Logical and methodological analysis. Sadovsky V.N., Rep.

TRANSLATION OF SAN GL I SKY AND POLISH A. MM IC I LU I, B. V. PLES S KOM, CH. SMOLYAN A, BAS T L ROST AND NAB. G. YU DINA and NS. YULI NOY SCIENTIFIC EDITOR OF THE PUBLISHING HOUSE A. A. MAKAR O V
Editorial Board of Literature on Philosophy and Law 5 , 6- 69

TASKS, METHODS AND APPLICATIONS OF GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY
INTRODUCTORY ARTICLE
Just a few years ago, works devoted to the problems of systems theory were a rarity in the scientific literature. Now that systemic research has acquired all the rights of citizenship in modern science, it is unlikely that it needs too extensive certifications. The bibliography on various aspects of systems research now includes hundreds and even thousands of titles; specialists in a wide variety of fields of knowledge have held dozens of symposiums and conferences dedicated to ways to implement systemic underpinnings.
progress.
Yet this book requires special introduction to the reader. Its main feature is determined by the fact that it contains perhaps the most significant works of modern foreign scientists exploring the foundations, apparatus and applications of general systems theory. Until now, translations of conference proceedings on one or another specific aspect of systems research have been published in Russian. This is precisely the nature of the books General Theory of Systems (MM and R, 1966), Self-Organizing Systems (MM and R, 1964), Principles of Self-Organization (MM and R, 1966). Despite the importance of these works, they do not provide a sufficiently broad and complete picture of the current state of the systemic movement abroad. And this, in turn, makes it difficult to compare foreign studies with the corresponding works of Soviet specialists,
1
h

The Soviet reader is well aware that Marxism was the first to pave new paths in methods of cognition of complex objects, and the founders of dialectical and historical materialism not only built a methodology corresponding to such cognition, but also implemented it by analyzing a number of the most important problems of social development. An example of such implementation is the work of KM arks and V.I. Lenin. As an objective continuation of this line, one can consider numerous attempts to construct new approaches to the study of complex objects, characteristic of the science of the 10th century. Among these approaches, general systems theory occupies a prominent place.
This theory in the form of a special concept was first formulated in the 1960s. Bertalanffy. Its development quickly revealed that the concept of general systems theory does not have a strictly defined meaning, and in this connection the concepts of systems approach, systems research, and systems movement entered scientific use.”
What does this rejection of initial rigor mean? Can it be interpreted as the result of a gradual loss of clarity in the scientific task of methods? To the credit of the pioneers of the systems movement, it must be said that from the very beginning they did not suffer from an excess of facile optimism and were aware of the enormous difficulties that would be involved in overcoming construction of concepts such as general systems theory. As systemic research unfolded, it became more and more obvious that this was not about the approval of a single concept claiming general scientific significance, but about a new direction of research activity, about the development of a new system of principles of scientific thinking, about the formation of a new approach to objects of research. This is reflected in the concepts of systems approach, systems movement, etc., which characterize the variety of specific forms and areas of systems research.
Its growing awareness of the need for this multi-layered, multi-story level of analysis is a characteristic feature of the modern stage of development of systems research. It is clearly expressed in many articles of this collection, as well as in the very selection of its materials, representing various ways and forms of solution.
4

cue of system problems in different fields of knowledge. However, this does not mean that all areas of modern systems research are equally represented here. If we single out three main lines in these studies: the development of the theoretical foundations of the systems approach, the construction of a research apparatus adequate to this approach and the application of systemic ideas and methods, then it must be said that in the published book preference is given to the first two lines.
This addiction is determined by several reasons. Firstly, these areas of foreign systems research are still least known in our country. Secondly, in these areas the general difficulties of a substantive and formal order are most obvious. Thirdly, a systematic presentation of the theory and methodology of systems research is obviously a necessary condition for a deeper and more thorough penetration into the diverse applications of general systems theory. As for applications, they are presented in this book from a somewhat specific angle based on the articles published here; of course, it is impossible to build an idea of ​​all the actually existing applications of systemic ideas; it is possible to grasp the general direction and types of such applications.
Most of the foreign authors appearing in this book are quite widely known in the scientific world. Austrian biologist (now working at the University of Alberta in Canada) JI. Bertalanffy is not only the author of the first general system concept, but one of the organizers of the Society for Research in the Field of General Theory of Systems (1954) and the founders of the yearbook of this society, General Systems (since 1956). Together with him, philosopher, psychologist, sociologist A. Rapoport, as well as economist K. Boulding began this scientific and organizational activity. A well-known specialist in the field of operations research, R. A. Koff, was one of the first to put forward an alternative to the theory
Bertalanffy's version of the system-wide concept presented in this book. Name of the English cyberneticist U Ross
Ash bi does not require certification. The American specialist in the field of mathematical biology and psychology N. Rashevsky is also well known in our country. In recent years,

Several works by the current director of the Center for Systems Research at
Case University MM Esarov 1, whose article in this collection gives a fairly complete picture of his concept of systems theory and the ways of its construction. The Polish scientist O. Lange is known in our country as an economist; his work, Whole and Development in the Light of Cybernetics, published here (one of the last ones written by him) reveals O. Lange as a philosopher who sought to develop systemic ideas on the basis of dialectical materialism using the conceptual apparatus of cybernetics. As for the other authors presented in this book, although they are not yet so widely known to the scientific world, their work is distinguished by the depth and originality of thinking, and the ability to find new formulations of problems.
Of course, not everything published in this book can be considered indisputable. However, the systemic movement is now experiencing precisely a period when it needs not praises, but constructive criticism of what has been done. This fully applies to this book.
Familiarity with the contents of the book offered to the reader is quite enough to come to the conclusion that at present the general theory of systems, or systems research, systems science, etc., exists in a more or less systematic form. This conclusion can only be strengthened if we turn to other works on these problems not included in this publication.
In a certain sense, this state of affairs can be considered quite natural - general systems theory as a special area of ​​modern scientific research has no more than two decades of existence, and the time for theoretical synthesis has simply not yet come for it. It is also known that for the first time, periods of development of almost any scientific concept
1 MM e s arov i h, Foundations of the general theory of systems, in General theory of systems, M, Mir, 1966, pp. 15-48; Towards a formal theory of problem solving, in Foreign Radio Electronics, 1967,
No. 9, pp. 32-50.
6

