330
个编辑
更改
→分析 Analysis
==分析 Analysis==
==分析 Analysis==
有许多类型的系统，可以进行[[定量分析|定量]]和[[定性分析|定性]]分析。例如，在城市[[系统动力学|系统动力学]]分析中，A.W.斯泰斯<ref>Steiss, 1967, pp. 8–18.</ref>定义了5个交叉系统，包括物质系统和行为系统。对于受系统理论影响的社会学模型，[[Kenneth D. Bailey(社会学家)|Kenneth D. Bailey]]<ref>Bailey, 1994.</ref>用[[概念系统|概念化]]、[[具象（哲学）|具象化]]和抽象化的系统来定义系统，包括[[孤立系统]]、[[封闭系统]]和[[开放系统]]。[[Walter F. Buckley]]在社会学中将系统定义为机械的、有机的和过程的模型。[[Bela H. Banathy]]<ref>Banathy, 1997.</ref>提醒道，了解系统的类型对于任何系统的调研都至关重要，并定义了“自然”和“设计” ，例如人工, 系统。
There are many kinds of systems that can be analyzed both [[Quantitative research|quantitatively]] and [[Qualitative research|qualitatively]]. For example, in an analysis of urban [[System dynamics|systems dynamics]], A .W. Steiss<ref>Steiss, 1967, pp. 8–18.</ref> defined five intersecting systems, including the physical subsystem and behavioral system. For sociological models influenced by systems theory, [[Kenneth D. Bailey (sociologist)|Kenneth D. Bailey]]<ref>Bailey, 1994.</ref> defined systems in terms of [[conceptual system|conceptual]], [[Concrete (philosophy)|concrete]], and abstract systems, either [[Isolated system|isolated]], [[Closed system|closed]], or [[Open system (systems theory)|open]]. [[Walter F. Buckley]]<ref>Buckley, 1967.</ref> defined systems in sociology in terms of [[Mechanics|mechanical]], [[organic (model)|organic]], and [[process modeling|process]] models. [[Bela H. Banathy]]<ref>Banathy, 1997.</ref> cautioned that for any inquiry into a system understanding its kind is crucial, and defined "natural" and "designed", i. e. artificial, systems.
There are many kinds of systems that can be analyzed both [[Quantitative research|quantitatively]] and [[Qualitative research|qualitatively]]. For example, in an analysis of urban [[System dynamics|systems dynamics]], A .W. Steiss<ref>Steiss, 1967, pp. 8–18.</ref> defined five intersecting systems, including the physical subsystem and behavioral system. For sociological models influenced by systems theory, [[Kenneth D. Bailey (sociologist)|Kenneth D. Bailey]]<ref>Bailey, 1994.</ref> defined systems in terms of [[conceptual system|conceptual]], [[Concrete (philosophy)|concrete]], and abstract systems, either [[Isolated system|isolated]], [[Closed system|closed]], or [[Open system (systems theory)|open]]. [[Walter F. Buckley]]<ref>Buckley, 1967.</ref> defined systems in sociology in terms of [[Mechanics|mechanical]], [[organic (model)|organic]], and [[process modeling|process]] models. [[Bela H. Banathy]]<ref>Banathy, 1997.</ref> cautioned that for any inquiry into a system understanding its kind is crucial, and defined "natural" and "designed", i. e. artificial, systems.
There are many kinds of systems that can be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. For example, in an analysis of urban systems dynamics, A .W. Steiss defined five intersecting systems, including the physical subsystem and behavioral system. For sociological models influenced by systems theory, Kenneth D. Bailey defined systems in terms of conceptual, concrete, and abstract systems, either isolated, closed, or open. Walter F. Buckley defined systems in sociology in terms of mechanical, organic, and process models. Bela H. Banathy cautioned that for any inquiry into a system understanding its kind is crucial, and defined "natural" and "designed", i. e. artificial, systems.
There are many kinds of systems that can be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. For example, in an analysis of urban systems dynamics, A .W. Steiss defined five intersecting systems, including the physical subsystem and behavioral system. For sociological models influenced by systems theory, Kenneth D. Bailey defined systems in terms of conceptual, concrete, and abstract systems, either isolated, closed, or open. Walter F. Buckley defined systems in sociology in terms of mechanical, organic, and process models. Bela H. Banathy cautioned that for any inquiry into a system understanding its kind is crucial, and defined "natural" and "designed", i. e. artificial, systems.
