Stuart A. Umpleby

The science of cybernetics and the cybernetics of science

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.

CYBERNETICS OF CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS

Cybernetics in the United States has evolved through three identifiable periods. In the first period of the 1950s and 1960s there was a primary concern with designing control systems and with building machines to emulate human reasoning. In the second period of the 1970s and 1980s the focus of attention was on the biologyof cognition and constructivist philosophy. In recent years increasing attention has been given to social systems. Whereas the work on the biology of cognition required that attention be shifted from what was observed to the observer, the recent interest in social systems requires an emphasis on multiple observers and their beliefs. The third period of social cybernetics or the cybernetics of conceptual systems is illustrated by considering constructivist cybernetics as a conceptual system created to promote the evolution of certain social systems in a preferred direction.

Ross Ashby’s general theory of adaptive systems

In the 1950s and 1960s Ross Ashby created a general theory of adaptive systems. His work is well known among cyberneticians and systems scientists, but not in other fields. This is somewhat surprising, because his theories are more general versions of the theories in many fields. The philosophy of science claims that more general theories are preferred because a small number of propositions can explain many phenomena. Why, then, are Ashbys theories not widely known and praised? Do scientists really strive for more general, parsimonious theories? This paper reviews the content of Ashbys theories, discusses what they reveal about how scientists work, and suggests what their role might be in the academic community in the future.

The scientific revolution in demography

Since 1960 a debate has taken place between demographers and natural scientists over projections of world population into the future and the methods appropriate for making projections. Underlying this debate is a disagreement over the factors which influence human population growth. To the usual factors of fertility and mortality the natural scientists emphasize the human populations ability to communicate and thereby to enlarge available resources. Also at issue are different philosophies concerning the manipulation of data. The debate between demographers and natural scientists bears many of the features of a scientific revolution as described by Thomas Kuhn. The new theory also meets the criterion of scientific growth contained in the correspondence principle. The theories used by demographers and natural scientists have political implications, since the demographers assume stability whereas the natural scientists observe instability.

What I learned from Heinz von Foerster about the construction of science

Purpose – To report on an empirical study in psycholinguistics that revealed a difference between European and American patterns of thinking and to provide a brief history of a 30‐year effort to modify the philosophy of science in order to make it more suitable as a guide to doing research in the social sciences.Design/methodology/approach – Assesses the approach of Heinz von Foerster, who used a deductive approach to science rather than an American empirical approach. Furthermore, von Foerster was willing to modify not only science but also the philosophy of science. By proposing that scientists pay attention to the observer as well as the observed, he added a dimension to the philosophy of science, which affects all disciplines.Findings – Proposes an additional dimension that might be added to the philosophy of science. Paying attention to both the observer and the receiving society suggests a communication metaphor rather than the photograph metaphor, which has prevailed in the philosophy of science. E...

A Group Process Approach to Organizational Change

The key issue in Problem Study 2—the design of a Citizens’ Service Department—is the achievement of consensus and coordination among the individuals in the organization taking part. A group process method called LENS is proposed for developing a plan and implementing it. Using this method the participants conduct a week long planning conference in which they formulate goals, identify the obstacles to achieving the goals, propose programs for removing the obstacles, develop tactics for carrying out the programs, and finally define actions to implement the tactics. The method requires that representatives of all groups, both inside and outside the organizations affected, be involved in the planning activity. During the planning conference the participants divide into teams, report back to the total group, then go back to working in teams, and so on. A plan developed using the LENS method is much more likely to be implemented since the people who will have to carry it out were also involved in formulating it.

The Technology of Participation as a Means of Improving Universities in Transitional Economies

Group process methods for problem solving and planning are now widely used in organizations in the United States. Such methods, which involve active participation by employees, are not often used in Russia. We believe these methods would help Russia move from a centrally planned, authoritarian style of management to a more participatory, information-sharing style of management. Accordingly, two training sessions were held with faculty members at universities in Irkutsk and Novosibirsk. This article describes how these meetings were arranged, the results of the planning activities, and the implications of participatory methods of decision making for organizations in Russia and in other transitional economies.

Commentary: Communicating Science The Difficulty Introduced by the Historical Politics of the English Language

Understanding scientific concepts does not come easily to Americans, who nevertheless enjoy tremendous benefits because of scientific progress. The average citizen has a need to know more about scientific concepts to participate in the ongoing dialogue about everything from the cloning of Dolly (the sheep), to the possible entitlement of prescription drug coverage for senior citizens, to the way the Internet is changing the American way of life. Language sets up our framework for understanding, and awareness of the politics embodied in the three origins of the English language is the key to explaining scientific concepts more clearly. Because of an ancient cultural struggle, English is unusual among Indo-European languages in its way of “knowing,” a core concept of science. To enter our minds, scientists must remember our hearts.

“Cyberethics”: A panel discussion

HEINZ VON FOERSTER: Ever since Allan M. Turing commented on Kurt Goedel’s Paper `Ueber formal unentscheidbare Saetze s der Principia Matematica and verwandter Systeme I’ ’ Monatshelfte s . . Math. Phys. 38, 1921 173 ] 198 , under the title `On computable numbers with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem,’ ’ the German word `Entscheidungsproblem’ ’ has been absorbed in the English scientific discourse to refer to problems, propositions, and questions whose solvability, decidability, and answerability is under question. Both Turing and Goedel have shown that even within the most carefully developed systems of formal thought undecidables arise. I would like to draw to the attention of my cybernetic colleagues that not only in these lofty, abstract realms of logic but also in the language of daily life we are vis-a-vis of in principle undecidable questions. For instance: ` was the defendant temporarily insane when he committed the crime? ’’ Or `how did the universe come into being? ’’ How can I say these are in principle undecidable questions when there are so many answers given to them?

WHAT IS TO BE DONE: LEARNING DEMOCRACY WHILE IMPROVING ORGANIZATIONS

Two-day planning exercises are one way to meet the demand for management training in the postcommunist countries. These exercises serve as problem-solving meetings, help the people who participate to become more accustomed to open discussions, and provide an opportunity for academics and people from related organizations to learn about the problems of an organization and to cooperate in finding solutions. Participatory planning exercises require no prior technical training. Because the method is easy to learn, exercises of this kind can spread rapidly through a society, providing many people with a new kind of experience in organizational problem solving. Because the method is learned by applying it in practice, managers are not removed from their responsibilities as managers. The method is particularly effective at teaching the kinds of skills most needed in countries making the transition to democracy and market economies—individual initiative and bottom-up decision making.