tion, the original formulation of new problems has much more weight than their taxonomy, which is often very precocious at this time. What has been said is even more true if we consider that in the case of general systems theory we are talking not only and not so much about a special field of science, but about the development of new principles of knowledge and scientific and practical activity, and here the tasks of generalization and systematization are even more complex.
Nevertheless, even under these conditions, the desire of individual theorists of the system movement is quite understandable; their works are included in this book - see the articles by L. Bertalanffy, A. Rapport, MM Esarovich, R A k of ai, etc.) to introduce order and clarity into your science. Despite all the controversy and incompleteness of such attempts, one cannot help but see their undoubted positive significance. Without pretending to be a canonized presentation, these authors rather summarize the results of the research carried out and outline new tasks and prospects, rather than formulating complete concepts. Guided by this principle, we will try to present to the reader our understanding of the tasks, goals and methods of general systems theory and systems research in general.
It is useful to make one important distinction from the very beginning. After the first publications on the general theory of the system, especially as a result of the broad cybernetic movement, which undoubtedly influenced the entire spectrum of modern scientific and technical research, the terms system, structure, communication, control and related ones became among the most commonly used in science and in various fields of practical activity. Their use by different authors and in different sciences differs significantly from each other - and not only in the meanings attributed to them, but also, more importantly, in the substantive formal principles that underlie them. Often in their use they simply pay tribute to fashion or are based on extremely wide understood change in the nature of the objects under study (system objects, sometimes a philosophical and general scientific basis is provided for their use, etc. In all cases, in one form or another, loyalty to the banners of systems and systems analysis is confirmed (or simply implied). The movement that has emerged on this basis in modern science, technology and other fields of activity can be called a systemic movement, fully aware of its extreme amorphousness, undifferentiation and lack of rigor.
Within the systems movement, one should highlight what could be called a systems approach - a theoretical discussion of methods and principles for studying objects as systems, that is, as integral sets of interconnected elements. Freed from the patina of sensationalism, loudness and dogmatism, the systems approach is designed to develop the entire set of philosophical, methodological and specifically scientific foundations and consequences of the transition of science and technology to the research and design of systems of various types. With all the variety of approaches to solving this problem, which found expression, in particular, in the articles contained in this book, there is no doubt about the strict scientific nature of this problem, its relevance and the great difficulties standing in the way of its resolution.
A number of significant reasons led to the need to develop a systematic approach. First of all, we should mention the collapse of the mechanistic worldview, based on elementalist ideas, from the reduction of any object to the initial elements and the derivation from their various combinations of all properties of complex objects. It is well known that the criticism of mechanism was one of the sources of the emergence of dialectics. In particular, such criticism is carried out in a vivid form in a number of works by F. Engels. Representatives of the systems approach, consciously or unconsciously, adopted this line and, with complete unanimity, sharply oppose the mechanistic principles of cognition.
In the 10th century, mechanism revealed its bankruptcy not only when colliding with the phenomena of the biological and social worlds, but also in its original domain - in the field of physics at the modern stage of its development. The rejection of mechanistic methodology put on the agenda the development of new principles of knowledge, focusing on the integrity and fundamental complexity of objects studied by science. At the same time, the first steps of the scientific disciplines that took this path - political economy and biology, psychology and linguistics - clearly demonstrated the lack of not only appropriate technical means of research (for example, the difficulties noted by L. Bertalanffy in studying problems with more than two variables, the lack of a developed theory simplification, which W. Ross Ashby talks about, etc., and the fundamental lack of development of the underlying philosophical and logical-methodological problems.
From a slightly different position, but essentially the same problems, we approach the issues of unifying scientific knowledge, creating conceptual schemes that can not only build bridges between individual sciences, but also avoid duplication of theoretical work, and increase the efficiency of scientific research. The reader will easily discern the corresponding motives in the articles of A. Rap ​​op ort, R. A coffee, MM Esarovich teas of others. Of course, this problem is not new. History knows of numerous attempts to solve it, but since all of them, as a rule, relied on one or another type of mechanism, for example, physicalism, they all suffered the same fate as mechanism. The principles of a systematic approach to the problems of unification of scientific knowledge are fundamentally different; in this case, they proceed from a holistic understanding of the objects under study (in this case, science and its individual areas and problems) and try to establish either their isomorphism (L. Bertalan
f i), or laws underlying complex forms of scientific activity (R. A k of), or abstract mathematical foundations that can serve as the theoretical foundation of a number of sciences (A. Rapoport, MM Esarovich, W. Ross Ashbi, etc. d.
Another important source for the formation of a systems approach lies in the field of modern technology and other forms of practical activity. And the point here is not so much the novelty of the problems raised in these areas (as a rule, they are similar to the systemic problems that arise in science, which we have already talked about), but rather the exceptionally great importance of the successful development of these problems for the development of modern society. We mean the creation of various control systems (from automated regulation of road and rail transport to various defense systems, urban planning, various economic systems, research into the conditions for optimal activity of human teams, organization of the process of creating new equipment like a system
P E R T - network graphs), etc., etc. The role of these problems for the functioning and development of society determines both the extremely large investments in their development and the need to clarify the essence of a systematic approach for their successful solution. The influence of this issue is obvious in the articles of I. Klir, R. Akof ai S. Sengupta, G. Weinberg and
Others.
Thus, we can rightfully say that the urgent needs of modern science, technology, and practical activity in general urgently put forward the task of detailed development of a systematic approach. What can we say today about its essence, about the ways of its development and specification? The answer to this question is not simple, so we will try to outline it only in general terms.
Research in the field of systems approach is very diverse. In order to understand this diversity, we will proceed from the already mentioned division of modern systemic research into the theoretical, formal, spheres associated with the creation of appropriate research apparatuses, and
I'm putting it in.
The actual theoretical part of the systems approach includes the goals and objectives of systems research. We have already partially touched on this problem. To this we must add that this range of problems requires simultaneous development in the philosophical, logical-methodological and special scientific planes of analysis. In terms of philosophy, a systems approach means the formation of a systematic view of the world, which is based on the ideas of integrity, complex organization of the objects under study and their internal activity and dynamism. These ideas, in fact, are drawn by a systematic approach from the dialectical-materialist picture of the world and mean a certain development of both the philosophical understanding of reality and the principles of its knowledge. The world as a system, in turn consisting of many systems, is at the same time extremely complex and organized.
10

