Systems theory epistemology

From all the above, it is apparent that autopoiesis belongs epistemologically to systems theory, according to which it is the organization of the components that characterizes the quality of the system. Thus, the life of a cell is a global property, and cannot be ascribed to any single component. 

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul. 1989. Epistemological reductionism in biology Intuitions, explications, and objections. In Reductionism and systems theory in the life sciences Some problems and perspectives, ed. F. Wuketits and P. Hoyningen-Huene, 29 4. Dordrecht Kluwer. 

Buker, W. (2009). The kingdom of God and the epistemology of systems theory The spirituality of cybernetics. Zygon Journal of Religion and Science. Manuscript pending publication. 

Lisa Lloyd I disagree with what Professor Williams just said. I think that every time you use the word reductionist , I would have used analysis . I think that it is correct that scientists use analysis to break systems down, but I think of reductionism as being something else which is the complete description of entire systems in terms of entities at a lower level. That s the sort of standard philosophical definition of reductionism which has a lot more metaphysical and epistemological bite than does the kind of analytic method that you are describing. So I would want to distinguish between analysis as a method, a set of approaches that all scientists do use, and reductionism as a set of commitments about what the ultimate aims of science or of a scientific theory would be, which is explanation at the lowest possible level. Does that make sense to you ... 

To appreciate the theoretical relevance of the affinity table, or to characterize it as a theoretical system uniquely suited to the epistemological culture of chemistry, we must pay attention to the interlocking features of the table. The affinity table embodied in Geoffroy s vision a collection of theories that explained a variety of concrete chemical operations in a consistent manner and charted a uniform terrain of chemical theory. Chemists ability to conjure up these theories from the table depended... 

As a concluding remark, it has to be emphasized that every acceptable retention theory must be consistent with fundamental physics, as well as describe experimental findings. The complex multiplicity of phenomena involved in an IIC system requires a complex description of the thermodynamics solutes have undergone this description is epistemologically acceptable if the model is... 

So here, the term theory will be used in a way that embraces the typical named theories of chemistry such things as molecular orbital theory, valence shell electron pair repulsion theory, transition state theory of reactions, and Debye Hiickel theory of electrolyte solutions. No decisive distinction will be made between theory, model, and other similar terms. But there is one distinction that we do make. The term theory is considered in an epistemological sense—as an expression of oin best knowledge and belief about the way chemical systems work. 

Mendeleev s Periodic Law was the central law of comparative chemistry of the elements, in the epistemological sense, from its formulation around 1870 at least until Moseley s discovery of atomic number over 40 years later. With the substitution of "atomic number" for "atomic weight," it continued in this role for at least another two decades. It was displaced as the insights and implications of quantum theory for chemical systems were explored and incorporated into the discipline. But there is a serious argument that the displacement was only partial and that the "periodic law" retains significant validity as a central law of chemistry even to the present. 

Given, the strong ontological connection between chemistry and physics and only tenuous epistemological relations between the two disciplines, it may be futile to look for a simple or elegant model that would characterize the relation between the two. Indeed the only relevant question may be the one I posed earlier. What is the nature of the laws and theories of physics that have such strong influence on chemistry and yet cannot subsume the concepts and models that arise in chemical systems in accordance with these very laws of matter ... 

Simulations are downwards, motley and autonomous [18]— they are in some respects a type of experimentation [22], in part drawn from theory but also from other sources, and cannot be checked directly against observation—either because simulations are most often applied to systems we cannot measure experimentally, or because the simulations are abstractions which lack the complexity of a real-life system. With respect to epistemology, a computational model does not so much test chemical theory, but rather tests the predictions or hypotheses resultant from those theories, within the limitations of the approximations of the implementation in code. 

So my proposal is that for the purpose of recording the epistemology of a safety case, models should be expressed as systems of constraints rather than as simulation models less is more. Until fairly recently, it would have been difficult to validate systems of constraints unlike simulation models, it was not feasible to run experimental calculations to check the predictions of the model against intuition and reality. Fortunately, we now have technology such as infinite bounded model checkers, based on highly effective constraint solvers for satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) that allow exploration of constraint-based models (see [18,19] for some simple examples). 

---