One of the most important signs of natural scientific progress in our century is the integration of scientific knowledge. This integration manifests itself in many ways. This is the emergence of interdisciplinary branches, similar to biophysics, and the birth of sciences that study the totality of objects that were previously studied by various disciplines, and the synthesis of special theories on a single axiomatic basis, and the transfer of theoretical concepts developed in one field of phenomena to another, often very far from first, and more.

All these trends are a many-sided expression of the style of thinking in the science of the 20th century, on the eve of the new millennium. The realization of this fact served as an impetus for the analysis of methodological priorities that determine such a style, which led to the development of a cognitive strategy, which was called systems approach.

The concept of a system appeared in science relatively recently. It has many different definitions. Here is one of the simplest. System - it is a complex of interconnected and interacting elements; as a result of their interaction, a certain useful result is achieved.

Thus, the system consists of fractional parts - elements, and these elements are not a random collection, but somehow interact. Therefore, there are certain connections between them.

It is very important to note the following feature. There are systems of different orders. In this case, a lower-order system acts as an element of a higher-order system. It turns out something similar to nesting dolls.

So, for example, if we consider the "humanity" system, then the individual person is an element of this system. In turn, the human body is also a system in which an organ such as the heart, for example, is an element. Going further, we can consider the “heart” system, one of the elements of which is the sinus node, and the cells of which it consists are elements of the “sinus node” system, etc.

System classifications

Classification of systems can be carried out according to various bases of division. First of all, all systems can be divided into material and ideal, or conceptual. To material systems includes the vast majority of systems of inorganic, organic and social nature. All material systems, in turn, can be divided into main classes according to the form of motion of matter. , which they represent. In this regard, one usually distinguishes between gravitational, physical, chemical, biological, geological, ecological and social systems. Among the material systems, there are also artificial, specially created by society, technical and technological systems that serve to produce material goods.

All these systems are called material because their content and properties do not depend on the cognizing subject, who can more deeply, more fully and accurately cognize their properties and patterns in the conceptual systems he creates. The latter are called ideal because they represent a reflection of material, objectively existing systems in nature and society.

The most typical example of a conceptual system is a scientific theory, which expresses, with the help of its concepts, generalizations and laws, objective, real connections and relationships that exist in specific natural and social systems.

Other classifications, as the basis for division, consider signs that characterize the state of the system, its behavior, interaction with the environment, purposefulness and predictability of behavior, and other properties.

The simplest classification of systems is their division into static and dynamic , which is to a certain extent conditional, since everything in the world is in constant change and movement. Since, however, in many phenomena we distinguish between statics and dynamics, it seems appropriate to consider specifically also static systems.

Among dynamic systems, deterministic and stochastic (probabilistic) systems are usually distinguished. Such a classification is based on the nature of predicting the dynamics of the behavior of systems. As noted in previous chapters, predictions based on the study of the behavior of deterministic systems are quite unambiguous and reliable. Such systems are the dynamical systems studied in mechanics and astronomy. In contrast, stochastic systems, which are most often called probabilistic-statistical systems, deal with massive or repetitive random events and phenomena. Therefore, the predictions in them are not reliable, but only probabilistic.

According to the nature of interaction with the environment, as noted above, open and closed (isolated) systems are distinguished, and sometimes partially open systems are also distinguished. . Such a classification is basically conditional, because the concept of closed systems arose in classical thermodynamics as a certain abstraction, which turned out to be inconsistent with objective reality, in which the vast majority, if not all, of systems are open.

Many difficult organized systems encountered in the social world are purposeful , i.e., focused on achieving one or more goals, and in different subsystems and at different levels of the organization, these goals can be different and even come into conflict with each other.

The classification of systems makes it possible to consider the set of systems existing in science retrospectively and, therefore, is of great interest to the researcher.

When studying any science and solving its problems, it is often necessary to determine at the level of which system the consideration should be carried out.

The specificity of the worldview of a mathematician, physicist, chemist, biologist at this level is only a special case of the dialectics of knowledge, and the subject content of these sciences is considered as an illustration of the dialectics of nature. Therefore, for representatives of each of these disciplines who are interested in constructive methodological methods for solving their specific problems, a less abstract, but more meaningful arsenal of methodological tools is needed, focused on a specific area of science and, most importantly, contributing to the choice of a rational strategy for scientific research. These requirements are met by a systematic approach.

For a creative perception of this methodological concept, it is necessary to follow its formation in the process of development of natural science.

The attention of researchers to the systems approach was attracted by the works of L. Bertalanffy on the general theory of systems. After that, system analysis began to be increasingly involved in various fields of science.

At present, the systematic approach is the most rational style of thinking in the study of wildlife objects. Systemic views synthesize in themselves the entire methodological experience of natural science in the past. Revealing the one-sidedness of previously existing cognitive strategies, the systematic approach determines their place and role in the process of cognition of the surrounding world at the present stage.

The emergence of a systematic approach, undoubtedly the central methodological direction of modern science, is often associated with overcoming the crisis of scientific knowledge at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. It was at this time that serious contradictions between the level of accumulated knowledge and the methodology of scientific knowledge. In various fields of science, new ideas, concepts, and ideas appeared that radically differed from the prevailing way of thinking. The progressive nature of this trend lay in the fact that the spokesmen of these new views were guided by the elements of that direction in the progress of knowledge that had been widely developed in our century, maturing within the framework of the existing paradigm. The main feature of this direction in terms of content should be called the integration of scientific knowledge.

A person in the process of his development explores and studies a huge variety of objects, phenomena and processes of the surrounding world. The easiest and most natural way to get an idea of an unfamiliar object is to find out what elements it consists of. If we are talking about a process, it is useful to know what stages it consists of and whether it can be represented as a set of simpler movements. In practice, this led to finding a common elementary basis for objects of a diverse nature.

in chemistry this common basis turned out to be the chemical elements, which were then organized into the periodic table of Mendeleev (the discovery of the periodic law marked the beginning of a new stage in the development of chemical representations - synthetic).

In physics such elementary entities were the types of force interaction and elementary particles that form atoms.

The formation of biology modern times began with the study of the diversity of biological forms of animal and plant origin, and then the search for signs by which this diversity could be systematized.

The emergence of physiology preceded by an anatomical study of the structure of the human body and animals. A significant role in the subsequent development of biology was played by the cellular theory of the structure of organisms. Exactly holistic approach was the methodological basis of the idea of the unity of the organic world in its evolutionary development.

Long before the emergence of a systematic approach, an understanding began to form that for cognition it was not enough to focus only on this method.

