home > Downhole > System approach in modern methodology of science. System approach in modern science and technology System approach definition

System approach in modern methodology of science. System approach in modern science and technology System approach definition

In our time, an unprecedented progress in knowledge is taking place, which, on the one hand, has led to the invention and accumulation of many new information, factors from various areas of life, and thus confronted humanity with the need to systematize them, to find the general in the particular, the unchanging in the changing. There is no unambiguous concept of a system. In the most general form, a system is understood as a set of interconnected parts that form a certain integrity, a certain unity.

A systematic approach is a methodology for considering various kinds of complexes, which allows a deeper and better understanding of their essence (structure, organization and other features) and finds the best ways and methods of influencing the development of such complexes and their management system.

A systematic approach is a necessary condition for the application of mathematical methods, but its significance goes beyond this framework. The systems approach is a comprehensive integrated approach. It implies a multilateral consideration of the specific features of the corresponding object, which determine its structure, and, consequently, its organization.

Each system has its own inherent features. Own response to management, own ability to respond to various kinds of influences, own forms of possible deviation from the program.

Production facilities are complex hierarchical systems consisting of a complex of interconnected and interdependent subsystems: an enterprise, a workshop, a production site, and a “man-machine” section.

Works on the organization and management of production consist in designing and ensuring the functioning of systems. These include:

1) Establishing the nature of the relationship between the elements of the system (subsystems) and the channels through which communications are carried out within the system;
2) Creation of conditions for the coordinated development of the elements of the system and the achievement of the goals for which it is intended;
3) Creation of a mechanism to ensure this coordination;
4) Organizational structure of management bodies, development of methods and techniques for managing the system.

A systematic approach to production (organization) management is most widespread in the United States and is used in almost all countries. It involves considering the firm as a complex system consisting of various subsystems, functions. This is due to the classification of subsystems that make up either the organizational structure of the company or the production structure.

The concept of "system" implies that all its subsystems are closely interconnected and have diverse connections with the external environment. The firm is seen as an organization that is a complex of interrelated elements. At the same time, the internal structure of the organizational system allows for the relative autonomy of subsystems that form a hierarchy of subsystems.

The system approach assumes the presence of a special unity of the system with the environment, it is defined as a set of external elements that influence the interaction of the elements of the system.

To express the essence of the system, various means are used: graphical, mathematical, matrix, "decision tree", etc. each of these means cannot fully reflect the essence of the system, which consists in the interconnection of its elements. managerial pension chelyabinsk

A comprehensive study of the interconnections of elements (subsystems) is necessary to build a model of the control object - a firm or an enterprise. Experiments with the model make it possible to improve management decisions, that is, to find the most effective ways to achieve goals.

The study of the links of elements (subsystems) is necessary to represent the model of the control object. This makes it possible to improve management decisions, find more effective ways to achieve goals.

A systematic approach to production management proceeds from the fact that the development of plans for diversified and decentralized production is subject to the interests of the interaction of production units that make up the production (operational) system. This approach has been developed through the use of computer technology and the creation of centralized information systems.

The use of computer technology based on a systematic approach makes it possible to improve the methods and structure of production management.

The system approach as a general methodological principle is used in various branches of science and human activity. The epistemological basis (epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies the forms and methods of scientific knowledge) is the general theory of systems, the beginning of which was laid by the Australian biologist L. Bertalanffy. He saw the purpose of this science in the search for the structural similarity of the laws established in various disciplines, on the basis of which it is possible to derive system-wide patterns.

In this regard, the systems approach is one of the forms of methodological knowledge associated with the study and creation of objects as systems, and applies only to systems (the first feature of the systems approach).

The second feature of the systematic approach is the hierarchy of knowledge, which requires a multi-level study of the subject: the study of the subject itself; "own" level; the study of the same subject as an element of a wider system - the "superior" level, and, finally, the study of this subject in relation to the elements that make up this subject - the lower level.

The next feature of the system approach is the study of the integrative properties and patterns of systems and systems complexes, the disclosure of the basic mechanisms for integrating the whole. And, finally, an important feature of the systematic approach is its focus on obtaining quantitative characteristics, creating methods that narrow the ambiguity of concepts, definitions, and estimates. In other words, a systematic approach requires considering the problem not in isolation, but in the unity of relations with the environment, to comprehend the essence of each connection and individual element, to make associations between general and particular goals. All this forms a special method of thinking that allows you to flexibly respond to changes in the situation and make informed decisions.

In view of the foregoing, we define the concept of a systematic approach.

A systematic approach is an approach to the study of an object (problem, phenomenon, process) as a system in which elements, internal and external relations are identified that most significantly affect the results of its functioning, and the goals of each of the elements are determined based on the general purpose of the object .

In practice, to implement a systematic approach, it is necessary to provide for the following sequence of actions:

formulation of the research problem;

identification of the object of study as a system from the environment;

establishing the internal structure of the system and identifying external links;

determination (or setting) goals for the elements based on the manifested (or expected) result of the entire system as a whole;

development of a model of the system and conducting research on it.

Currently, many works are devoted to system research. What they have in common is that they are all devoted to solving systemic problems in which the object of research is presented as a system.

formulation of goals and clarification of their hierarchy before starting any activity related to management, especially decision-making;

achieving the set goals at minimal cost through a comparative analysis of alternative ways and methods to achieve the goals and making the appropriate choice;

quantitative assessment (quantification) of goals, methods and means of achieving them, based not on partial criteria, but on a broad and comprehensive assessment of all possible and planned results of activities.

The broadest interpretation of the methodology of the systems approach belongs to Professor Ludwig Bertalanffy, who put forward the idea of a “general systems theory” back in 1937.

The subject of "general systems theory" Bertalanffy defines as the formation and fixation of general principles that are valid for systems in general. “A consequence of the presence of common properties of systems,” he wrote, “is the manifestation of structural similarities, or isomorphisms, in various areas. This correspondence is due to the fact that these units can in some respects be considered as "systems", those complexes of elements that are in interaction. In fact, analogous concepts, models, and laws have often been discovered in areas very far from each other, independently and on the basis of completely different facts.

System tasks can be of two types: system analysis or system synthesis.

The task of analysis involves determining the properties of the system by the structure known to it, and the task of synthesis is determining the structure of the system by its properties.

The task of synthesis is to create a new structure that should have the desired properties, and the task of analysis is to study the properties of an already existing formation.

System analysis and synthesis involves the study of large systems, complex tasks. N.N. Moiseev notes: "System analysis ... requires the analysis of complex information of various physical nature." Based on this, F.I. Peregudov defines that "...system analysis is the theory and practice of improving intervention in problem situations." Consider the features of the implementation of a systematic approach. Any research is preceded by its formulation, from which it should be clear what needs to be done and on the basis of what to do it.

In the formulation of the research problem, one should try to distinguish between general and particular plans. The general plan determines the type of task - analysis or synthesis. A particular task plan reflects the functional purpose of the system and describes the characteristics to be investigated.

For example:

1) develop (general plan - synthesis task) a space system designed for operational observation of the earth's surface (private plan);
2) determine (general plan - analysis task) efficiency, observation of the earth's surface using a space system (private plan).

