In the last blog post, we looked at what sustainability (or “sustain-ability”) might mean, for different systems in society – such as the food system, the energy system, a local community, a city, the world etc. We saw that for any system of interest, interesting questions could be raised. For example – does the structure of a system determine its dynamics? How and to what extent?
With interesting ideas like these on the plate, it’s worthwhile asking what a “science” of systems might look like. Is it possible to scientifically study systems? What is science, anyway? We couldn’t do better than consult the great Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Richard Feynman (who worked across a fascinating breadth of problems, parallelizing computation for the Manhattan project, solving the Challenger mystery, heralding quantum computation among other things!)
On page 1, volume 1 (!) of the iconic Feynman Lectures on Physics, we learn that:
The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth”.
The scientific “truth” above is what we might call a “theory”. There’s no “absolute” truth in science, it can be pivoted, move forward or be discarded at any time when tested by experiment. We could ask – who are the “theorists” and the “experimenters” of systems science for sustainability? Where do they fit in the scientific establishment? How do they work?
It seems to me that there are unique challenges for a real-world systems science for sustainability, given the way academia works today. One is that the researchers might have trouble accessing the ‘structure’ of specific ‘real’ systems of importance and interest to sustainability – such as complex corporate value chains, local communities with complex dynamics, entrepreneur networks, closed investor arenas, the institutional systems enacting and engaging public policy, the military-industrial complex etc. Many of these systems are opaque and not mapped out publicly, and are privileged arenas where, unless the scientist is an active participant or observer, there is no hope of a system representation of any verisimilitude.
Another challenge to systems science is in conducting ‘experiments’. These are the ‘sole judge’ of ‘truth’ in science, according to Feynman. How could a systems scientist conduct experiments on a real system? It seems unlikely unless they are active participants or advisors in arenas where they have access to leverage. Even then, the controllability and repeatability of any ‘experiments’ they could conduct, not to mention their ethics (!), seem to rest on uncertain grounds. Systems science certainly seems to be messier than particle physics!
I’d also like to draw attention to another fact – the scientists researching climate change (for example) have done an incredible job, no doubt. We now know more than ever about climate change. But science wasn’t able to stop climate change from happening. Is this perhaps because the systems of science as we know them do not support the science of systems required for sustainability?
I’m not the first to raise this concern, of course. Professor John Sterman of MIT, one of the foremost systems scientists of the world, and the creator of the Climate En-ROADS simulator, seems to concur. In a 2012 paper, he explores the systems science “in a fragmented academy and polarized world”, and emphasizes its central role in overcoming the “policy resistance” that confounds us at every turn.
It’s interesting that Sterman is a Professor at the MIT Sloan School of Managament, and has “written the book” on “Business Dynamics”. It seems that one of the foremost systems scientists in the world is also one of the foremost management consultants. Could this be the answer? Could consulting, or “problem-solving as a service”, provide the right arena for the scientifically minded individual to develop the ‘theory’ and conduct ‘experiments’ for the systems science? Consultants have been famously derided for lacking ‘skin in the game’, but it seems to me that they have the ‘mobility’ to study the system from different positions (not being ‘stuck’ in a particular part of it), and in their advisory capacity, to influence the ‘engagement of levers’ that the ‘experiments’ of systems science might call for.
Another approach might be to “change the way” in which science is ‘embedded’ in society – which my good friends at the echo network are undertaking with great enthusiasm and gusto. They do this by holding workshop consultations including leading “changemakers” from the academic, government, industrial, NGO, service and philanthropic sectors; these have already led to several valuable concept proposals that might certainly be engaged through consortium collaborations involving academia and the rest of the system in due course of time.
In this article, we’ve looked at “the science of systems” in relation to “the systems of science”. What are your thoughts about this? How might you imagine, explore, study, teach, share, improve and apply the “science of systems” in our fight to transition to a sustainable world?!
This article is part of a series exploring sustainability, systems science and the information society. Was there anything that jumped out? Any question you feel was missed? Please do share feedback, suggestions, and criticisms!
Leave a Reply