International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics

"The set of viewpoints and instruments used by… researchers… to discover and organize coherence, derive consequences and connect ideas in order to construct their inner mappings and to orient themselves" (W KARGL, 1991, p.580).

KARGL's plural is symptomatic: Systemic epistemology is related to the activity of observers, and observed observers, comparing their views.

Similarly, in R. VALLÉE "Epistemo-praxeology" "… subjectivity is underlined, but objectivity is in no way excluded, where interactions between subjects imply observations, decisions and result in actions that modify the subjects themselves in a more or less significant way, according to issues. These objectivity perturbing interactions… can be reduced by efforts which become greater as the reduction is more radical. The best is to accept them, without ignoring their presence. This subjectivist epistemology cannot be separated (without an arbitrary decision) from a praxeology (1987, p.45-6).

KARGL and VALLÉE viewpoints are mainly constructivist ones. Besides coincidence, coherence and connectivity seeking are indeed quite systemic ways.

L.von BERTALANFFY considered that "The investigation of organized wholes of many variables requires new categories of interaction, transaction, organization, teleology, etc., with many problems arising for epistemology, mathematical models, and techniques. Furthermore, perception is not a reflection of "real things" (whatever their metaphysical status), and knowledge is not a simple approximation to "truth" or "reality". It is an interaction between knower and known, and is dependent on a multiplicity of factors of biological, psychological, cultural, linguistic, etc., nature… Against reductionism and theories declaring that reality is "nothing but" (a heap of physical particles, genes, reflexes, drives, or whatever the case may be), we see science as one of the "perspectives" that man with his biological, cultural and linguistic endowment and bondage has created to deal with the universe in which he is "thrown", or rather to which he is adapted owing to evolution and history" (1975, p.166-7).

The most significant parts of this text are probably the quotes used with "truth" and "reality", words whose absolute meaning is reflected upon within systemics.

See: "Ontological skepticism or agnosticism".

BERTALANFFY also stressed the concern of "systems philosophy" with values: "I do not see that these humanistic aspects can be evaded if general system theory is not to be limited to a restructured and fractional vision.

"Thus there is indeed a great and perhaps puzzling multiplicity of approaches and "trends" in general system theory. This is understandably uncomfortable to those who want a neat formalism, e.g. the textbook writer and the dogmatist" (p.167).

Accordingly T. SANDOZ writes: "Systemic epistemology supposes not only a new way of seeing problems or modelling systems properties, but another "culture". In fact, real –life problems, actions and methodological issues have to be developed together (co-evolve). In other terms, systems science, with the help of constructivist philosophy, should propose a new world of questions (what G. BATESON called a 3rd order change) and not only more pertinent models and formalizations" (1993, p.1543).

Systemic epistemology is thus essentially based on multiple reciprocal relationships. (see "Definition").

A typical case is the way chaos theory has modified the relation between the seemingly opposed concepts of determinism, and randomness. Randomness may mask some hidden determinism, and the opposite. Complementary models are thus admissible and frequently useful.

Systemic epistemology should also be evolutive. As, stated by D. CAMPBELL, organisms seek to increase their fit to their environment.(Quoted by E.von GLASERSFELD, in his paper "Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit und des Begriffs der Objektivität", 1991, p.27, in itself a constructivist manifest).

From another viewpoint, G. KLIR observes that systemics imply an "epistemological hierarchy, whose key feature "is that every system defined on some level in the hierarchy entails knowledge associated with all corresponding systems on lower levels and, at the same time, contains some knowledge that is not available in any of these lower systems.

"The number of levels in the epistemological hierarchy is potentially infinite. In praxis, however, only a small number of levels is considered" (1993, p.33).

An interesting example is J.G. MILLER's taxonomy of living systems, selecting 8 levels of complexity.