The first significant step in this direction was made by I. Kant, pointing to the dependence of the process of cognition not only on the object of study, but also on the cognizing subject, his way of thinking . According to Kant, cognition is not a simple reflection of reality, but a creative comprehension that requires constructive mental activity.

The next step was taken by G. Hegel. Hegelian dialectics was essentially a new way of thinking, oriented towards the search for internal sources of existence and development of objects, assuming the dialectical unity of the whole and its parts.

New methodological approaches were outlined at the same time in physics. They were associated with a deepening of ideas about causality. The previously dominant Laplacian determinism - the belief that ultimately any processes are predetermined by unambiguous causal relationships - has given way to the probabilistic principle of explanation.

Finally, a major event took place in the mathematics of the 19th century, proclaiming the concept of symmetry, which became one of the methodological foundations of the theoretical-physical thinking of our century.

In 1872 F. Klein's Erlangen Program was published. The "program" put forward a synthetic principle that united on a single conceptual basis various geometries (Euclidean, non-Euclidean, projective, conformal, etc.), previously studied in isolation. Separate mathematical directions (elements) were covered by interconnections and formed a structural whole, which already at the beginning of the 20th century acquired an ontological (from the Greek ontos - a being. and logos - a teaching, a word) content.

So, by the beginning of the 20th century, all the prerequisites for the intensive development of general systems theory were in place.

Theory of the systems approach

The systems movement, which became widespread in science after the Second World War, aims to provide a holistic view of the world, do away with a narrow disciplinary approach to its knowledge and promote the deployment of many programs for the interdisciplinary study of complex problems. It was within the framework of this movement that such important areas of interdisciplinary research as cybernetics and synergetics were formed.

Systems theory as presented by an Austrian theoretical biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972) and his followers, focuses in general on maintaining and preserving the stability and stability of dynamic systems. It is known that the cybernetic self-organization of technical control systems is aimed at maintaining their dynamic stability through negative feedback. A new, more general, dynamical theory of systems should obviously be based on the fundamental results that have been achieved in science and, above all, in the theory of dissipative structures. Without this, it is impossible to understand the mechanism of the emergence of a new order and structures, and, consequently, the true evolution of systems associated with the emergence of a new one in development. That is why modern authors have turned to the theory of dissipative structures and synergetics to explain the importance of a systematic approach in the process of cognition.

In the most general and broad sense of the word, a systematic study of objects and phenomena of the world around us is understood as a method in which they are considered as parts or elements of a certain integral formation. These parts or elements, interacting with each other, determine new, integral properties of the system, which are absent from its individual elements. With this understanding of the system, we constantly met in the course of presenting all the previous material. However, it is applicable only to characterize systems consisting of homogeneous parts and having a well-defined structure. Nevertheless, in practice, systems are often referred to as sets of heterogeneous objects combined into a single whole to achieve a specific goal.

The main thing that defines the system is the interconnection and interaction of parts within the framework of the whole. If such an interaction exists, then it is permissible to speak of a system, although the degree of interaction of its parts may be different. It should also be noted that each individual object, object or phenomenon can be considered as a certain integrity, consisting of parts, and explored as a system.

In an implicit form, the systems approach in its simplest form has been used in science from the very beginning of its inception. Even when she was engaged in the accumulation and generalization of the initial factual material, the idea of systematization and unity underlay her searches and the construction of scientific knowledge.

Moscow State University

Information technologies, radio engineering and

Electronics (MGUPI)

Essay

Topic: "Systematicity and its role in science"

1st year students, KB-9 group (38.03.05),

Faculty of Correspondence and Distance Education

Guseva Olga Andreevna

scientific adviser

Kolchin Andrey Igorevich

MGUPI 2016

Moscow 2016

Introduction………………………………………………p.

System approach: the content of the concept, the main points,

aspects, levels and principles………….........……………………………...........

The history of the formation of a systematic approach as a method of scientific research…………………………………………………………………..….

Conclusion………………………………………………………...........page 12

References …………………………………………........p.14

INTRODUCTION

In our time, an unprecedented progress in knowledge is taking place, which, on the one hand, has led to the discovery and accumulation of many new facts, information from various areas of life, and thus confronted humanity with the need to systematize them, to find the common in the particular, the constant in the changing. The system approach is a universal research method based on the perception of the object under study as something whole, consisting of interrelated parts, and being at the same time a part of a higher order system. The systems approach allows building multifactorial models that are typical for the socio-economic systems to which organizations belong. The purpose of the systems approach is that it forms the systems thinking necessary for the leaders of organizations, which increases the effectiveness of decisions made. The systemic approach is usually understood as a part of dialectics (the science of development) that studies objects as systems, i.e. as something whole. Therefore, the systems approach can be generally represented as a way of thinking in relation to organization and management. When considering a systematic approach as a method of studying organizations, one should take into account the fact that the object of study is always multifaceted and requires a comprehensive, integrated approach, therefore specialists of various profiles should be involved in the study. Comprehensiveness in an integrated approach expresses a particular requirement, while in a systematic approach it is one of the methodological principles.

SYSTEM APPROACH: CONTENT OF THE CONCEPT, MAIN ASPECTS, LEVELS AND PRINCIPLES

An important place in modern science occupies a systematic method of research or (as is often said) a systematic approach.

This method is both old and new. It is quite old, since its forms and components, such as the approach to objects from the point of view of the interaction of the part and the whole, the formation of unity and integrity, the consideration of the system as the law of the structure of a given set of components existed, as they say, from the ages, but they were scattered. The special development of a systematic approach began in the middle of the 20th century with the transition to the study and practical use of complex multicomponent systems.

Before discussing the evolution of the systems approach over time, we will try to define the concept of "systems approach" itself.

A systematic approach is a direction of research methodology, which is based on the consideration of an object as an integral set of elements in the totality of relationships and connections between them, that is, consideration of an object as a system.

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 concepts of the system approach: "system", "element", "composition", "structure", "functions", "functioning" and "goal". We will open them for a complete understanding of the systems approach.

System- an object whose functioning, necessary and sufficient to achieve its goal, is provided (under certain environmental conditions) by a combination of its constituent elements that are in expedient relationships with each other.

Element- an internal initial unit, a functional part of the system, whose own structure is not considered, but only its properties necessary for the construction and operation of the system are taken into account. The "elementary" nature of an element lies in the fact that it is the limit of division of a given system, since its internal structure is ignored in a given system, and it acts in it as such a phenomenon, which in philosophy is characterized as simple. Although in hierarchical systems, an element can also be considered as a system. And what distinguishes an element from a part is that the word "part" indicates only the internal belonging of something to an object, and "element" always denotes a functional unit. Every element is a part, but not every part - element.