âôËâH, and its systemic vision is determined not only by its internal nature, but also by the methods of presenting it in knowledge that exist among a modern researcher. And in this last point, the epistemological tasks of systemic research and the systems approach make themselves known.
In the field of epistemology of systemic research, first of all, general methods of expression in knowledge of system objects and the categorical apparatus necessary for this must be developed. Here we pay special attention to the rightly emphasized by Ross
Ashbee, R. A. Kof and others, the determining role of the epistemological and methodological position of the researcher for assessing a particular study as systemic or, accordingly, as non-systemic. This also includes the idea strongly put forward by representatives of operations research about the complex, synthetic nature of systems research. Indeed, it is possible to represent a certain object in knowledge as a system only if its various expressions in different scientific contexts are taken into account. Analysis of ways to combine such partial representations of an object is an important, but far unsolved problem of an epistemological order. Another serious problem in this area is the study of the epistemological nature and status of a system object. After all, a system that has its own behavior, activity, development and, in its creative capabilities, is often not inferior to the researcher, is not simply the object that confronts the researcher and patiently awaits reflection in his head, which has traditionally been considered in epistemology. In many cases, the study of systems represents a special type of interaction between subject and object, the specifics of which we can understand only by developing in detail the corresponding categorical apparatus.
Closely related to the philosophical foundations of the systems approach are its logical and methodological problems. The main task that arises here is to construct specific logical means for studying systems. Now this problem is mainly solved by logical analysis of one or another particular problem of systemic research, similar, for example, to the problem
AND

composition and decomposition of systems, discussed in the article by M. Todd and E. Shue Ford, or questions of the logic of mechanism, which are developed by W. Ross Ashbi. The logic of systems, however, should be understood more broadly; in particular, it should include logical formalisms that describe methods of reasoning in systems research, as well as the logic of communication systems, the logic of change and development, biology, the logic of integrity, etc. The reader will become acquainted with some results in the study of these problems in this book, but in general it must be emphasized that the creation of systems logic is a matter of the future.
And from the characteristics of the theoretical problems of systemic research, it follows that an important task of the systems approach is to clarify the meaning and construct definitions (including formal ones) of the entire set of specifically systemic concepts. This relates primarily to the concept of “system”.
Today we already have a lot of material on this subject, starting from qualitative characteristics such as a system is a complex of elements that are in interaction (L. Bertal anfi), or a system is a set of objects along with the relationships between objects and between their attributes (A. Hall and R. Feigin) and ending with formal definitions of this concept, which, as a rule, are built in set-theoretic language (MM Esarovich, D. Ellis and F. Ludwig,
O. Lange and others - If we take into account that almost every researcher of systemic problems relies on his own understanding of the concept of a system (this is clearly visible in the articles of this collection), then we find ourselves faced with a virtually boundless sea of ​​shades in the interpretation of this concept.
Despite such diversity, it seems to us that we can identify a certain invariant meaning of the term systems ®: 1) a system is an integral complex of interconnected elements 2) it forms a special unity with the environment 3) as a rule, any system under study is an element of a system higher order 4) elements of any system under study, in turn, usually act as systems of lower order

Various definitions of the concept of a system, in particular those proposed by the authors of this book, reflect, as a rule, only certain aspects of this invariant content. This especially applies to attempts at a formal approach to solving this problem. It is also logical to assume that it is unlikely that, at least in the near future, a synthetic, all-encompassing understanding of the content of the system will be achieved; rather, various, more or less interconnected, formal definitions will be built on the qualitative characteristics of this concept. Moving on to other specific concepts of the system approach and not being able to give them any detailed analysis, we will, in fact, limit ourselves to just listing them. The concept of a system is closely related to a whole range of general scientific and philosophical concepts that, as a rule, have a long history of their development, but have discovered new aspects in connection with systemic research. We mean, first of all, the concepts of property, relationship, connection, subsystem, element, environment, part - whole, integrity, “totality”, structure, organization, etc. It has now become obvious that these concepts cannot be defined separately, independently of each other all of them form a certain conceptual system, the components of which are interconnected (the system is defined on their basis and, in turn, helps to clarify the meaning of these concepts, etc. The wonders of their integrity set the first idea of ​​the logical framework of the system approach.
After defining the concept of a system, the question inevitably arises of identifying classes of systems and the specific features of systems of different classes. Today, we can rightfully count the development of ideas about open sources as an asset of the systems approach.
1 In Soviet literature, interesting studies of the definition of the concepts system and systems research were carried out by AI. Uemov; see AI. Ueov, Logical analysis of a systems approach to objects; its place among other research methods, in System Research 1969", M, Nauka, 1969, as well as Problems of Formal Analysis of Systems, ed. AI. Uemova and V. NS a
Dovsky, M, Higher School, 1968.
13

indoor, organic (organismic) and inorganic systems (L. Bertalanffy, N. Rashevsky and other purposeful systems (MM Esarovich), natural and artificial systems, human-machine systems R. A. Kof, etc.), etc. specific concepts that serve to characterize systems of different types include a system defined by a state,
“equifinality”, purpose, degree of interaction, isolation and interaction, integration and differentiation, mechanization, centralization and decentralization, leading part of the system, etc. It is easy to establish, in particular from the articles included in this publication, certain differences in the interpretation of these concepts by different authors, but in general these differences are not so significant.
The next belt of conceptual means of the systems approach is formed by concepts that characterize the functioning of system objects. Among them, undoubtedly, the most important are those on the basis of which ideas about the conditions of stability, equilibrium and control of systems are formed. Concepts of this type include stability, stable equilibrium, unstable, mobile, feedback (negative, positive, purposeful, changing target characteristics, homeostasis, regulation, self-regulation, management, etc. The development of these concepts will significantly expand the set of possible principles for classifying systems due to identifying multistable, ultrastable, controllable, self-organizing, etc. systems.
Another group of system-wide theoretical concepts consists of ideas about the development of systems. In this group, first of all, one should name the concepts of growth (in particular, simple and structural, that is, unrelated or, on the contrary, associated with a change in the structure of an object, evolution, genesis, natural or artificial selection), etc. It should be emphasized that some of the concepts characterizing the development of systems are also used in describing functioning processes. These are, for example, the concepts of change, adaptation, learning. This is due to the fact that the line between the processes of functioning and development is not always clear
1
fussy, often these pro-
N