应避免混淆这些抽象定义。例如，自然系统包括亚原子系统、[[生命系统]]、[[太阳系统]]、[[星系]]和[[宇宙]]，而人造系统包括人造物理结构、自然系统和人造系统的混合体、以及概念知识。组织和功能中的人的因素在其相关的抽象系统和表现形式中得以强调。系统在选择其目的、目标、方法、工具等方面的自由程度及其选择分布或集中的自由程度，是区分不同系统的一个主要考虑因素。
It is important not to confuse these abstract definitions. For example, natural systems include subatomic systems, [[living systems theory|living systems]], the [[solar system]], [[Galaxy|galaxies]], and the [[Universe]], while artificial systems include man-made physical structures, hybrids of natural and artificial systems, and conceptual knowledge. The human elements of organization and functions are emphasized with their relevant abstract systems and representations. A cardinal consideration in making distinctions among systems is to determine how much freedom the system has to select its purpose, goals, methods, tools, etc. and how free it is to select itself as distributed or concentrated.{{clarify|date=June 2019|reason = How can a system select goals, etc.? Most systems are not self-aware or self describing. What does concentrated or disturbed mean in this context?}}
It is important not to confuse these abstract definitions. For example, natural systems include subatomic systems, [[living systems theory|living systems]], the [[solar system]], [[Galaxy|galaxies]], and the [[Universe]], while artificial systems include man-made physical structures, hybrids of natural and artificial systems, and conceptual knowledge. The human elements of organization and functions are emphasized with their relevant abstract systems and representations. A cardinal consideration in making distinctions among systems is to determine how much freedom the system has to select its purpose, goals, methods, tools, etc. and how free it is to select itself as distributed or concentrated.{{clarify|date=June 2019|reason = How can a system select goals, etc.? Most systems are not self-aware or self describing. What does concentrated or disturbed mean in this context?}}
It is important not to confuse these abstract definitions. For example, natural systems include subatomic systems, living systems, the solar system, galaxies, and the Universe, while artificial systems include man-made physical structures, hybrids of natural and artificial systems, and conceptual knowledge. The human elements of organization and functions are emphasized with their relevant abstract systems and representations. A cardinal consideration in making distinctions among systems is to determine how much freedom the system has to select its purpose, goals, methods, tools, etc. and how free it is to select itself as distributed or concentrated.
It is important not to confuse these abstract definitions. For example, natural systems include subatomic systems, living systems, the solar system, galaxies, and the Universe, while artificial systems include man-made physical structures, hybrids of natural and artificial systems, and conceptual knowledge. The human elements of organization and functions are emphasized with their relevant abstract systems and representations. A cardinal consideration in making distinctions among systems is to determine how much freedom the system has to select its purpose, goals, methods, tools, etc. and how free it is to select itself as distributed or concentrated.
人工系统有一个先天的重大缺陷: 它们必须以一个或多个基本假设为前提，而这些基本假设又是额外知识的基础。{{clarify|date=June 2019|reason = Needs clearer explanation. e.g., what are the fundamental assumptions involved in a hammer, or a refrigerator. What makes a man-made dam system different from a beaver dam in this context?}}{{citation needed|date = June 2019}}这些基本假设本质上无害，但是它们必须被定义为真，而如果它们实际是假，那么该系统在结构上并不如假设那般完备。例如在[[几何学]]中，这种缺陷在[[定理]]的基础假设和定理外推的证明中是非常明显的。
Artificial systems inherently have a major defect: they must be premised on one or more fundamental assumptions upon which additional knowledge is built.{{clarify|date=June 2019|reason = Needs clearer explanation. e.g., what are the fundamental assumptions involved in a hammer, or a refrigerator. What makes a man-made dam system different from a beaver dam in this context?}}{{citation needed|date = June 2019}} These fundamental assumptions are not inherently deleterious, but they must by definition be assumed as true, and if they are actually false then the system is not as structurally integral as is assumed. For example, in [[geometry]] this is very evident in the postulation of [[theorem]]s and extrapolation of proofs from them.
Artificial systems inherently have a major defect: they must be premised on one or more fundamental assumptions upon which additional knowledge is built.{{clarify|date=June 2019|reason = Needs clearer explanation. e.g., what are the fundamental assumptions involved in a hammer, or a refrigerator. What makes a man-made dam system different from a beaver dam in this context?}}{{citation needed|date = June 2019}} These fundamental assumptions are not inherently deleterious, but they must by definition be assumed as true, and if they are actually false then the system is not as structurally integral as is assumed. For example, in [[geometry]] this is very evident in the postulation of [[theorem]]s and extrapolation of proofs from them.