The specificity of the formulation of the problem largely depends on the knowledge of the researcher and the available information. The idea of the system is changing, and this leads to the fact that almost always there are differences between the task set and the task being solved. To make them insignificant, the formulation of the problem must be corrected in the process of its solution. The change will mainly concern the particular plan of the formulated task.

A feature of the selection of an object as a system from the environment is that it is necessary to select such elements of it, the activity or properties of which are manifested in the field of study of this object.

The need to identify (or create) a particular connection is determined by the degree of its impact on the characteristics under study: those that have an important impact should be left. Where the links are not clear, it is necessary to refine the structure of the system to known levels and to conduct research in order to further deepen the detail to the required level. Elements that do not have links with others should not be introduced into the structure of the system.

With this approach, any system, object is considered as a set of interconnected and interacting elements that has an input, connections with the external environment, an output, a goal and feedback.

When conducting a study of a management system, a systematic approach involves considering organizations as an open multi-purpose system that has a certain framework that interacts with each other, internal and external environments, external and internal goals, sub-goals of each of the subsystems, strategies for achieving goals, etc.

At the same time, a change in one of the elements of any system causes a change in other elements and subsystems, which is based on the dialectical approach and the interconnection and interdependence of all phenomena in nature and society.

The system approach provides for the study of the entire set of parameters and indicators of the functioning of the system in dynamics, which requires the study of intra-organizational processes of adaptation, self-regulation, self-actualization, forecasting, planning, coordination, decision-making, etc.

The systematic approach considers the study of an object as a system of an integral complex of interconnected and interacting elements in unity with the environment in which it is located. One of the most important areas that make up the methodological basis of research for relatively complex control systems is system analysis. Its application is relevant for such tasks as analysis and improvement of the management system during the restructuring of organizations, diversification of production, technical re-equipment and other tasks that constantly arise in the market, and therefore the dynamics of the external environment. A feature of system analysis is the combination of various methods of analysis in it with general systems theory, operations research, technical and software controls.

Operations research as a scientific direction uses mathematical modeling of processes and phenomena. The use of operations research methods within the framework of a systems approach is especially useful when studying organizational systems for making optimal decisions. From the foregoing, the conclusion follows: the establishment of the internal structure is not only an operation of the initial stage of the study, it will be refined and changed as the studies are carried out. This process distinguishes complex systems from simple ones, in which the elements and relationships between them are not only an operation of the initial stage of research, it will be refined and changed as research is carried out. This process distinguishes complex systems from simple ones, in which the elements and relationships between them do not change during the entire research cycle.

In any system, each element of its structure functions on the basis of some of its goals. When it is identified (or formulated), one should be guided by the requirement of subordination to the overall goal of the system. It should be noted here that sometimes the particular goals of the elements are not always consistent with the ultimate goals of the system itself.

Complex systems are usually studied on models. The purpose of modeling is to determine the system's responses to influences, the boundaries of the system's functioning, and the effectiveness of control algorithms. The model should allow for the possibility of variations in the number of elements and relationships between them in order to study various options for building a system. The process of studying complex systems is iterative. And the number of possible approximations depends on a priori knowledge about the system and the rigidity of the requirements for the accuracy of the results obtained.

Based on the research conducted, recommendations are made:

by the nature of the interaction between the system and the environment;

the structure of the system, types of organization and types of links between elements;

system control law.

The main practical task of the system approach in the study of control systems is to, having discovered and described complexity, also prove additional physically realizable connections that, being imposed on a complex control system, would make it controllable within the required limits, while maintaining such areas of independence. that improve the efficiency of the system.

The included new feedbacks should increase the favorable and weaken the unfavorable trends in the behavior of the control system, preserving and strengthening its purposefulness, but at the same time orienting it to the interests of the supersystem.

Educational Institution "Belarusian State University of Informatics and Radioelectronics"

Department of Philosophy

Systems Approach in Modern Science and Technology

(essay)

Ivanov I.I.

postgraduate student of the department XXX

Introduction ................................................ ................................................... 3

1 The concept of “system” and “system approach” .............................................. 5

2 Ontological meaning of the concept "system".................................................. 8

3 The epistemological meaning of the concept of "system" .............................. 10

4 Development of the essence of the system in the natural sciences .................. 12

5 "System" and "system approach" in our time .............................................. 14

Conclusion................................................. ............................................... 26

Literature................................................. ............................................... 29

Introduction

More than half a century of systemic movement, initiated by L. von Bertalanffy, has passed. During this time, the ideas of systemicity, the concept of a system and a systematic approach have been universally recognized and widely used. Numerous system concepts have been created.

A closer analysis shows that many of the issues considered in the systemic movement belong not only to science, such as general systems theory, but cover a vast area of scientific knowledge as such. The systems movement has affected all aspects of scientific activity, and an increasing number of arguments are put forward in its defense.

The system approach, as a methodology of scientific knowledge, is based on the study of objects as systems. A systematic approach contributes to an adequate and effective disclosure of the essence of problems and their successful solution in various fields of science and technology.

The systematic approach is aimed at identifying the diverse types of connection of a complex object and bringing them into a single theoretical picture.

In various fields of science, the problems of organization and functioning of complex objects begin to occupy a central place, the study of which without taking into account all aspects of their functioning and interaction with other objects and systems is simply unthinkable. Moreover, many of these objects represent a complex combination of various subsystems, each of which, in turn, is also a complex object.

A systematic approach does not exist in the form of strict methodological concepts. It performs its heuristic functions, remaining a set of cognitive principles, the main meaning of which is the appropriate orientation of specific studies.

The advantages of a systematic approach are, first of all, that it expands the field of knowledge in comparison with the one that existed before. A systematic approach, based on the search for the mechanisms of the integrity of an object and the identification of the technology of its connections, allows us to explain the essence of many things in a new way. The breadth of the principles and basic concepts of the systems approach puts them in close connection with other methodological areas of modern science.

1 The concept of "system" and "system approach"

As stated above, at present, the systems approach is used in almost all areas of science and technology: cybernetics, to analyze various biological systems and systems of human impact on nature, to build transport control systems, space flights, various systems for organizing and managing production, theory building information systems, in many others, and even in psychology.

Biology was one of the first sciences in which the objects of study began to be considered as systems. A systematic approach in biology involves a hierarchical structure, where elements are a system (subsystem) that interacts with other systems as part of a large system (supersystem). At the same time, the sequence of changes in a large system is based on regularities in a hierarchically subordinate structure, where "cause-and-effect relationships are rolled from top to bottom, setting the essential properties of the lower ones." In other words, the whole variety of connections in living nature is studied, and at each level of biological organization, its own special leading connections are distinguished. The idea of biological objects as systems allows a new approach to some problems, such as the development of some aspects of the problem of the relationship of an individual with the environment, and also gives impetus to the neo-Darwinian concept, sometimes referred to as macroevolution.

If we turn to social philosophy, then here, too, the analysis of the main problems of this area leads to questions about society as an integrity, or rather, about its systemic nature, about the criteria for dividing historical reality, about the elements of society as a system.