processes transform into one another. In particular, such transitions are especially characteristic of self-organizing systems. As is known, the distinction between functioning and development in general is one of the most difficult philosophical
sko-methodological problems.
Finally, the last group of concepts of the systems approach is formed by concepts that characterize the process of constructing artificial systems in a broader sense - and the process of researching systems. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the fair remark of Wu Ashbi regarding the fact that when studying a system we must, among other things, take a meta position
researcher, taking into account the real interaction between the researcher and the system he is studying (see page 141 of this book. Specific concepts that characterize the process of research and design of systems include systems analysis, system synthesis, configurator, etc.
TO
All these concepts of a systems approach in their totality constitute the general conceptual basis of systems research. However, the systems approach is not just a certain set of system concepts; it claims (and not without reason) to act as a set of principles for the theoretical description of the features of modern scientific knowledge. And as such (that is, as a certain theory, for example, general systems theory, the systems approach needs the development of methods and methods for its construction and development.
The contents of this collection of translations give a detailed idea of ​​the views of foreign scientists on this matter. Having compared these ideas with the corresponding developments ongoing in our country, we come to the following conclusions.
First of all, it should be noted that it is more expedient to interpret the general theory of systems as a more or less generalized concept of research. Note that one of the attempts to inventory the concepts of the general theory of systems was made in the work of O. R. Young, A Survey of
General System Theory, General Systems, vol. IX, 1964, p. 61-80.
2 See, for example, Problems in the Study of Systems and Structures, Conference Proceedings, ed. M. F. Vedenova and others, M,
1965; Questions of logic and methodology of general systems theory, Materials for the symposium, ed. O. Ya. Gelman, Tbilisi, “Metsnie-reba”, 1967; Methodological issues of system-structural IS
15

systems of a certain kind, than as a universal theory, relating in principle to any systems. The world of systems is so diverse and heterogeneous that any attempt to interpret it uniformly is unlikely to lead to scientifically significant results. In particular, the evolution of the general theory of JI systems leads us to this conclusion. Bertalanffy, which was originally understood as a kind of M athesis universa
lis, and subsequently began to be considered by its author only as one of the possible models for the theoretical description of systems
TO
Thus, the general theory of systems, at least in its current state, should be considered as a set of various models and ways of describing systems of various kinds. Among them, the most notable are the high-quality system concepts presented in this edition by the works. Bertalanffy, K. Boulding, A. Rapport, etc. Their common (and undoubtedly strong) side is the isolation and fixation of the systemic reality itself and its initial, even if sometimes very crude, dismemberment.
following", Abstracts of reports, ed. V. S. Molodtsova et al., MM State University, 1967; Problems of formal analysis of systems, ed. I. Uemov and V. N. Sadovsky, M, Higher School, 1968; System Research - 1969", ed. IV. Blauberga et al., M, Nauka, 1969; G. P. Shchedro in and tskiy, Problems of methodology of system research, M, Znanie, 1964; IV. B l a u b er g. NS adov s kiy, E. G. Yudin, Systematic approach preconditions, problems, difficulties, M, Znanie, 1969; Problems of systems research methodology, ed. IV. Blauberga et al, M, Mysl, 1969, etc. In this regard, it is necessary to make one remark regarding the criticism of JI. Bertalanffy articles by V. A. Lektorsky and V. N. Sadov
skiy On the principles of systems research (Questions of Philosophy,
1960, no. 8; see pages 48-50 of this publication. Bertalanffy writes that attributing general systems theory to the role of the philosophy of modern science is the result of a misunderstanding. In an effort to dispel this misunderstanding, he explains that general systems theory in its present form is one - and very imperfect - model among others and that it will never be exhaustive, exclusive or final. We fully agree with this characteristic, but at the same time we cannot help but note that in earlier works (see, for example, B e r t a l a n f - f y L. v o n , Das biologische Weltbild, Bern, 1949; Allgemeine System
theorie, “Deutsche Universitätszeitung”, 1957, No. 5-6) Bertalanffy adhered to a different and, in our opinion, erroneous idea on this matter, which was noted at the time

Concepts can, of course, be built on this basis in various ways. One of them, quite obvious, is to identify isomorphisms of laws in different scientific fields and to build generalized scientific models on this basis. This path is undoubtedly very interesting, but its constructive, heuristic possibilities are limited. Another qualitative method for constructing a theory of systems consists in dividing the scientific reality under study into system spheres connected with each other (so to speak, horizontally and/or vertically), which in the literature are sometimes called structural levels. In the book offered to the reader, perhaps, only K. Boulding clearly formulates this approach. The systemic picture he constructs is, without a doubt, very colorful and contributes to the understanding of both the world itself and the scientific knowledge that describes it. However, even in this case, the systems approach does not reveal all its capabilities. Attempts to construct theoretical models of certain types of system objects seem more promising at the current level of development of research. Open system model and teleological equations
(JI. Bertalanffy), methods and fundamental possibilities of research based on the approach to an object as a black box (W. Ross Eshb i), analysis of thermodynamic, information-theoretic, etc. descriptions of living systems (AR ap op port ), models of organization R. A k of), methods of cybernetic research of systems (I. Klir and others, models of multi-level multi-purpose systems (MM Esarovich) - this is a far from complete list of similar developments with which the reader will be able to get acquainted with this book.
Each such problem, posed qualitatively
content plane, requires appropriate formal methods for its solution. Thus, formal (sometimes even formalized) versions of this theory are adjacent to the qualitative concepts of systems theory. There is no need to talk about the importance of this area of ​​modern systems research; we will only note that it is here that, perhaps, one can observe the greatest variety of approaches and positions. To a large extent, this is determined by the difference in tasks, according to Zak. 1G78 17

