Talk:Systems thinking

Contrasted with...
What can systems thinking be contrasted with? Is it linear thinking, sub optimization, or something else? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Lbeaumont interesting question. out of the ones you listed, I think linear thinking. 98.167.75.109 (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @98.167.75.109 as well as Dualistic Thinking ie. binary logic 98.167.75.109 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Newton's system of the world
@User:Carchasm Please explain to me how Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica Book three System of the world does not constitute systems thinking. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 06:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The existence of the archives pretty much guarantees that this article is not going to be deleted. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 06:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In freshman physics we are taught to 'Isolate the system'. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 06:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much textbook description of WP:SYNTH, no? I don't know what "systems thinking" is supposed to be in relation to physics, it never came up in my entire physics undergrad, but you just sort of... assumed that because Newton uses the word "system" that it's related to this topic? &#32;- car chasm (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Deduction theorem requires that you be able to recognize a pattern that subsumes modus ponens. That's why the System of the World is book 3 rather than book 1. Newton introduces concepts in books 1 and 2, and applies the concepts (his system) in book 3. Newton himself started with Kepler (Hypothesis), and applied Newton's laws as a deduction (Hypothesis → Conclusion). It takes practice to see the system. That's not synthesis on our part (Book 3 is from Newton) or invention (that was Kepler's step), that's familiarization on our part when we go through the steps. -- Ancheta Wis    (talk  &#124; contribs) 07:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not looking for you to explain your thought processes for why you came to an original conclusion. If you claim that Isaac Newton, Aristotle, Hobbes, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and the public switched telephone network are all talking about the same "thing" then you need a reliable secondary source for each one that discusses the topic "systems thinking" as it's defined in the article and specifically mentions those people by name. I assert that this is impossible, because "systems thinking" does not exist as a coherent topic, it's a marketing term that's used inconsistently to refer to a variety of different things. Wikipedia should not have articles on buzzwords. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But there are academic departments of System Science (largely in Engineering), where they teach from titles like Papoulis, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes --Ancheta Wis    (talk  &#124; contribs) 14:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Papoulis' textbook certainly looks like a reliable source, so if it discusses "systems thinking" as a coherent topic separate from systems engineering and mentions all of these people by name, I'd consider that an acceptable source. But I think that likely if those people are discussed, it's not mentioned in the context of a distinct topic called "systems thinking" and so it's more appropriate for the systems engineering article or a related WP:SPINOUT article. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's hard not to learn about systems in thermodynamics, especially in its applications. Systems engineering is a real subject. It's just as old as the Romans (think military engineers and the Roman roads and aqueducts, also plumbing). But there are also formulations in thermodynamics that are geometrical (think Caratheodory's 2nd law of thermodynamics).
 * Systems also arise naturally in electronics, and in engineering practice, and now in business and computer science. Especially when one encounters practitioners from other disciplines, if the business requires multiple disciplines, the system boundaries are drawn by the business, and the sub-systems are drawn by specialist practitioners (What are the types of boundaries in Thermodynamics? Here are examples from thermodynamics). -- Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 08:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is really just more WP:SYNTH - it looks like you're pattern matching on things that look similar to you, but I'm unconvinced that there's some grand overall "systems thinking" that exists as a real field of study. I can see that you're an administrator, and you've been on the project for a while, but have you read WP:NOR? It feels like I'm talking to someone who doesn't have a grasp on the idea that they need to source all of their claims from reliable, secondary sources. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not cleanup. Please refrain from calling for deletion if your motivation is cleanup. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 14:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My motivation isn't cleanup - I don't believe that there's a meaningfully distinct topic called "systems thinking" that's defined consistently by subject matter experts in systems engineering, and that attempts to define it by wikipedia are WP:SYNTH. If this is a common enough synonym for systems engineering (I don't think so) then I believe it should be a redirect. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There should definitely be an article on 'systems thinking'. However, there needs to be a clear idea of what goes in this article versus articles on systems theory, systems science, etc. Recent edits are too much about systems in general imo. I think this article should stick closely to methodological schemes like soft systems methodology; critical systems heuristics, viable system model, etc., and how these are presented as a coherent group by e.g. the Open University Systems Thinking in Practice. Hinterlander1 (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Be bold. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 19:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Systems Engineering links to here, Article should really stay
The Systems Engineering article links to here. The article should really stay because systems engineering is a very important part of engineering Starlighsky (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)