Compound- a complete (necessary and sufficient) set of elements of the system, taken outside its structure, that is, a set of elements.

Structure- the relationship between the elements in the system, necessary and sufficient for the system to achieve its goal.

Functions- ways to achieve the goal, based on the appropriate properties of the system.

Functioning- the process of implementing the appropriate properties of the system, ensuring its achievement of the goal.

Target is what the system must achieve based on its performance. The goal may be a certain state of the system or another product of its functioning. The importance of the goal as a system-forming factor has already been noted. Let us emphasize it again: an object acts as a system only in relation to its purpose. The goal, requiring certain functions for its achievement, determines through them the composition and structure of the system. For example, is a pile of building materials a system? Any absolute answer would be wrong. Regarding the purpose of housing - no. But as a barricade, shelter, probably yes. A pile of building materials cannot be used as a house, even if all the necessary elements are present, for the reason that there are no necessary spatial relationships between the elements, that is, structure. And without a structure, they are only a composition - a set of necessary elements.

The focus of the systematic approach is not the study of the elements as such, but primarily the structure of the object and the place of the elements in it. In general, the main points of the system approach are as follows:

1. The study of the phenomenon of integrity and the establishment of the composition of the whole, its elements.

2. Study of the regularities of connecting elements into a system, i.e. object structure, which forms the core of the system approach.

3. In close connection with the study of the structure, it is necessary to study the functions of the system and its components, i.e. structural-functional analysis of the system.

4. Study of the genesis of the system, its boundaries and connections with other systems.

A special place in the methodology of science is occupied by methods for constructing and substantiating a theory. Among them, an important place is occupied by explanation - the use of more specific, in particular, empirical knowledge to understand more general knowledge. The explanation could be:

a) structural, for example, how the motor works;

b) functional: how the motor works;

c) causal: why and how it works.

In constructing a theory of complex objects, an important role is played by the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

At the initial stage, cognition proceeds from the real, objective, concrete to the development of abstractions that reflect certain aspects of the object being studied. By dissecting an object, thinking, as it were, mortifies it, presenting the object as a dismembered, dismembered scalpel of thought.

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), an input (resources), a connection 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:

1. 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;

2. 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 the internal organization (structure) of the object under study;

3. system-functional, involving the identification of functions for the performance of which the corresponding objects are created and exist;

4. system-target, meaning the need for a scientific definition of the objectives of the study, their mutual linking with each other;

5. system-resource, which consists in a thorough identification of the resources required to solve a particular problem;

6. system-integration, consisting in determining the totality of the qualitative properties of the system, ensuring its integrity and peculiarity;

7. system-communication, meaning the need to identify the external relations of a given object with others, that is, its relations with the environment;

8. system-historical, allowing to find out the conditions at the time of the emergence of the object under study, the stages it has passed, state of the art, as well as possible development prospects.

The main assumptions of the systems approach:

There are systems in the world

2. System description is true

3. Systems interact with each other, and, therefore, everything in this world is interconnected

Basic principles of a systematic approach:

Integrity, which allows considering the system at the same time as a whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels.

Hierarchy of the structure, i.e. the presence of a plurality (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.

Multiplicity, which allows using a variety of cybernetic, economic and mathematical models to describe individual elements and the system as a whole.

Levels of a systematic approach:

There are several types of systems approach: integrated, structural, holistic. It is necessary to separate these concepts.

An integrated approach implies the presence of a set of object components or applied research methods. At the same time, neither the relations between the components, nor the completeness of their composition, nor the relations of the components with the whole are taken into account.

The structural approach involves the study of the composition (subsystems) and structures of the object. With this approach, there is still no correlation between subsystems (parts) and the system (whole). The decomposition of systems into subsystems is not unique.

With a holistic approach, relationships are studied not only between parts of an object, but also between parts and the whole.

From the word "system" you can form others - "systemic", "systematize", "systematic". In a narrow sense, the system approach is understood as the application of system methods to study real physical, biological, social, and other systems. The system approach in a broad sense includes, in addition, the use of system methods for solving the problems of systematics, planning and organizing a complex and systematic experiment.

A systematic approach contributes to the adequate formulation of problems in specific sciences and the development of an effective strategy for their study. The methodology, the specificity of the system approach is determined by the fact that it focuses the study 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 1970s were marked by a boom in the use of the systems approach throughout the world. A systematic approach was applied in all spheres of human existence. However, practice has shown that in systems with high entropy (uncertainty), which is largely due to "non-systemic factors" (human influence), a systematic approach may not give the expected effect. The last remark testifies that "the world is not so systemic" as it was represented by the founders of the systems approach.

Professor Prigogine A.I. defines the limits of the system approach as follows:

1. Consistency means certainty. But the world is uncertain. Uncertainty is essentially present in the reality of human relations, goals, information, situations. It cannot be overcome to the end, and sometimes fundamentally dominates certainty. The market environment is very mobile, unstable and only to some extent modeled, cognizable and controllable. The same is true for the behavior of organizations and workers.

2. Consistency means consistency, but, say, value orientations in an organization and even one of its participants are sometimes contradictory to the point of incompatibility and do not form any system. Of course, various motivations introduce some consistency into service behavior, but always only in part. We often find this in the totality of management decisions, and even in management groups, teams.

3. Consistency means integrity, but, say, the client base of wholesalers, retailers, banks, etc. does not form any integrity, since it cannot always be integrated and each client has several suppliers and can change them endlessly. There is no integrity in the information flows in the organization. Isn't it the same with the resources of the organization?

THE HISTORY OF THE SYSTEM APPROACH AS A METHOD OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

The desire for a holistic coverage of the object of study, to systemic organization knowledge, which is always characteristic of scientific knowledge, appears as a problem already in ancient philosophy and science. But until the middle of the 19th century. the explanation of the phenomenon of integrity was either limited to the level of specific objects (such as a living organism), the internal integrity of which was completely obvious and did not require special evidence, or was transferred to the sphere of speculative natural-philosophical constructions; the idea of system organization was considered only in relation to knowledge (a rich tradition was accumulated in this area, coming from the Stoics and associated with the identification of the principles of the logical organization of knowledge systems). A similar approach to the interpretation of systemicity corresponded to the leading cognitive principles of classical science, primarily elementarism, which proceeded from the need to find a simple, elementary basis for any object and, thus, required the reduction of the complex to the simple, and mechanism, which was based on the postulate of a single principle of explanation for all spheres of reality and putting forward unambiguous determinism for the role of such a principle.

