AAAI Proceedings Template s4

Theories of Change as an Intellectual Technology: Toward a Third Order Cybernetics

Oleksandr M. Melnychenko* Kherson State Technical University Berislavske shose, 24 Kherson 73008 Ukraine E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract and second order cybernetics and has discussed the problem of what should come after second order cy- This paper discusses the methodological role bernetics. As a result, he pointed to the linkage be- of change theories for science and technology. tween distinguishing levels of analysis and the impact Especially it addresses the methodological is- of theories of change of phenomena on the phenomena sues of cybernetics and management science. themselves [Umpleby, 2001]. In addition, Umpleby In this paper I consider the relationships be- emphasized the growing importance of social cyber- tween theory and change of phenomena on the netics and initiated a discussion of new directions in one hand and orders of cybernetics and ways cybernetics such as the cybernetics of conceptual sys- to distinguish theories of change on the other tems [Umpleby, 1997]. hand. On this basis, I attempt to build a con- However, an important task remains to construct a ceptual system and analyze its methodological concept that could describe the interrelations of these value. ideas and to provide a methodological analysis of such In recent years the discussion of the methodological a concept from the viewpoint of the systems approach. role of theories of change in science and technology Here I consider the relationships between theory and has become a point of great interest to a wide circle of change of phenomena on the one hand and orders of scholars. Increasing attention has been given to this cybernetics and theories of ways to distinguish change problem in such fields of study as the philosophy of on the other hand. On this basis, I attempt to build a science, philosophy of technology, cybernetics, and conceptual system and to analyze its methodological management science. role for cybernetics as a particular field of science and In the philosophy of science and technology the technology. methodological value of change theories has been The proposed conceptual model (see Table 1) re- fruitfully analyzed by Joseph C. Pitt [1998]. His idea flects an attempt to integrate into a system with ac- that philosophy counts as a technology, that is, as a ceptable complexity such elements as level of phenom- tool for making sense of things [Pitt, 2000, pp. ix, 11, ena change and its dependence on theories of change, 30], together with his definition of technology as "hu- the character of this dependence, interrelations be- manity at work" [Ibid., pp. xi, 11] could be considered tween different orders of phenomena change, and the as significant results in this area of investigation. functioning of the system as a whole. These results occurred in the discussion of the problem The main feature of the proposed model is that the of change that was originally started by Heraclitus. orders of cybernetics are considered as the elements of Later developments occurred in Aristotle's 1 philosophy an integrated system. It means that the differences be- and Hegel's philosophy, and took shape in Marx's the- tween orders are essential but their definitions are not sis that the aim of philosophy was to change our “incommensurable” as is sometimes concluded follow- world, not only to explain it. More recent develop- ing Thomas S. Kuhn. Higher orders are not reducible ments in the theory of change have been the theories of to lower orders, obviously. Nevertheless, orders exist scientific change of Karl Popper [1959], Thomas S. in close interaction, and besides differences, they have Kuhn [1996], Imre Lakatos [1978], and Larry Laudan some common content. [1977]. The most important thing in this content is the com- As for cybernetics, we can find a multipronged at- mon trend of change interconnection: from first to tack on its methodological issues in the works of Stu- third order cybernetics resistance becomes less and the art A. Umpleby [1990, 1991, 1997, 2001]. He has de- change level increases. At the first order level, the scribed the emergence of the differences between first laws of conservation prevail. Here, our action means that we change something else, for instance, variables or parameters. We assume that the behavior of natural * The preparation and presentation of this paper was sup- objects such as atoms or electrons does not change. ported by the International Federation for Systems Research. 1 See, for example, [Melnichenko, 1999]. At the second order level, there is a peculiar balance is that the proposed system of concepts and theories of between conservation and change. In this case, our ac- change could be considered as a technological system tion is able to change the basis - the operation of soci- driven by knowledge. That is why it could be called an ety. However, resistance remains strong, and, in its intellectual technology. turn, it influences substantially our action. This In addition, it is very important to find out more process is called “circularity or a dialogue between about the interconnections between different orders of theories and phenomena” [Umpleby, 2001]. cybernetics. It appears to me that the trend in change At the third order level, we can see that change pre- interconnection works not only within separate levels, vails. Our action means that we dramatically change but also between different levels. In terms of our mod- the basis - our consciousness. This is to say, we have el, this means that theories of change from the third something that could