The popularity of the systematic approach is facilitated by the rapid increase in the number of developments in all areas of science and technology, when the researcher, using standard methods of research and analysis, is physically unable to cope with such a volume of information. Hence the conclusion follows that only using the systemic principle can one understand the logical connections between individual facts, and only this principle will allow more successful and high-quality design of new research.

At the same time, the importance of the concept of "system" is very high in modern philosophy, science and technology. Along with this, in recent years there has been an increasing need to develop a unified approach to a variety of systemic studies in modern scientific knowledge. Most researchers will certainly realize that there is still some real commonality in this variety of directions, which should follow from a common understanding of the system. However, the reality is precisely that a common understanding of the system has not yet been developed.

If we consider the history of the development of definitions for the concept of "system", we can see that each of them reveals a whole new side of its rich content. There are two main groups of definitions. One tends to philosophical understanding of the concept of a system, the other group of definitions is based on the practical use of system methodology and tends to develop a general scientific concept of a system.

Works in the field of theoretical foundations of system research cover such problems as:

· ontological foundations of system studies of objects of the world, systemicity as the essence of the world;

· epistemological foundations of system research, system principles and principles of the theory of knowledge;

· methodological establishments of system knowledge.

The confusion of these three aspects sometimes creates a feeling of inconsistency in the works of different authors. This also determines the inconsistency and multiplicity of definitions of the very concept of "system". Some authors develop it in an ontological sense, others - in an epistemological sense, and in different aspects of epistemology, and still others - in a methodological one.

The second characteristic feature of system problems is that throughout the development of philosophy and science in the development and application of the concept of “system”, three directions are clearly distinguished: one is associated with the use of the term “system” and its non-strict interpretation; the other is with the development of the essence of the system concept. , however, as a rule, without the use of this term: the third - with an attempt to synthesize the concept of consistency with the concept of "system" in its strict definition.

At the same time, historically there has always been a duality of interpretation, depending on whether the consideration is being carried out from ontological or epistemological positions. Therefore, the initial basis for the development of a single system concept, including the concept of "system", is, first of all, the division of all issues in historical consideration according to the principle of their belonging to ontological, epistemological and methodological grounds.

2 Ontological meaning of the concept "system"

When describing reality in Ancient Greece and in fact until the 19th century. in science there was no clear division between reality itself and its ideal, mental, rational representation. The ontological aspect of reality and the epistemological aspect of knowledge about this reality were identified in the sense of absolute correspondence. Therefore, the very long use of the term "system" had a pronounced ontological meaning.

In ancient Greece, the meaning of this word was associated primarily with social and everyday activities and was used in the sense of a device, organization, union, system, etc. Further, the same term is transferred to natural objects. Universe, philological and musical combinations, etc.

It is important that the formation of the concept of "system" from the term "system" goes through the awareness of the integrity and dismemberment of both natural and artificial objects. This was expressed in the interpretation of the system as "a whole made up of parts."

In fact, without interruption, this line of understanding systems as integral and at the same time dissected fragments of the real world goes through the New Age, the philosophy of R. Descartes and B. Spinoza, French materialists, the natural science of the 19th century, being a consequence of the spatial-mechanical vision of the world, when all other forms realities (light, electromagnetic fields) were considered only as an external manifestation of the spatial-mechanical properties of this reality.

In fact, this approach provides for a certain primary dismemberment of the whole, which in turn is composed of wholes, separated (spatially) by nature itself and interacting. In the same sense, the term "system" is widely used today. It is behind this understanding of the system that the term material system was fixed as an integral set of material objects.

Another direction of the ontological line involves the use of the term "system" to denote the integrity defined by some organizing community of this whole.

In the ontological approach, two directions can be distinguished: the system as a set of objects and the system as a set of properties.

In general, the use of the term "system" in the ontological aspect is unproductive for further study of the object. The ontological line connected the understanding of the system with the concept of “thing”, whether it is “an organic thing” or “a thing made up of things”. The main drawback in the ontological line of understanding the system is the identification of the concept of "system" with an object or simply with a fragment of reality. In fact, the use of the term "system" in relation to a material object is incorrect, since every fragment of reality has an infinite number of manifestations and its cognition is divided into many aspects. Therefore, even for a naturally dissected object, we can only give a general indication of the fact of the presence of interactions, without specifying them, since it has not been identified which properties of the object are involved in interactions.

The ontological understanding of the system as an object does not allow one to proceed to the process of cognition, since it does not provide a research methodology. In this regard, the understanding of the system only in the presented aspect is erroneous.

3 The epistemological meaning of the concept of "system"

Ancient Greek philosophy and science are at the origins of the epistemological line. This direction gave two branches in the development of understanding the system. One of them is related to the interpretation of the systemic nature of knowledge itself, first philosophical, then scientific. Another branch was associated with the development of the concepts of "law" and "regularity" as the core of scientific knowledge.

The principles of systematic knowledge were developed in ancient Greek philosophy and science. In fact, Euclid already built his geometry as a system, and Plato gave it just such a presentation. However, in relation to knowledge, the term "system" was not used by ancient philosophy and science.

Although the term "system" was already mentioned in 1600, none of the scientists of that time used it. Serious development of the problem of systemic knowledge with understanding of the concept of "system" begins only in the 18th century. At that time, three most important requirements for the systemic nature of knowledge, and hence the sign of the system, were identified:

completeness of the initial foundations (elements from which the rest of the knowledge is derived);

deducibility (determinability) of knowledge;

The integrity of the constructed knowledge.

Moreover, under the system of knowledge, this direction did not mean knowledge about the properties and relations of reality (all attempts at an ontological understanding of the system are forgotten and excluded from consideration), but as a certain form of knowledge organization.

Hegel, in developing the universal system of knowledge and the universal system of the world from the positions of objective idealism, overcame such a distinction between ontological and epistemological lines. In general, by the end of the XIX century. the ontological foundations of cognition are completely discarded, and the system is sometimes considered as the result of the activity of the subject of cognition.

As a result of the development of the epistemological direction, such features as the whole, completeness and derivability turned out to be firmly connected with the concept of "system". At the same time, a departure from the understanding of the system as a global coverage of the world or knowledge was prepared. The problem of systematic knowledge is gradually narrowing and transforming into the problem of systematic theories, the problem of the completeness of formal theories.

4 Development of the essence of the system in the natural sciences

Not in philosophy, but in science itself, there was an epistemological line, which, developing the essence of understanding the system, for a long time did not use this term at all.

Since its inception, the goal of science has been to find dependencies between phenomena, things and their properties. Starting with the mathematics of Pythagoras, through G. Galileo and I. Newton, an understanding is formed in science that the establishment of any regularity includes the following steps:

Finding the set of properties that will be necessary and sufficient to form some relationship, regularity;

search for the type of mathematical relationship between these properties;

Establishing repeatability, the need for this regularity.

The search for that property that should enter into regularity often lasted for centuries (if not millennia). Simultaneously with the search for regularities, the question of the foundations of these regularities has always arisen. Since the time of Aristotle, dependence had to have a causal basis, but even the Pythagorean theorems contained another basis for dependence - a relationship, an interdependence of quantities that does not contain a causal meaning.