The tasks of adequate reproduction in knowledge of complex social and biological objects of reality were first set in scientific form by K. Marx and C. Darwin. "Capital" by K. Marx served as a classic example of a systematic study of society as a whole and various spheres of social life, and the principles of studying the organic whole embodied in it (ascent from the abstract to the concrete, the unity of analysis and synthesis, logical and historical, the identification of heterogeneous connections in the object and their interactions, the synthesis of structural-functional and genetic ideas about an object, etc.) were the most important component of the dialectical-materialistic methodology of scientific knowledge. The theory of biological evolution created by Darwin not only introduced the idea of development into natural science, but also approved the idea of the reality of superorganismal levels of life organization - the most important prerequisite for systems thinking in biology.

In the 20th century systems approach occupies one of the leading places in scientific knowledge. The prerequisite for its penetration into science was, first of all, the 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: knowledge begins to operate with systems, the boundaries and composition of which are far from obvious and require special research in each individual case. In the 2nd half of the 20th century. tasks similar in type also arise in social practice: technology is increasingly turning into the technology of complex systems, where diverse technical and other means are closely connected with the solution of a single large problem (for example, space projects, man-machine systems of various kinds, see the system "man and machine"); in social management, instead of the previously dominant local, sectoral tasks and principles, the leading role is played by large complex problems that require close interconnection of economic, social and other aspects of public life (for example, the problems of creating modern industrial complexes, urban development, environmental protection measures).

The change in the type of scientific and practical problems is accompanied by the emergence of general scientific and special scientific concepts, which are characterized by the use in one form or another of the main ideas of the system approach. So, in the teachings of V. I. Vernadsky about the biosphere and the noosphere, scientific knowledge is proposed new type objects - global systems. A. A. Bogdanov and a number of other researchers begin to develop a theory of organization that is of wide significance. The allocation of a special class of systems - information and control - served as the foundation for the emergence of cybernetics. In biology, systems ideas are used in environmental studies, in the study of higher nervous activity, in the analysis of biological organization, in systematics. These same ideas are applied in some psychological concepts; in particular, Gestalt psychology introduces a fruitful idea of the psychological structures that characterize problem-solving activities; the cultural-historical concept of L. S. Vygotsky, developed by his students, bases the psychological explanation on the concept of activity, interpreted in a systemic way; in the concept of J. Piaget, the concept of the system of operations of the intellect plays a fundamental role. In economics, the principles of a systematic approach are gaining ground, especially in connection with the tasks of optimal economic planning, which require the construction of multicomponent models of social systems at different levels. In management practice, the ideas of a systematic approach are crystallized in the methodological means of system analysis.

Along with the development of a systematic approach "in breadth", that is, the spread of its principles to new areas of scientific knowledge and practice, since the middle of the 20th century. the systematic development of these principles in methodological terms begins. Initially, methodological studies were grouped around the problems of constructing a general theory of systems (the first program for its construction and the term itself were proposed by L. Bertalanffy). However, the development of research in this direction has shown that the totality of the problems of the methodology of system research significantly exceeds the scope of the tasks of the general theory of systems. To designate this wider scope of methodological problems, the term "system approach" is used, which has been used since the 1970s. firmly entered into scientific use (in scientific literature different countries use other terms to refer to this concept - "system analysis", " system methods", "system-structural approach", " general theory systems"; at the same time, a specific, narrower meaning is assigned to the concepts of system analysis and general systems theory; with this in mind, the term "system approach" should be considered more accurate, moreover, it is most common in the literature in Russian).

The systems approach does not exist in the form of a strict methodological concept: it performs its heuristic functions, remaining a not very rigidly connected 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 the systems approach make it possible to fix the insufficiency of old, traditional subjects of study for setting and solving new problems. Secondly, the concepts and principles of the systems approach significantly help to build new subjects of study, setting the structural and typological characteristics of these subjects, and so on. contributing to the formation of constructive research programs.

The significance of the critical function of the new principles of knowledge was convincingly demonstrated by Marx, whose "Capital" is by no means accidentally subtitled "Critique of Political Economy": it is precisely the consistent critique of the principles classical political economy made it possible to reveal the narrowness and insufficiency of its original content-conceptual base and clear the way for the construction of a new subject of this science, adequate to the tasks of studying the integral functioning and development of the capitalist economy. The solution of similar problems is an important prerequisite for the construction of modern system concepts. For example, the transition to the design of modern technical systems and the emergence of systems engineering (which was one of the important concretizations of the systems approach in the field of modern technology) was preceded by the awareness and criticism of the approach that dominated the previous stages of technology development, when the "unit" of design was a separate technical means(a machine, a separate tool, etc.), and not an integral function, as it has become now. A condition for the development of effective measures to protect the environment was a very consistent criticism of the previous approach to the development of production, which ignored the systemic connection between society and nature. The assertion of systemic principles in modern biology was accompanied by a critical analysis of the one-sidedness of the narrowly evolutionary approach to living nature, which did not allow fixing the important independent role of biology and organization factors. Thus, this function of the systematic approach is constructive in nature and is associated primarily with the discovery of the incompleteness of the available subjects of study, their inconsistency with new scientific problems, and also with the identification of the insufficiency of the principles of explanation and methods of constructing knowledge used in a particular branch of science and practice. The effective implementation of this work presupposes the consistent implementation of the principle of continuity in the development of knowledge systems.

The positive role of the systems approach can be reduced to the following main points. Firstly, the concepts and principles of the system approach reveal a wider cognitive reality compared to that which was fixed in the previous knowledge (for example, the concept of the biosphere in the concept of Vernadsky, the concept of biogeocenosis in modern ecology, the optimal approach in economic management and planning).

Secondly, the systematic approach contains a new scheme of explanation compared to the previous ones, which is based on the search for specific mechanisms of the integrity of the object and the identification of a fairly complete typology of its connections. The implementation of this function is usually associated with great difficulties: for a truly effective study, it is not enough to fix the presence of heterogeneous relationships in an object; successfully solved, for example, in ecology due to the introduction of the concept of food chains of communities, which made it possible to establish measurable relationships between their various elements).

Thirdly, it follows from the thesis about the variety of types of relations of an object, which is important for the system approach, that a complex object admits not one, but several dismemberments. At the same time, the criterion for the reasonable choice of the most adequate division of the object under study can be the extent to which, as a result, it is possible to construct an operational "unit" of analysis (such as, for example, a commodity in Marx's economic doctrine or biogeocenosis in ecology), which allows fixing the integral properties of the object, its structure and dynamics.

The breadth of the principles and basic concepts of the systems approach puts it in close connection with other general scientific methodological areas of modern science. In terms of its cognitive attitudes, the systematic approach has much in common with structuralism and structural-functional analysis, with which it is related not only by operating with the concepts of structure and function, but also by an emphasis on the study of heterogeneous relationships of an object; At the same time, the principles of the systematic approach have a broader and more flexible content; they have not been subjected to too rigid conceptualization and absolutization, as was the case with some lines in the development of these areas.