be called “self-change”. In this level could affect change of phenomena on the second case, resistance is at a minimum and makes minimal level more easily than change of phenomena on the impact on our action. first level. And, vice versa, the behavior of phenomena Thus, according to the proposed conceptual model, preserves or counteracts the effect of change more on it seems more rational to use the principle of task con- the first level than on the third. formity instead of the idea of “incommensurable defi- Summarizing the above, we can formulate some nitions”. For example, Newtonian mechanics and conclusions. First, as far as the trend in change inter- quantum mechanics could be characterized by “incom- connection works the same within separate levels as mensurable definitions”. On the other hand, the task of between different levels, it could be considered as a physics does not suppose a substantial change in the universal principle for the proposed conceptual model. behavior of physical objects. Consequently, this task is Second, to be successful in solving some complicat- conformable to the first level of change interconnec- ed problem, it is important to distribute particular tasks tion, and both Newtonian mechanics and quantum me- between appropriate levels according to the principle chanics problems could be efficiently solved by first of task conformity. order cybernetics means. This is proved by the history Third, as far as third order cybernetics directly of science. changes its object, it could be called intellectual cy- In contrast, the efforts to construct “intelligent” ma- bernetics. chines during the early period of cybernetics (from the Fourth, as cybernetics, as a three level system, be- middle 1940s to the late 1960s) have invited failure comes more technology than science, its social role because “intelligent” machines must dramatically dramatically increases. change their own behavior to be “intelligent”. Unfortu- nately, this task does not conform to the first level of Acknowledgments change interconnection and could not be solved within first order cybernetics. This failure also is proved by I am fortunate to have had many fruitful discussions the history of artificial intelligence and becomes more with Dr. Stuart A. Umpleby during my stay at The understandable by using the proposed conceptual mod- George Washington University. I wish to express my el. gratitude for his valuable comments and corrections, Another advantage of the proposed model is related which have helped me a great deal in preparing this to the trend in change interconnection. It gives us an paper. opportunity to solve the problem of the distribution of cybernetics directions between cybernetics orders. It is References true, that biological cybernetics and social cybernetics [Kuhn, 1996] Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific could be connected with second order cybernetics. On Revolutions. 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago the other hand, social cybernetics could be considered Press, 1996. as equal to the cybernetics of conceptual systems and could be connected with a third order cybernetics [Lakatos, 1978] Imre Lakatos. The Methodology of [Umpleby, 1997]. Here the search for “incommensu- Scientific Research Programmes. Philosophical Pa- rable definitions” may not lead us to an acceptable so- pers. Vol.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University lution. In contrast, the idea of the trend in change in- Press, 1978. terconnection makes it possible to connect some direc- [Laudan, 1977] John Laudan. Progress and its Prob- tions of cybernetics with two orders simultaneously. lems. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977. Thus, social cybernetics is shown to belong to second [Melnichenko, 1999] Alexander M. Melnichenko. order cybernetics as well as to third order cybernetics. Concept development of preservation and alteration When speaking about the functioning of the pro- in Aristotle's philosophy. Volume of Abstracts of the posed conceptual system as a whole, we ought to take 11-th International Congress of Logic, Methodology into account the following. First, all three orders of cy- and Philosophy of Science, p. 439, Cracow, Poland: bernetics have to be considered as elements of a whole Published by the Faculty of Philosophy, Jagiellonian system. This means that theories of change, belonging University, August 1999. to third order cybernetics, could influence change in phenomena belonging to the first order level. This is to [Pitt, 1998] Joseph C. Pitt. Explaining Change in Sci- say that cybernetics, as a three level system, becomes ence. Techné: Society for Philosophy & Technology, more technology than science. Thus, the second point 3(3) , 1998. URL: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals /SPT/v3n3/pdf/PITT.PDF [Pitt, 2000] Joseph C. Pitt. Thinking About Technolo- gy. New York: Seven Bridges Press, 2000. [Popper, 1959] Karl Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson, 1959. [Umpleby, 1990] Stuart A. Umpleby. The Science of Cybernetics and the Cybernetics of Science. Cyber- netics and Systems, 21(1):109-121, 1990. [Umpleby, 1991] Stuart A. Umpleby. Comparing Con- ceptual Systems: A Strategy for Changing Values as well as Institutions. In Stuart A. Umpleby and Robert Trappl, editors, Cybernetics and Systems, 22(4):515-529, 1991. [Umpleby, 1997] Stuart A. Umpleby. The Cybernetics of Conceptual Systems. Cybernetics and Systems, 28(8):635-652, 1997. [Umpleby, 2001] Stuart A. Umpleby. What Comes Af- ter Second Order Cybernetics? Cybernetics and Hu- man Knowing, 8(3):87-89, 2001. URL: http://www.gwu.edu/~umpleby/C&HK.doc