Artificial systems inherently have a major defect: they must be premised on one or more fundamental assumptions upon which additional knowledge is built. These fundamental assumptions are not inherently deleterious, but they must by definition be assumed as true, and if they are actually false then the system is not as structurally integral as is assumed. For example, in geometry this is very evident in the postulation of theorems and extrapolation of proofs from them.
Artificial systems inherently have a major defect: they must be premised on one or more fundamental assumptions upon which additional knowledge is built. These fundamental assumptions are not inherently deleterious, but they must by definition be assumed as true, and if they are actually false then the system is not as structurally integral as is assumed. For example, in geometry this is very evident in the postulation of theorems and extrapolation of proofs from them.
[[George J. Klir]]<ref>Klir, 1969, pp. 69–72</ref>认为无论如何都不存在“完全和完美的分类” ，并将系统定义为抽象的、[[真实|真实的]]和[[概念性系统|概念的]][[物理系统]]、有界的和[[无界的系统]]、离散的到连续的系统、脉冲的到混合的系统等。系统与其环境之间的交互可分为相对封闭系统和[[开放系统]]。一个绝对封闭的系统似乎不太可能存在，即使存在，也不太可能为人所知。在“硬”系统和“软”系统之间也有重要的区别<ref>Checkland, 1997; Flood, 1999.</ref> ，“硬”系统在自然界是技术性的，可以适应诸如[[系统工程]]、[[运筹学]]和定量系统分析等方法，“软”系统涉及人和组织，通常与[[Peter Checkland]]和 [[Brian Wilson (系统科学家)|Brian Wilson]]通过[[软体系统方法论]]（SSM）开发的概念相关，包括诸如[[行动研究]]和强调参与式设计等方法。在硬系统可能被认为更“科学”的领域，两者的区别往往是暧昧的。
George J. Klir maintained that no "classification is complete and perfect for all purposes", and defined systems as abstract, real, and conceptual physical systems, bounded and unbounded systems, discrete to continuous, pulse to hybrid systems, etc. The interactions between systems and their environments are categorized as relatively closed and open systems. It seems most unlikely that an absolutely closed system can exist or, if it did, that it could be known by man. Important distinctions have also been made between hard systems – technical in nature and amenable to methods such as systems engineering, operations research, and quantitative systems analysis – and soft systems that involve people and organisations, commonly associated with concepts developed by Peter Checkland and Brian Wilson through Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) involving methods such as action research and emphasis of participatory designs. Where hard systems might be identified as more "scientific", the distinction between them is often elusive.
George J. Klir maintained that no "classification is complete and perfect for all purposes", and defined systems as abstract, real, and conceptual physical systems, bounded and unbounded systems, discrete to continuous, pulse to hybrid systems, etc. The interactions between systems and their environments are categorized as relatively closed and open systems. It seems most unlikely that an absolutely closed system can exist or, if it did, that it could be known by man. Important distinctions have also been made between hard systems – technical in nature and amenable to methods such as systems engineering, operations research, and quantitative systems analysis – and soft systems that involve people and organisations, commonly associated with concepts developed by Peter Checkland and Brian Wilson through Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) involving methods such as action research and emphasis of participatory designs. Where hard systems might be identified as more "scientific", the distinction between them is often elusive.
===文化系统 Cultural system===
文化系统可定义为不同[[文化]]要素之间的相互作用。虽然文化系统与[[社会系统]]大不相同，有时两者合在一起被称为”社会文化系统”。社会科学的一个主要关注点是[[社会秩序|秩序问题]]。
A cultural system may be defined as the interaction of different elements of [[culture]]. While a cultural system is quite different from a [[social system]], sometimes both together are referred to as a "sociocultural system". A major concern of the social sciences is the [[Social order|problem of order]].
A cultural system may be defined as the interaction of different elements of [[culture]]. While a cultural system is quite different from a [[social system]], sometimes both together are referred to as a "sociocultural system". A major concern of the social sciences is the [[Social order|problem of order]].
A cultural system may be defined as the interaction of different elements of culture. While a cultural system is quite different from a social system, sometimes both together are referred to as a "sociocultural system". A major concern of the social sciences is the problem of order.
A cultural system may be defined as the interaction of different elements of culture. While a cultural system is quite different from a social system, sometimes both together are referred to as a "sociocultural system". A major concern of the social sciences is the problem of order.