This set of properties included in the regularity forms a certain single, integral group precisely because it has the property to behave in a deterministic way. But then this group of properties has the features of a system and is nothing more than a "system of properties" - this is the name it will be given in the 20th century. Only the term "system of equations" has long and firmly entered into scientific use. Awareness of any selected dependence as a system of properties comes when trying to define the concept of "system". J. Clear defines a system as a set of variables, and in the natural sciences it becomes traditional to define a dynamic system as a system of equations describing it.

It is important that within the framework of this direction, the most important feature of the system has been developed - a sign of self-determination, self-determination of a set of properties included in the regularity.

Thus, as a result of the development of the natural sciences, such important features of the system as the completeness of the set of properties and the self-determination of this set were developed.

5 "system" and "system approach" in our time

The epistemological line of interpreting the systemic nature of knowledge, having significantly developed the meaning of the concept of "system" and a number of its most important features, has not reached the path of understanding the systemic nature of the object of knowledge itself. On the contrary, the position is being strengthened that the system of knowledge in any disciplines is formed by logical derivation, like mathematics, that we are dealing with a system of propositions that has a hypothetical-deductive basis. This led, taking into account the successes of mathematics, to the fact that nature began to be replaced by mathematical models. The possibilities of mathematization determined both the choice of the object of study and the degree of idealization in solving problems.

The way out of this situation was the concept of L. von Bertalanffy, whose general theory of systems began the discussion of the diversity of properties of "organic wholes". The systemic movement has become, in essence, an ontological understanding of the properties and qualities at different levels of organization and the types of relationships that provide them, and B.S. Fleishman put the ordering of the principles of increasingly complex behavior as the basis of systemology: from the material-energy balance through homeostasis to purposefulness and promising activity.

Thus, there is a turn to the desire to consider the object in all its complexity, the multiplicity of properties, qualities and their relationships. Accordingly, a branch of ontological definitions of the system is formed, which interpret it as an object of reality, endowed with certain “systemic” properties, as an integrity that has some organizing commonality of this whole. Gradually, the use of the concept of "system" as a complex object, organized complexity is being formed. At the same time, “mathematizability” ceases to be the filter that simplifies the task to the utmost. J. Clear sees the fundamental difference between the classical sciences and "systems science" in that systems theory forms the subject of study in the fullness of its natural manifestations, without adapting to the possibilities of the formal apparatus.

For the first time, the discussion of the problems of systemicity was a self-reflection of the systemic concepts of science. Unprecedented in scope attempts are beginning to realize the essence of general systems theory, systems approach, systems analysis, etc. and above all - to develop the very concept of "system". At the same time, unlike the centuries-old intuitive use, the main goal is the methodological establishment, which should follow from the concept of "system".

On the whole, it is characteristic that no explicit attempts are made to derive its epistemological understanding from the ontological understanding of the system. One of the brightest representatives of the understanding of the system as a set of variables representing a set of properties, J. Clear, emphasizes that he leaves aside the question of what scientific theories, philosophy of science or inherited genetic innate knowledge determines the "meaningful choice of properties". This branch of understanding a system as a set of variables gives rise to the mathematical theory of systems, where the concept of "system" is introduced with the help of formalization and defined in set-theoretic terms.

This is how the position gradually develops that the ontological and epistemological understanding of the system are intertwined. In applied areas, a system is treated as a “holistic material object”, and in theoretical areas of science, a set of variables and a set of differential equations are called a system.

The most obvious reason for the inability to achieve a common understanding of the system is the differences that are associated with the answer to the following questions:

1. Does the concept of a system

to an object (thing) as a whole (any or specific),

to a set of objects (naturally or artificially divided),

not to the object (thing), but to the representation of the object,

to the representation of an object through a set of elements that are in certain relationships,

· to the totality of the elements in the relationship?

2. Is the requirement put forward for the totality of elements to form integrity, unity (certain or not specified)?

3. Is the "whole"

primary in relation to the totality of elements,

derived from a set of elements?

4. Does the concept of a system

to everything that “is distinguished by the researcher as a system”,

· only to such a set, Which includes a specific "systemic" feature?

5. Is everything a system, or can “non-systems” be considered along with systems?

Depending on one or another answer to these questions, we get a lot of definitions. But if a large number of authors have been defining the system through different characteristics for 50 years, is it possible to see something in common in their definitions? To which group of concepts, to which group of categories does the concept of "system" belong, if we look at it from the standpoint of many existing definitions? It becomes clear that all the authors are talking about the same thing: through the concept of a system, they seek to reflect the form of representation of the subject of scientific knowledge. Moreover, depending on the stage of cognition, we are dealing with different representations of the subject, which means that the definition of the system also changes. So, those authors who want to apply this concept to "organic wholes", to "things" - refer it to a selected object of cognition, when the object of cognition has not yet been singled out. This corresponds to the very first act of cognitive activity.

The following definition, with some reservations, already reflects the very act of highlighting the object of knowledge: “The concept of a system is at the very top of the hierarchy of concepts. A system is everything that we want to consider as a system...”.

Further, the statement that "the system" is a list of variables ... relating to some main problem that has already been defined, allows you to go to the next level, which highlights a certain side, a slice of the object and a set of properties that characterize this side. Those who tend to represent the subject of knowledge in the form of equations come to the definition of the system through a set of equations.

Thus, the plurality and variety of definitions of the system are caused by the difference in the stages of formation of the subject of scientific knowledge.

Thus, we can conclude that the system is a form of representation of the subject of scientific knowledge. And in this sense it is a fundamental and universal category. All scientific knowledge from the moment of its inception in ancient Greece built the subject of knowledge in the form of a system.

Numerous discussions about all the proposed definitions, as a rule, raised the question: by whom and what are these most important “system-forming”, “definite”, “limiting” signs that form the system? It turns out that the answer to these questions is general, given that the form of representation of the object of knowledge must be correlated with the object of knowledge itself. Consequently, it is the object that will determine that integrative property (distinguished by the subject) that makes the integrity "definite". It is in this sense that the proposition that the whole precedes the totality of elements should be interpreted. It follows that the definition of the system should include not only the totality, the composition of elements and relationships, but also the integral property of the object itself, with respect to which the system is built.

The principle of consistency underlies the methodology, expressing the philosophical aspects of the system approach and serving as the basis for studying the essence and general features of system knowledge, its epistemological foundations and categorical-conceptual apparatus, the history of system ideas and system-centric methods of thinking, analysis of system patterns in various areas of objective reality. In the real process of scientific knowledge of specific scientific and philosophical directions, systemic knowledge complements each other, forming a system of knowledge into a system. In the history of cognition, the selection of systemic features of integral phenomena was associated with the study of the relationship of the part and the whole, the patterns of composition and structure, internal connections and interactions of elements, the properties of integration, hierarchy, and subordination. The differentiation of scientific knowledge generates a significant need for a systematic synthesis of knowledge, for overcoming the disciplinary narrowness generated by the subject or methodological specialization of knowledge.

On the other hand, the multiplication of different levels and different orders of knowledge about the subject necessitates such a systemic synthesis that expands the understanding of the subject of knowledge in the study of ever deeper foundations of being and a more systematic study of external interactions. The systemic synthesis of various knowledge is also of great importance, which is a means of long-term planning, foreseeing the results of practical activities, modeling development options and their consequences, etc.

