A systemic problem cannot be solved systemically

IF 0.3 0 PHILOSOPHY Cinta de Moebio Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.4067/s0717-554x2023000200079
Carlos Eduardo Maldonado
{"title":"A systemic problem cannot be solved systemically","authors":"Carlos Eduardo Maldonado","doi":"10.4067/s0717-554x2023000200079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper is a short essay that claims that a systemic problem cannot be rightly understood and even less solved on the same level, in the same framework or with the same tools that entail the very same problem. This is a radical variation of Einstein’s idea set out in the context of the Copenhaguen debate according to which a problem cannot be solved if we do not change the conditions in which the problem arose originally. More exactly, a systemic problem cannot be tackled and solved with tools, approaches and rods of the very same kind, level, nature of framework that define the problem. To truly tackle and solve any problem, the approach, tools, concepts, models, and the like need have a higher or heavier calibre so to speak than the problem. Otherwise, we do not solve a problem at all. At its best, we displace it. This essay argues that to solve any systemic problem a complexity endeavour is needed. Reasons for the insufficiency of systems science and about the rationale of complexity theory are provided.","PeriodicalId":54112,"journal":{"name":"Cinta de Moebio","volume":"128 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cinta de Moebio","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-554x2023000200079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper is a short essay that claims that a systemic problem cannot be rightly understood and even less solved on the same level, in the same framework or with the same tools that entail the very same problem. This is a radical variation of Einstein’s idea set out in the context of the Copenhaguen debate according to which a problem cannot be solved if we do not change the conditions in which the problem arose originally. More exactly, a systemic problem cannot be tackled and solved with tools, approaches and rods of the very same kind, level, nature of framework that define the problem. To truly tackle and solve any problem, the approach, tools, concepts, models, and the like need have a higher or heavier calibre so to speak than the problem. Otherwise, we do not solve a problem at all. At its best, we displace it. This essay argues that to solve any systemic problem a complexity endeavour is needed. Reasons for the insufficiency of systems science and about the rationale of complexity theory are provided.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
系统性问题无法通过系统解决
本文是一篇短文,声称一个系统性问题不可能被正确理解,更不可能在同一个层面上,在同一个框架下,或者用同样的工具来解决同样的问题。这是爱因斯坦在哥本哈根辩论中提出的观点的根本变化,根据爱因斯坦的观点,如果我们不改变问题最初产生的条件,问题就无法解决。更确切地说,一个系统性问题不可能用定义问题的框架的相同类型、级别和性质的工具、方法和工具来处理和解决。要真正处理和解决任何问题,方法、工具、概念、模型等都需要比问题本身更高或更重的水准。否则,我们根本解决不了问题。最好的情况是,我们取代了它。本文认为,要解决任何系统性问题,都需要对复杂性进行努力。提出了系统科学不足的原因和复杂性理论的基本原理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cinta de Moebio
Cinta de Moebio PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Cinta de Moebio publishes scientific articles and essays on epistemology of social science. The editorial experience of the magazine indicates that some academics send articles of philosophy, but of issues that are not related to the social sciences, as well as academics who sent the results of their research or projects in the social sciences, but its focus is not epistemology, which also are geared out to the purpose of the journal. The journal, put it in some way, it is in the dialogue of philosophy with social science and, therefore, both domains must be present in the articles.
期刊最新文献
Intervención en lo social y filosofía del contagio Una defensa restringida a la teoría de las preferencias reveladas Desacuerdos profundos, desacuerdos gratuitos y el riesgo de la postverdad A systemic problem cannot be solved systemically Describir y reflexionar: sobre las autodescripciones de la sociedad en la teoría de Niklas Luhmann
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1