, how would you define the birth and death of a river? Where is the source? Some previous stream? Which of the many smaller streams that flow into it qualifies as the source? What happens if any of those streams dry up and begin flowing again in different seasons?
Gary
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Ali SH <asaegyn+out@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Gary,
Thanks for the links.
I'd like to clarify one thing - I responded in conjunction with Jack's observation re assigning labels to natural "systems". The example of environmentalism and Severn Cullis-Suzuki suggestion that for many, the environment is "something, out there" and external to us, in order to illustrate a point about system boundaries, externalities and the value systems that are deployed in defining them.
The act of decreeing system boundaries yields several consequences.
It firstly reflects the value preference structure of the those who decide on the boundary. In so doing, the scoping process (possibly implicitly) defines a set of externalities.
Additionally, for complex interconnected systems, sometimes effects aren't even thinkable until a critical mass or tipping point has been passed.
For example, consider the case of building coal plants or other heavy polluting industrial facilities. Those who build the first 20 or even 60 did not foresee the cumulative effect of all of them working in tandem. It's only after the scale reaches a tipping that it becomes apparent that say, pollution created in power plants in Ohio are carried by the Westerlies to create smog and weather alerts in Toronto in the summer. Or that in turn, the cumulative effects of industry in Toronto percolate further eastward to afflict another region (incidentally, Canada and the US actually have a mechanism to address these types of problems).
Are the effects of one coal plant in Ohio considered part of the system of say an elderly person with asthma in an urban centre hundreds of kilometers away? Should it have been within the scope of the analysis of the building of the coal plant? What about an additional plant?
In terms of estimating and using systems theory to predict the effects of elements of complex socio-technical systems, we're afflicted by the biases which inform our system boundaries. The case of the Belo Monte dam in Brazil is a topical example of a curiously scoped system, it's interesting to see what is externalized to its calculus, and what is included.
In terms of "so what" regarding all this and the summit.
I wonder if our exploration of systems will acknowledge these choices explicitly, or whether it will be presented (or just sit there) as part of the background to systems theory.
By which I mean, do we take as a starting point that there exist some set of (possibly ordered) values that inform the process of scoping a system, and will we consider strategies for at least trying to catch when mass scale, emergent effects become apparent in a system that may have initially externalized many soon to be salient factors (i.e. carbon consumption, populations of people, etc.)?
In a complex socio-technical system, to what extent are system boundaries clear, stable and not fluid. What awareness exists of what has been externalized? Can the known externalities be modelled as possible future extensions?
What methodologies might exist to monitor the system, it's fidelity and whether the boundaries need to be redrawn (or when the preference structure over the values informing the system change)?
Best, Ali
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ali,
Thanks for the link to groovy music.
I think the lyrics are a bit more on the mysterious Eastern A-Model discussion of environment than of ecological system models. These study questions of system properties such as equilibrium of ecosystems, populations that make up the ecosystems etc. I think they can make an argument for some conceptual validity and have had something to say about the nature of complexity (in things like natural cycles) for some time. See http://www.tb.ethz.ch/education/model/stabilityandcomplexity/pimm.pdf for an example from the 80s.
You find such studies published in Nature and Science for example and ecosystem courses seem pretty well established.
Somewhere between this articles and the mystic ones are people who stretch the use if engineer to include an analog they call ecosystem engineers which are - organisms that directly or indirectly modulate the availability of
resources to other species, by causing physical state changes in biotic or abiotic materials. In so doing they modify, maintain and create habitats.
http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jspinill/documentos/ECOLOGIA/lecturas/OI_1994_69_373_386.pdf
Gary
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Gary, On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It would be nice to have
such an ontology, but we don’t have to wait for one to have a discussion and
see what conceptualization makes sense. Science has been helping us undestand the world for quite a while.
You later used a caterpillar
example, which would involve an evolved object that is part of nature. I could pursue that example but since I think
of many aspects of nature as systemic I used Wetlands as an example. Here are some of the ways that I think that
it qualifies as an class or instance of system looking at the share common
characteristics I used: There are some criticisms of the systems perspective as applied to the environment because it suggests that humans are somehow separate or distinct from the environment. It's gained the most salience in asking how we respond to global crises of environmental degradation, resource depletion, etc.? I'll quote here from a discussion with a friend as his account is apt:
[AK] There's a classic environmentalist position, that humans are mistreating or perturbing some originally sound ecological system. We humans are out of the picture in this concept of 'nature.' Having lost our oneness with it, we must now take care to act as protectors of nature, not just miners and loggers, plunderers... This is the environmentalist story. It is echoed in many forms, from hippies to the EPA to greenwashing frauds.
Paths to global material & ecological sustainability have more to do with how we live as humans, than with how we live as beings-apart-from-nature or beings-one-with-nature.
We should take all possible approaches to that visionary goal (sustainability). Environmentalism has a role, but will continue to fail if it only puts the focus on 'nature.' [For example, we need to consider: whether to embed into our children consumerist/industrialist values; to continue externalizing ecological costs onto each other; to keep substituting political thought with entertainment, etc... ]
I read a book called "Dharma Gaia," a collection of essays linking together Buddhist non-dualism, sort of indigenous earth-holism, and 'deep ecology' (all of which can be described as "interconnectedness")... all more or less with the same message that "our conceptual separation from nature is the root of all ecological problems." And the root of our separation from nature is the very concept of self (of course, thank you Buddha). I found it mostly interesting, some of it inspiring, but ultimately did not believe it contributed very much to the solution space.
Not that I wholly agree with the above, but I think it successfully captures some of the critiques of systems thinking as applied to these 'systems'. It's also recapped quite nicely in this song - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK0XqBknTms
All this isn't to say that systems thinking isn't useful - there's obviously a lot it can contribute to our understanding of these topics - but there are also serious limitations that should also be explicated in terms of what it brings to the table. Especially in the context of these broader systems that many might describe as wicked problems. It sort of implies -- how to incorporate systems theory as one perspective amongst other perspectives in characterizing a problem space and suggesting potential solution approaches.
Best, Ali
-- Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
NSF INTEROP Project SOCoP Executive Secretary
Knowledge Strategies Potomac, MD
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
-- (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
--
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
NSF INTEROP Project SOCoP Executive Secretary
Knowledge Strategies Potomac, MD 240-426-0770
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (01)
|