Summing up, it can be seen that in the process of human activity, the principle of consistency and the consequences of it are filled with specific practical content, while the implementation of this principle can go along the following main strategic directions.

1. Real-life objects, considered as systems, are investigated on the basis of a systematic approach, by highlighting system properties and patterns in these objects, which can later be studied (displayed) by particular methods of specific sciences.

2. On the basis of the system approach, according to the a priori definition of the system, refined iteratively in the process of research, a system model of a real object is built. This model later replaces the real object in the research process. At the same time, the study of the system model can be implemented on the basis of both systemological concepts and particular methods of specific sciences.

3. A set of system models, considered separately from the objects being modeled, can itself be an object of scientific research. At the same time, the most common invariants, methods of constructing and functioning of system models are considered, and the scope of their application is determined.

So, for example, we use the definition presented in: “System” is a set of interconnected components of one nature or another, ordered by relationships that have quite definite properties; this set is characterized by unity, which is expressed in the integral properties and functions of the set. Accordingly, we note that, firstly, any systems consist of initial units - components. Objects, properties, connections, relationships, states, phases of functioning, stages of development can be considered as components of the system. Within the framework of this system and at this level of abstraction, the components are presented as indivisible, integral and distinguishable units, that is, the researcher abstracts from their internal structure, but retains information about their empirical properties.

The objects that make up a system can be material (for example, atoms that make up molecules, cells, make up organs) or ideal (for example, different kinds of numbers make up the elements of a theoretical system called number theory).

System properties specific to a given class of objects can become components of system analysis. For example, the properties of a thermodynamic system can be temperature, pressure, volume, while the field strength, the dielectric constant of the medium, the polarization of the dielectric are, in fact, the properties of electrostatic systems. Properties can be both changing and unchanged under the given conditions of the system existence. Properties can be internal (own) and external. Own properties depend only on the connections (interactions) within the system, these are the properties of the system “by itself”. External properties actually exist only when there are connections, interactions with external objects (systems).

The connections of the studied object can also be components in its system analysis. Connections have material-energetic, substantial character. Similar to properties, relationships can be internal and external to a given system. So, if we describe the mechanical movement of a body as a dynamic system, then in relation to this body the connections are external. If we consider a larger system of several interacting bodies, then the same mechanical connections should be considered internal in relation to this system.

Relations differ from bonds in that they do not have a pronounced material-energy character. However, taking them into account is important for understanding a particular system. For example, spatial relations (above, below, to the left, to the right), temporal (earlier, later), quantitative (less, more).

The states and phases of functioning are used in the analysis of systems functioning over a long period of time, and the process of functioning itself (the sequence of states in time) is known by identifying connections and relationships between different states. Examples can be phases of the heart rhythm, successive processes of excitation and inhibition in the cerebral cortex, etc.

In turn, the stages, stages, steps, levels of development act as components of genetic systems. If the states and phases of functioning relate to the behavior in time of a system that retains its qualitative certainty, then the change in the stages of development is associated with the transition of the system to a new quality.

Secondly, between the components of the set that forms the system, there are system-forming connections and relationships, thanks to which the unity specific to the system is realized. The system has common functions, integral properties and characteristics that neither its constituent elements, taken separately, nor a simple "arithmetic sum" of elements possess. An important characteristic of the internal integrity of the system is its autonomy or relative independence of behavior and existence. By the degree of autonomy, one can to a certain extent judge the level and degree of their relative organization and self-organization.

Important characteristics of any systems are their inherent organization and structure, to which the mathematical description of systems is tied.

To emphasize the validity of the above reasoning, we will use the definition given in the work, according to which: "A system is a set of interrelated elements that form a single whole."

As for the relativity of the concepts "component" ("element") and "system" ("structure"), it should be noted that any system can, in turn, act as a component or subsystem of another system. On the other hand, the components that appear in the analysis of the system as undivided wholes, upon closer examination, themselves manifest themselves as systems. In any case, links between elements within a subsystem are stronger than links between subsystems and stronger than links between elements belonging to different subsystems. It is also essential that the number of types of elements (subsystems) is limited, the internal diversity and complexity of the system is determined, as a rule, by the variety of interelement connections, and not by the variety of types of elements.

When analyzing any systems, it is important to find out the nature of the connection between subsystems, hierarchical levels within the system; the system combines the interconnection of its subsystems in terms of some properties and relations and relative independence in terms of other properties and relations. In self-governing systems, this is expressed, in particular, in a combination of centralization of the activities of all subsystems with the help of a central control authority with decentralization of the activities of levels and subsystems that have relative autonomy.

It should also be borne in mind that a complex system is the result of the evolution of a simpler system. A system cannot be studied unless its genesis is studied.

In other words, the knowledge of an object as a system should include the following main points: 1) determining the structure and organization of the system; 2) determination of own (internal) integral properties and functions of the system; 3) defining the functions of the system as reactions at the outputs in response to the impact of other objects on the inputs; 4) determination of the genesis of the system, i.e. ways and mechanisms of its formation, and for developing systems - ways of their further development.

A particularly important characteristic of a system is its structure. A unified description of systems in a structural language involves certain simplifications and abstractions. If, when determining the components of a system, one can abstract from their structure, considering them as undivided units, then the next step is to abstract from the empirical properties of the components, from their nature (physical, biological, etc.), while maintaining differences in quality.

Methods of communication and types of relationships between the components of the system depend both on the nature of the components and on the conditions for the existence of the system. For the concept of structure, a special and at the same time universal type of relations and connections is specific - relations of the composition of elements. Relations of order (orderliness) in the system exist in two forms: stable and unstable in relation to precisely defined conditions for the existence of the system. The concept of structure reflects a stable order. The structure of the system is a set of stable connections and relationships that are invariant with respect to well-defined changes, transformations of the system. The choice of these transformations depends on the boundaries and conditions for the existence of the system. Structures of objects (systems) of a particular class are described in the form of laws of their structure, behavior and development.

We also note that when one or more elements are removed from the system, the structure may remain unchanged, and the system may retain its qualitative certainty (in particular, operability). Removed elements in some cases can be replaced without damage by new ones of different quality. This shows the predominance of internal structural bonds over external ones. The structure does not exist as an organizing principle independent of the elements, but is itself determined by its constituent elements. The set of elements cannot be combined arbitrarily, therefore, the way the elements are connected (the structure of the future system) is partially determined by the properties of the elements taken to build it. For example, the structure of a molecule is determined (in part) by what atoms it consists of. The entry of an element into a higher-level structure has little effect on its internal structure. The nucleus of an atom does not change if the atom is included in the molecule, and the microcircuit "does not care" in which device it functions. An element can perform its inherent functions only as part of a system, only in coordination with neighboring elements. In some cases, even any long-term preservation of its qualitative certainty by an element is impossible outside the system.

Thus, when using a systematic approach, the first stage is the task of representing the object under study in the form of a system.

At the second stage, it is necessary to carry out a systematic study. To get a complete and correct idea of the system, it is necessary to carry out this study in the subject, functional and historical aspects.