that certain researchers set for themselves. Thus, MM Esarovich is trying to build the mathematical foundations of the general theory of systems - and the task itself determines both the formal apparatus used in this case (set theory, and the degree of generality of the concept he develops. Other researchers are building a system research apparatus in relation to one or another type of system problems. Abstract -algebraic theory of the relationship between the whole and the part, as well as the process of development of the system O. Lange, theoretical
probabilistic analysis of the structure of systems by M. Toda and E. Shuford, set-theoretic definition of the concept of system by D. Ellis and F. Ludwig, set-theoretic
natural and logical-mathematical concept of homeost
Zisa W. Ross Ash bi are typical examples of such studies. These are complemented by the development of formal models of system objects (see, for example, the articles by N. Rashevsky and I. Klir in this edition).
Let us emphasize that we now admit a certain “dispersion of qualitative understandings of systems theory and, at the same time, a variety of formal apparatuses used. At subsequent stages of development of systems theory, the task of synthesis will become a priority.
The systems approach belongs to those areas of scientific knowledge in which it is not so easy to draw the line between theory and methodology, on the one hand, and the field of application, on the other. This is clearly seen in numerous examples, including the materials in this book. In fact, under what department should we include the articles published here by N. Rashevsky, MM Esarovich, M. Todd and E. Shuford, I. Klir - on theory, on methodology, or on applications of systems theory? The same question can be posed in relation to the works of a number of Soviet authors developing a systematic approach - KM. Khailov, seeking to find a way to combine systemic and evolutionary approaches in modern theoretical biology A. A. M Alinovsky, proposing an original classification of types of biological systems according to specific
1 See, for example, K. M. Xailov, The problem of systemic organization in theoretical biology, in Journal of General Biology,
XXIV, No. 5, 1963,
IS

ekim for them connections *, È. A. Lefev, developing the substantive and formal aspects of the study of reflexive processes in conflict situations, etc.
Obviously, to answer this question, it is necessary to first clarify what should be understood by applications in the field of systems research. The non-trivial nature of this problem is determined by the fact that the systems approach does not have a clearly demarcated and truly identified single object of study. In this sense, the status of the systems approach is even more complex than the status of cybernetics, which nevertheless distinguishes for itself a certain type of processes that are subject to study, control processes, no matter how different the real objects in which these processes take place.
It seems to us that within the framework of systems research it is possible to distinguish at least two main types of applications of the application of general theoretical principles of systems research (constituting the content of the philosophical sphere of the systems approach or certain variants of the general theory of systems) to the development of more or less strict, formalized concepts, that is, attempts construction of a specific system research apparatus, and applications, which are based on the application of general system principles to the formulation and solution of various kinds of specific problems
social and scientific problems.
In the first case, we are talking about the application of the general principles of a systematic approach to solving certain, abstract or concrete, scientific problems. From this point of view, the theory of open systems formulated by JI can be considered as an application. Bertalanffy based on the principles of organismism in the early period of his scientific activity. Another spectacular example is provided by two articles by W. Ross Ashby, placed in this book; if the first of them is considered as an expression of Ashby’s system-wide theoretical position, then the second acts in relation to it as an application
1 See, for example, A. A. Malinovskiy, Some issues of the organization of biological systems, in Organization and Management, M, Nauka, 1968.
2 VALe February, Conflicting structures, M, Higher School, 1967.
2*
19

tion as an attempt to develop this position with the help of a fairly strict formal apparatus. Two articles by R. Akof are in the same relationship, and the second of them was written jointly with S. Sengupta). In all these cases, applications are attempts to build at least an initial formalization of the initial general theoretical content, that is, the development of provisions developed in the theoretical sphere, in the plane of the apparatus of systemic research.
In the second type of applications of systems theory, two varieties can be distinguished. For the first time, the principles of system analysis are used to formulate new approaches to certain specially scientific problems and find new ways to pose and solve them. As an example of this kind of applied research, one can cite the article by ChL ou son from this book. Guided by some of Bertalanffy's ideas, primarily the principle of isomorphism of laws operating in various areas of reality, Lawson seeks to formulate a new formulation of a number of problems of biological organization; the laws of the functioning and development of the latter are interpreted by him on the basis of concepts drawn from the study of communication in human society. In principle, the article by G. Weinberg is of the same nature, which, perhaps, is somewhat outdated from the point of view of the specific problems of computer technology considered in it, but has retained undoubted interest from the point of view of the deep relationship shown in it between the principles of the systems approach and the principles of the development of computers. Incidentally, this development over the past few years has confirmed some of G. Weinberg's thoughts.
Another variety of this type of applied systems research is formed by those works in which certain special scientific problems are solved on the basis of the application of not only general system principles, but also the involvement of the appropriate research apparatus, and this latter is usually more or less traditional, drawn from existing scientific disciplines . In other words, these are those studies in which new principles of knowledge are carried out on the basis of the old (of course, relatively) scientific apparatus

In this book, an excellent example of such applications is the article by K. Watt. The ecological problem posed in it - the analysis of population dynamics in connection with their exploitation - is formulated on the basis of clearly visible principles of the systems approach. As for the solution proposed by Watt - a mathematical model of the dynamics of population inputs and outputs, it is achieved through the use of a fairly simple apparatus of classical mathematics.
This type of application is currently and, apparently, will continue to be predominant in systems research for quite a long time. The main reason for this situation is the absence of a specific system of logical and methodological means of systemic research. As practice shows, when solving many systemic problems (especially at the level of specific special scientific analysis, this situation does not yet create fundamentally insurmountable obstacles. This is clearly visible, first of all, in those areas of knowledge where the very adoption of general systems
These ideas make it possible to significantly expand and clarify the initial idea of ​​the object of research and, on this basis, to bring into the analysis certain means of formalization that have not previously been used in this area. The most caustic example of such a scientific discipline can be considered precisely ecology, being deeply systemic in its very foundations, ecology successfully and rapidly developing on the basis of the apparatus of classical mathematics and information theory.
But although the thunder has not struck yet, this situation cannot be considered cloudless. Already at the present time, the solution to a number of systemic problems rests on the lack of an adequate research apparatus. It is clear that the presence of such an apparatus, built in a systematic form, would radically expand the applied scope of the systems approach. This would mean that a new type of applied systems research has emerged, based not only on a specifically systemic worldview, but also on a specifically systemic logical method.
logical and mathematical apparatus. As this book shows, enormous efforts are now being made in this direction. It should be added that similar work is being carried out by Soviet researchers. Therefore, one can doubt that a new - and certainly more effective - type of applied systems research is a thing of the not too distant future.
For their general scientific aspirations, the articles that make up the contents of this book undoubtedly deserve high praise. It should, however, be borne in mind that most of the scientists presented here work in the United States, where both their scientific interests and their philosophical worldview were formed. Therefore, it is not surprising that some articles contain statements with the ideological background of which the Soviet reader, who stands on the philosophical positions of dialectical materialism, will not be able to agree. This, for example, applies to certain provisions of K. Boulding’s article. In particular, his statement about the revival of political economy, which supposedly died several hundred years ago, cannot but cause criticism; it is obvious that this nihilistic thesis is based on ignoring Marxist political economy, which has proven its vitality not only in the sphere of theory, but also in practice. It is also necessary to leave on Boulding’s conscience that point of his proposed hierarchy of systems in which we are talking about transcendental systems. The reader will no doubt notice traces of the influence of the philosophy of neopositivism beyond other articles in the book.
This philosophical interpretation of the systems approach should be firmly rejected. As for the main content of the book, it has an obvious positive meaning, making it possible to realistically imagine the level that the systemic movement has reached abroad, and to use its now rich and instructive experience.
V. N. Sadovsky, E. G Yudin

GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY - CRITICAL OVERVIEW*

On October 28, 2012, at the 79th year of his life, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Vadim Nikolaevich Sadovsky died.

V.N. Sadovsky is one of the largest domestic experts in the field of systems research methodology and philosophy of science, the author of more than two hundred scientific works, many of which are widely known in Russia and abroad.

While still a student at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, he began to implement an extensive program of analytical and critical development of modern Western philosophy and promotion of its achievements on domestic soil. Enlightenment in the noblest sense of the word was the calling of Vadim Nikolaevich. This is evidenced at least by the works of Western thinkers, published under the editorship and with extensive scientific prefaces by V.N. Sadovsky: books by J. Piaget (M., 1969), J. Hintikka (M., 1980), M. Wartofsky (M., 1988), K. Popper (M., 1983, M., 1992; M., 2000, M., 2001), collections of articles by L. von Bertalanffy, A. Rapoport and others (M., 1969), T. Kuhn, I. Lakatosh, S. Toulmin (M., 1978), collection of translations "Evolutionary epistemology and logic of social sciences" (Moscow, 2000). In the works of V.N. Sadovsky also provides a detailed analysis of the philosophical, methodological and sociological views of K. Popper.

Vadim Nikolaevich, together with his like-minded people I.V. Blauberg and E.G. Yudin is one of the founders of the national scientific school “Philosophy and Methodology of System Research”; He began to develop this issue in the 1960s, including on the pages of the journal “Problems of Philosophy.” V.N. Sadovsky gave an analysis of the methodological foundations of the general theory of systems, formulated system paradoxes, and revealed the relationship between the philosophical principle of systematicity, the systems approach and the general theory of systems. The promotion of these ideas under the dominance of the official ideology of the 60-70s. was an act of not only scientific but also civic courage.

Since 1978, almost twenty years, V.N. Sadovsky headed the department of methodology for systems research at the Institute of System Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences, harmoniously combining administrative and scientific leadership of the department’s staff with his own active and fruitful creative activity.

For many years, Vadim Nikolaevich was closely associated with the editors of “Problems of Philosophy” - first as a consultant, deputy head. department, and then - a member of the editorial board and the International Editorial Council. His publications in the journal have always aroused great interest, notable for their sharpness, relevance of issues and depth of analysis.

Concern for the preservation of domestic scientific traditions and the memory of those who created them have been the focus of Vadim Nikolaevich’s attention in recent years. His integrity in his actions, kindness, simplicity and humor in communicating with colleagues brought him the well-deserved respect of all who knew him.

The bright memory of dear Vadim Nikolaevich Sadovsky will be kept in our hearts.

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Chapter I. Systems research and systems approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
§ 1. General characteristics of modern systems research. . . . . . . . .15
§ 2. Main areas of modern systems research. . . . . . . . . . . .21
§ 3. On the question of the essence of the systems approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
§ 4. Philosophical methodology for studying complex objects and systems approach 44
Chapter II. Systems theories and general systems theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
§ 1. Specialized representations of the systems approach. Variety of theories
systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
§ 2. Specifics of problems in general systems theory (preliminary remarks). . . . .57
§ 3. One historical lesson: the dilemma of “scientific and technical theory or
methodological concept" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
§ 4. General systems theory as a metatheory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Chapter III. The concept of a system within the framework of general systems theory. . . . . . . . . . . 77
§ 1. Fundamental difficulties in defining the concept “system”. . . . . . . . . 78
§ 2. Analysis of the family of meanings of the concept “system”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
§ 3. Some results of a typological study of the meanings of a concept
"system" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
§ 4. Relation, set, system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Chapter IV. General systems theory - experience of systematic presentation. . . . . . . .107
§ 1. Some preliminary remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
§ 2. Fundamentals of the set-theoretic system concept. System
with relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112
§ 3. Types of connection density of system elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
§ 4. Method of action (behavior) of elements and systems. . . . . . . . . . . . 135
§ 5. Terminal and goal-oriented approaches in general systems theory. . . . . 154
§ 6. Basic principles of the theory of open systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163
§ 7. The concept of “general systems theory” by L. von Bertalanffy. . . . . . . . . . . 171
§ 8. Parametric system concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
§ 9. Main directions for further development of general systems theory. . . . . 191
§ 10. On the Discussion about the general theory of systems as a metatheory. . . . . . . . . . .195
Chapter V. Special logical and methodological problems of general systems theory. .204
§ 1. Scheme of logical and methodological tasks of system research. . . . . . 205
§ 2. Specific concepts of the systems approach; their diversity
and orderliness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206
§ 3. Methodological aspects of defining the concept of system sequence. . . . . . 211
§ 4. On one method of classifying systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216
§ 5. Logical-methodological explication of the “part-whole” relationship. Calculus
individuals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225
Chapter VI. Paradoxes of systems thinking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232
§ 1. General characteristics of system paradoxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
§ 2. Towards the interpretation of system paradoxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .238
§ 3. Paradoxes of systems thinking and the specifics of system knowledge. . . . . . 240
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

System (from the Greek systema - a whole made up of parts; connection), a set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other, which forms a certain integrity, unity. Having undergone a long historical evolution, the concept of a system from the mid-20th century. becomes one of the key philosophical, methodological and special scientific concepts. In modern scientific and technical knowledge, the development of problems related to the research and design of systems of various kinds is carried out within the framework of the systems approach, general theory of systems, various special theories of systems, in cybernetics, systems engineering, systems analysis, etc.

