[Node to be completed]
The scientific process, like all evolutionary processes, is fundamentally
progressive: information (if not knowledge) accumulates. Although
classical, naive ideas about a monotonically growing body of knowledge
asymptotically approaching an empirical "truth" are largely discredited
(e.g.\cite{KUT62}), even the refutation of a scientific theory is the
result of an increase in the total quantity of information. But if this
growth in information is not balanced by a process which selects
information for its value in some context (e.g. through the
refutation and abandonment of theories), then science will ultimately
become untenable and unviable. The limit of selection of knowledge is consensus, the reduction to one accepted theory or premise.
All traditional scientific subjects rest on a process of consensus-building
by its practitioners, of the construction of a body of shared knowledge. (The necessity of social consensus for the construction of
viable social structures is discussed in \cite{TUV82}.)
Of course healthy and vibrant debate continues about many aspects
of theory in all disciplines, and is further necessary to continue it. But
of course it is exactly those active arguments which draw our attention to
the leading edge of a scientific field. Underneath, successful disciplines
rest on a large body of theory which is held consensually by virtually all practitioners. While the scientific method must admit of the
possibility of the refutation of e.g. quantum electrodynamics, plate
tectonics, or the gene theory the likelihood of such refutation is vanishingly small, and in
practice and effect the inductive inference to accept them as
"true" is admitted.
It is deeply regrettable that the history of Cybernetics and Systems Science has seen little
movement towards such a consensus. First, there is a long schism between
those who would regard "cybernetics" as primary and others who would
regard "systems theory" or "systems science" as primary \cite{KLG70,?}.
This view was not shared by the founders of the movement, but has resulted
in an unconscionable dilution of the efforts and strengths of
cyberneticians, perhaps even worse than the external forces that tend to be
brought to bear against interdisciplinary study.
On the contrary, we hold that Cybernetics and Systems Science are at most two aspects of
one field of study, dedicated to the concept of general systems as
complex informational networks, rich in feedback and in constant
interaction with each other and their environment. While the background and
work of the Principia Cybernetica Editors and other participants spans many aspects of this
field, and as noted above terminological convenience sometimes necessitates
the contrary, it is generally the policy of Principia Cybernetica to refer to the dual
fields of Cybernetics and Systems Science together, and thus to always stress their inherent
unity.
Our purpose is to explore and explicate this theoretical fabric, in the
expectation that it is such efforts which will yield a general and rigorous
science of cybernetic systems viable and feasible. It is the ultimate goal
of Principia Cybernetica to establish a theory which can be consensually held by all
cyberneticians. However, we do not see this consensus as a narrow,
normatively imposed, monolithic edifice. First, the consensus itself is
always open to debate and revision. Indeed, the very process that we
envision for the development of Principia Cybernetica is evolutionary and dynamic.
But also, we fully recognize that any achieved consensus will inevitably be
shared by a limited research community, perhaps only the Editors. As we
proceed, we must always remember that this effort is one project built by
individuals who are necessarily rooted in their own experiences, abilities,
and perspectives. Therefore, we regard our consensual construction as a cybernetic philosophy, not the cybernetic philosophy. To
distinguish our philosophy from others, we call it "Metasystem Transition Theory"
(MSTT), based as it is on the principle of the Metasystem Transition.
However, Principia Cybernetica is also a collaborative work, and will thus necessarily
involve people other than the Editors and others who both agree and
disagree with them. Furthermore, it is inevitable that differences will
flourish among the Editors, although hopefully about rather minor matters.
To facilitate these realities, portions (nodes) of Principia Cybernetica are divided into
three categories:
- Consensus Nodes:
- Ideas held in common by the the Editorial
Board.
- Individual Contribution Nodes:
- Further development of the ideas
expressed in the Consensus Nodes at greater depth. This development need
not be held consensually by Editors, but should be
similar in spirit and style to the Consensus Nodes.
- Discussion Nodes:
- Including defense or criticism of the
consensus or individual contribution nodes and development of other
ideas.