Being in principle a general scientific direction of methodology and not directly solving philosophical problems, the systematic approach faces the need for a philosophical interpretation of its provisions. The very history of the formation of the systems approach convincingly shows that it is inextricably linked with the fundamental ideas of materialistic dialectics, which is often recognized by many Western scientists. It is dialectical materialism that provides the most adequate philosophical and ideological interpretation of the systemic approach: while methodologically fertilizing it, it also enriches its own content; at the same time, however, relations of subordination are constantly preserved between dialectics and a systematic approach, since they represent different levels of methodology; the systematic approach acts as a concretization of the principles of dialectics.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, we can conclude that for hotel service and tourism managers, the value of a systems approach is that they can more easily coordinate their specific work with the work of the organization as a whole if they understand the system and their role in it. This is especially important for the CEO, because the systems approach encourages him to maintain the necessary balance between the needs of individual departments and the goals of the entire organization. It makes him think about the flow of information going through the whole system and also emphasizes the importance of communication. A systems approach helps to identify the reasons for making ineffective decisions, it also provides tools and techniques for improving planning and control.

A modern leader must have systems thinking, because:

The manager must perceive, process and systematize a huge amount of information and knowledge that are necessary for making managerial decisions;

The manager needs a systematic methodology, with the help of which he could correlate one direction of his organization's activity with another, and prevent quasi-optimization of managerial decisions;

The manager must see the forest behind the trees, the general behind the private, rise above everyday life and realize what place his organization occupies in the external environment, how it interacts with another, larger system, of which it is a part;

A systematic approach to management allows the manager to more productively implement his main functions: forecasting, planning, organization, leadership, control.

Systems thinking not only contributed to the development of new ideas about the organization (in particular, special attention was paid to the integrated nature of the enterprise, as well as the paramount importance and importance of information systems), but also provided the development of useful mathematical tools and techniques that greatly facilitate managerial decision-making, the use of more advanced planning and control systems. Thus, a systematic approach allows us to comprehensively evaluate any production and economic activity and the activity of the management system at the level of specific characteristics. This will help to analyze any situation within a single system, to identify the nature of the input, process and output problems. The application of a systematic approach allows the best way to organize the decision-making process at all levels in the management system.

Despite all the positive results, systems thinking has still not fulfilled its most important purpose. The claim that it will allow the application of modern scientific methods to management has not yet been realized. This is partly because large-scale systems are very complex. It is not easy to grasp the many ways in which the external environment influences the internal organization. The interaction of many subsystems within the enterprise is not fully understood. The boundaries of systems are very difficult to establish, too broad a definition will lead to the accumulation of costly and unusable data, and too narrow - to a partial solution of problems. It will not be easy to formulate the questions that will arise before the enterprise, to determine with accuracy the information needed in the future. Even if the best and most logical solution is found, it may not be feasible. However, a systematic approach provides an opportunity to better understand how the enterprise works.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Blauberg, I. V. Formation and essence of the system approach [Text] / V. I. Blauberg, E. G. Yudin. - M.: Nauka, 1973.

2. Rakitov, A.I. Philosophical problems of science: System approach [Text] / AI Rakitov. - M.: Thought, 1977.

3. Uemov, A.I. System approach and general systems theory [Text] /A. I. Uemov. - M.: Nauka, 1978.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal Agency for Education

State educational institution higher professional education

"Ural State Pedagogical University"

Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Service

Department of Sociology and Psychology of Service

SYSTEMS APPROACHIN SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

Executor: Gaab N, V. student of group 501 of the faculty of tourism and hotel service

Scientific adviser:

Belyaeva L. A. Doctor of Philosophy, Professor

Yekaterinburg 2008

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………..........…..

1. System approach: the content of the concept, main points,

aspects, levels and principles………….........……………………………...........

2. The history of the formation of a systematic approach as a method of scientific research……………………………………………………………………..….

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………...............……....

BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………...............…….

INTRODUCTION

The system approach is a universal research method based on the perception of the object under study as something whole, consisting of interrelated parts, and being at the same time a part of a higher order system. The systems approach allows building multifactorial models that are typical for the socio-economic systems to which organizations belong. The purpose of the systems approach is that it forms the systems thinking necessary for the leaders of organizations, which increases the effectiveness of decisions made.

The systemic approach is usually understood as a part of dialectics (the science of development) that studies objects as systems, i.e. as something whole. Therefore, the systems approach can be generally represented as a way of thinking in relation to organization and management.

When considering a systematic approach as a method of studying organizations, one should take into account the fact that the object of study is always multifaceted and requires a comprehensive, integrated approach, therefore specialists of various profiles should be involved in the study. Comprehensiveness in an integrated approach expresses a particular requirement, while in a systematic approach it is one of the methodological principles.

1. SYSTEM APPROACH: CONTENT OF THE CONCEPT, MAIN ASPECTS, LEVELS AND PRINCIPLES

A significant place in modern science is occupied by a systematic method of research or (as they often say) a systematic approach.

Before discussing the evolution of the systems approach over time, we will try to define the concept of "systems approach" itself.

Systems approach-- the direction of the research methodology, which is based on the consideration of the object as an integral set of elements in the totality of relations and connections between them, that is, the consideration of the object as a system.

Basic concepts of the system approach: "system", "element", "composition", "structure", "functions", "functioning" and "goal". We will open them for a complete understanding of the systems approach.

System - an object whose functioning, necessary and sufficient to achieve its goal, is provided (under certain environmental conditions) by a combination of its constituent elements that are in expedient relationships with each other.

Element - an internal initial unit, a functional part of the system, whose own structure is not considered, but only its properties necessary for the construction and operation of the system are taken into account. The “elementary” nature of an element lies in the fact that it is the limit of division of a given system, since its internal structure is ignored in this system, and it acts in it as such a phenomenon, which in philosophy is characterized as simple. Although in hierarchical systems, an element can also be considered as a system. And what distinguishes an element from a part is that the word "part" indicates only the internal belonging of something to an object, and "element" always denotes a functional unit. Every element is a part, but not every part - element.

Compound - a complete (necessary and sufficient) set of elements of the system, taken outside its structure, that is, a set of elements.

Structure - the relationship between the elements in the system, necessary and sufficient for the system to achieve its goal.

Functions - ways to achieve the goal, based on the appropriate properties of the system.

Functioning - the process of implementing the appropriate properties of the system, ensuring its achievement of the goal.