The first ideas about systems arose in ancient philosophy, which put forward an ontological interpretation of the system as the orderliness and integrity of being. In ancient Greek philosophy and science (Euclid, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics) the idea of ​​systematic knowledge (axiomatic construction of logic, geometry) was developed. The ideas about the systematic nature of being, adopted from antiquity, developed both in the systemic-ontological concepts of B. Spinoza and G. Leibniz, and in the constructions of scientific taxonomy. 17-18 centuries, striving for a natural (rather than teleological) interpretation of the systemic nature of the world (for example, the classification of K. Linnaeus). In modern philosophy and science, the concept of a system was used in the study of scientific knowledge; At the same time, the range of proposed solutions was very wide - from the denial of the systemic nature of scientific-theoretical knowledge (E. Condillac) to the first attempts to philosophically substantiate the logical-deductive nature of knowledge systems (I. G. Lambert and others).

The principles of the systemic nature of knowledge were developed there. classical philosophy: according to I. Kant, scientific knowledge is a system in which the whole dominates the parts; F. Schelling and G. Hegel interpreted the systematic nature of cognition as the most important requirement of dialectical thinking. In bourgeois philosophy of the 2nd half of the 19th and 20th centuries. with a general idealistic solution to the main question of philosophy, however, it contains statements, and in some cases, solutions to some problems of systemic research - the specifics of theoretical knowledge as a system (neo-Kantianism), the characteristics of the whole (holism, Gestalt psychology), methods for constructing logical and formalized systems (neopositivism) .

The general philosophical basis for the study of systems is the principles of materialist dialectics (the universal connection of phenomena, development, contradictions, etc.). The works of K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin contain a wealth of material on the philosophical methodology of studying systems - complex developing objects.

For the period that began in the 2nd half of the 19th century. penetration of the concept of a system into various areas of concrete scientific knowledge, the creation of Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory, theory of relativity, quantum physics, structural linguistics, etc. was important. The task arose of constructing a strict definition of the concept of a system and developing operational methods for analyzing systems. Intensive research in this direction began only in the 40-50s. 20th century, however, many specific scientific principles of systems analysis had already been formulated earlier in the tectology of A. A. Bogdanov, in the works of V. I. Vernadsky, in the praxeology of T. Kotarbinsky, etc. Proposed in the late 40s. L. Bertalanffy's program for constructing a “general theory of systems” was one of the first attempts at a generalized analysis of system problems. In addition to this program, closely related to the development of cybernetics, in the 50-60s. A number of system-wide concepts and definitions of the concept of S. were put forward (in the USA, USSR, Poland, Great Britain, Canada and other countries).

When defining the concept of a system, it is necessary to take into account its close relationship with the concepts of integrity, structure, connection, element, relationship, subsystem, etc. Since the concept of a system has an extremely wide scope of application (almost every object can be considered as a system), its fairly complete understanding presupposes construction of a family of corresponding definitions - both substantive and formal. Only within the framework of such a family of definitions is it possible to express the basic system principles: integrity (the fundamental irreducibility of the properties of a system to the sum of the properties of its constituent elements and the irreducibility of the properties of the whole from the latter; the dependence of each element, property and relationship of the system on its place, functions, etc. within whole), structurality (the ability to describe a system through the establishment of its structure, i.e. the network of connections and relationships of the system; the conditionality of the behavior of the system by the behavior of its individual elements and the properties of its structure), the interdependence of the system and the environment (the system forms and manifests its properties in the process of interaction with the environment, being at the same time the leading active component of interaction), hierarchy (each component of the system in turn can be considered as a system, and the system being studied in this case is one of the components of a wider system), multiplicity of descriptions of each system (due to the fundamental complexity of each system, its adequate knowledge requires the construction of many different models, each of which describes only a certain aspect of the system), etc.

An essential aspect of revealing the content of the concept of a system is the identification of different types of systems (in this case, different types and aspects of systems - the laws of their structure, behavior, functioning, development, etc. - are described in the corresponding specialized theories of systems). A number of classifications of systems using different bases have been proposed. In the most general terms, systems can be divided into material and abstract. The first (integral collections of material objects) in turn are divided into systems of inorganic nature (physical, geological, chemical, etc.) and living systems, which include both the simplest biological systems and very complex biological objects such as an organism, species, ecosystem. A special class of material living systems is formed by social systems, extremely diverse in their types and forms (starting from the simplest social associations and up to the socio-economic structure of society). Abstract systems are products of human thinking; they can also be divided into many different types (special systems are concepts, hypotheses, theories, succession of scientific theories, etc.). Abstract systems also include scientific knowledge about systems of various types, as they are formulated in the general theory of systems, special theories of systems, etc. In 20th century science. much attention is paid to the study of language as a system (linguistic systems); As a result of the generalization of these studies, a general theory of signs emerged - semiotics. The problems of substantiating mathematics and logic gave rise to intensive development of the principles of construction and the nature of formalized logical systems (metalology, metamathematics). The results of these studies are widely used in cybernetics, computer technology, etc.

When using other bases for classifying systems, static and dynamic systems are distinguished. For a static system, its state remains constant over time (for example, a gas in a limited volume is in a state of equilibrium). A dynamic system changes its state over time (for example, a living organism). If knowledge of the values ​​of the system variables at a given point in time allows one to establish the state of the system at any subsequent or any previous point in time, then such a system is uniquely deterministic. For a probabilistic (stochastic) system, knowledge of the values ​​of variables at a given time allows only to predict the probability of the distribution of the values ​​of these variables at subsequent times. According to the nature of the relationship between the system and the environment, systems are divided into closed - closed (there is no substance entering or leaving them, only energy is exchanged) and open - open (there is constant input and output of not only energy, but also matter). According to the second law of thermodynamics, every closed system ultimately reaches a state of equilibrium, in which all macroscopic quantities of the system remain unchanged and all macroscopic processes cease (a state of maximum entropy and minimum free energy). The stationary state of an open system is a mobile equilibrium, in which all macroscopic quantities remain unchanged, but the macroscopic processes of input and output of matter continue continuously. The behavior of these classes of systems is described using differential equations, the problem of constructing which is solved in the mathematical theory of systems.