The purpose of subject analysis is to answer such questions as: what is the composition of the system, and what is the relationship between the components of its structure. The subject research is based on the main properties of the system - integrity and divisibility. At the same time, the component composition and the set of links between the components of the system must be necessary and sufficient for the existence of the system itself. Obviously, a strict separation of component and structural analysis is impossible due to their dialectical unity, so these studies are carried out in parallel. It is also necessary to establish the place of the considered system in the supersystem and to reveal all its connections with other elements of this supersystem. At this stage of subject analysis, a search is made for answers to questions about the composition of the supersystem, which includes the system under study and about the connection of the system under study with other systems through the supersystem.

The next important aspect of system research is the functional aspect. In fact, it is an analysis of the dynamics of those connections that were identified and identified at the stage of subject analysis and answers questions about how this component of the system works and how the system under study works in this supersystem.

As for historical research, it can be attributed to the dynamics of the development of the system, and the life cycle of any system is divided into several stages: emergence, formation, evolution, destruction or transformation. Historical research involves genetic analysis, which traces the history of the development of the system and determines the current stage of its life cycle, and predictive analysis, outlining the path of its further development.

Summing up the above analysis, we note that the system approach is based on the consideration of each system as some subsystem of a more general system. As for the characteristics of a subsystem, they are determined by the requirements for a system that is on a higher level of the hierarchy, and when designing or analyzing a subsystem, it is necessary to take into account its interaction with other subsystems that are on the same level of the hierarchical ladder. When using a systematic approach, it is necessary to take into account what components the system is formed from and the way they interact. Also, close attention deserves what functions the system and its constituent components perform and how it is interconnected with other systems, both horizontally and vertically, what are the mechanisms for maintaining, improving and developing the system. The issue of the emergence and development of the system is subject to study.

These stages can be repeated many times, each time refining the idea of the system under study, until all the necessary aspects of knowledge are considered at the required level of abstraction.

CONCLUSION

Each era has its own style of thinking, determined by many factors, and, above all, the level of development of the productive forces, including science, and social relations. The real life of an individual, whether he wants it or not, has a direct impact on his worldview, makes him see the world through the prism of modernity. No matter how talented and objective a scientist may be, he will inevitably place the main emphasis in his research on those phenomena, processes, and interactions that in his era are of most concern to society. In other words, what social life is, such is the outlook on the world as a whole.

As for truth, being independent of the cognizing subject in its content, it can at the same time be reflected in different ways in the mind of a person. Human consciousness is formed by society. Truth is not something solid, smooth and one-colored. It, like reality itself, is multifaceted and inexhaustible. Which side, edge, shade of truth to recognize as the whole truth, to what degree of approximation to the absolute to see it, largely depends on the person living at a given time and in a given society. That is why the understanding of truth, which refers to the same things, phenomena, processes, varies and changes in different eras and in different social systems. A particular society, a particular way of life, one way or another, change the way a person sees the world.

Hence, any absolutization of the meaning of any phenomenon, law, process, interaction, associated with its interpretation as an exhaustive variety of reality, is deeply erroneous and hinders the constructive development of theoretical knowledge and practice. Truth is always relevant. The actualization of knowledge is what every scientist consciously or unconsciously strives for. Actualization of truth does not exclude the existence of absolute truths. The rotation of the Earth around the Sun is an absolute truth, but the understanding of this truth, say, by Copernicus, differs from its understanding by modern scientists. As we see, the absolute truth is also updated, enriched with new discoveries, new ideas. The methodology of system cognition and transformation of the world is an effective means of updating knowledge.

Systemic comprehension of reality, a systematic approach to theoretical and practical activities is one of the principles of dialectics, just as the category "system" is one of the categories of dialectical materialism. Today, the concept of "system" and the principle of consistency began to play an important role in human life. The fact is that the general progressive movement of science and knowledge is uneven. Certain areas are always singled out, developing faster than others, situations arise that require a deeper and more detailed understanding, and, consequently, a special approach to the study of a new state of science. Therefore, the promotion and intensified development of individual moments of the dialectical method, which contribute to a deeper penetration into objective reality, is a completely natural phenomenon. The method of cognition and the results of cognition are interconnected, they influence each other: the method of cognition contributes to a deeper insight into the essence of things and phenomena; in turn, the accumulated knowledge improves the method.

In accordance with the current practical interests of mankind, the cognitive meaning of principles and categories is changing. A similar process is clearly observed when, under the influence of practical needs, there is an increased development of systemic ideas.

The system principle at the present time acts as an element of the dialectical method as a system and performs its specific function in cognition along with other elements of the dialectical method.

At present, the principle of consistency is a necessary methodological condition, a requirement of any research and practice. One of its fundamental characteristics is the concept of the systemic nature of being, and thus the unity of the most general laws of its development.

LITERATURE

1. Knyazeva E.N. Complex systems and nonlinear dynamics in nature and society. // Questions of Philosophy, 1998, No. 4

2. Zavarzin G.A. Individualistic and systematic approach in biology // Questions of Philosophy, 1999, No. 4.

3. Philosophy: Textbook. Handbook for university students. / V.F. Berkov, P.A. Vodopyanov, E.Z. Volchek and others; under total ed. Yu.A. Kharin.- Mn., 2000.

4. Uemov A.I. System approach and general systems theory. - M., 1978.

5. Sadovsky V. N. Foundations of the general theory of systems. - M., 1974

6. Clear J. Systemology. Automation of solving system problems. - M., 1990.

7. Fleshiman B.C. Fundamentals of systemology. - M., 1982.

8. E. P. Balashov, Evolutionary Synthesis of Systems. - M., 1985.

9. Malyuta A.N. Patterns of system development. - Kyiv, 1990.

10. Tyukhtin V.S. Reflection, system, cybernetics. - M., 1972.

11. Titov V.V. System approach: (Tutorial) / Higher state advanced training courses for managers, engineers and scientists on patents and inventions. - M., 1990.

methodological direction in science, the main task of which is to develop methods for the study and design of complex objects - systems of different types and classes.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