Target is what the system must achieve based on its performance. The goal may be a certain state of the system or another product of its functioning. The importance of the goal as a system-forming factor has already been noted. Let's emphasize it again: an object acts as a system only in relation to its purpose. The goal, requiring certain functions for its achievement, determines through them the composition and structure of the system. For example, is a pile of building materials a system? Any absolute answer would be wrong. Regarding the purpose of housing - no. But as a barricade, shelter, probably yes. A pile of building materials cannot be used as a house, even if all the necessary elements are present, for the reason that there are no necessary spatial relationships between the elements, that is, structure. And without a structure, they are only a composition - a set of necessary elements.

The focus of the systematic approach is not the study of the elements as such, but primarily the structure of the object and the place of the elements in it. On the whole main points of a systematic approach the following:

1. The study of the phenomenon of integrity and the establishment of the composition of the whole, its elements.

2. Study of the regularities of connecting elements into a system, i.e. object structure, which forms the core of the system approach.

3. In close connection with the study of the structure, it is necessary to study the functions of the system and its components, i.e. structural-functional analysis of the system.

4. Study of the genesis of the system, its boundaries and connections with other systems.

a) structural, for example, how the motor works;

b) functional: how the motor works;

c) causal: why and how it works.

In constructing a theory of complex objects, an important role is played by the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

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 aspects:

3. system-functional, involving the identification of functions for the performance of which the corresponding objects are created and exist;

4. system-target, meaning the need for a scientific definition of the objectives of the study, their mutual linking with each other;

5. system-resource, which consists in a thorough identification of the resources required to solve a particular problem;

6. system-integration, consisting in determining the totality of the qualitative properties of the system, ensuring its integrity and peculiarity;

7. system-communication, meaning the need to identify the external relations of a given object with others, that is, its relations with the environment;

8. system-historical, which allows to find out the conditions in the time of occurrence of the object under study, the stages it has passed, the current state, as well as possible development prospects.

The main assumptions of the systems approach:

1. There are systems in the world

2. System description is true

3. Systems interact with each other, and, therefore, everything in this world is interconnected

Basic principles of a systematic 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, i.e. the presence of a plurality (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, allowing to analyze the elements of the system and their interrelationships 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.

Levels of a systematic approach:

There are several types of systems approach: integrated, structural, holistic. It is necessary to separate these concepts.

With a holistic approach, relationships are studied not only between parts of an object, but also between parts and the whole.

Professor Prigogine A.I. defines the limits of the system approach as follows:

2. HISTORY OF FORMATION OF THE SYSTEM APPROACH,AS A METHOD OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

The desire for a holistic coverage of the object of study, for the systematic organization of knowledge, which is always characteristic of scientific knowledge, appears as a problem already in ancient philosophy and science. But until the middle of the 19th century. the explanation of the phenomenon of integrity was either limited to the level of specific objects (such as a living organism), the internal integrity of which was completely obvious and did not require special evidence, or was transferred to the sphere of speculative natural-philosophical constructions; the idea of system organization was considered only in relation to knowledge (a rich tradition was accumulated in this area, coming from the Stoics and associated with the identification of the principles of the logical organization of knowledge systems). A similar approach to the interpretation of systemicity corresponded to the leading cognitive principles of classical science, primarily elementarism, which proceeded from the need to find a simple, elementary basis for any object and, thus, required the reduction of the complex to the simple, and mechanism, which was based on the postulate of a single principle of explanation for all spheres of reality and putting forward unambiguous determinism for the role of such a principle.

In the 20th century The systematic approach occupies one of the leading places in scientific knowledge. The prerequisite for its penetration into science was, first of all, the 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: knowledge begins to operate with systems, the boundaries and composition of which are far from obvious and require special research in each individual case. In the 2nd half of the 20th century. tasks similar in type also arise in social practice: technology is increasingly turning into the technology of complex systems, where diverse technical and other means are closely connected with the solution of a single large task (for example, space projects, man-machine systems of various kinds, see the system "man and car") ; in social management, instead of the previously dominant local, sectoral tasks and principles, the leading role is played by large complex problems that require close interconnection of economic, social and other aspects of public life (for example, the problems of creating modern industrial complexes, urban development, environmental protection measures).

The change in the type of scientific and practical problems is accompanied by the emergence of general scientific and special scientific concepts, which are characterized by the use in one form or another of the main ideas of the system approach. Thus, in the teachings of V. I. Vernadsky about the biosphere and noosphere, a new type of objects is proposed for scientific knowledge - global systems. A. A. Bogdanov and a number of other researchers begin to develop a theory of organization that is of wide significance. The allocation of a special class of systems - information and control - served as the foundation for the emergence of cybernetics. In biology, systemic ideas are used in ecological research, in the study of higher nervous activity, in the analysis of biological organization, and in systematics. These same ideas are applied in some psychological concepts; in particular, Gestalt psychology introduces a fruitful idea of the psychological structures that characterize problem-solving activities; the cultural-historical concept of L. S. Vygotsky, developed by his students, bases the psychological explanation on the concept of activity, interpreted in a systemic way; in the concept of J. Piaget, the concept of the system of operations of the intellect plays a fundamental role. In economics, the principles of a systematic approach are gaining ground, especially in connection with the tasks of optimal economic planning, which require the construction of multicomponent models of social systems at different levels. In management practice, the ideas of a systematic approach are crystallized in the methodological means of system analysis.

Along with the development of a systematic approach "in breadth", that is, the spread of its principles to new areas of scientific knowledge and practice, since the middle of the 20th century. the systematic development of these principles in methodological terms begins. Initially, methodological studies were grouped around the tasks of constructing a general theory of systems (the first program for its construction and the term itself were proposed by L. Bertalanffy) . However, the development of research in this direction has shown that the totality of the problems of the methodology of system research significantly exceeds the scope of the tasks of the general theory of systems. To designate this wider scope of methodological problems, the term "system approach" is used, which has been used since the 1970s. firmly entered into scientific use (in the scientific literature of different countries, other terms are also used to refer to this concept - "system analysis", "system methods", "system-structural approach", "general systems theory"; at the same time, behind the concepts of system analysis and The general theory of systems also has a specific, narrower meaning; with this in mind, the term "system approach" should be considered more accurate, moreover, it is most common in the literature in Russian).

