How is the field of systems science different from other scientific fields, and how can we distinguish the various traditions within systems science? We propose that there is a set of underlying assumptions which are generally shared within systems science but are less common in other scientific fields. Furthermore, the various traditions within systems science have adopted different combinations of these assumptions. We examine six traditions within systems science – cybernetics, operations research, general systems theory, system dynamics, total quality management, and organizational learning. We then consider eight underlying assumptions – observation, causality, reflexivity, self-organization, determinism, environment, relationships, and holism. We then assess where each tradition stands with respect to each of the underlying

[opening paragraph]: In early April this year the Conference Problems of Participation and Communication was held in Amsterdam. Two contributions concerned the Year 2000 (Y2K) Problem, also known as the Millennium Bug: the Problem that many computing systems recognise the date partially, by only (for instance) the last two digits of the year – and will, therefore, confuse the year 2000 with the year 1900, with consequent, potentially damaging results. I had been aware of the technical nature of the problem for some years. What I had not thought through were the social and systemic facets. The conference presentations brought home the complacency with which I had been facing the problem. Enquiry amongst other conference attendees indicated that they, too, had been lax in their thinking.

First paragraph: In class I presented the view that the book we are assembling should be thought of at least in part as a handbook for making a scientific revolution, where the field to be revolutionized would be the social (behavioral) sciences. This view assumes that cybernetics has much to contribute to social science and that this promise has not yet been realized. Because of this disparity, I first interpreted the phrase “cybernetics of cybernetics” as the application of cybernetics principles to achieve acceptance of cybernetics theory by the relevant disciplines. That is, use cybernetics as the theory to guide the revolution.

It is a pleasure to introduce this issue of Cybernetics Forum dedicated to my friend and mentor, Heinz Von Foerster. As the following articles demonstrate, Heinz is a man who inspires not only admiration and respect for his scientific contributions but also great affection. He is an outstanding human being as well as a great scientist. The articles by Stafford Beer, Gordon Pask, Humberto Maturana, Lars Löfgren, Edwin Schlossberg and Kenneth Wilson often recount personal experiences with Heinz. Kenneth Wilson provides a very useful overview of Heinz’ major articles as well as the work of visiting cyberneticians in the Biological Computer Laboratory. I shall provide some background on how Heinz came to the University of Illinois, a brief discussion of the effect that the Biological Computer Laboratory had on the students who worked there, and finally some personal reflections on the importance of Heinz’ work for cybernetics, science, and society.

In Robert Trappl’s opening remarks on the first day of this conference he raised the issue of the usefulness of the theories that we debate with each other at these conferences every two years. Stafford Beer in his address made a similar point when he suggested that we confront the way things are. I follow their lead by suggesting that we really know quite a lot about how to solve social problems and how to make social organizations more effective. But for some reason we are not using the knowledge we have. Why we do not make better use of our current knowledge is the issue that I would like to explore. My method of exploring will be to investigate the history of ideas in the field of cybernetics and general systems theory.

As defined by W. Ross Ashby, a self-organizing system consists of organisms and their environments. As the system moves toward its stable equilibrial states, it organizes itself, hence the name. A group of human beings in which each person is adapting to his or her social environment could be regarded as a self- organizing system. Scholars from several disciplines are interested in the behaviors that people adopt in order to orient themselves to their social environments and in how these behaviors change. This paper describes a behavior adopted by some people and inquires how this behavior comes about. The term “self-authorization” refers to the fact that some people do not wait for someone in authority to “authorize” them to engage in activities that promote the general welfare. These people authorize themselves. Assuming that self-authorizing people, as defined above, are valuable to a society, what educa¬tional or personal experiences are necessary or helpful in leading people to be¬come self-authorizing? Stated somewhat differently, if one were to program a machine to display self-authorizing behavior within a social environment, what features would be required in the program? This paper provides a preliminary list and solicits further suggestions and comments.

Since 1981 scientists in the United States and the Soviet Union have been meeting to discuss the foundations of cybernetics and general systems theory in their two countries. Several different methods of communication have been tried and a wide range of topics have been covered. Most of the conversations have focused on issues involving epistemology, methodology, and management. The discussions have turned up several differences in approach. A few of the differences suggest new avenues for research. Two ideas may help to shed light on theoretical approaches in the two countries and on differences between the two societies. The two ideas are “cognitive efficiency” and “collective intelligence”.

Recent developments in cybernetics have challenged key tenets in the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science constitutes a theory of knowledge that is often called realism. However, the philosophy of science is not a unified field, there are a variety of points of view. Contemporary cybernetics, meanwhile, is developing a philosophy called constructivism. This paper compares cybernetics with two important schools of thought within the philosophy of science, lists several different assumptions that lead to misunderstandings between scientists and cyberneticians, and then suggests a way of resolving the differences not by rejecting science but by enlarging it.