systems approach

SYSTEMS APPROACH- the direction of the philosophy and methodology of science, special scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the study of objects as systems. S. p. focuses research on the disclosure of the integrity of the object and the mechanisms that ensure it, on the identification of diverse types of connections of a complex object and their reduction into a single theoretical picture. The concept "S. P." (English "systems approach") has been widely used since the late 60s - early 70s. 20th century in English and Russian. philosophical and systemic literature. Close in content to "S. P." are the concepts of "systems research", "systematic principle", "general systems theory" and "systems analysis". S. p. is an interdisciplinary philosophical, methodological and scientific direction of research. Without directly solving philosophical problems, S. p. needs a philosophical interpretation of its provisions. An important part of the philosophical substantiation of S. p. systemic principle. Historically, the ideas of a systematic study of the objects of the world and the processes of cognition arose in ancient philosophy (Plato, Aristotle), were widely developed in the philosophy of the New Age (I. Kant, F. Schelling), were studied by K. Marx in relation to the economic structure of capitalist society. In the theory of biological evolution created by Charles Darwin, not only the idea was formulated, but the idea of the reality of superorganismal levels of life organization (the most important prerequisite for systems thinking in biology). S. p. represents a certain stage in the development of methods of cognition, research and design activities, methods of describing and explaining the nature of analyzed or artificially created objects. The principles of S. p. come to replace the widespread in the 17-19 centuries. concepts of mechanism and oppose them. The methods of static analysis are most widely used in the study of complex developing objects—multilevel, hierarchical, self-organizing biological, psychological, social, and other systems, large technical systems, man-machine systems, and so on. Among the most important tasks of structural design are: 1) the development of means for representing the objects being studied and constructed as systems; 2) construction of generalized models of the system, models of different classes and specific properties of systems; 3) study of the structure of systems theories and various system concepts and developments. In a system study, the analyzed object is considered as a certain set of elements, the interconnection of which determines the integral properties of this set. The main emphasis is on identifying the variety of connections and relationships that take place both within the object under study and in its relationship with the external environment. The properties of an object as an integral system are determined not only and not so much by the summation of the properties of its individual elements, but by the properties of its structure, special backbone, integrative links of the object under consideration. To understand the behavior of systems (first of all, purposeful), it is necessary to identify the management processes implemented by this system - forms of information transfer from one subsystem to another and ways of influencing some parts of the system on others, coordination of the lower levels of the system by elements of its higher level of management, influence on the last of all other subsystems. Significant importance in S. p. is given to revealing the probabilistic nature of the behavior of the objects under study. An important feature of S. the item is that not only the object, but also the process of research itself acts as a complex system, the task of which, in particular, is to combine various models of the object into a single whole. System objects are very often not indifferent to the process of their research and in many cases can have a significant impact on it. In the context of the development of the scientific and technological revolution in the second half of the 20th century. there is a further refinement of the content of S. p. - the disclosure of its philosophical foundations, the development of logical and methodological principles, further progress in the construction of a general theory of systems. S. p. is a theoretical and methodological basis system analysis. A prerequisite for the penetration of S. p. into science in the 20th century. first of all, there was a transition to a new type of scientific problems: in a number of areas of science, the problems of organization and functioning of complex objects begin to occupy a central place; cognition operates with systems, the boundaries and composition of which are far from obvious and require special research in each individual case. In the second half of the 20th century tasks similar in type also arise in social practice: in social management, instead of the previously prevailing local, sectoral tasks and principles, large complex problems begin to play a leading role, requiring close interconnection of economic, social, environmental and other aspects of public life (for example, global problems, complex problems of socio-economic development of countries and regions, problems of creating modern industries, complexes, urban development, environmental protection measures, etc.). The change in the type of scientific and practical problems is accompanied by the appearance of general scientific and special scientific concepts, which are characterized by the use in one form or another of the basic ideas of S. p.. Along with the spread of the principles of S. p. in. the systematic development of these principles in the methodological plan begins. Initially, methodological studies were grouped around the problems of constructing a general theory of systems. However, the development of research in this direction has shown that the totality of the problems of the methodology of system research goes beyond the scope of the tasks of developing only a general theory of systems. To designate this wider scope of methodological problems, the term "S. P.". S. p. does not exist in the form of a strict theoretical or methodological concept: it performs its heuristic functions, remaining a set of cognitive principles, the main meaning of which is the appropriate orientation of specific studies. This orientation is carried out in two ways. First, the substantive principles of S. p. allow fixing the insufficiency of old, traditional subjects of study for setting and solving new problems. Secondly, the concepts and principles of S. p. significantly help to build new subjects of study, setting the structural and typological characteristics of these subjects and thus contributing to the formation of constructive research programs. The role of S. p. in the development of scientific, technical and practice-oriented knowledge is as follows. First, the concepts and principles of S. p. reveal a wider cognitive reality in comparison with that which was fixed in the previous knowledge (for example, the concept of the biosphere in the concept of V. I. Vernadsky, the concept of biogeocenosis in modern ecology, the optimal approach in economic management and planning, etc.). Secondly, within the framework of S. p., new, in comparison with the previous stages in the development of scientific knowledge, schemes of explanation are developed, which are based on the search for specific mechanisms for the integrity of an object and the identification of a typology of its connections. Thirdly, it follows from the thesis about the variety of types of connections of an object, which is important for a s.p., that any complex object admits several subdivisions. At the same time, the criterion for choosing the most adequate division of the object under study can be the extent to which, as a result, it is possible to construct a “unit” of analysis that allows fixing the integral properties of the object, its structure and dynamics. The breadth of the principles and basic concepts of S. p. puts it in close connection with other methodological trends in modern science. In terms of its cognitive attitudes, S. p. has much in common with structuralism and structural-functional analysis, with which he is connected not only by operating with the concepts of system, structure and function, but also by the emphasis on the study of heterogeneous relations of an object. At the same time, the principles of S. p. have a broader and more flexible content; they were not subjected to such rigid conceptualization and absolutization, which was characteristic of some interpretations of structuralism and structural-functional analysis. I.V. Blauberg, E.G. Yudin, V.N. Sadovsky Lit .: Problems of methodology of system research. M., 1970; Blauberg I.V., Yudin E.G. Formation and essence of the system approach. M., 1973; Sadovsky V.N. Foundations of General Systems Theory: Logical and Methodological Analysis. M., 1974; Uemov A.I. System approach and general systems theory. M., 1978; Afanasiev V.G. Consistency and society. M., 1980; Blauberg I.V. The problem of integrity and a systematic approach. M., 1997; Yudin E.G. Science Methodology: Consistency. Activity. M, 1997; System Research. Yearbook. Issue. 1-26. M., 1969-1998; Churchman C.W. The Systems Approach. N.Y., 1968; Trends in General Systems Theory. N.Y., 1972; General Systems Theory. yearbook. Vol. 1-30. N.Y., 1956-85; Critical Systems Thinking. Directed Readings. N.Y., 1991.

Systems approach

Systems approach- the direction of the methodology of scientific knowledge, which is based on the consideration of an object as a system: an integral complex of interrelated elements (I. V. Blauberg, V. N. Sadovsky, E. G. Yudin); sets of interacting objects (L. von Bertalanffy); sets of entities and relationships (A. D. Hall, R. I. Fagin, late Bertalanffy).

Speaking of a systematic approach, we can talk about some way of organizing our actions, one that covers any kind of activity, identifying patterns and relationships in order to use them more effectively. At the same time, a systematic approach is not so much a method of solving problems as a method of setting problems. As the saying goes, "The right question is half the answer." This is a qualitatively higher, rather than just objective, way of knowing.

Basic principles of the systems approach

Integrity, which allows to consider the system simultaneously as a whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels.
Hierarchy of the structure, that is, the presence of a set (at least two) of elements located on the basis of the subordination of elements of a lower level to elements of a higher level. The implementation of this principle is clearly visible in the example of any particular organization. As you know, any organization is an interaction of two subsystems: managing and managed. One is subordinate to the other.
Structuring, which allows you to analyze the elements of the system and their relationships within a specific organizational structure. As a rule, the process of functioning of the system is determined not so much by the properties of its individual elements, but by the properties of the structure itself.
Plurality, which allows using a variety of cybernetic, economic and mathematical models to describe individual elements and the system as a whole.
Consistency, the property of an object to have all the features of the system.

Basic definitions of the systems approach

The founders of the systematic approach are: L. von Bertalanffy, A. A. Bogdanov, G. Simon, P. Drucker, A. Chandler.