The significance of the critical function of the new principles of cognition was convincingly demonstrated by Marx, whose "Capital" is far from accidentally subtitled "Critique of Political Economy": it was the consistent criticism of the principles of classical political economy that made it possible to reveal the narrowness, insufficiency of its original content-conceptual base and clear the way for building a new the subject of this science, adequate to the tasks of studying the integral functioning and development of the capitalist economy. The solution of similar problems is an important prerequisite for the construction of modern system concepts. For example, the transition to the design of modern technical systems and the emergence of systems engineering (which was one of the important concretizations of the systems approach in the field of modern technology) was preceded by the awareness and criticism of the approach that prevailed at the previous stages of technology development, when the "unit" of design was a separate technical tool (machine, a separate tool, etc.), and not an integral function, as it has become now. A condition for the development of effective measures to protect the environment was a very consistent criticism of the previous approach to the development of production, which ignored the systemic connection between society and nature. The assertion of systemic principles in modern biology was accompanied by a critical analysis of the one-sidedness of the narrowly evolutionary approach to living nature, which did not allow fixing the important independent role of biology and organization factors. Thus, this function of the systematic approach is constructive in nature and is associated primarily with the discovery of the incompleteness of the available subjects of study, their inconsistency with new scientific problems, and also with the identification of the insufficiency of the principles of explanation and methods of constructing knowledge used in a particular branch of science and practice. The effective implementation of this work presupposes the consistent implementation of the principle of continuity in the development of knowledge systems.

Secondly, the systematic approach contains a new explanation scheme compared to the previous ones, which is based on the search for specific mechanisms for the integrity of the object and the identification of a fairly complete typology of its connections. . The implementation of this function is usually associated with great difficulties: for a truly effective study, it is not enough to fix the presence of heterogeneous relationships in an object; successfully solved, for example, in ecology due to the introduction of the concept of food chains of communities, which made it possible to establish measurable relationships between their various elements).

CONCLUSION

A modern leader must have systems thinking, because:

The manager must perceive, process and systematize a huge amount of information and knowledge that are necessary for making managerial decisions;

A systematic approach to management allows the manager to more productively implement his main functions: forecasting, planning, organization, leadership, control.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Blauberg, I. V. Formation and essence of the system approach [Text] / V. I. Blauberg, E. G. Yudin. - M.: Nauka, 1973.

2. Rakitov, A.I. Philosophical problems of science: System approach [Text] / AI Rakitov. - M.: Thought, 1977.

3. Uemov, A.I. System approach and general systems theory [Text] /A. I. Uemov. - M.: Nauka, 1978.

Chapter 12, The role of a systematic approach in science and practice

12.1. Functions of consistency in science

The main directions of consistency in science

System methodology includes a system approach as a principle of knowledge and practice, a method of activity, theory. Possessing exceptionally great potential, it is widely used in modern science (natural, technical, social sciences, human sciences).

At present, there is an intensive integration of sciences that study objects of different nature, but use common methodological approaches, methods, and even methodological techniques. This is emphasized by V.P. Kokhanovsky: “One of the most important ways the interaction of sciences is an interchange of methods and methods of research, i.e. application of the methods of some sciences in others.

A systematic approach is a specific reaction to the stormy and long process of differentiation in science, which led to the emergence of a huge number of different sciences. This is what unites the individual sciences into a single science, a form of methodological integration of modern science. The discoveries that take place in it within the framework of specific sciences quickly become the property of all science. A systematic approach is the unity of methodological integration and differentiation with the dominance of the trend of unification, the collection of a methodological complex.

At the same time, it performs the most diverse functions in science. The most important among them are the ideological, heuristic, explanatory, methodological and prognostic functions (Table 40).

Table 40 - Functions of systems methodology in science

Now it is impossible to imagine a single scientist who would not have a systematic worldview. The systemic worldview provides the intellectual and socio-psychological prerequisites for cognition. Surprisingly, already before the cognitive act, the scientist, thanks to his worldview, initially ensures success in comprehending the truth of the object, because he approaches it as a system.

We list the most important issues systemic worldview of modern specialists:

insufficient depth of systemic views, which is expressed in the fact that the specialist has not even a scientific, but an ordinary deterministic understanding of the nature of systems;
low erudition in the field of systemic ideas, ignorance of the achievements of systemicity in their industry and science in general;
non-methodological systemic worldview, when a specialist cannot apply systemic knowledge as a method of cognitive and practical activity. In the practice of scientific research, a systematic approach is valuable not only because of its paradigm, but also because it is methodological, i.e. using it not so much as a way of representing the world, but as a method of its knowledge. This is its methodological function, when the system in the cognitive process works as a principle, method and theory;
gap between the philosophical, general theoretical and mathematical-cybernetic understanding of systems. As a rule, a specialist who knows the philosophy of systems, due to his humanitarian training, does not know cybernetics and mathematics of systems, and technical specialists do not rise to the level of general system ideas.

It should be emphasized that in the practice of scientific research there is a rapid growth in the culture of system research, which includes not only knowledge from the general theory of systems, but also instrumental knowledge of the system approach, system analysis. If a few years ago the mention of the word “system” in an article and its interpretation in the sense of complexity made the publication systemic, now structural, functional, structural-functional, system-logical and other approaches are widely used, the specifics of applying systemic ideas in various fields are being developed. practical activities: business, public administration, social protection, culture, etc.

An important purpose of the systematic approach is in cognition, in obtaining the truth, i.e. knowledge that corresponds to its subject, coincides with it. Its peculiarity in a systematic study lies in the presentation of a holistic, universal and multidimensional picture of reality.

Heuristics is a field of scientific knowledge, the purpose of which is to discover something new in science, technology and other areas of life; facilitates and simplifies the solution of cognitive, design, practical problems. It relies on the methods of the theory of knowledge, the synthesis of knowledge and the study of the unconscious: inspiration, insight, insight, meditation, " brainstorming“, comes into contact with creativity, explores its mechanisms, motivations in real activity.

Consider the heuristic function of the systems approach. First of all, we note that it acts as an intersectoral heuristic method, i.e. widely used in all branches of science and practice. The method is characterized by high flexibility and the ability to adapt to the knowledge accumulated in a particular science and research tradition. In addition, it is a rational heuristic method that not only contributes to insight, but also allows you to build a technology for obtaining new knowledge and present it in the most convenient systemic form. The heuristic role of the system approach often lies in the fact that it makes it possible to see gaps in knowledge about a given object, to detect their incompleteness, to determine the tasks of scientific research, in some cases (by interpolation and extrapolation) to predict the properties of the missing parts of the description. So, if the researcher has determined the system characteristics of some object, then the system approach requires him to analyze the structure and functions of the system. As soon as the researcher adopts a systematic approach and applies any of its components, its integral and diverse logic inevitably begins to unfold, questions arise regarding the object as a system that cannot be left unanswered.

