Value judgments on the analysis of complex systems and inherent risks of holistic methodology

Some holistic approaches involve evaluating systems based on their "wholeness" or harmony. These evaluations often rely on subjective value judgments about what constitutes desirable outcomes, introducing further variation in interpretations. Some biases may further increase by the used terminology. For instance, "interconnectedness" and "emergent properties" can be open to varying interpretations. This lack of precise definitions allows for flexibility but also creates ambiguity and room for subjective interpretations.

It can be argued that the holistic approach in natural sciences is aligning with structuralism in social sciences, challenging the notion that subjectivity bias should dismiss holistic thinking. On the contrary, “the holistic thinker” is not apart from the biases they are describing to be able to wholly appreciate them. Furthermore, closer to a poststructuralist view, positivist thinking (in natural sciences) biases should not considered equivalent to non-positivist methodologies. This is because, positivist approaches can acknowledge and address these biases, accepting the possibility of subjectivity and leveraging it to pose innovative questions arising from the inherent limitations of positivism, ultimately striving for a closer approximation of "truth". I believe it is also aligned with the post-structuralists view of methodology, even if this may seem contrary to the popular belief. Meanwhile, non-systematic subjectivity is disregarded as a reliable source of hypothesis in scientific discourse. This perspective underscores the enduring commitment to methodological rigor and empirical scrutiny in scientific inquiry, where subjective elements devoid of established methodologies are viewed with skepticism.

The limitations of holistic thinking extend beyond value biases and may also stem from the traditional framework of science. Mathematics excels in dealing with linear, predictable systems. However, holistic systems are often non-linear and exhibit emergent properties that defy simple equations. This lack of precise mathematical tools for modeling and analyzing such complexities contributes to the challenges of objectively assessing holistic thinking and its interpretations. Traditional scientific inquiry often relies on breaking down complex systems into smaller, more manageable parts and studying them in isolation. This reductionist approach might not capture the essence of interconnectedness and makes it difficult to integrate fully into the existing mathematical framework.

Despite these challenges, holistic thinking still offers insights and can lead to some innovative solutions, especially in complex situations where traditional approaches may fall short. Efforts are underway to develop new mathematical frameworks and computational tools that can handle the complex systems. Some argue that a reformed reductionist approach, incorporating selective dynamics of complex systems, may better evaluate this shortcoming compared to holistic methodology. As seen from history, the success of experiments derived from both approaches will determine the “better” logical framework for analyzing complex systems. Open-minded dialogue on the subject should be encouraged, involving scientists and philosophers from around the world in a meaningful discussion.

Value judgments on the analysis of complex systems and inherent risks of holistic methodology

Recent Posts

Comentarios