System - a set of interrelated elements that form integrity or unity.
Structure - a way of interaction of system elements through certain connections (a picture of connections and their stability).
Process - dynamic change of the system in time.
Function - the work of an element in the system.
State - the position of the system relative to its other positions.
The system effect is such a result of a special reorganization of the elements of the system, when the whole becomes more than a simple sum of parts.
Structural optimization is a targeted iterative process of obtaining a series of system effects in order to optimize the applied goal within the given constraints. Structural optimization is practically achieved using a special algorithm for the structural reorganization of system elements. A series of simulation models has been developed to demonstrate the phenomenon of structural optimization and for training.

Main assumptions of the systems approach

There are systems in the world
System description is true
Systems interact with each other, and, therefore, everything in this world is interconnected.
Therefore, the world is also a system

Aspects of the systems approach

A systematic approach is an approach in which any system (object) is considered as a set of interrelated elements (components) that has an output (goal), input (resources), communication with the external environment, feedback. This is the most difficult approach. The system approach is a form of application of the theory of knowledge and dialectics to the study of processes occurring in nature, society, and thinking. Its essence lies in the implementation of the requirements of the general theory of systems, according to which each object in the process of its study should be considered as a large and complex system and, at the same time, as an element of a more general system.

A detailed definition of a systematic approach also includes the obligatory study and practical use of the following eight of its aspects:

system-element or system-complex, consisting in identifying the elements that make up this system. In all social systems, one can find material components (means of production and consumer goods), processes (economic, social, political, spiritual, etc.) and ideas, scientifically conscious interests of people and their communities;
system-structural, which consists in clarifying the internal connections and dependencies between the elements of a given system and allowing you to get an idea of \u200b\u200bthe internal organization (structure) of the system under study;
system-functional, involving the identification of functions for which the corresponding systems are created and exist;
system-target, meaning the need for a scientific definition of the goals and sub-goals of the system, their mutual coordination with each other;
system-resource, which consists in a thorough identification of the resources required for the functioning of the system, for the solution of a particular problem by the system;
system-integration, consisting in determining the totality of the qualitative properties of the system, ensuring its integrity and peculiarity;
system-communication, meaning the need to identify the external relations of a given system with others, that is, its relations with the environment;
system-historical, allowing to find out the conditions at the time of the emergence of the system under study, the stages it has passed, the current state, as well as possible development prospects.

Almost all modern sciences are built according to the systemic principle. An important aspect of the systematic approach is the development of a new principle of its use - the creation of a new, unified and more optimal approach (general methodology) to knowledge, to apply it to any cognizable material, with a guaranteed goal of obtaining a complete and holistic view of this material.

Literature

A. I. Rakitov "Philosophical Problems of Science: A Systemic Approach" Moscow: Thought, 1977. 270p.
V. N. Sadovsky "System approach and general systems theory: status, main problems and development prospects" Moscow: Nauka, 1980
System Research. Yearbook. Moscow: Nauka, 1969-1983.
Philosophical and methodological studies of technical sciences. - Questions of Philosophy, 1981, No. 10, p. 172-180.
I. V. Blauberg, V. N. Sadovsky, E. G. Yudin “System approach in modern science” - In the book: Problems of the methodology of system research. M.: Thought, 1970, p. 7-48.
I. V. Blauberg, V. N. Sadovsky, E. G. Yudin “Philosophical principle of consistency and systematic approach” - Vopr. Philosophy, 1978, No. 8, p. 39-52.
G. P. Shchedrovitsky "Principles and general scheme of the methodological organization of system-structural research and development" - M .: Nauka, 1981, p. 193-227.
V. A. Lektorsky, V. N. Sadovsky "On the principles of research of systems

(in connection with the "general theory of systems" by L. Bertalanffy)" - Vopr. philosophy, 1960, no. 8, p. 67-79.

Savelyev A. V. Ontological extension of the theory of functional systems // Journal of Problems of the Evolution of Open Systems, Kazakhstan, Almaty, 2005, No. 1(7), p. 86-94.
Savelyeva T. S., Savelyev A. V. Difficulties and limitations of the systems approach in brain science. Materials XI Intern. conference on neurocybernetics "Problems of neurocybernetics". Rostov-on-Don, 1995, p. 208-209.

Links

Agoshkova E.B., Akhlibininsky B.V. Evolution of the concept of a system // Questions of Philosophy. - 1998. - No. 7. - S. 170-179.
Sidorov S.V. Rules for the implementation of a systematic approach in the management of a developing school // Electronic journal “Knowledge. Understanding. Skill ». - 2010. - No. 2 - Pedagogy. Psychology.
Systems approach // Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
Joseph O'Connor The Art of Systems Thinking. - 2008.
Joseph O'Connor, Ian McDermott The Art of Systems Thinking: Essential Skills for Creativity and Problem Solving // "Alpina Publisher". - M ., 2011. - No. 978-5-9614-1589-6.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what the "Systemic Approach" is in other dictionaries:

The direction of the methodology is specially scientific. knowledge and social practice, which is based on the study of objects as systems. S. p. contributes to the adequate formulation of problems in specific sciences and the development of an effective strategy for them ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

systems approach- SYSTEMIC APPROACH direction of philosophy and methodology of science, specifically scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the study of objects as systems. S. p. focuses research on the disclosure of the integrity of the object and ... ... Encyclopedia of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science

SYSTEMS APPROACH- the direction of the methodology of scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the study of the object as a system. A systematic approach contributes to the adequate formulation of problems in specific sciences and the development of an effective strategy for them ... ... Ecological dictionary

In cultural studies methodol. basis of cultural studies as a science. Aimed at the integration of research. material accumulated decomp. areas of humanitarian knowledge that study culture (philosophy of culture, theory of culture, ... ... Encyclopedia of cultural studies

SYSTEMS APPROACH- a set of ways to consider the relationships and integrity of complex systems. S. p. is the subject of a special scientific discipline of the general theory of systems. Management can be defined as the ordering of a system. S. p. (or system analysis) appeared ... ... Russian encyclopedia of labor protection

systems approach- Study of the functional and structural relationships of natural phenomena, considered as a system in which the boundaries, possibilities of use, as well as the position and role in the next natural system in rank are determined. Syn.:… … Geography Dictionary

The direction of the methodology of scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the consideration of objects as systems; focuses research on revealing the integrity of the object, on identifying the diverse types of connections in it and reducing them to ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

English systemanalysis; German systemmethod. The direction of the methodology of scientific research, which is based on the consideration of a complex object as an integral set of elements in the totality of relations and connections between them. Antinazi. Encyclopedia ... ... Encyclopedia of sociology

SYSTEMS APPROACH- SYSTEMS APPROACH. The method of scientific knowledge, which is based on the consideration of objects as systems; involves the analysis of phenomena as a complex unity, not reducible to a simple sum of elements. S. p. replaced the widespread in ... ... A new dictionary of methodological terms and concepts (theory and practice of teaching languages)

The direction of the methodology of scientific research, which is based on the consideration of a complex object as an integral set of elements in the totality of relationships and connections between them Dictionary of business terms. Akademik.ru. 2001 ... Glossary of business terms