Systems thinking is a powerful source of hypotheses - assumptions about certain aspects, properties, relationships of objects. Hypothetical knowledge about systems itself is very diverse. The researcher can put forward relatively simple hypotheses about the boundaries, composition, structure, organization, functions, features of the development of the system. More complex compound hypotheses are also appropriate, assuming a connection between structure and functions, organization and properties, and so on. The flow of systemic hypotheses creates favorable opportunities for explaining objects and processes.

The explanatory function of the system methodology lies in the fact that it allows you to detect stable, essential and non-random dependencies, i.e. patterns. Often the explanation is reduced to the identification of causes. Systemic explanation, in our opinion, is a special kind of explanation, which is based not on cause-and-effect relationships, but on systemic patterns. At the same time, it can be implemented both according to inductive and deductive models. At the same time, the hypothetical-deductive explanation is based on the advancement of scientifically substantiated hypotheses and their empirical verification. And the inductive explanation is reduced to the collection of empirical information about the system and its generalization. Each of these models is characterized by the fact that it has a set of phenomena to be explained - an explicable, and a set of proposals of the theory, i.e. laws and hypotheses that serve as the basis of explanation. In both models, the explanation is based on systemic representations and patterns.

The prognostic function of consistency differs from the function of explanation in that there is no knowledge-result that must be obtained when forecasting. It is implemented in several ways. Firstly, thanks to the theory of evolution of systems passing through common stages of development, it is possible to collect information about phenomena that do not exist at the moment, but will arise due to the spatio-temporal development of the system. Secondly, system ideas are quite widely used to predict the future of systems, their impact on environment based on the model of wave and cyclic dynamics. For example, the wave theory of the outstanding Russian economist N. D. Kondratiev (1892-1938), who created the theory of long waves with a period of 45-55 years, which is due to the introduction of technical inventions, the development of new industries. Wave and cyclic processes are characteristic of all types of systems. The search, substantiation and calculation of the wavelength or cycle time allows foreseeing the future of the system.

System laws and their role in cognition

The role of systemic mentality, systemic methodology will undoubtedly increase in the life of a person in the 21st century. The process is due to the rapid growth of the systemic potential, the accumulation of significant amounts of knowledge about systems, the honing of subtle and effective research tools. Of course, each era will lead to the actualization of certain provisions of systems theory, provide revision and integration of systemic knowledge, as is happening now, when systemic ideas are updated in the light of postclassical and postnonclassical methodologies.

The role of consistency in the methodology of science can hardly be overestimated. Almost all significant achievements of science since the second half of the twentieth century. more or less related to systems methodology. The systems approach is valuable primarily because it formulates system-wide laws that capture the dependencies between individual parties and the properties of systems. We emphasize that system laws are of a system-wide nature, i.e. they are characteristic of systems of any nature. Among them stand out:

The law of the ratio of the whole and the part - the system as a whole is greater than the sum of its constituent parts. This law goes back to the assertion of ancient thinkers that the whole is greater than its parts.
The law of aggregate properties of a system, or the law of emergence - the properties of a system are not reduced to the properties of its elements, but are the result of their integration.
The law of the dependence of the properties of the system not only on the properties of the constituent elements, but also on the relationships between them. Another interpretation of this law is as follows: two systems containing identical elements may be dissimilar in properties due to differences in the nature and architectonics of connections.
The law of the relationship between structure and function, which consists in stating the interdependence of the structure and functions of the system.
The law of the functional integrity of the system, stating the functional integration of elements in the functions of the system.
The law of simplicity and complexity of a system, according to which, the simpler the system, the fewer elements and connections it consists of, the less it shows systemic quality and the more complex the system, the more dissimilar is its systemic effect compared to the properties of each element.
W. R. Ashby's law of limiting system diversity, which says that organized systems are distinguished by limiting diversity.
Law of Closed Systems - Closed systems obey the second law of thermodynamics and tend to be as disordered as possible.
The law of open systems - open systems due to the introduction of non-entropy can maintain a high level of organization and develop in the direction of increasing order and complexity.
The law of the relationship between the complexity of a system and its stability, which says that the complication of systems leads to the acquisition of additional stability by the system. The more complex the system, the less stable it is. But in order not to collapse, the system is forced to find additional sources of stability.
The law of equilibrium of a system, stating that a system is in equilibrium only when each of its elements is in a state of equilibrium determined by other elements.
The law of diversity (pluralism) of system representations, according to which the integrity of a system can never be reduced to only one of its models. With additional searches, there will definitely be a model of the system that will be different from the previous one.
Law of adaptation of systems, stating that the higher the adaptability of a system, the more likely it is to lose its identity.
The law of system development, according to which the development of the system is carried out not due to the strengthening of elements and connections, but through the emergence of zones of disorder, chaos, which form bifurcation points, the transition through which brings the system to a new level of order.
The law of the productivity of chaos, which assumes that any objective disorder, any real chaos contains elements and even centers of self-organization.

This list of laws cannot be considered exhaustive. Apparently, the substantiation of system laws is a process that is only gaining momentum in modern science and will go in several directions: substantiation of general system laws that explain systems regardless of their nature; formulating the laws of systems of a certain nature and understanding in the light of the systemic nature of the existing ones; search for patterns of systemic thinking, analysis, knowledge.

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. System movement affected all aspects scientific activity and more and more 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, for the analysis of various biological systems and systems of human impact on nature, for the construction of 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 patterns 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 lies precisely in the fact 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 research of objects of the world, consistency 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 lax 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 determined 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 to understand the essence of general systems theory, systems approach, systems analysis, etc. begin. and above all - to develop the very concept of "system". At the same time, in contrast to 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 there a requirement for a set of elements to form an 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 ... related to some main problem that has already been defined, allows you to go to the next level, at which a certain side, a slice of the object and a set of properties that characterize this side are highlighted. 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” features 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 identification of systemic features of integral phenomena was associated with the study of the relationship between 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 multi-level and multi-order knowledge about the subject necessitates such a system 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. Importance it also has a systematic synthesis of various knowledge, 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 them. internal structure, but retains information about their empirical properties.

The objects that make up the 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 mechanical movement bodies 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 relations, 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 the 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) definition of system functions as reactions at outputs in response to the impact of other objects on 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 impossible due to their dialectical unity, therefore 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. Real life 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, interactions that in his era are most of all of 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.

System method in modern science. Schukova K.B

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

The main assumptions of the systems approach:

1. There are systems in the world

2. System description is true

3. Systems interact with each other, and, therefore, everything in this world is interconnected

Similar Documents

Chapter 12, The role of a systematic approach in science and practice

12.1. Functions of consistency in science

The main directions of consistency in science

System laws and their role in cognition

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

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

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

2 Ontological meaning of the concept "system"

3 The epistemological meaning of the concept of "system"

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

CONCLUSION