The modern scientific and technological revolution has led to the need to develop and build automated systems for managing the national economy (industry, transport, etc.), automated systems for collecting and processing information on a national scale, etc. The theoretical foundations for solving these problems are developed in theories hierarchical, multi-level systems, goal-oriented systems (striving to achieve certain goals in their functioning), self-organizing systems (capable of changing their organization, structure), etc. Complexity, multicomponentity, stochasticity and other important features of modern technical systems required the development of theories of “human” systems and machine", complex systems, systems engineering, systems analysis.

In the process of development of systems research in the 20th century. the tasks and functions of various forms of theoretical analysis of the entire complex of systemic problems were more clearly defined. The main task of specialized systems theories is the construction of specific scientific knowledge about different types and different aspects of systems, while the main problems of general systems theory are concentrated around the logical and methodological principles of systems research, the construction of a meta-theory of systems analysis. Within the framework of this issue, it is essential to establish methodological conditions and restrictions on the use of system methods. Such restrictions include, in particular, the so-called. system paradoxes, for example the hierarchy paradox (the solution to the problem of describing any given system is possible only if the problem of describing this system as an element of a wider system is solved, and the solution to the latter problem is possible only if the problem of describing this system as a system is solved). The way out of this and similar paradoxes is to use the method of successive approximations, which allows, by operating with incomplete and obviously limited ideas about the system, to gradually achieve more adequate knowledge about the system under study. An analysis of the methodological conditions for the use of system methods shows both the fundamental relativity of any description of a particular system available at a given moment in time, and the need to use the entire arsenal of substantive and formal means of system research when analyzing any system.

Literature:

1. Khailov K. M., The problem of systemic organization in theoretical biology, “Journal of General Biology”, 1963, v. 24, no. 5;
2. Lyapunov A. A., On the control systems of living nature, in the collection: On the essence of life, M., 1964;
3. Shchedrovitsky G.P., Problems of system research methodology, M., 1964;
4. Vir St., Cybernetics and production management, trans. from English, M., 1965;
5. Problems of formal analysis of systems. [Sat. Art.], M., 1968;
6. Hall A.D., Feidzhin R.E., Definition of the concept of a system, in the collection: Studies in the general theory of systems, M., 1969;
7. Mesarovic M., Systems theory and biology: a theorist's point of view, in the book: Systems Research. Yearbook. 1969, M., 1969;
8. Malinovsky A. A., Paths of theoretical biology, M., 1969;
9. Rapoport A., Various approaches to general systems theory, in the book: Systems Research. Yearbook. 1969, M., 1969;
10. Uemov A.I., Systems and system research, in the book: Problems of methodology of system research, M., 1970;
11. Schrader Yu. A., Toward the definition of a system, “Scientific and technical information. Series 2", 1971, No. 7;
12. Ogurtsov A.P., Stages of interpretation of the systematic nature of knowledge, in the book: System Research. Yearbook. 1974, M., 1974;
13. Sadovsky V.N., Foundations of the general theory of systems, M., 1974;
14. Urmantsev Yu. A., Symmetry of nature and the nature of symmetry, M., 1974;
15. Bertalanffy L. von, An outline of general system theory, "British Journal for the Philosophy of Science", 1950, v. I, no. 2;
16. Systems: research and design, ed. by D. P. Eckman, N. Y. - L., ;
17. Zadeh L. A., Polak E., System theory, N. Y., 1969;
18. Trends in general systems theory, ed. by G. J. Klir, N. Y., 1972;
19. Laszlo E., Introduction to systems philosophy, N. Y., 1972;
20. Unity through diversity, ed. by W. Gray and N. D. Rizzo, v. 1-2, N.Y., 1973.

A major specialist in the philosophy and methodology of science; Doctor of Philosophy (1974), professor (1985), chief researcher at the Institute of System Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Full member of the International Academy of Information Sciences, Information Processes and Technologies (1996).
Born on March 15, 1934 in Orenburg. He graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University in 1956. M.V. Lomonosov. He worked at the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences, on the editorial board of the journal “Problems of Philosophy,” and at the Institute of the History of Natural Science and Technology of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Since 1978, he has been working at the All-Union Scientific Research Institute for System Research (now the Institute of System Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences), since 1984 - head of the department of methodological and sociological problems of system research at this institute and at the same time (from 1993 to 2006) - head Department of Philosophy, Logic and Psychology, Moscow Institute of Economics, Politics and Law.
One of the organizers and leaders of the Russian scientific school “Philosophy and Methodology of System Research” (The school was founded jointly with I.V. Blauberg and E.G. Yudin in the 1960s.) Organizer, director and editor of many collective monographs, translations and scientific collections of historical, scientific and philosophical and methodological works. Member of the editorial board (since 1969) and deputy editor-in-chief (since 1979) of the yearbook “System Research. Methodological problems" (published from 1969 to the present). Member of the editorial board of the journals “Synthese”, “International Journal of General Systems”, “Systemist”.
He studied the axiomatic method, the independence of models of scientific knowledge from philosophical concepts, the relationship between truth and credibility, criteria for the progress of science, the methodological nature and conceptual apparatus of the systems approach. He proposed the concept of general systems theory as a metatheory, showed the relationship between the philosophical principle of systematicity, the systems approach and the general theory of systems, carried out an analysis of tectology (the doctrine of organization by A.A. Bogdanov)
Another direction of scientific research is the methodology, evolutionary epistemology and sociology of K. Popper, whose main works were published in Russia with a commentary and edited by V.N. Sadovsky. In 1983, edited by V.N. Sadovsky was published for the first time in Russian, a translation of the logical and methodological works of K. Popper in the collection “Logic and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge” (Moscow: Progress Publishing House, 1983), in 1992 K. Popper’s classic work on social philosophy “Open Society and his enemies" (Moscow: International Foundation "Cultural Initiative", 1992). In 2000, together with D.G. Lahuti (translator) and V.K. Finn (author of the afterword) V.N. Sadovsky (executive editor and author of the preface) published a collection of articles “Evolutionary epistemology and logic of social sciences. Karl Popper and his critics" (Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2000).