{{Main|Economic system}}
{{Main|Economic system}}
经济制度是一种机制（[[社会制度]]），它处理一个特定[[社会]]中[[货品（经济）|货品]]和[[服务（经济）|服务]]的[[经济生产|生产]]、[[分配（商业）|分配]]和[[消费（经济）|消费]]。经济体系由[[人]]、[[制度]]及其与资源的关系组成，如[[财产]][[制度]]。它解决[[经济]]问题，例如资源的稀缺和分配。
An economic system is a mechanism ([[social institution]]) which deals with the [[Economic production|production]], [[distribution (business)|distribution]] and [[consumption (economics)|consumption]] of [[Good (economics)|goods]] and [[Service (economics)|services]] in a particular [[society]]. The economic system is composed of [[person|people]], [[institutions]] and their relationships to resources, such as the [[Convention (norm)|convention]] of [[property]]. It addresses the problems of [[economics]], like the allocation and scarcity of resources.
An economic system is a mechanism ([[social institution]]) which deals with the [[Economic production|production]], [[distribution (business)|distribution]] and [[consumption (economics)|consumption]] of [[Good (economics)|goods]] and [[Service (economics)|services]] in a particular [[society]]. The economic system is composed of [[person|people]], [[institutions]] and their relationships to resources, such as the [[Convention (norm)|convention]] of [[property]]. It addresses the problems of [[economics]], like the allocation and scarcity of resources.
An economic system is a mechanism (social institution) which deals with the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in a particular society. The economic system is composed of people, institutions and their relationships to resources, such as the convention of property. It addresses the problems of economics, like the allocation and scarcity of resources.
An economic system is a mechanism (social institution) which deals with the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in a particular society. The economic system is composed of people, institutions and their relationships to resources, such as the convention of property. It addresses the problems of economics, like the allocation and scarcity of resources.
几位国际关系学者，尤其是[[新现实主义学派]]的学者，从系统的角度描述和分析了互动国家的国际范围。然而，这种国际分析的系统模式受到其他国际关系思想流派的挑战，其中最显著的是[[建构主义学派]]，该学派认为，过分关注系统和结构可能忽视个人在社会互动中的作用。基于系统的国际关系模式也是[[自由制度主义]]思想学派对国际领域见解的基底，该学派更加强调由规则和交互治理，特别是经济治理所产生的系统。
The international sphere of interacting states is described and analysed in systems terms by several international relations scholars, most notably in the [[Neorealism (international relations)|neorealist school.]] This systems mode of international analysis has however been challenged by other schools of international relations thought, most notably the [[Constructivism (international relations)|constructivist school]], which argues that an over-large focus on systems and structures can obscure the role of individual agency in social interactions. Systems-based models of international relations also underlies the vision of the international sphere held by the [[Institutional liberalism|liberal institutionalist]] school of thought, which places more emphasis on systems generated by rules and interaction governance, particularly economic governance.
The international sphere of interacting states is described and analysed in systems terms by several international relations scholars, most notably in the [[Neorealism (international relations)|neorealist school.]] This systems mode of international analysis has however been challenged by other schools of international relations thought, most notably the [[Constructivism (international relations)|constructivist school]], which argues that an over-large focus on systems and structures can obscure the role of individual agency in social interactions. Systems-based models of international relations also underlies the vision of the international sphere held by the [[Institutional liberalism|liberal institutionalist]] school of thought, which places more emphasis on systems generated by rules and interaction governance, particularly economic governance.
The international sphere of interacting states is described and analysed in systems terms by several international relations scholars, most notably in the neorealist school. This systems mode of international analysis has however been challenged by other schools of international relations thought, most notably the constructivist school, which argues that an over-large focus on systems and structures can obscure the role of individual agency in social interactions. Systems-based models of international relations also underlies the vision of the international sphere held by the liberal institutionalist school of thought, which places more emphasis on systems generated by rules and interaction governance, particularly economic governance.
The international sphere of interacting states is described and analysed in systems terms by several international relations scholars, most notably in the neorealist school. This systems mode of international analysis has however been challenged by other schools of international relations thought, most notably the constructivist school, which argues that an over-large focus on systems and structures can obscure the role of individual agency in social interactions. Systems-based models of international relations also underlies the vision of the international sphere held by the liberal institutionalist school of thought, which places more emphasis on systems generated by rules and interaction governance, particularly economic governance.
==系统概念的应用 Application of the system concept==
==系统概念的应用 Application of the system concept==